comic art

[BobS]

If comic books are to be accepted as (occasionally) art then questions of lives of artists need to be asked.
Also Crumb probably started the autobiographical comics thing, and has made public some of his dirty laundry.
Also dirty laundry of other members of his family, and probably hurt feelings very much of members of his family because of his thoughtless invasions of THEIR privacy.
[...]
I think he's trying to be slightly more 'respectable' these days. The Genesis book is maybe an example of
the more 'mature' (IMO self-consciously serious) Crumb.
Bob

I disagree, Bob,
I see no connection between the examination of the personal life and the definition of Art. Such a comparison/exploration may give insights into the meaning of a particular piece, but it shouldn't be part of the criteria in deciding whether or not it IS art.

Again, I find READING Crumb to be much less enjoyable than looking at the pictures.

Comic books are a narrative art as well as a visual art.
Also comic books are sequential art, not just pictures.

In studying narrative art, the artist's / writers motive, theme, etc. are studied.

I enjoy Crumb's pictures too. Most of the pictures in his sketchbooks -- I have 3 of the German sketchbooks -- are stand alone pictures. There are various portraits, landscapes, etc. IMO the 1970s sketchbooks give a broader picture of Crumb as a human being than the comix alone.

Speculating on the REASONS for an artist's path/direction is as fraught with misunderstandings as trying to ascertain an actor's true nature by the roles they play. They are artists and it is there JOB to entertain you. How and why Crumb arrived at his particular "role" is less important than the quality of the material.

Shakespeare, Mark Twain, etc. works seem to have meaning beyond just an attempt to entertain.
Picasso's Guernica doesn't appear to be entertainment divorced from meaning / purpose.

Early Crumb stuff was unrestrained, uninhibited. Some of it appears to be expression of Crumb's id, his antagonism with the world for the poor treatment given him and Charles.
Take for example "Neato Keano Time" in Bijou Funnies #1. Not a story I'd say that has a hidden serious meaning. But definitely the narrative was meant to do more/other than entertain. Or do you think it's really "only lines on paper"?

Do you really bellieve the (the best of) Eisner (with involvement by Feiffer?) and Harvey Kurtzman's EC war comics are merely meant to entertain, that they don't reveal the values, ideas, and experiences of the artists?

Similarly Carl Barks better stories have a definite point of view, Barks' rugged can-do individualism, with underlying heart of gold values. His panels aren't just a collection of single panels.

I don't have R. Crumb's Comics and Stories readily available and apparently it isn't readily available as scans, because of the 'nature' of the comic.
The protagonist is Fritz, come home after being out in the world. I don't remember whether Fritz had been an artist in the story as Crumb had been a Hallmark artist around that time.

Anyway due the autobiographical nature of much of Crumb's (narrative) art and due the thoughtless and extremely hurtful things he has said about members of his family, particularly Sandra, I strongly suspect that his Comics and Stories is autobiographical.
    
Even a lot of the more "pure" entertainment comics reveal much about their creators.

Back in the 1980s a punk comic artist, Tom Brinkmann, did a comic book titled Pure Sex (if memory serves). One of the contributors, Bruce N. Duncan (if memory serves), commented to Brinkmann that there is no such thing as 'pure sex'. Artists, narrative and otherwise, generally have a point of view, values, and intention beyond mere entertainment even if entertainment is their main intention.

Jesse Marsh, a comic artist I like better than you do and think his significance is greater than you do, did beautiful scenic backgrounds in Tarzan, Gene Autry, etc.
His placement of blacks was very artistic. He's been compared to Gauguin (due to Marsh's Africa been idyllically similar to Gauguin's Tahiti), but maybe Cezanne is just as good a comparison. I still wonder what ethnicity Marsh's black-haired Jane is supposed to represent. She looks a lot more Mediterranean than British.

In the first Dell John Carter of Mars, Marsh artfully depicts the art of lost Mars. Marsh's art definitely is more than just pictures.

(I granted the distortion in Marsh's later art, due to eye problems caused by advanced diabetes.)

