• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by emb021

  1. The second volume of Little Orphan Annie strips has finally come out. This one reprints dailies from October 1927 thru December 1929, with all the Sundays of 1928. So a little over two years. Am hoping the third volume will be coming out in a couple of months.

    Like the first volume, this one is 'virgin territory' for me, having never read any of these strips. I have yet to get into them, but will report back once I do.

  2. “I am not a number -- I am a free man.”

    "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own!": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29JewlGsYxs

    Title sequence:

    From the last episode, Fall Out, the rebellion of youth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWRmf1EnGzg

    From the last episode, #6 addressed the assembly:

    I always thought there was something more to the character of the "president" (leader of the assembly in Fall Out dressed like an english judge).

  3. In some ways, it's good that the summer seminar is canceled. This may help people wake up, and not take things for granted. Does anyone know where Terry Goodkind stands between ARI/TAS? Maybe TAS flyers could go in his books?

    To be honest, I haven't read Goodkind's books. I have no idea how consistent his books are with Objectivism. If Goodkind's books are not consistent enough with Objectivism, it would be inappropriate to even ask him if TAS flyers could be included. It certainly would not happen if Goodkind does not approve of TAS. Perhaps TAS flyers could be added to books like The Art of Reasoning or The Evidence of the Senses, etc. The point is that Ayn Rand's books are a premium source of growth for ARI. There is no reason why TAS could not capitalize on this same idea whenever possible.

    This is off the topic of this thread, so I won't go too far on this.

    IMO, Goodkind's book are very consistent with Objectivism. Heck, I first became aware of them after reading a review in an early issue of TNI.

    It's clear that the main characters adhere to Objectivism. The main opponents adhere to collectivism. And there are several passages where the different characters express their philosophical beliefs.

    In the first few books, Objectivism isn't blatent, but it is there. The sixth book, "Faith of the Fallen" is more heavily philosophical. The next one not as much, and the 8th ("Naked Empire") is more, but not as much as FotF. The final 3 books are philosophical, again, prehaps not to the level of FotF.

    I think some Objectivist may be put off by the books because they are 'fantasy', and have magic and the like. Its important that the magic does have underlying rules and consistancy, and so doesn't really 'violate' Objectivism because of that.

  4. Hello,

    I'm making good progress on my critique of Valliant's chapter "The Exploiters and the Exploited." In this chapter he references two interviews with Nathaniel Branden: (1) Reason 1971; and (2) Liberty 1999.

    Does anyone have copies that he could send me, or at least verify that the quotes are accurate and in context (or more likely not accurate and out of context)?

    I believe I have copies of both those issues. I could scan them and send them to you.

  5. I was first exposed to The Fountainhead in high school, but didn't read it. My cousin and I were interested in architecture at the time, and he gave me a copy to read (for the architecture stuff, not the philosophy). But it just sat on my self (was more interested in reading sf...)

    FWIW, I later went into computers when I went to college.

    I didn't really start reading Rand until I got to college and go into libertarianism/objectivism. I started to buy all her books at the time and read them. I really don't know if I read her fiction or non-fiction first. Pretty sure I read Foundtainhead before I takled Atlas.

  6. There is no "right to secession." States do not have rights, people do. The purpose of Southern secession was to maintain a right-violating regime in power. Even to have to mention this on an Objectivist website is obscene.

    This discussion of the right to secede takes the state as primary, and the purpose of the state, protection of individual rights, as secondary.

    This has nothing to do with Objectivism.

    The states do have the right to seceed. This is because our federal government was formed by the states, not by the individual citizens, and thus they have the right to leave.

    Do you think the nations which formed the UN aren't allowed to leave?

    What difference does it make why they wanted to seceed? That, to me, is spliting hairs.

    Did the component states of the USSR have a right to seceed?

    If Georgia had the right to seceed from the USSR, does South Ossetia (sp?) have the right to seceed from Georgia?

