Ooyah! Punishment in the fun comics

[Raven]

Moving this over from the Three Dinahs thread:

...Personally, I've never seen why anyone should have an issue with allowing comic characters to be seen 'getting away with it'...

And in one sentence, you doom us all. Many comics ensured that the 'bad' were punished. Be it with a slipper in the old days or with 5 gazillion lines today. And in doing that, they help to reinforce a subtle UK stereotype where we assumed that Good will always prevail over Bad.

But as been demonstrated in reality, it doesn't always happen that way. And by not reinforcing the link between crime and punishment, we look towards a very bleak future.

Would you feel the need for anarchic, zany, cartoon characters like the early Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny to be punished at the end, for their complete lack of inhibition, and assaults on people's sanity, too, though?

It seems to me a peculiar approach for this kind of comedy, which is not of the real world, and it still surprises me to look at some old D.C. Thomson strips, like early '70s Beano pages, to see the likes of Roger the Dodger beaten so severely at the end - for some minor prank - that he needs a column of cushions to sit down on.

Interestingly enough, Leo Baxendale was very much against the idea that his characters had to be shown to be punished for their exuberance. In his book 'On Comedy', he wrote about his disagreement with Beano editor George Moonie's belief in it as a moral necessity: "I could not accept it. it was necessary for the strip's development that the Bash Street Kids should burst out into the world, and marmalize it under their trampling hooves."

He cites that "punishment" is almost always absent in his Bash Street strips, and even in the relatively few that end with whacks, they're not really about punishment but "the result of frenzied 'revenge', or of the flailings of a soul in torment - Teacher."

Because these characters inhabit a purely comedy world - and where's the humour in it?

I'd be interested to hear what people think about the "necessity" of showing characters being punished for their misbehaviour at the end of strips - especially in the vintage comics. Corporal punishment was rare in the IPC titles, though not unknown - a 'comedy punishment' was more likely, serving the comedy rather than showing the need to restore order by beating a kid.

What did Thomson readers think about this when reading such punchlines as a kid, themselves?

[Raven]

Would you feel the need for anarchic, zany, cartoon characters like the early Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny to be punished at the end, for their complete lack of inhibition, and assaults on people's sanity, too, though?

Maybe it's the difference between an anarchic anti-establishment stance and easily identified antisocial behaviour. Bugs Bunny tweaks the nose of the pompous, as Dennis does too in his best stories.

I think in the early ones, the Looney Tunes characters could just hone in on a regular person and gradually drive them to a complete mental breakdown; that similar kind of screwball approach you see in the Marx Brothers where the forces of anarchy just turn up, and turn the world of order upside down!

And, as Leo Baxendale says, often the slippering is pure impotence on the part of authority. A shorthand to placate the parents and guardians, perhaps? Like I said - obviously characters cannot be seen to be getting away with it all the time and we'd expect PC Slipper to do more than shout 'ooyah!' if Dennis donned a hoodie and wilfully looted a Debenhams store, but I wouldn't like to see the characters always on the sharp end of a metaphorical spanking. Afterall, the net effect would be to show that punishment has no effect whatsoever - business as usual next issue!

What I loved as a kid about DCT comics, and it's still true, is the pricking of authority. Dennis exists to expose the hypocrisy of officialdom in a creative way. I'm sure one of the defining features of the Beano is the 'kids rule' code, which could be defined in terms of what they are against. There's even a strong undercurrent of class war….

Aren't Dennis's escapades most likely to be purely part of that hyper-real world of screwball comedy ideas, though: causing chaos with a camel or an elephant, or a makeshift pirate ship, rather than any kind of real world antisocial behaviour like looting a shop? If officialdom wins in the end, doesn't it render the idea of pricking it somewhat half-hearted?