In the Smithsonian Book of Comics and various Spiegelman comic authologies, efforts were made to show some of the most significant examples of comic art. Most of the artists selected were humor artists like Barks, Stanley (another of my top favorites), Kurtzman (I prefer Kurtzman's war comics), etc. No Toth, no Kirby (that I recall), no Krigstein. If mem. serves, Beck and Binder's Captain Marvel was selected and maybe Jack Cole's Plastic-Man. Spiegelman of course later did a whole book devoted to Cole's Plastic-Man. (Cole is one of my favorites and if I were to create a top ten most significant list I'd probably put Cole on it.)

I don't think Crumb is "trying to slightly more 'respectable' nowadays" That implies an attribute to his actions that he's never demonstrated before - i.e. that he cares what other people think of him. I think he has less to prove now and more freedom to tackle projects that appeal to him. I don't believe that he SUDDENLY developed an interest in Genesis or that he "matured" into it or that someone offered him a bunch of money to produce the book. I think that the Bible is part and parcel of who Crumb is and always was. See, you have factor that aspect of his psyche into "Dirty Laundry" as well. Like any complex and artistic mind, fitting ALL of the pieces together is not a simple process.

Crumb has children and maybe even grandchildren now. I might be more careful of what I say and do around my grandchildren (2 so far). My children (2) already know me too well for me to fake them out. <grin>

During the years Crumb spent spaced out, his comix were close to absolutely uninhibited.
However, if you read some of Crumb's Foo etc., back then he was liberal and 'respectable'.
I believe he was raised Catholic.

Crumb's years of hippie fame gave him fame and allowed him to produce about anything that appealed to him. The hippie fame, I would argue, is what got him enough artistic recognition to sell sketchbook(s?) for a home in the south of France. That's a bit better than "a living wage".

The Bible is probably more often the interest of an older man rather than younger man, and I believe Crumb is feeling his mortality more these days. Genesis isn't the first of his more 'serious' works. Kafka is another of the more serious works. I do believe that Crumb is looking for a more respectable place in history / among his fellow human beings.
Maybe he even feels some guilt for some of the more hurtful things he has said about various family members.

My wife was very disturbed by Crumb's statement in effect that he didn't love his first son. Probably his son was hurt by that thoughtless remark too.

Also, I never said that interpreting Crumb / any artist is a simple thing.

(Crumb designed an art poster for some exhibition in France and the art wasn't used because of its controversial nature. Fame doesn't always suffice for one to get one's way.
http://lambiek.net/crumb__exhibition/crumb_expo2.htm]]http://lambiek.net/crumb__exhibition/crumb_expo2.htm
)

And remember, Genesis probably turned off as many existing Crumb fans for its content as it brought new ones to his work. I don't think he cares one way or the other. He draws what he likes and is always grateful that it pays him a living wage .

I bought it but still haven't read it. It's been criticized for depicting God as the white-haired old man of childhood imaginings. And I was very amused when a Jewish woman called it anti-semitic in Crumb's depiction of the humans as negative stereotypes of Jews. I have doubts that his Genesis is worth reading. I like the pictures tho. <grin>

Anyway, Jim, what's your so-called objective opinion of the significance as comic artists of Crumb, Spiegelman, Jean Giraud / Moebius, Jack Jackson / Jaxon, Hermann (Huppen), Rich Corben, Milo Manara, and Guido Crepax?

Crepax's panel layout was more innovative that Krigstein's.
Giraud and Hermann (with Greg) did incredible westerns, and Herman (and Greg's) Bernard Price reminds me of Jonny Quest only much better....
Crumb reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut. As Vonnegut broke out of the sf 'ghetto' to mainstream recognition, so Crumb has broken out of the comic book 'ghetto' to mainstream recognition.

My 2¢. and remember...

... Peace, Jim (|:{>

2¢ ain't omniscient objectivity re selection of who does and who doesn't make THE most significant Top Ten list.

In math Paul Erdos said that there is a Book of perfect math proofs, and that a mathematician has to believe in that Book, even if he/she doesn't believe in God.

Erdos may be right re THAT Book, but 2¢ aint the whole shebang when it comes to selecting THE Top Ten list of most significant comic book artists.
I don't think such absolute objectivity is possible with evaluation of art / significance. Evaluation of artists isn't a science.

Whirled Peas,
Bob

PS. Your wife was Miz Liz at Bud Plant, right? I do remember that she sent out orders to me back in the 1970s.

PPS. I mentioned math / proofs for the benefit of my moderator fans.
I don't remember hallway monitors from elementary schools so fondly....