    While the CSA was a rights-violating regime in some senses, the USA under Lincoln was ALSO a rights-violating regime as well. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, sensored northern newspapers, and the like. So it isn't all black/white, CSA-evil, USA-good that some of would like to think.

  7. In discussing the right of secession while it is not addressed in the Constitution the Constitution dose say in article 4 section 3 that states can be broken up or brought without the consent of the legislature of the states and the Congress. This suggest to me that states can not succeed with out the consent of Congress.

    Uh, don't know where you're getting that from. I took a look at AIV S 3, and it doesn't say that.

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

    The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

  8. Michael; Do you deny that the Southern states practiced censorship before the War?

    Sorry, but what prompted that question?

    I have no idea one way or another if that occured.

    If they did, I wouldn't agree that it was right to do so.

    But then, people forget the Lincoln practiced censorship during the war, and seldom for legitamate purposes.

  9. Baker; Why don't you answer any of the questions I raised.

    The South was the most backward and anti-capitalist area of the United States. Could this be the reason all you libertarians love it? The South deserved to lose the Civil War!

    Uh huh.

    I've been a libertarian since college. I'm been a southerner all my life. I was not aware that libertarians are supposed to 'love the South' (or the conferedacy). I certainly don't. I must have missed that in all my readings of libertarian works.

    I can only give you my take.

    Was the South 'backward'? Maybe, maybe not. Let's not forget that some of our greatest presidents came from the South.

    Was the South more 'anti-capitalist'? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes I think different areas of the country have been more anti-capitalist at times vs others. Keep in mind that Lincoln was part of the pro-tariff/pro-mercantilism movement, which is (of course) anti-capitalist. The Confederate Constitution actually had some explicit anti-mercantilist elements in it.

    I do not approve of slavery. I'm glad its gone. I was taught in school that the Civil War was about slavery, and that noble 'Father Abraham' saved the Union and ended slavery. I no longer believe that. I don't feel the Civil War was necessary. Slavery could have (and I think would have) ended without it. I know think Lincoln amoung the worse Presidents we ever had, who increased even further federal power beyond what it should be, and layed the groundwork for further abuses by those that followed.

    Further, AFAIC, the southern states (and all states) had the right to succeed. That's how our federal government was formed: independent states joining together to form a federal government, with the power to leave at any time. I do not care for the bs claims that talking about 'state's rights' (a concept I don't agree with, because AFAIC, states don't have rights, only individuals) as tho its "some kind of code word for wanting to have slavery" or the like that some *ssholes claim. ALL states have the right to succeed. And all state's have rights in the sense that per our Constitution, the federal government is given only CERTAIN powers that are specifically stated, and everything else remains with the states or individual citizens.

  10. Something also to keep in mind. The US was the only western nation that had to go to war to end slavery.

    I wouldn't say that we "had to go to war." That is how it happened, however. I don't know enough about how it ended elsewhere to make an informed comment about how it ended. One theory I have is that it was because slavery was concentrated geographically in some sections of the country. I don't know if this is the case with other nations.

    Maybe 'had to go to war' is a poor choice of words. But of all the slave-owning countries in the west, its the only one that had to fight an internal war to end it. All the others (Brazil, England, etc) ended it peaceably.

    There were many secessionist movements since the Constitution was ratified. The first was in the North when the US had an embargo and then a war with Britain. This hurt New England more than others, as they had a lot of trade with Britain at the time. It was highlighted by the Hartford Convention. One documented complaint was that there had been too many Presidents from Virginia.

    Which is something I only recently learned. Found that out as I'm reading DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America". Somehow this stuff I never learned in my American History courses in school. Hmmmm.

    Then the South wanted more foreign trade. This lead to South Carolina attempting to nullify the "Tariff of Abominations." Not surprisingly, South Carolina was the first to secede.

    Of course, the concept of nullification went back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), which argued that states should void laws which violated the Constitution. In this case, it was the very immoral Alien and Sedition Acts.

