This one's a wee bit political.

http://www.drunkduck.com/Hypnocrites/

Political cartoons are a bit like vodka - a wonderful adjunct to the end of a meal, a way to brighten up otherwise drab concoctions, and unfortunately nearly impossible to consume in quantities as large as most archives. And, as Eggbert warned, "Hypnocrits" is a political cartoon through and through.

As such it is excellent - provided that you are a liberal Democrat. Thankfully the humor is not purely driven by a party line, since dhonig is more than willing to mock Democrats who misbehave (such as the comic about how many senators have been found guilty of criminal offenses). If you are a Republican this comic is probably a sophomoric villification of what you hold near and dear. And that should make you question what you are clutching so closely to your chest.

The jokes are occasionally obscure to the less-than-political minds (mine included), or are ambiguous about what they are exactly trying to say. The art, in some cases, adds to this abiguouity. For example, I though Giuliani was hugging some sort of stuffed manicotti, or perhaps stalactites, when in fact they were the twin towers on fire. On another occasion Bush is about to run over some quarreling Islamics ("Jihad"), and I thought he had appeared wearing Fallout-style Power Armor. Thankfully the tire treads in the next panel helped me figure out that one. Overall the art isn't bad, and it can be quitecharming (see "Global Warming" for an excellent example), but it needs enough improvement to make the jokes clear.

Sometimes the humor sways towards the patently obvious, such as "Family Values," which feels less like an intelligent come-uppance than being smacked in the head with a drug-dealer's Bible. Hypocritical. So? In cases like that I want something more to the story of the cartoon - condemnation, hope, a different perspective - than is given. This can be taken too far, however, as when dhonig dresses up Bush in a parody of a famous painting of King Louis XIV by Rigaud. No other analogy is drawn in this case, and assuming people even make the visual connection (I did, but I didn't understand an earlier reference to "The Godfather") it isn't clear why this particular monarch was chosen.

And sometimes the comics are just plain funny, such as bin Laden offering the citizens of USA hamburgers.

In terms of color use, dhonig works best without color. His choices and use of color tend to be garish, and don't add to the comic. Oddly, in the one color comic where I looked at it and thought "wow, that looks really good!" dhonig himself wrote that he hated it ("The Surge"). More opinions may be needed on this one.

Overall, the comic is funny and frequently pointed political commentary. I don't think that I'd want to read huge batches of it at a time today since it IS topical political commentary, but some of the comics are funny enough by themselves to survive the passage of their political inspiration.

(Bear with me, this is my first review).

In my opinion there are a few things that make a good political cartoon: wit, art, and perceived intelligence. (Amoung other things.) Some of Dr. Suess's political drawings are some of my favorites.
The one thing that most people probably find frustrating about political humor is...it's not funny. It's not really suppose to be funny. Sure sometime the imagary is so ridiculous it makes us chuckle, but the matter at hand is usually quite serious. So when approaching a political cartoon, I often feel as if I'm taking medicine. If its a good cartoon...then there's a lot of sugar that helps the medicine go down.

Hynocrites in its title alone gives me the same feeling I get when I see a Michael Moore documentary. It's not quite clever enough but it gets to the heart of what the artist believes. So I can almost predict what the comic is going to be about. A mind washed populace controlled by hypocrites is the general spirit of many of the cartoons. The title itself doesn't hurt the comic in the least, it offers a quick smart summary.

Artwise, I would agree with mina's comment about the black and whites being better than the colors. What was also a bit odd to me was the artist was putting in "old" cartoons so at points when going through the archive, the quality of art suddenly changed. For me, the artwork needs to feel intelligent and some of the older pieces look quite amateurish. The newer art is good and smacks of that good old political cartoon flavor.

Sometimes the wit just is not there. For me, the subtly of a message in the art is more meaningful than something blatant. This is one of the greatest challenges a political cartoonist overcomes. More often than not, Hypnocrites has great wit. Some of the older cartoons lack some sophistication, I feel.

