Where do I begin here? I mean, was an $11 dress considered hauteur couture back in the 1950's? I can't imagine you getting anything above an apron with sleeves if that's your clothing budget unless you're hitting the thrift shop (which I certainly did more than once in my salad days, so I'm not knocking it. I'm just pointing out that I don't see one woman saying to another, "Like it? George spent ELEVEN DOLLARS on it!" That's all.)
My other question is how they intended to reach their intended audience by advertising in the back of a comic book. We've seen weird ads in comics several times, but is little Billy supposed to tell his mom about this great
________________________________
Can you believe that with hilarious stuff like this, Varsity Vic didn't make it? Pardon me while I mop up all that sarcasm. I truly don't see how this is supposed to be funny. 1950's humor was either really stupid or over my head. Probably both.
_________________________________
And lo, it is with a not-so-heavy heart that I say good-bye to the Fantastic Four. I was into the 300's, and it's fallen into that rut where it's not giving me much good material and it just isn't good enough to read for the heck of it. So, Reed, Johnny, Ben, and especially Sue:
I couldn't say it any better, Reed. Vaya con Dios!
Posts
9 comments:
Try the Simonson stuff.
If Robostalin can't get you back, what could.
Boy, if I had a Chocolate Soda for every time my girl two-timed me, I'd have like four sodas. Well, actually one would be strawberry.
We're so cynical these days. Is it even fair that we're making fun of the '50s? Shootin' fish in a rain barrel, I tell ya.
Equal opportunity sexism! I thought it was supposed to be only women who sobbed into their half gallon of double chocolate chip?
But seriously, that was supposed to be funny? I'm still awaiting the punch line.
Varsity Vic is a kid after all. I can't imagine DC running a humor ad about a kid going to the local bar and drinking himself into oblivion upon discovery of his girlfriend's chicanery.
everyone raises some valid points.... but that being said, I still don't get the joke
Adam, I think the joke, such as it is, is the soda jerk's discomfiture at Vic's response. He's asking "Do you want to get sick?" only to find that Vic doesn't only want to get sick, he actually wants to die. Since as the other commenters pointed out, he's too young to drink himself to death, this may be his only recourse.
That's not to say that the joke is actually funny.
Of course, this is, like the others, from my cynical post-Leaving Las Vegas viewpoint. Drinking yourself to death, and similar topics, may have been funnier back then. Or maybe two-timing was actually considered a laugh riot.
Wait, I got it. Thanks for the lead, Will.
I believe the joke is that Vic feels so sorry for himself. After all, this is the 1950s and he is just a kid. He does not know yet what suffering is like.
From what I gather of the 1950s, at that time everyone took as granted that youngsters simply did not ever face real suffering. They were not allowed to see dead bodies, for instance. They certainly were not supposed to know anything about violence, sex or drugs, either. I guess meddling with a scooter was somewhere close to the absolute limits of what a healthy 1950s youngster could do without being a clearly lost case.
Thyat was quite a slap. Sue's creamy face must have hurt for a week!
Adam, you must have been a little psychic when you declared "good-bye to the FF", for Marvel Comics cancelled the title effective with the June 2015 issue. Still, you could be nostalgic and comment on some of the older issues once in a while. I am sure there are still some super Silver Age and Bronze Age issues worth commenting on that you missed.
Post a Comment