Now, to suggest this somehow contributed to this week's social unrest…I don't see it. I'm much more concerned about the celebrity worship, the consumerism inherent in advertorials and the reinforcing of stereotypes (next weeks 'Are You A Chav?' quiz in The Dandy…I hope I'm wrong). The problems are, I think, more insidious than some black and white concept of crime and punishment. Even in childrens' stories.

These are interesting issues, too!

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Maybe if the current anarchist rioters got the slipper over their buttocks at a younger age for misbehaving---a la Dennis of the 1960s------, it might have been better for society today!

[Raven]

Maybe if the current anarchist rioters got the slipper over their buttocks at a younger age for misbehaving---a la Dennis of the 1960s------, it might have been better for society today!

That's the real world though. Did/do we need to see pure screwball comedy characters being punished into submission for their wild antics?

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

The punishment for outlandish, imaginitive crimes [like Dennis creating havoc after stealing an Army tank] should have been something more aptly imaginitive and surreal, I reckon, Raven.

The usual slipper over the behind was an absolute hallmark of the period, but it was probably used too much.

[Raven]

The punishment for outlandish, imaginitive crimes [like Dennis creating havoc after stealing an Army tank] should have been something more aptly imaginitive and surreal, I reckon, Raven.

Well, that's more likely to be serving the comedy, which is a different thing from some editors' certain belief that misbehaviour *must* be shown to result in punishment for punishment's sake.

I was thinking about this since getting hold of some Beanos from 1970, and being surprised how many of the strips end with a traditional beating. In the Easter issue, for example, Roger is slippered (again, so hard he needs three cushions!) for a minor prank, the Bash Street kids are all caned for accidentally causing a bit of mayhem (though most of them slipped something down their pants), Minnie is about to be slippered ("a maxi-whacking") at the end of her strip for pea-shooting and water-squirting, and Dennis has been beaten so hard he needs an ice pack on his bum. It made it hard to see this comic as in any way "anarchic" overall, or even on the side of "da kidz"!

[-MikeD-]

The punishment for outlandish, imaginitive crimes [like Dennis creating havoc after stealing an Army tank] should have been something more aptly imaginitive and surreal, I reckon, Raven.

...they'd end up shooting a slipper at his arse, wouldn't they?

Well, that's more likely to be serving the comedy, which is a different thing from some editors' certain belief that misbehaviour *must* be shown to result in punishment for punishment's sake.

I was thinking about this since getting hold of some Beanos from 1970, and being surprised how many of the strips end with a traditional beating. In the Easter issue, for example, Roger is slippered (again, so hard he needs three cushions!) for a minor prank, the Bash Street kids are all caned for accidentally causing a bit of mayhem (though most of them slipped something down their pants), Minnie is about to be slippered ("a maxi-whacking") at the end of her strip for pea-shooting and water-squirting, and Dennis has been beaten so hard he needs an ice pack on his bum. It made it hard to see this comic as in any way "anarchic" overall, or even on the side of "da kidz"!

But...the punishment...the whacking...had become a cliche by then. It satiated some (older) people's desire for 'order' to be restored, but the kids were still the heroes - they'd not had the fight beaten out of them!

[Raven]

But...the punishment...the whacking...had become a cliche by then. It satiated some (older) people's desire for 'order' to be restored, but the kids were still the heroes - they'd not had the fight beaten out of them!

Still ... it puts across a particular attitude, doesn't it - perhaps a little more reactionary, than anarchic?

Of course, as you suggest, the corporal punishment ending had probably just become something of a lazy shorthand by this point, perhaps without that much thought being put into it.

But I wonder if Bob Paynter's IPC fun titles purposely tried to avoid this kind of punchline. Characters like Joker or Pete (of Pete's Pockets fame) often ended up rewarded for their anarchy.

Another Leo Baxendale aside: when Baxendale drew his Bluebottle and Basher strip for Valiant, he was bemused when the editor expressed concern that huge criminal Bluebottle usually won over tiny policeman Bluebottle.

And in Terry Bave's Police Dog and Cat Burglar in Whizzer and Chips, Cat Burglar usually won over Police Dog!