    Again, agree. But these are things I've only recently learning in various books of been reading of late (the affore mentioned HCSA, as well as a few others by Woods, DiLorenzo and Gutzman).

    Northerners like William Lloyd Garrison also had secessionist sympathies. Garrison called the Constitution a "compact with hell" because it supported slavery. He felt that the North was actually helping maintain the institution, and some slaveholders agreed. Escaping to the North wasn't enough to free a slave--he had to go to Canada.

    The South was especially fearful of becoming another Haiti. There, the slaves had risen up and massacred the masters in the 1790's. The US actually refused to recognize Haiti until 1862.

    Dred Scott also lead to Northern fears that slavery would spread all over the country.

    I think secession would have abolished slavery. It would have made it easier for a slave to escape. I think it also would have lead to more industrialism in the South.

    Another book I was reading recently (not sure which one) spoke about secession, and the fact that some in the north supported it (and, no, they were NOT pro-slavery types). They fealt the South should be allowed to seceed (as was their right), they'd get over it, maybe end slavery, then come back into the union.

    Again, a lot of stuff about American history (and I'm a bit of a history buff) that we weren't told in school. When it comes to the Civil War (another mis-title) its all 'the civil war was about slavery, the south was evil and wanted to keep it, and good and kind Lincoln would save the union and wipe out slavery'. Instead its much more complex, and most people don't even know the real Lincoln (as you pointed out in yesterday's note).

  11. I think the institution of slavery had as much to do with the Civil War as any decision made by Lincoln. The Southrons wanted to put their slaves and their "peculiar institution" in the new western territories and that was the cause of the war.

    That's an overly simplistic explanation of the civil war.

    Slavery was a factor, but not the sole cause.

    Chris Baker touched on some of the other cause that are too often overlooked.

    Some other things to keep in mind.

    Yes, there were southerns who fought in the CW to keep slavery. There were also southerns who didn't like the idea they were fighting a civil war to keep slavery for other southerns.

    Yes, there were northerns who fought in the CW to end slavery. There were also northerns who didn't like the idea of fighting a civil war to free the slaves (one of the reasons for the draft riots).

    Lincoln was not anti-slavery. The Emancipation Proclemation did not free the slaves. It was nothing more then a policial ploy. Thomas DiLorenzo has a couple of good books debunking the myths about Lincoln.

    Something also to keep in mind. The US was the only western nation that had to go to war to end slavery. All the other nations did so peacably. Why couldn't we?

  12. Michael; Very interesting post! It sounds like Gray should be included with libertarians like Garett Garrett*.(*sic)

    In most cases, Gray has been referred to as just a conservative. But he is obviously an 'old right' conservative, many of whom could be argued to be libertarians or proto-libertarians. The Wikipedia article refers to his conservative and libertarian views.

    Few comic strip writers/artists allowed their political views to be expressed in their strip. Most are only aware of a few: Walt Kelly's liberal viewpoint colored his social/political satire in Pogo, Al Capp went from being a liberal to a conservative, and his colored his social/political satire in Li'l Abner. And most people are aware of liberal Trudeau's Doonesbury.

    It's interesting that the hardback "Arf" collection of LOA strips (first major collection of LOA strips, done in the 70s) has a forward by Al Capp about Gray and LOA, and that Capp had met Gray.

    While a conservative, certain themes are absent in LOA that some might expect of a conservative.

    Immigrants. Gray was not anti-immigrant. More in-line with is 'hard work' ethic, he seemed to feel that if someone were to come to this country and work and and do well, they should be respected for that. Minorities and such were never treated poorly. Now, he may have sinister foreigners, which is a different thing, IMO. I have to admit not seeing much evidence of blacks, but in several of the strips I've read, non-WASP characters are shown in a positive light:

    * During a 1926 storyline, when Annie was living with a guardian temporarily, she was warned to keep away from a nearby street/neighborhood, because it was full of 'no good people'. Actually, Annie finds that its a lively immigrant community, and she fits in quite well, making friends with a young Italian boy. His father was framed and sent to jail, and Annie is able to get the help of a local alderman to get him out. While other characters make disparaging remarks, its clear that Gray (thru Annie and others) don't buy into that.