[JVJ (RIP)]

Comic books are a narrative art as well as a visual art.
Also comic books are sequential art, not just pictures.

No argument.

In studying narrative art, the artist's / writers motive, theme, etc. are studied.

My point exactly! And the primary motive, I maintain, is money. Crumb was TRYING to get published and to make some money and, if it meant publishing Zap himself, so be it.

I enjoy Crumb's pictures too. Most of the pictures in his sketchbooks -- I have 3 of the German sketchbooks -- are stand alone pictures. There are various portraits, landscapes, etc. IMO the 1970s sketchbooks give a broader picture of Crumb as a human being than the comix alone.

I totally agree that his sketchbooks are a) more enjoyable and b) give us a broader insight into him as a person. I have the full set of seven and, at one point in 1969, actually took two of the original volumes to a printer to have pages photographed for use in Promethean. The point I was trying to make is that a lot of Crumb's (or any artist in the commercial world) motives are forever hidden from us. We can TRY to guess at them and TRY to apply what we think we know of their personal lives to those motives, but in the end, we're still just guessing.

Shakespeare, Mark Twain, etc. works seem to have meaning beyond just an attempt to entertain.
Picasso's Guernica doesn't appear to be entertainment divorced from meaning / purpose.

Again, I'm not arguing their social worth, Bob, but that saying Shakespeare or Twain was doing anything beyond trying to earn a living is, as I said, fraught with assumptions and misunderstandings. I'm not saying that they didn't do great art, or that they had nothing to say, or that there work wasn't laden with deeper meanings. On that, I agree with you. I simply don't believe that a) the nature or content of their work can unerringly tell us much about them and b) learning about their lives, personalities and foibles can't unerringly tell us much about their work. In places, perhaps, but overall - my opinion is that they are too complex (as are most human beings) to be so simply judged.

Early Crumb stuff was unrestrained, uninhibited. Some of it appears to be expression of Crumb's id, his antagonism with the world for the poor treatment given him and Charles.
Take for example "Neato Keano Time" in Bijou Funnies #1. Not a story I'd say that has a hidden serious meaning. But definitely the narrative was meant to do more/other than entertain. Or do you think it's really "only lines on paper"?

Yet his notebooks from the same period show some great restraint and, dare I say it, some inhibitions and uncertainty of both his talent and his commercialiity. All are part of what makes up Robert Crumb and I maintain that the uninhibited work was chosen because he saw it as the most commercial and the most likely to sell and to make him some money. That's ALL I'm saying. Crumb was/is a complex human being and probably not a very likeable one. I met him once and that was sufficient. His ID isn't something I want to get close to, but it isn't all of him - my only point.

Do you really bellieve the (the best of) Eisner (with involvement by Feiffer?) and Harvey Kurtzman's EC war comics are merely meant to entertain, that they don't reveal the values, ideas, and experiences of the artists?

No, I believe that Eisner and Kurtzman were trying to make money. I am aware of Feiffer's involvement with Eisner and The Spirit, but don't think it is germane to my point or yours. Of course I agree with you that the work was informed by (some of) their values, but I maintain that you'd be guessing if you were to try to say that said values were the only reason for the work.

Similarly Carl Barks better stories have a definite point of view, Barks' rugged can-do individualism, with underlying heart of gold values. His panels aren't just a collection of single panels.

Again, I am in agreement. And yes I think a "point of view" informs his work. And my point is that you don't need to know that Barks shared that point of view in order to appreciate the stories. And does knowing that he did make that much difference to their artistic value?

I don't have R. Crumb's Comics and Stories readily available and apparently it isn't readily available as scans, because of the 'nature' of the comic.
The protagonist is Fritz, come home after being out in the world. I don't remember whether Fritz had been an artist in the story as Crumb had been a Hallmark artist around that time.

Anyway due the autobiographical nature of much of Crumb's (narrative) art and due the thoughtless and extremely hurtful things he has said about members of his family, particularly Sandra, I strongly suspect that his Comics and Stories is autobiographical.

