So today we have Mark being made to act like a school kid on his first field trip, playing dress-up and spouting inanities. Rivera’s apparent predisposition to using punch-line panels like normal gag-a-day strips is disappointing. It suggests that Rivera just cannot maintain any kind of serious position, even within the panels of a single day. When you take a serious adventure strip and convert it into a semi-serious, absurdist adventure strip, it just seems unnecessary to obstruct continuity with corniness. It’s like putting sugar in a bowl of frosted flakes. 

Tuesday’s strip does not improve things. Mark is still made to act the clown, once again upsetting any notion of seriousness with schoolyard puns. Of course, it doesn’t help that the artwork appears slipshod. Even Clayton’s body seems to expand (panel 2) and contract (panel 3) for no reason. I could say more, but I’d rather you do that.

Art Dept. Did anybody else notice the thick black vertical line appearing between the panels? I looked back and they started in every daily strip starting February 29. I have no idea why they are present. Anybody have a guess?

I’m looking forward to getting back home over the next several days. It’s been great spending time with my Dad (98) and my siblings, but I need to return to my normal, lazy lifestyle, where my younger sibs won’t make me feel like I’m Dad!  But for now, it’s time to get back to Mark and his dealings with Diana Dagger and the wild (or feral) horses of Salt Lake City.

I’m not sure Mark (or Rivera) has this figured out correctly, but I’m willing to take the hit if it’s me. Drop a comment if you think I’m wrong. What is the three-way deal here? According to Diana and Mark’s reasoning, the developers are working hand-in-hand with corrupt government agents of the Bureau of Land Management, not against each other. So, Mark’s participation would make it essentially a 2:1 fight, right? Or do we include the horses as the third leg of this wobbly stool? That interpretation would tie in with the three encircled images in panel 1.

Okay. Daggers figures Mark is unpredictable and reactive enough to “get the story” on the horses and their unethical treatment. I suppose Mark’s actions in the Ohio train wreck, alone, provide plenty of evidence for that conclusion. Mark now seems a bit uncertain and uncomfortable getting tagged this way. Does Mark not recognize his own work ethos? 

As usual, Rivera’s closing comment in panel 4 unfortunately seems misplaced. Should Mark spend time now self-assessing his career choice (not his “life” choice)? Of course not! Why should Mark worry about Diana’s “loose cannon” description, when it is clearly correct? Mark should own it and be proud of his fixated determination to get the story and get it published, no matter what. Advocacy journalists don’t stand around (very long) waiting to interview hack press agents and spokespersons. That passive technique isn’t going to accomplish anything. 

So, what’s going on here? Mark is called in by Bill Ellis to investigate and report on rampaging feral horses, considered by the BLM to be an invasive species. Mark was shocked. But Mark has actually been hired by Diana Daggers, who seems to present a “wild horses are native to the US” position. Why, it’s a government conspiracy!

Mark wants to know who to fight. This brings up the issue of just what kind of journalist Mark is. Clearly, we must acknowledge that Mark Trail practices a hands-on version of advocacy journalism, not content to simply tell both sides of the issue, but to take a position and push it. Instead of asking who to fight, Mark should probably first figure out who is right.

Mustang management (or its demise) is a complex and divisive topic in the west. Rivera presents a pretty simplified and one-sided argument. The costs to adopt or purchase a horse from the BLM appear to range from $25 to $125, though I’ve seen notifications that the BLM will pay people to adopt the mustangs. I’ve seen nothing to support a $1.00 price. Frankly, the BLM is anxious for people to adopt or purchase these mustangs, for a variety of reasons. No matter. This is not exactly a new issue, though it is probably one most people are likely not aware of. Hence, Dagger’s emphasis to spotlight the issue.

Story wise, while Mark gets a briefing to help him with his assignment, it’s not clear what his role actually is. Will he go undercover as a mustang adopter? Will he attempt to interview BLM officials, ranchers, and animal rights groups? Maybe sneak around at night to set the penned mustangs free?

Visiting with family and old friends this past month has upended my daily posts and my normal self-indulgent lifestyle. So, here are three days in one post to catch up.

Diana Daggers! For three years Mark has been dealing with the same group of malcontents, grifters, and opponents, and it doesn’t look like that’s going to change any time soon. I’m not against a repeat performance now and then, but it suggests lazy thinking.