All political cartoons require the audience to be familiar with the topic at hand. Some of us, myself included, are not on top of things because of the ammount of research it takes to really form an intelligent opinion. (I don't trust media as a resource thus research is very hard.) Usually there is still something that makes us smirk or roll our eyes about a political cartoon. Most of the time, Hypnocrites makes that intelligent commentary. Sometimes I may miss the reference but more often than not I get it.

All in all, Hypnocrites has it's weaknesses but is growing into a well-formed comic. It's very difficult to come up with a GOOD social/political commentary in a visual medium. I commend artists who try such things especially in the internet arena which is overflowing with information.

First of all I have to come clean: I am a hard-core conservative. Surprisingly, that has little to do with my reaction to Hypnocrites.

The art is inconsistent, partially because old & new cartoon irregularly intermingle, & partially because, well, it's just inconsistent. That isn't necessarily a flaw, but more of an observation. The one problem with the art's inconsistency is the need of the creator to label everyone, which feels a tad patronizing. I don't think it's meant that way, but it is my reaction to the labeling.

The jokes are... not terribly original or clever. They cling to the party line (liberal, obviously), & offer little in the way of insight or thought-provoking perspective. Even if I stand on the opposite shore, I appreciate a well-concieved jab at my beliefs. Something that makes me think. Something that challenges my position & gives me pause, or just makes me laugh at myself. Hypnocrites just doesn't do that (for me). I agree with the Michael Moore association, as with the aforementioned filmaker, Hypnocrites' stances tend to be less intellectual & more emotionally motivated. Unfortunately, while emotion is a strong motivator, it's a vapid basis for intellectual discourse.

Challenge me. Make me consider something I haven't already considered after hearing countless politicos whine on about it. Challenge your own party line to show your stance is truly considered & not purely a hatred for those who don't share your ideas. The Simpson is a wonderful example of this. It's biting because it takes chances & slams any inconsitencies in any individual or organization.

That's my 2¢. It's probably worth less than that, but it's all the change I had in my pocket.

Later,
Chip

These are great review so far, and I genuinely thank you for them.

I have struggled with color all along. I started drawing in black and white, and particularly with the addition of DuoShade paper think I was really getting it. But then different websites (lefty sites all) started asking to reproduce the cartoons, and asked about color. My first color 'toons were done by hand, and my favorite is the Osama cartoon mentioned by Mina Lunga. I think those were reasonably muted. But then I started to color with the computer and the colors were WAAAAY too bright. I'm actually thinking of going back to ink and brushes, but that takes an enormous amount of time.

One of the hard things about editorial cartoons is timing. Something incredibly pithy today is meaningless in a week, much less a month or a year. That makes reviewing them hard, and displaying them hard. I thank you all for the comments, and for recognizing that.

Yes, they are pretty ham-handed. Some of that is my lack of subtlety, and some the market. These are being used by lefty blogs and publications. Also, some of it is the political environment- I expect the 'toons to move toward center when the Administration moves to the left. It is pretty typical in editorial cartoons to attack the party in power.

Finally, one thing I have figured out is that I am the WORST judge of my own cartoons. I love the ones others hate, or just don't get, and I hate the ones that really work. I haven't figured out WHY, but I have figured out that the best thing to do is keep on drawing, and leave the judgment to the viewers. My favorites remain the bin Laden with a burger cartoon and the Log Cabin Polar Bear cartoon. I certainly agree that the Guiliani one didn't work- I was too heavy-handed with the color in the smoke. The Rigaud parody was just fun to draw.

Thanks again for the effort and the detailed reviews. I think they'll make me better.

P.S. the "Godfather" reference explained- Bush's nickname for Alberto Gonzales is "Fredo," as the in the brother in The Godfather who crossed Michael. He was taken out into the lake on a boat, shot, and dumped over the side. The cartoon comes from a screenshot of that scene.

dhonig,

Why wait for the admin to shift to the left? What about Edwards saying we should give up all our SUVs when he has 2? What about Gore's giant "carbon footprint" from just his house alone (not to mention his numerous jet flights & such)?

Hypocricy is everywhere. Neither political party is any less guilty or corrupt than the other (no, I'm not an independent or a libraterian (sp?)).

