@ Green Reaper: I'm preemptively grousing at the 1 star assholes. Duh. Though, I will say, there is a bit of difference between a "comic strip" and a "comic book."
@ Fred: There really are just not as many funny animal comics in print as there used to be, mostly because comics today are not only often not for kids, but actually probably mostly not for kids. Funny animals in the traditional comic system mostly didn't survive the eighties, which is when superhero comics started specifically targeting adult readers at the expense of younger readers. Then the nineties came and holy crap, any survivors were systematically eradicated. Seriously, you just don't want to know about the 90s.
Nowadays, any ongoing funny animal books are either hybrid superhero books (TMNT) or are tie-ins to already popular franchise, usually animation (Boom!'s Garfield, IDW's My Little Pony and TMNT again, Archie's Sonic the Hedgehog, DC's Looney Tunes), plus Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo, which is delightfully hard to categorize (though it's been on hiatus for over a year now as Sakai works on the non-furry 47 Ronin) and none of these titles (with the recent and unproven in the long run exception of My Little Pony) are major sellers, as are few other "all ages" titles.
I see the legitamacy of a lot of people complaining what I'm reviewing are not specifically furry, but maybe they should stop complaining about furry reviewer reviewing non-furry things and ask themselves why a furry reviewer known for his hard line definition of furry reviewing a medium known for its use of funny animals in the past has to fudge the definition in order to have anything to review at all.
@ Green Reaper: I'm preemptively grousing at the 1 star assholes. Duh. Though, I will say, there is a bit of difference between a "comic strip" and a "comic book."
@ Fred: There really are just not as many funny animal comics in print as there used to be, mostly because comics today are not only often not for kids, but actually probably mostly not for kids. Funny animals in the traditional comic system mostly didn't survive the eighties, which is when superhero comics started specifically targeting adult readers at the expense of younger readers. Then the nineties came and holy crap, any survivors were systematically eradicated. Seriously, you just don't want to know about the 90s.
Nowadays, any ongoing funny animal books are either hybrid superhero books (TMNT) or are tie-ins to already popular franchise, usually animation (Boom!'s Garfield, IDW's My Little Pony and TMNT again, Archie's Sonic the Hedgehog, DC's Looney Tunes), plus Stan Sakai's Usagi Yojimbo, which is delightfully hard to categorize (though it's been on hiatus for over a year now as Sakai works on the non-furry 47 Ronin) and none of these titles (with the recent and unproven in the long run exception of My Little Pony) are major sellers, as are few other "all ages" titles.
I see the legitamacy of a lot of people complaining what I'm reviewing are not specifically furry, but maybe they should stop complaining about furry reviewer reviewing non-furry things and ask themselves why a furry reviewer known for his hard line definition of furry reviewing a medium known for its use of funny animals in the past has to fudge the definition in order to have anything to review at all.