   
It probably is. Again, my point is summarized as "so what?" If it IS autobiographical, does it make it more or less of a work of "art"? Artists tend to bring two things with them to a work: 1. Their talent and skills and 2. Their conscious and unconscious desires. Among the most common conscious desire is, I believe, to make some money. And I don't think that can be overlooked as immaterial. It's most likely the primary goal and Crumb found, probably to his great surprise, that the freer he let his ID imbue the stories the more copies he sold. Sad that such was so, but, again you're right, a lot of hurt was unleashed on a lot of people. I maintain that it was the result of market economics (reflecting the sick tastes of the underground comix buying public), not necessarily a firm reflection of everything Crumb is or was.

Even a lot of the more "pure" entertainment comics reveal much about their creators.

Back in the 1980s a punk comic artist, Tom Brinkmann, did a comic book titled Pure Sex (if memory serves). One of the contributors, Bruce N. Duncan (if memory serves), commented to Brinkmann that there is no such thing as 'pure sex'. Artists, narrative and otherwise, generally have a point of view, values, and intention beyond mere entertainment even if entertainment is their main intention.

A "point of view" is surely present in a lot of art, Bob. My initial statement was that a knowledge of the personal life of the artist isn't necessary to the appreciation of or definition of the art. The "point of view" isn't the thing that I was trying to isolate from the art. I agree that the artists bring more than the ability to draw to every assignment. What I was trying to communicate is that KNOWING the various personal beliefs of the artists shouldn't be necessary to enjoying the art. In fact, OUR individual "points of view" might have more impact. A Kurtzman Anti-War EC story is probably better enjoyed by those who share the point of view of the story - whether or not it was Kurtzman's belief (which I know it was!).

Jesse Marsh, a comic artist I like better than you do and think his significance is greater than you do, did beautiful scenic backgrounds in Tarzan, Gene Autry, etc.
His placement of blacks was very artistic. He's been compared to Gauguin (due to Marsh's Africa been idyllically similar to Gauguin's Tahiti), but maybe Cezanne is just as good a comparison. I still wonder what ethnicity Marsh's black-haired Jane is supposed to represent. She looks a lot more Mediterranean than British.

In the first Dell John Carter of Mars, Marsh artfully depicts the art of lost Mars. Marsh's art definitely is more than just pictures.

(I granted the distortion in Marsh's later art, due to eye problems caused by advanced diabetes.)

I like Marsh's art just fine, Bob. And I'd be happy to hear your arguments for WHY "his significance is greater than (I) do." Jesse did tons of good stuff and Toth loved his stuff. Russ Manning got his start with Marsh and went a totally different direction. While I love Manning's stuff, I don't see him as much of an influential artist, either. But, back to Marsh, I don't know a lot about him other than his art. My argument is that I shouldn't NEED to know more to enjoy his work. Since I don't know much and do like the art, there seems to a bit of truth there.

In the Smithsonian Book of Comics and various Spiegelman comic authologies, efforts were made to show some of the most significant examples of comic art. Most of the artists selected were humor artists like Barks, Stanley (another of my top favorites), Kurtzman (I prefer Kurtzman's war comics), etc. No Toth, no Kirby (that I recall), no Krigstein. If mem. serves, Beck and Binder's Captain Marvel was selected and maybe Jack Cole's Plastic-Man. Spiegelman of course later did a whole book devoted to Cole's Plastic-Man. (Cole is one of my favorites and if I were to create a top ten most significant list I'd probably put Cole on it.)

Are we having a different discussion here? I think we are. I think now you're arguing my choices for influential comic artists. It helps to call my attention to changes of subjects as I really need the nudge to keep up - seriously. And we need to define exactly what that subject is.

Spiegelman's tastes are Spiegleman's tastes and I can't and won't argue them. Popularity and quality are not the same as significant and are not what I was talking about. My list, I hoped, reflected artists who were influential. "Influence" is "the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command." Artists like Toth, Kirby, Kurtzman, Krigstein and others I nominated had an effect on the comic book medium simply by doing what they did. Stanley, Barks, Beck, Cole, etc. were marvelous, talented, and skillful artists and produced amazing and wondrous examples of comic book art. They had major influences on many fans and comic appreciators, but their legacy in the medium was not as pronounced. I'm NOT arguing talent or skill. I'm observing, I think, the effect of various artists on the development of the medium.

Which is why I'm very happy to discuss observable effects with you regarding any artist. Alex Toth learned some things from Jesse Marsh and he was the first to admit it. Toth learned from Sheldon Mayer, Milton Caniff, Emil Gershwin, and others, too. It was Toth's mature style in 1952 that informed much of the DC and Dell styles of the 50s and nearly all of the Standard house style in the early 50s. Marsh's influence was less widely felt. If I am wrong about that, I'm happy to listen to your examples.