[-MikeD-]

But I wonder if Bob Paynter's IPC fun titles purposely tried to avoid this kind of punchline. Characters like Joker or Pete (of Pete's Pockets fame) often ended up rewarded for their anarchy.

Klakadak just posted a Faceache on the Ken Reid thread showing a caning (albeit in silhouette) from 1979! But you're right...I think the Bob Paynter IPC comics generally avoided thrashings on purpose.

Another Leo Baxendale aside: when Baxendale drew his Bluebottle and Basher strip for Valiant, he was bemused when the editor expressed concern that huge criminal Bluebottle usually won over tiny policeman Bluebottle.

And in Terry Bave's Police Dog and Cat Burglar in Whizzer and Chips, Cat Burglar usually won over Police Dog!

I'd hate to pick the moral lessons from that strip! You're right, of course...it's pure screwball and (beguilingly?) innocent fun.

[Raven]

Klakadak just posted a Faceache on the Ken Reid thread showing a caning (albeit in silhouette) from 1979!

Yes, I saw that - and I have that issue! Perhaps a bit different, as it's supposed to be a Draconian, Dickensian teacher in this 'orrible outdated school the boy with vile scrunging molecules has been sent to, so the teacher is clearly a bit of a monster there.

IPC did indeed have the odd slippering, though. I remember it happening to commercial-crasher Ad Lad in Whoopee! a few times. But mostly, the kids who get "punished" (not beatings) tend to be bullies who are picking on the main character. Anarchy from the main character often results in something fun or rewarding happening.

Incidentally, does anyone recall how that storyline where Faceache is sent off to Belmonte School began? I think it started in early '78, but how long did it go on till? Sometime in 1980?

Another Leo Baxendale aside: when Baxendale drew his Bluebottle and Basher strip for Valiant, he was bemused when the editor expressed concern that huge criminal Bluebottle usually won over tiny policeman Bluebottle.

And in Terry Bave's Police Dog and Cat Burglar in Whizzer and Chips, Cat Burglar usually won over Police Dog!

I'd hate to pick the moral lessons from that strip! You're right, of course...it's pure screwball and (beguilingly?) innocent fun.

Yes, I think that's the point - cartoonish, screwball comedy is an odd arena to instill "moral values."

[ISPYSHHHGUY]

Regarding Dennis getting punished for stealing a Chieftan tank, a fitting form of retribution for him would have seen soldiers [or Dad in a tin hat] blasting a volley of slippers at Dennis' posterior---from a tank blaster-barrel, for example-----for surrealist effect in the final frame [as Mike D indicated above].

The memory of a scowling Dennis being brutally whacked with his butt up in the air at the weekly story conclusion is an indelible image from this period that is paradoxically seldom reprinted today, but everyone who read BEANO in the 60s-----even casual readers------seems to remember this scenario.


BEANO of course had changed a fair bit by 1970, Raven: they lost Watkins in late Summer '69, and Davey Law the following year, two vital ingredients that were never replaced---at least in spirit.

[colcool007]

Wow, so many points to look at and consider.

I will grant that not all anarchic behaviour was punished and the comedy was enhanced by the madness getting off scot-free. Look at the Marx Brothers, Monty Python, Looney Tunes or the Goons for great examples of anarchy running riot.

Thinking on it, the slipper on the bottom was a cliche and was over-used. But as a kid, it fitted in with my world view of the time. You do something bad, you get punished. As a world view, it is out-dated as evinced by recent attitudes and actions in some of the major cities of England, but not necessarily a bad one.

As to some of the punishments fitting the crime, I remember several where the inventions was turned against the character. At least one was turned into an automated whacking machine. And more than a few had a CENSORED last panel as it was too horrible to see what Dad was doing to the character involved!