Granted, if your 'toons run mainly in hard liberal sites, I imagine that would hamper a more even-handed approach. Still, it seems a shame to relegate yourself to partician hack when your strip can have a deaper meaning & impact.

Later,
Chip

cs- fair question. I think the answer is- because Edwards and Gore are pretty irrelevant right now. With 10 or more on each side vying for the nomination, there's just not much there. I think I've done 2, maybe 3, cartoons of ANY of the primary candidates. Right now the big news is the war, and most people aren't even paying attention to the elections. When they are, I'll be thrilled to jump all over anybody saying or doing anything stupid.

It's a little difficult to review this comic because of the nature of it. I love political cartoons, and while I'd like to really vote one way or the other on how I think this fares, I'm afraid my opinion would be swayed just because I agree with almost everything the author illustrates. But I guess that comes with the territory.

The humor is very dead-on, and at times I feel as if I should be reading the news more (even though I browse CNN and Google News every day). Depictions of politicians and other famous people are accurate, so that I don't have to guess who is who. Overall, I would recommend this series to anyone who is currently unhappy with Bush. Supporting Republicans, I guess you'll have to look elsewhere.

One thing, however--I didn't read the author's notes on purpose. While I suppose it's there for discussion, I would recommend the author not add it because it's a sort of overkill, and at times can come off as preachy.

Thanks for explaining the "Godfather" reference. I must be one of twenty people left in the USA that hasn't seen that movie.

On color: if the colors are too bright, just, um, use a more muted palette! Avoid CYMK colors, and have a general shift towards blues or browns instead of pure pigments. I know that hand coloring takes quite a bit of time (I do a watercolored comic myself, although the current chapter is gray ink washes), but what if you just did minimal color? That is, instead of filling everything in, what if you use ink washes and shadows to suggest colored scenes? Not as immediately eye-catching, perhaps, but quicker and quite effective.

Having read a fair few political cartoons there are really a few criteria that I would say I judge a political cartoons by;

Art; and in particular how relaxed and easy caricatures are as well as the art as a whole. Unfortunately the caricatures here seem very forced and strained like they were badly copied from someone else's caricatures. There is none of the bold line art that gives the strip a confident feel and it feels like a half hearted stop gap between what the joke requires and what the artist can actually do.

Political insight ; having actually dabbled in political comedy I can pass on a tip; most political comedy only covers half the truth and is only funny because the reader or listener has forgotten the other half. Political cartoons also have to be insightful and to some effort sum up a political situation. I really feel that this political insight is really lacking and what I found to be the rather simple "certain politicians are scum" line to be rather annoying. There really be something more to say? The abortion clinic strip I just felt was stupid because it was just like you whining "well they do it too, so they are wrong". It seemed kind of pathetic and lacked imaginative articulation.

danthemancartoons
Art; and in particular how relaxed and easy caricatures are as well as the art as a whole. Unfortunately the caricatures here seem very forced and strained like they were badly copied from someone else's caricatures. There is none of the bold line art that gives the strip a confident feel and it feels like a half hearted stop gap between what the joke requires and what the artist can actually do.

Thanks Dan. I struggle sometimes with caricatures. They do feel strained, not because I copy from others, but because I start with straight sketches, then devolve them down to cartoons. I haven't figured out another way, but am working on it.

danthemancartoons
There really be something more to say? The abortion clinic strip I just felt was stupid because it was just like you whining "well they do it too, so they are wrong". It seemed kind of pathetic and lacked imaginative articulation.

This shows the hard part about looking at political cartoons later, or out of context. That one was drawn to illustrate a story. The story was not about "they do it too," but more specifically about people who are protesters on day one, patients on day two, and protesters again on day three. Separate from the story it illustrated, it DOES seem more petulant and less relevant.

I really like your work, so I'm also curious what you think about colors. I think when I went from B&W to hand-painted color it worked ok (e.g. the bin Laden burger cartoon), but from there to computer color is too garish. I also played a bit with keeping the black lines, or coloring them in (the Surge cartoon), but liked that result far less than some who viewed it.