    * "Yellow Peril" storylines, about menacing orientals abounded in fiction of the time, including comic books and comic strips. But this really didn't happen in Annie. In a late 1930/31 storyline, she comes under the protection of Wun Wey, who is in charge of a chinese protection org. Members of the org prevent harm to come to Annie from dangerous chinese tongs. Wun would become a friend of "Daddy", tried as an equal, and show up from time to time thru the 30s.

    * Also around the time of the 1930/31 storylines, Annie goes to work for a small grocer. While never said explicity, it seems clear from his dialogue and mannerism, that he's meant to be jewish. With Annie's help, he is able to build up his small grocery into a successful, larger store.

    Religion. Gray never pushed religion. His view was more along the lines that all the world's religions are ok. By and large, I don't recall many good preachers/ministers in the LOA. In a 1927 storyline, the local minister seems to be pretty good, but we never met him, only hear about him and his good work second hand. Too often when you see the local preacher, he's usually portrayed as part of the local gaggle of do-gooder busybodies.

    And then there's Mr. Am.

    While being a fairly realistic strip, Mr. Am bring in an element of fantasy that is pretty strange, and one with some touches of religion to them. Mr. Am seems almost a Santa Claus like character. But we know that he is either very long lived or maybe immortal. He is very knowledgable, even able to bring people back to life. When we first met him, he's living in the jungle, with many slaves. He is one of those few characters who made a few return appearances in LOA.

  13. Charity

    As noted, Gray used LOA as a sort of soap box (good or bad) to present his views and philosophy, tho thankfully he wasn't as heavy handed as some people are. (he did write engaging stories).

    One of his views he aired in LOA, was his take on charity. Its important to realize that he based his concept on the old ideas of rugged american individualism and charity, and not in the way its usually used today. I found it interesting that Neil Parille recently posted an item on his Objectiblog site on Rand's views on charity. While not in total agreement, there is some overlap in them.

    As Gray put in, his view of charity I think can be sumed up as such:

    * those who are able, should help those who are in need.

    * one gives charity because you want to (and ideally you should want to), and not for any attempt at glory or praise (ie, you give it without making a big deal of it)

    * helping your neighbors is a just as important, if not more so, then helping people far away.

    * for those needing help, don't make a big deal of needing it.

    * taking charity is a last resort. Ideally, pay back what is given to you (better to take it as a loan to be paid back, then take it as a freebie)

    * don't assume charity is a right

    * giving charity is a choice. No one should force anyone to give charity

    We see this a lot in LOA. As mentioned, in many of the storylines, they usually start off with Annie on her own, coming into a town. Many times she tries to get help from rich people in town (figuring that rich people would have enought to share, and be willing to do so), only to be turned away. In almost all cases, she is usually taken in by working class people, many times people who don't have a lot to give, but who are willing to give to those in greater need. However, Annie is no mooch. She always pitches in an helps the household that takes her in. This can be as simple as just helping out with cleaning and cooking, or helping out in raising money to keep things going, and the like. Her attitude is that she is now part of the household, and so should pull her own weight.

    Many times people are shown to be in great need and are helped out. These people are usually too proud to take charity, and so prefer that the help be in a loan to be paid back. In an early storyline where "Daddy" helps out the Silos (a farming couple that took in Annie), they prefer that he be a partner investing in their farm (to be paid back), and not a charity case that "Daddy" is giving money to.

    The theme of not making a big deal about helping out others is also touched on. I had mentioned the early materials showing "Daddy" and Annie casually giving their coats to a couple who obviously needed them more and not making a big deal about it, as contrasting with Mrs. Warbucks who seems to do charity work only as it made her look important to her society types.