I don't think many of these "moral values" were placed there intentionally to educate the reader, but were the product of the writers' own viewpoints and it may have given them some sense of satisfaction to know that no matter how mad, bad or crazy a character had been, there was always the ability to bring that character "down" with the obligatory punishment.

One interesting point to note and I don't think anyone has mentioned. Has anyone else noticed that it was always the father that meted out the punishment? Now there's a good social science question begging for an answer. Not one Mum that I can recall ever carried out the sentence except for when the obligatory neck needed washing or a good telling off being required. But corporal punishment? I can't think of one.

[swirlythingy]

With regards to the thread title... what kind of onomatopoeia is "Ooyah!", anyway? Is it just accepted comic shorthand, like "Sigh!", "Haw-haw!" and "Chortle!"? (Or, for that matter, "Kapow!"?)

Was it just DC Thomson comics which had a 'translation convention' for non-speech human noises, or was this widespread practice in comics?

[Raven]

Regarding Dennis getting punished for stealing a Chieftan tank, a fitting form of retribution for him would have seen soldiers [or Dad in a tin hat] blasting a volley of slippers at Dennis' posterior---from a tank blaster-barrel, for example-----for surrealist effect in the final frame [as Mike D indicated above].

That's certainly more of a 'comedy image', though still a variation on physically beating the child, which I find the least appealing punchline ...

I don't think many of these "moral values" were placed there intentionally to educate the reader, but were the product of the writers' own viewpoints and it may have given them some sense of satisfaction to know that no matter how mad, bad or crazy a character had been, there was always the ability to bring that character "down" with the obligatory punishment.

I think it was actually an editorial directive that misbehaviour should not be shown to go unpunished, rather than from the writers, at D.C.T. As for the fathers dishing out the corporal punishment and never the mothers, that probably reflected the times, and the roles parents played. Didn't mothers generally tend to threaten "wait till your father gets home?"

BEANO of course had changed a fair bit by 1970, Raven: they lost Watkins in late Summer '69, and Davey Law the following year, two vital ingredients that were never replaced---at least in spirit.

I thought I'd check a 1970 Dandy to see how it compared in terms of punishments - in the June 6th issue, there's a slippering for The Smasher, hand and bum canings for Desperate Dan's Danny, and weirdly, Corporal Clott, a grown-up, ends up about to get a belting - from a pulled off leather belt - from Colonel Grumbly!

For a direct comparison with that week's Beano, the Easter 1970 Whizzer and Chips features no physical punishment at all for any of the characters, and some of their mayhem (Minnie's Mixer, Ginger's Tum ... ) results in rewards (they tend to inadvertently do good turns). Definitely a different sensibility there.

There's an "ooyah!" in at least one of those Beanos by the way, the cry from a policeman who's been covered in itching powder.

Mentioning Daffy Duck got me thinking about Daffy Doodles, a great 1946 cartoon, in which Daffy is a loopy graffiti artist, manically painting moustaches on every billboard ad - and a good few pedestrians - in the city. Porky Pig is the policeman sent after him. After lots of chasing, and much more moustache painting, Daffy finally ends up in court. He humbly promises that he'll never paint another moustache. "I'M INTO BEARDS NOW!" And with that he paints a beard on the judge, then paints the screen black, blotting us out. Woo woo woo!

That seems to me a perfectly right ending to a comedy, and the idea that Daffy must be shown to suffer/be punished for his crimes would be out of place; the character is almost an exuberant force of nature, which is what I expect Leo B. considered his creations to be - and why would you punish a force of nature?!

[-MikeD-]

With regards to the thread title... what kind of onomatopoeia is "Ooyah!", anyway? Is it just accepted comic shorthand, like "Sigh!", "Haw-haw!" and "Chortle!"? (Or, for that matter, "Kapow!"?)

Was it just DC Thomson comics which had a 'translation convention' for non-speech human noises, or was this widespread practice in comics?

'ooyah!' as in 'oo ya little bugger!'...I thought. Anyone got a better explanation?