As for the heavy-handed nature of the cartoons, most are like that because I'm heavy-handed, some because of the heavy-handed nature of this particular Administration, and some because of the particular audience. I CAN be more subtle (I think the "Tie" cartoon is rather subtle), but should work on it more. I will do so given the nature of these reviews.

Thank you, really, I thank you for the comments. I will filter them all through the particular nature of the audience and publications to which they are directed, and use it all to make them better.

Finally, haven't seen any comments on the use of the DuoShade paper in some of the B&W cartoons. Is it TOO uniform? Or does it work?

Thanks all.

I don't know what DuoShade paper is. Anyone else?

Mina_Lunga
I don't know what DuoShade paper is. Anyone else?

Sorry. I forget how absurdly old I am compared to everybody else here.

DuoShade is paper pre-printed with two different shading lines. They come out with different solvents. You draw in ink, then shade just by applying the solvents with a brush. That, rather than drawing in dots or cross-hatching. It's pretty old-fashioned, now that them new-styled computing machines are all in style.

I used it in King George (http://www.drunkduck.com/Hypnocrites/?p=219585) and The Only Thing We Have to Sell (http://www.drunkduck.com/Hypnocrites/?p=220030), but not in Bipartisanship (http://www.drunkduck.com/Hypnocrites/?p=219582). You can see how regularly it shades.

(Caution: First review)

Artwork

Okay the art is fine for a political comic. I prefer your monochrome work to your colored however being as how it seems more relevant to me. Like something you'd see in the Times. Although the drawing in itself works for the theme the lack of backgrounds can be repetitive and off putting like in the "bill of rights" strip. The character drawings are fairly accurate depictions of them (Especially Bush and Castro in my opinion) And the "global warming" strip was possibly my favorite in terms of sheer artwork.

Writing

While not always funny in the strictest of senses I found most of the points made to be valid outlooks on the subject matter. Although I found the Giuliani strip to be offensive and in bad taste. But it stirs up controversy which is exactly the type of thing your comic seems to strive for. "the only thing we have to sell" was in my opinion your best writing to date.

Humor

I separated this from writing because of the subject matter dealt with. To me the humor can be off putting and blunt as opposed to the general subtle message we often see in these types of strips. However some of it is just bloody brilliant. One of the funniest strips I came across was "Fredo" and made me laugh quite a bit. Even thinking about that strip gets a chuckle from me. Although most of the humor seems a bit on the dry side from time to time I do enjoy it especially when a gem like that emerges.

I know it seems like a lot of critiquing but the fact is I like your work a lot. There's not many political coms here on the Duck so you sir are a master of your craft.

DuoTone paper sounds like the bee's knees! Okay, I looks at both cartoons, and I can say that I really like the uniformity of the duotone paper. What I think is especially neat about it is that you can combine brush strokes with a static pattern - sure you could do that on a computer, but you'd have to have a tablet, and a good art program, and know the menu options, and. . . it would probably take many times the money and time. I think the duotone worked better than the simple stiple and solid black of the third comic you pointed out, although stiple is a wonderful tool and I certainly think a good dose of black can heighten an image. What I'm trying to say is that it looks pretty good to me!

I'm pretty old-fashioned now and then myself - my main comic is penciled, inked with dip nibs, and then watercolored! Viva la handywork!

Mina_Lunga
DuoTone paper sounds like the bee's knees! Okay, I looks at both cartoons, and I can say that I really like the uniformity of the duotone paper. What I think is especially neat about it is that you can combine brush strokes with a static pattern - sure you could do that on a computer, but you'd have to have a tablet, and a good art program, and know the menu options, and. . . it would probably take many times the money and time. I think the duotone worked better than the simple stiple and solid black of the third comic you pointed out, although stiple is a wonderful tool and I certainly think a good dose of black can heighten an image. What I'm trying to say is that it looks pretty good to me!

I'm pretty old-fashioned now and then myself - my main comic is penciled, inked with dip nibs, and then watercolored! Viva la handywork!

Viva la handywork indeed. I, too, dip nibs (and doesn't that sound delightfully dirty?). I took a lot of the comments above to heart. I did my latest with pencil, nibs, and colored ink. And yes, it does have more life in it than just tipping the color bucket in the Gimp.