    Another thing is that 'social workers' and 'professional do-gooders' where not shown in a good light in the comic. It's clear to me these people were shown as nothing more then busybodies and parasites, and the only people in a good light were those people doing productive work, whether it was as a common laborer or a farmer or shopkeeper or the like. In the "Jack Boot" storyline from the late 30s, there was a man shown who was a sort of 'professional fundraiser' for charity. He had been a failure in business (hint hint), but was a successful fundraiser and so many people thought well of him. Annie commented that the people who should get the praise for the money he raised should be the businessmen who made the money in the first place which he got to donate, not the fundraiser!

    Also, in the "Jack Boot" storyline, there was a nearby family in dire straights. Annie's 'guardian' at the time, Jack Boot, took out the money from the bank they needed, and annoymously donated it to them (he left it in their mailbox). When that professional fundraiser came by to raise funds for something, Jack turned him down. The fundraiser commented later that Jack was obviously a miser and skinflint because he wouldn't donate any money. However, we the reader knew that he had actually taken out $400 (a lot back then) to donate to that family. So he most certainly wasn't a miser or skinflint, just someone who decides who and how to donate their money. He was willing to help out his neighbors (without anyone knowing it, including them), but wasn't willing to spend money for people halfway around the world.

    I need to pull together some quotes from LOA, because I think some of them will illustrate these concepts well.

  14. Wasn't LAO also a radio show? Did Gray have anything to do with it?

    Yes, LOA was a radio show.

    AFAIK, Gray had nothing to do with it. Keep in mind that the creator of comic strips back then did NOT own the strips. They were owned by the syndicate. Certainly, the smart syndicates would treat the creators very well if their strip was a success, but the creators had little control of how their creations were used outside the strip (tie-in merchandise, reprints, comic books, movies or movie series, tv series, radio shows, etc). Its actually only be in the last decade or so that the creators have come to own the strips, and with it, some control of the tie-in stuff. I know Watterson, the creator of Calvin and Hobbes was very much against any tie-stuff, only allowing the book reprints. He wouldn't allow for anything else, hence no dolls, games, animated versions, etc.

    The radio show was just a children's adventure series, most likely with little or none of the social commentary of Gray.

  15. More on LOA.


    Gray's artwork is certainly not 'slick' or polished. It a good, decent, workman like style. In reading the first volume, we do see an improvement of his style over time. What is interesting is that the sunday pages (a few are reprinted) aren't that impressive. LOA is one of those strips which works just fine in black and white (there are others which I would not like to read in black & white, because the color sundays are so impressive). This is actually the first time I've ever seen color sunday LOA.

    A convention that Gray used was that each strip was a single day. Later on, he would allow activities to go over more then one strip. At first he would note this, later this would be dropped. But by and large each strip was usually a single day.

    No thought balloons were ever used. So in almost all cases the characters are speaking out loud, even if only to themselves and expressing their thoughts and feelings.

    Yes, many have commented about the 'blunked out eyes'. This was a style that Gray used in LOA. He also assisted a relative with another strip called "Little Joe". While the little artwork I've seen of "Little Joe" clearly showed the affect of Gray, I am not sure if that particular touch was also used. ("Little Joe" was a sunday-only strip about an boy of 12 or so who lived on a ranch with his mother, his father being dead. They were helped by an old ranch hand and had several adventures in a western setting). He did experiment with putting irises on his characters for a couple of weeks. The effect is very weird.


    One thing that should be noted is that many times the creator of comic strips needs a couple of years to really improve and make the strip really work. Many times with classical strips, the 'golden age' of the strip when most regard it as really good, happens several years into it, and the first one or two or so years, its still being developed and improved. This is so on strips like Dick Tracy, Flash Gordon, and others. The difference can be shocking. Having only read the later, classic period of Flash Gordon, finally seeing the first year or so, the strip is very primative compared to the lush work of the later years. And is so with LOA. While I see the same themes and such of later years, you can see its being developed. When Fantagraphics started their reprint of the strip, they started in 1931, as they felt this was the period when the strip really started to 'sing'.