I don't think Crumb is "trying to slightly more 'respectable' nowadays" That implies an attribute to his actions that he's never demonstrated before - i.e. that he cares what other people think of him. I think he has less to prove now and more freedom to tackle projects that appeal to him. I don't believe that he SUDDENLY developed an interest in Genesis or that he "matured" into it or that someone offered him a bunch of money to produce the book. I think that the Bible is part and parcel of who Crumb is and always was. See, you have factor that aspect of his psyche into "Dirty Laundry" as well. Like any complex and artistic mind, fitting ALL of the pieces together is not a simple process.

Crumb has children and maybe even grandchildren now. I might be more careful of what I say and do around my grandchildren (2 so far). My children (2) already know me too well for me to fake them out. <grin>

Are you saying that Crumb has changed and is now in better control of himself? I certainly won't argue that with you as I happen to agree with you. I just don't happen to believe it has much of anything to do with his choice of subject matter in his work. Again I would suggest that market force values have much more the final say. Now, the market is willing to accept and pay for ANYTHING Crumb does, whereas in the 60s and 70s his personal projects flopped horribly: remember the Blues trading cards and his 78 records? No market, no more work like that. It's the MARKET that I maintain has changed, not Mr. Crumb. You may have some additional inside info on this that I lack, but I don't think it's his children or grandchildren inhibiting him so much. I've seen no evidence of that. I do know a guy in Paris who knows Crumb quite well and I'll ask him when next I see him. I'll faithfully report his answer so we both can know.

During the years Crumb spent spaced out, his comix were close to absolutely uninhibited.
However, if you read some of Crumb's Foo etc., back then he was liberal and 'respectable'.
I believe he was raised Catholic.

Crumb's years of hippie fame gave him fame and allowed him to produce about anything that appealed to him. The hippie fame, I would argue, is what got him enough artistic recognition to sell sketchbook(s?) for a home in the south of France. That's a bit better than "a living wage".

Again, no disagreement here. It's significant, I would suggest, that the work that was worth the house in France was the personal, not so antagonistic sketchbook work that shows not so much of the stuff that was in such commercial demand in the 1960s-1990. Again, I maintain that it is the market that changed, not Crumb.

The Bible is probably more often the interest of an older man rather than younger man, and I believe Crumb is feeling his mortality more these days. Genesis isn't the first of his more 'serious' works. Kafka is another of the more serious works. I do believe that Crumb is looking for a more respectable place in history / among his fellow human beings.
Maybe he even feels some guilt for some of the more hurtful things he has said about various family members.

You could be right, but you could be wrong, too. It's just your interpretation. Mine's different. I suggest that he's ALWAYS done serious stuff. Kafka was 1996, but Heroes of the Blues and Jazz Greats were 1980 and 1982, respectively. His Yum Yum Book, as serious as any fairy tale gets, I suppose, was circa 1963 and you correctly point out that his Foo work, while not serious was at least much less personal.

I don't believe either of us knows the man well enough to start assigning him guilt feelings. My take on his life is that such emotions may be there but would probably have very little impact on his choices of what to draw. You may, and probably do, believe otherwise. That's your option, but given all that we might know about him from his art, I'd say that "respectability" isn't what he's ever been after. Peace, quiet, home and a family (despite his numerous and inventive attempts at sabotaging himself) seem to have been his goals for as long as I've known anything about him personally.

My wife was very disturbed by Crumb's statement in effect that he didn't love his first son. Probably his son was hurt by that thoughtless remark too.

Yet this points out how guileless the man is. His openness and honesty, while brutal, are quite a major part of his personality and do inform his art significantly. Yet, it isn't. I maintain, necessary to KNOW this part of him to appreciate the art.

Also, I never said that interpreting Crumb / any artist is a simple thing.

Nor, I'm trying to say, a NECESSARY thing.

