So, Rivera takes her shots at NFTs and their creators. I wonder if this satirical interlude was based on her own personal experience or that of a friend? In any event, I wonder also if the volatile Professor Bee Sharp (the actual goat this week) will suddenly mutate into Killer Bee Sharp and deliver several well-placed and well-earned stingers to Cricket Bro’s head. That might also help make up for Mark’s own neglect at serving up his usual brand of justice when he was in California.

We have a week of Rivera parodying NFTs and their seedy, single-minded entrepreneurs, using the convenient made-to-order idiots, Professor Bee Sharp and Cricket Bore. Somebody on CK questioned the identity of the animal in panel 1. Did that query intend to suggest that the two goose heads were somehow part of the head of that animal? We have to wonder whether Rivera deliberately composed them with that in mind. In any event, they certainly are two very tall geese! Frankly, I have no idea what that lumpy brown animal is. I hope somebody will educate me and the rest of us. By the way, is it me, or does it look like Professor Sharp is exposing himself to the goat in panel 2?

Unfortunately, I think there are some qualitative differences in today’s strip, especially compared to previous days. Let’s compare panel 2 today to yesterday’s strip (I am also using the second panel):

Wednesday’s panel is the left. Compare the photographer in both scenes. On the left, notice how his hand displays reasonably realistic bone structure, knuckles, and “feel.” On the right (from today), the photographer’s body takes up about the same amount of space.

But his hands today display no sense of bone structure or knuckles; they look flat and clumsily drawn. There is also a disregard for detail in the today’s face, compared with the one from yesterday. The camera looks out of proportion. As for the other two figures in today’s panel, they are also drawn in a clumsy, amateurish manner. Sharp’s head looks like somebody with a toupee that is falling off. Cricket Bro’s head and left arm are an effort.

Now, as long-time readers know, I have largely been a champion for Rivera’s art and overall approach, not only for the overall style, but also for her often-interesting compositions and expressive details that help define mood and action. However, what I see today bothers me, insofar as I don’t know if it is due to rushed deadlines, less-skilled assistants, or something else. Everybody has bad days and this may have been one of them. Rivera is usually much better than this, so when I see what appears as slapdash work, it saddens me, in part because it provides fodder for the complainers who prefer the 19^th century illustrative style of the prior Mark Trail cartoonists…which they also complained about (as did I).

Finally, this awkwardness is odd, since it is not apparent in the other two panels, save for that weird juxtaposition of animals in panel 1. In fact, I like panel 3 a lot for its composition, facial expression, and the excellently-drawn foreshortened arm. The panel is first rate. So, what are your thoughts? Am I off the mark?

And who knows, but maybe a lot of NFTs are created as simply and simplistically as this example, then sold on the NFT market for hoped-for buckets of money to gullible investors. And “there is a sucker born every minute”, a phrase P.T. Barnum reportedly coined. Evidence says Barnum didn’t originate that line, but that’s not the point here, anyway.

Should we assume that the tête-à-tête going on in the background of panel 3 is some interpreted reimagining (for visual effect) of a phone call between the “Professor” and Diana? Or perhaps it represents a future contact between these two friends that Bee Sharp is playing in his head as he looks at a bunch of pictures, and trying to determine if he’ll make enough money to buy an island he can call his own? The fact that the two figures in the background are in silhouette while the real Bee Sharp is in the foreground makes it clear (as mud) that they are avatars of some recent or future communication. But, I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop, because there has to be a point to this week-long detour, other than farce for the sake of farce.

Oh, I do like the way that Rivera distinguished the plural form of “NFTS” in Diana’s dialog by bolding only the letters N-F-T. The word would normally be written as NFTs, except that full caps are always used in the strip; hence the bold font formatting. Okay, so you noticed that, too. I still like the effort.

(I didn’t intend to write this much, but I must be making up for yesterday!) I think we can all see “SCAM” written in large letters with this operation. Whether Cricket Bro is just into defrauding the public or is also fine with scamming Sharp is open to consideration. I reckon we’ll find out. However, a bigger question is “why should we care?” That is to say, isn’t all this beside the point? Yeah, we see how Diana’s salary is being “invested” in this “blue sky” venture. But do we need all of this information?

It is easy to criticize the panels this week as an unnecessary digression from the main story and even from Diana’s concerns about her relationship. Even if the strips this week reinforce the questionable ethics of these characters, couldn’t this have been handled in just one or two days? Or are we going to see four more days of the goat eating Professor Sharp’s lab coat? (And doesn’t he ever have classes to teach!?)