    An example of this is the storyline(s) from the last year the book covers, 1927, which they broke into 2 chapters. It's really one long storyline, similiar in ways to later storylines I've mentioned like Cosmic City etc. The first half ("Blue Bell of Happiness") is kind of the setup. Annie finds herself in a small town (Blue Bell) and is taken in by a kindly couple (a childless couple, and the husband owns the local bank). There is a storyline about a rival bank who wants the buy out the husband, but who refuses because he doesn't like how the other bank does business (too harsh on the local farmers, taking their farms instead of extending things until harvest, etc). The second half ("Haunted House"), brings this all to a conclusion when we find out who the real local villian is. Again, this is similiar to other stories, but what I find a little annoying (or prehaps a little disappointing) is there are too many loose ends that Gray doesn't wrap up, as well as some unanswered questions. I don't want to say too much without giving away more of the story.


  16. Wasn't Margo Lane always described as Lamont Cranston's companion? I know "The Shadow" was radio and not a comic strip.

    The Shadow was from the pulp magazines. It later became a radio show, comic strip, comic book, and movie serial.

    Margo was a product of the radio show.

    But that was the times. Married couples on tv were shown having their own beds (yeah, right).

    Annie and "Daddy" were obviously a parent-child relationship. Annie was about 10 or so in the original strip. They've made her older (looks like a teen) in the current strip, now called just "Annie".

    Mickey & Minnie and Donald & Daisy were implied they were dating, and nothing more. (tho the underground "Mickey and the Air Pirates" seemed to imply that Mickey's nephews were really his sons by Minnie...) But you have to wonder why these four characters had their nieces and nephews along. Where were their parents???

    The Dragon Lady is from "Terry and the Pirates" (now also being reprinted by IDW), not Steve Canyon. :) The Dragon Lady seemed to have a think for Pat Ryan, but who knows how far it went. :)

  17. When I was a boy all I cared about in LOA was Daddy Warbucks. Usually, though, it was about Annie. I tended not to read the strip when she was front and center. Unfortunately, Daddy didn't tend to stay around for long. I think it was because how he could be so successful and powerful then seemingly dead or just disappeared then come back richer and more powerful than ever couldn't really be explained.

    Well, keep in mind the strip IS "Little Orphan Annie", not "'Daddy' Warbucks". :)

    In my mind, the absense of "Daddy" at times is what made the strip that much richer. Also, keep in mind the title. If she was formally adopted into a family, she's really not an orphan any more. And it would have eliminated the basis for many of the storylines: Annie forced to go out on her own and survive!

    In reading the introduction to the first volume, I found that Gray wanted Annie to be adopted by the Warbucks and live with them. Certainly that happened early on, and most of the storyline seems to be a sort of 'comedy of errors' in contrasting the more down-to-earth attitudes of Annie (and to a small part also "Daddy") against the social-climbing Mrs. Warbucks and her bunch. Patterson, who ran the Chicago Tribune, wanted Annie to be an orphan. Hence you have the cycles of Annie with Warbucks, then on her own and so forth. I think it made for stronger stories.

  18. The musical was definetly not accurate!!!

    "Daddy" Warbucks would not be paling around with FDR! Gray actually killed off "Daddy" because of his discust with FDR (he brought him back, thankfully). I went to a production of the play as a kid. Today, knowing more about the strip (and agreeing a lot with Gray's philosophy), I won't be able to watch it or the movie.

    There was a 'rough justice' in LOA that some didn't like. Many times the bad guys (who were ALWAYS obviously bad guys, at least to the readers), many times who were plotting to kill Annie, got their just desserts. It may not have been in a court of law, but they got what they deserved.