(Crumb designed an art poster for some exhibition in France and the art wasn't used because of its controversial nature. Fame doesn't always suffice for one to get one's way.
http://lambiek.net/crumb__exhibition/crumb_expo2.htm]]http://lambiek.net/crumb__exhibition/crumb_expo2.htm
)

Again, you're reading motives and emotions and reactions into a situation for which you (and I) have limited or no knowledge. Perhaps the situation was as simple as "they asked, I created, they rejected, end of subject.) As with my observations about the Market above, it might say more about the interpreter than the person being interpreted.

And remember, Genesis probably turned off as many existing Crumb fans for its content as it brought new ones to his work. I don't think he cares one way or the other. He draws what he likes and is always grateful that it pays him a living wage .

I bought it but still haven't read it. It's been criticized for depicting God as the white-haired old man of childhood imaginings. And I was very amused when a Jewish woman called it anti-semitic in Crumb's depiction of the humans as negative stereotypes of Jews. I have doubts that his Genesis is worth reading. I like the pictures tho. <grin>

I got a copy in the mail from a friend this week. Total surprise as most people are fearful of trying to buy me books. He know I didn't have it, though, so he got brave. While I deeply appreciate the thought, I'm with you, I find it very hard to read.

I find the reactions hilarious that God can't be depicted as every other white Christian illustrator has depicted Him and that the Semite nature of the Semites is somehow demeaning. Very odd. As for "reading" it, it IS the Bible, Word for Word, not his "interpretation" of it. Perhaps the pictures somehow inform the text, but you argue above for the words having an import equal to the art. In this case, even Crumb says that they have MORE.


Peace, Jim (|:{>

[JVJ (RIP)]

Anyway, Jim, what's your so-called objective opinion of the significance as comic artists of Crumb, Spiegelman, Jean Giraud / Moebius, Jack Jackson / Jaxon, Hermann (Huppen), Rich Corben, Milo Manara, and Guido Crepax?

What does "so-called objective" have to do with this question, Bob? Are you impugning my honesty? My ability as an historian? It seems that no matter what I say about this, I'm doomed from the start in your mind. Seems a good time to bail out, but I'm too stubborn for that.

There was an article in Promethean Enterprises #2 (1969) that featured Guido Crepax. I love his stuff. I will only point out that his "innovative" panel layout happened 15 years AFTER Krigstein's. It what I meant about "influential".

Crepax's panel layout was more innovative that Krigstein's.
Giraud and Hermann (with Greg) did incredible westerns, and Herman (and Greg's) Bernard Price reminds me of Jonny Quest only much better....
Crumb reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut. As Vonnegut broke out of the sf 'ghetto' to mainstream recognition, so Crumb has broken out of the comic book 'ghetto' to mainstream recognition.

I've been a fan of Corben since 1968, Giraud since 1970, of Hermann and Manara since 1973. I like Spiegelman in small doses other than Maus, which I devoured and loved. Jackson was both an excellent storyteller and historian and I've read almost everything he ever did. I'm HOPING to see Jean Giraud when I return to Paris in October and I know I'll be seeing Jean-Claude Mazieres whom I'm honored to say has become a friend. ALL of these guys were INFLUENCED by someone on the list I presented. Add Hugo Pratt, arguably more famous than any of the other Europeans listed above and a true disciple of Toth.

My 2¢. and remember...

... Peace, Jim (|:{>

2¢ ain't omniscient objectivity re selection of who does and who doesn't make THE most significant Top Ten list.

In math Paul Erdos said that there is a Book of perfect math proofs, and that a mathematician has to believe in that Book, even if he/she doesn't believe in God.

Erdos may be right re THAT Book, but 2¢ aint the whole shebang when it comes to selecting THE Top Ten list of most significant comic book artists.
I don't think such absolute objectivity is possible with evaluation of art / significance. Evaluation of artists isn't a science.

Perhaps not, but discerning and observing influences is much less subjective. I don't believe I ever tried to evaluate the art of anybody, only their impact on the comic book medium. Please listen to what I say, not to what you want me to say.

Good talking with you.

Whirled Peas,
Bob

PS. Your wife was Miz Liz at Bud Plant, right? I do remember that she sent out orders to me back in the 1970s.

Three things wrong with that statement, Bob.
1. She's not my wife
2. Her name is Karen
3. She's never worked for Bud Plant

PPS. I mentioned math / proofs for the benefit of my moderator fans.
I don't remember hallway monitors from elementary schools so fondly....

c'est la vie, Bob, c'est la vie.

Peace, Jim (|:{>