I do like the goats-eye view seen in panel 3. I appreciate that Rivera designs unusual compositions now and then, something not easy in the small panels she has to work with.  Rivera is also famous (or infamous) for her narration boxes, as in panel 1, where the character appears to interact with the narration box. In a sense, this is a “breaking the fourth wall” event between the character and the reader, or writer. Some people do not like this, though Rivera wisely keeps this convention to a minimum. Breaking the fourth wall is certainly not Rivera’s invention. Dagwood, for example, often turns to face the reader when the the lightbulb goes off in his head. George Burns, on the TV show he did with Gracie Allen, often broke the fourth wall to talk directly to the audience. So, I think there is a solid foundation for using this shtick. Finally, I wonder if “Greta the Screaming Goat” is a reference to the Swedish activist, Greta Thunberg, who is also famous for her blunt, strident delivery. Not an insult, either. Just a thought.

Okay, I’m waiting for inspiration ……. still waiting ………… looking for some inspiration here …….. any time now …………………………………………….. DOH! Nothing here, must resort to academic verbiage:

The sequential narrative form, as manifested in this current model, presents the reader with an unorthodox and systematic interpretation of comic strip qua comic strip. All structural tendencies that focus our attention on the absurdist dialog and jejune illustration define a paradigmatic shift underlying—as only the most prevalent and domesticated mental constructs of the last fifty years can—the inherent morality of a discordant environment bereft of any historical and social insigne. Logically, to borrow a mathematical premise that had long ago been found wanting, a complete mental restructuring of heterodox memes as implied in these panels must . . .  

Oof, I can’t go on.

The best take I have today is that I like the face of Cricket Bro in panel 3. It reminds me of the face of “Superduperman”, a parody of “Superman” drawn many decades ago by the late, great Wally Wood for MAD Magazine. I don’t mean a deliberate copying, of course. It’s probable that Rivera has never seen this particular cartoon. I just mean that the face of Cricket Bro, in its pose and expression, shares a similar kind of happy egotistical narcissism with the dude in the blue and red costume.

Otherwise, I got nothing.

Okay, so my ruminations and predictions may not exactly have been up to the level of predicting the movement of subatomic particles, but still, it’s nice to be at least partially right. So Cricket Bro and Professor Sharp are involved in this NFT racket. This should prove very interesting!

However, I’m not sure what is going here, though it looks like Jules Rivera had several skunk drawings left over and decided to bomb them into today’s strip. Otherwise, I’m as perplexed as Sharp is, to tell the truth. It does appear that a photo shoot is in progress. I don’t know if NFTs are actually created this way, but why not!?

Next, what is this moniker, “Lewks”? Cricket Bro is actually Rob Bettancourt, Mark’s childhood nemesis and recent tormenter. But, I suppose anybody can get a nickname, and “Lewks” must be Rob’s. Rob’s “place” looks rather different from the large, white Palm Springs mansion we originally saw. Rob (or Lewks) is rich enough to have two, we must assume.

I bet you are wondering, as I am, whether that pocket protector loaded with pens in Sharp’s pocket is real or just a prop, like the fake ties boys used to have to wear during photo day at school.

I suppose bringing pancakes is just a Lost Forest kind of greeting. That is, nobody really expects you to eat those large, soggy, cold slabs of dough. They are local symbols of friendship and community. Opening the box is like opening the conversation. Mark and Cliff are the round slabs of dough.

Well, a very interesting image of Diana in panel 2, actually showing her eye(s) and looking uncharacteristically pensive. Meanwhile, Cliff and Mark continue to audition for a reality show on The Hallmark Network. Mark’s comment in panel 4 is a True Trailhead Reference to the long-ago conflict between him and Cliff for Cherry’s affections. I suspect this might be Rivera nicely reaching out to long-time readers, since they are the only ones who would get the reference.

Speaking of friendship, yesterday it was “friends”, but today, it is just “my friend”. This leads us once again back to the most likely suspect, er, friend:  Professor Bee Sharp. If that is the case, can Cricket Bro be far behind? And will this NFT subplot converge into the zebra mussel investigation?

Full points to new reader “cellardoor2122” for his prescient comments yesterday on whether Rivera would focus on the link between NFTs, crypto-currency, and environmental pollution, as opposed to a more simplistic plot of Diana simply being hoodwinked. The jury is out on whether Cliff should be razzed for his lax grammar. Still, except for the articulated finger, that’s a pretty good drawing of Cliff in panel 2.