    Here is a pretty good website on LOA: http://www.liss.olm.net/loahp/ It gives some background on the strip. The article on "Violence & Villians" focuses quite a bit on the excellent, long LOA "Cosmic City" from 1932/33 (a story that ran almost a year).

    Many times the bad guys in LOA were not who you'd expect. Yes, you had the obvious crooks and thieves and the like. But the bad guys could be crooked politicians or lawyers, or conniving business men (Gray made it clear the difference between honest, but tough, businessmen like "Daddy", who got their wealth by fair play and honest dealings with those that got it thru dishonest means, even if those dishonest means were 'legal'), or labor organizers (Gray didn't care for labor unions or labor organizers, who he felt were NOT on the side of honest labor. He made it clear that honest businessmen should treat their workers fairly and if so, there would be no need for unions), or the like.

    There was also a second level of bad people, who were 'do gooder' and the like (again, Gray contrasted the people who talk a good deal about 'doing good' for others and those who REALLY did do good. He showed this in an early strip were the first Mrs Warbucks is giving a talk at a women's club about how we have to help the poor, destitute people in some country half a world away. But Annie and Mr. Warbucks says why do that, when there are probably people over in the next street who could use our help? They then are out walking and wind up giving their coats to a couple of people who need them more. Mrs Warbucks is appalled that they gave up their coats, which just goes to showing Gray's point. Why make a big show and talk of 'helping other people', when you can just help those people and not make a big fuss about it?)

    Many of the storylines in LOA followed a similiar loose plot. Annie would be living with "Daddy", and he'd have to leave on some extended business trip. So "Daddy" would put Annie in the care of someone else. Something went wrong with this (either Annie wasn't able to get to these people OR they turned out to be crooks or deceivers wanting to take advantage of Annie). Annie would then strike out on her own, and come upon a small town. She would usually try to get help from those who appeared to be well off, only to be turned away (and it would usually develop that these would be the true villians of the story, as they had gotten well off thru dishonest means, tho many won't know it and think they were just wonderful people). She would then fall in with people not well off, but who were willing to help out someone even more in need. Annie would soon fit in, helping out these people. Usually there would be attempts (usually instigated by the main villian) to take Annie away from the people she was staying with and put her in some kind of 'county home', which would actually be a worse place for Annie. The story would usually come to a conclusion, almost always with the main villian being defeated. Annie would either be reunited with "Daddy", or would move on to another town.

    Please note, the above plot description is VERY broad, and even so many of the stories are very entertaining. Even in the first collection, these basic plot is repeated several times, but is still different. There is the excellent "Cosmic City" story I mentioned, but also the story from 1931 where "Daddy" is ruined financially and goes to live with Annie on poverty row and soon blinded (he is able to rebuild is fortune and regain his sight). There is the great story from 1936 (which I've read in reprints) about Jack Boot. And I look forward to finally reading the complete story from 1938 about Rose Chance and Shanghai Peg.

  19. As a long-time comic strip/comic book reader, I am thrilled that IDW Publications is finally coming out with a comprehensive reprint of Harold Gray's "Little Orphan Annie" strip. The first volume, which collects the first four years of the dailies, has just come out. The second volume, with another four years worth, will be coming out at the end of next month.

    Ok, so why should readers of OL care?

    If the only idea you have of LOA is from the broadway play or movie, the comic strip is a whole 'nother thing! Gray was pretty much a conservative (of the 1920s type), and his view very much came thru in his strip. In LOA, those who worked hard and dealt fairly with others were the 'good guys'. The thieves, looters, and parasites were the bad guys. When I first read reprints of these strips, I was struck by how similiar many of the themes and ideas in LOA were to what Rand was writting about in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. For instance, a long story from 1935 about a new metal called "Eonite", seemed very similiar to Rearden Metal from AS.

    I have been planning on a longer article about the libertarian/objectivist-like themes in LOA. Hopefully I can put this together soon.