Anyway, what’s this about “the cost of life in California“? First of all, shouldn’t that be “cost of living“? Also, does Mark claim that Lost Forest is now in California? Or did the horses escape to San Diego?

No matter what Mark’s morals are, it seems that the people who write the paychecks have their own opinion on the wild horses. Will Mark press for his own point of view or will he toe the company line?  That being said (or written), if we’re going to keep seeing the same stable of opponents, let’s make Diana Daggers Mark’s official sidekick. This format of opposing personalities is a standard meme one finds in virtually every team of adventurers, cops, and other partnerships in TV and movies. I only ask that Rivera gives Daggers more story time and something to do besides goad Mark on, then do a quick fade.

Why is Mark talking to himself out loud? Normally, this kind of discussion appears in a thought balloon, not a dialog balloon, where Mark might be seen as somewhat mental by any passersby. Or security.

Whatever experiment Rivera was engaged in regarding a revision of this strip’s visual style seems to have been chucked aside as we return to the over-the-top exaggerations in image and words that became standard as far back as the “LA Confidential” story, where Mark first faced off against his now-perennial gang of opponents and grifters:  Cricket Bro, Professor Bee Sharp, and Sharp’s one-time assistant, Diana Daggers. But here, Daggers reprises her role as an Airport Welcome Wagon. She is a true hustler and plays both sides of the road. 

As movies will deviate from their origins in a book, it seems clear that this adventure will soon turn away from anything remotely serious and drive pell-mell through the dusty roads of chaos and absurdity. In short, this will probably be another typical story in the Rivera Trailverse. Buckle Up! 

Nothing says “I love you!” like a postcard with a cheesy drawing of … hey, wait a minute! Who sends postcards these days!? And I can’t even begin to understand the so-called punchline in panel 3. 

So, is this Mark’s assignment:  Research the effects of the wild horses in Utah as noted in panel 1? Seems to me that there are scientists who already handle that type. I would have thought Mark would be reporting on that research.  Then talk with ranchers, farmers, animal rights groups, environmental groups, etc., to gain additional perspectives to incorporate into the report. But perhaps I’m being too literal, and Rivera only meant that Mark would be doing more or less what I just wrote.

Art Dept. I’m not concerned that Rivera likely “photoshopped” the airplane and mountain scene in panel 1. After all, cartoonists (especially those drawing adventure/drama strips) have been doing this for many decades. My point is that there may be a design flaw in panel 1. Mark is presented in a “call-out” circle, whose extension goes back to the plane, but seemingly from the cockpit. Pretty sure Mark is not the pilot! Unless Rivera is once again satirizing the “ambiguous dialog box” meme of old, then I think it would have been clearer if she had simply flipped the plane horizontally, so that the call-out could originate from one of the passenger windows. Am I being too picky or nerdy?

Yesterday I queried whether Mark was being depicted as a jerk or a distracted goof. Perhaps I should have added “self-centered, arrogant opportunist.”  It has been Rivera’s position to often portray Mark as out of his depth, agonizingly out of touch, or just plain square. 

To put this in a more positive light (not a strong light, I grant you), Mark is … uh, at least appealing to Cherry’s practical nature. And consider those poor horses, running amok without Mark’s calming presence. Shoot, I’m being cynical again.

Just who is Mark looking at in panel 2? It sure isn’t Cherry. You’d think he was some shill selling giant scissors in an infomercial. They don’t even look like standard line cutters, though I’ll grant you it can be difficult to always be authentic in the limited confines of a comic strip panel. Anyway, I’ll let you spend a few happy moments dissecting Mark’s comments in panel 2. 

The bigger question is Mark’s attitude towards Cherry. When he had moral issues with how to treat the wild horses, he consulted Ralph, not Cherry. He spent the rest of the day and evening with Cherry, not bothering to bring up his assignment, until now. Do we assume Mark is just an inconsiderate jerk, as he is pictured? Or, perhaps distracted?  That seems out of character. What is Rivera’s objective?

Hoo-boy. Perhaps the comics syndicate published this out of order? This is only February 12. Or is this Valentine celebration going to last for 3 days!? Sure, we can expect a slight break in the story for the sake of the holiday, though holidays are something that Rivera rarely recognizes in the strip.

Second, what’s with this “Rusty is staying with my Dad tonight” remark? Last I recall, Doc Davis lives in the same home as Mark, Cherry, and Rusty. Is this why we never see the Doc anymore? Perhaps he sleeps at his clinic.