And bonus points (of a sort) to Rivera for making Mark Trail more up-to-date on technical—if arcane—types of environmental problems than just the usual everyday issues he normally fights, such as poachers, animal abductors, and zebra mussels (Surprisingly, Mark doesn’t seem au fait on the zebra mussel). While bitcoin and crypto-mining are illegal in several countries, they are legal everywhere else, including the US. Who knows? Maybe Rivera will establish a link between NFTs and that “Duck Duck Goose” shipping company. And if the NFT business does get linked into the story, will we see the reappearance of the Herp Hacienda Gang? Or Cricket Bro? Was Cricket Protein Powder just a cover story? The mind reels at the possible connections!

Anyway, what is Diana really fretting over:  Her so-called salary issued in the form of digital images or the fact that she finds her friends are part of a controversial boutique investment fad? And who knew Diana had friends?

“And get off the set, Dr. Phil!” There’s a new team in town to guide and support people under stress, and who….oh, wait. It’s just Mark and Cliff. I reckon Mary and Phil can keep their jobs. But Diana, you might want to contact those Mary or Phil, instead of pouring your soul out to these two blockheads! But is this stunning news, Jules?  Shouldn’t Mark be jumping up and down and howling with merriment at this point? Ah, but Mark is still The Good Guy. Good guys don’t kick you when you’re down, do they? Anyway, we already have enough soap opera comic strips.

I don’t believe non-fungible tokens are actual money, by the way; but unique digitized images you buy using real or virtual currency.  It’s an investment fad, in other words. We’ll see what Rivera’s primer has to say.  Frankly, if Diana is getting paid in NFTs, she should keep a very close watch on the market and sell her NFTs during the next NFT spike. Clearly, she needs a new “partner” who isn’t trying to fleece her, which seems to be the raison d’être why people make and sell NFTs.

So, is Diana’s crisis going to be a significant side-trip in this story? Will it quickly be knocked aside by ongoing events? Or, will Diana take the dramatic step to actually abandon the zebra mussel assignment and effectively leave the storyline, completely? I’ll hold all bets, but cash only.

Speaking of the art (as I was in some recent comments), I think today’s work comes across very nicely:  clean lines, good compositions, and uncrowded panels. However, we do get a bit tired of Rivera’s animals looking at the viewer. We get it; it’s a riff on the Mark Trail animals meme, and also suggests we viewers are physically interrupting the space. But let’s move on, okay?

Unfortunately, I have to give a pass to the coloring, nice as it may be, since I am not sure who is doing it, or specifying it. Those decisions can vary from cartoonist to cartoonist. I’d also like to compare the actual black & white newspaper versions more often, but they are always too fuzzy, due to the low quality of the newsprint. In any event, color certainly enhances our interpretation and appreciation of the strip.

Moving on to the story, Cliff finds out it isn’t about him, after all. And Rivera reveals yet another interesting plot twist, as it turns out that Diana was just putting up a false “tough gal” front, which quickly collapsed (as did Mark’s own ethical stance) with her admission of mission failure. But it’s not for the current assignment!

Panel 2 shows this to be the case, since she apologizes to Mark for being preoccupied with her own problems. Does it have anything to do with Professor Bee Sharp? We saw him at the start of this adventure, after reading one of Diana’s posts. He was not a happy bee.

Anyway, once The Bad Guys show up, Diana should regain her focus and maybe Mark will finally let loose with his fabled fists of justice.

Diana winds up and throws a zinger across the plate, while Cliff gets a bit of wood on it. But if Cliff bought the pancakes, why was Mark carrying them? And why was it Mark who initially offered them to Diana in yesterday’s strip? Did Cliff just suddenly elbow his ol’ buddy aside and move in on Diana? Or did Cliff just improvise when Mark froze in front of Diana, once again? I reckon Mark and Cliff must have also stopped off at Mark’s cabin along the way so he could pick up his vest. Well, no need to be too picky here, because the action is more interesting.

This scenario might actually work out for the best:  If Diana warms to Cliff, good ol’ first-gear Mark will have an assignment once again and get to keep his job. I can’t believe that walking off of an assignment would look good for his future job prospects. Fortunately for Mark, panel 4 suggests that Cliff is making good progress. I’m not sure if those crosses above Diana’s head are Blue Angels flying in a loose formation, or some kind of symbol representing “Okay, I’m interested!” Now if Diana doesn’t invite Cliff inside to go over docking procedures, maybe those three can put together a plan of action. Please, somebody in Lost Forest needs to have an actual plan (which is more than I can say for our current city council. Luckily it’s election day.).