Art Dept. One “secret” to making partial forearms appear accurately is to draw the complete arm starting at the shoulder, and including any part that extends beyond the visible zone of the panel. And the angle of the torso must match up, as well. That way, you can avoid weird-looking results, such as we see in panel 1. There’s just no way that arm connects to Ranger Shaw. On a more positive note, I think we’ve been witnessing an improvement in Rivera’s depiction of Mark, specifically in his close-ups. Not so much in distant views.

Moving On … Are we finally at the end of the story? With luck, this week-long epilog should end on Saturday. And right on cue, that better-late-than-never phone call usually means Bill Ellis and the start of an actual paying gig; unless it is Cherry calling to remind Mark to pick up some pizza on the way home.

I think that once you have gotten your characters to form a common bond in your storyline, spending extra days reiterating that accomplishment starts diluting its value. That is the case here, where the characters fall to pointless chatter as the storyline bobs and goes nowhere, like their fishing boat. That is why I thought this story concluded a few weeks ago, in the hospital. Mission accomplished…Not!

So the nicely illustrated underwater scenes begin to look merely repetitive. I agree with commenter Mark that the panels dealing specifically with the boat and the river are artistically of better quality than the flat, simplistic panels of “the men.” Are they drawn by a different artist? It might seem so, but I disagree. Compare these current panels to some of Rivera’s earlier work, such as this panel from January 2021:

Rivera uses the same compositional devise of combining the top and underwater views, along with a close attention to detail. They are not exact matches, of course; but after three years, there will naturally be differences. Of course, I could be totally wrong and it could be that a ghost artist today has simply updated Rivera’s original take on water scenes. A few non-related observations here:

In her inaugural Mark Trail adventure (“Happy Trails“), Rivera already had Mark arguably breaking the law and fleeing from the cops, as was recently repeated (“Something Fishy“). Also, these days Rivera has all but abandoned her original and innovative “Doctor Doolittle” relationship between Mark and various animals (think also of Ralph the rat snake). I rather enjoyed that feature, and I’m sorry she moved away from it.

I’m trying to be fair, readers. Really! But how can I resist such low-hanging fruit? While Jules Rivera won’t show us how bats were removed from Violet’s music hall, we do get to enjoy these heartwarming scenes of symbolic fishing and symbolic male bonding.

Would you say Rivera has done much fishing? In panel 1 good ol’ Cliff looks like he’s hauling in a big one, though his line is only slightly more taught than cooked pasta. But maybe they’re all just taking turns playing the boy-bonding pastime, “Mine is bigger than yours!”

I’m not exactly sure what the heck is going on in panel 2, either, as Cliff and Mark make a rookie’s mistake of holding their rods outside of the boat. What a great technique to teach the noobs!

As for panel 3, we have an impressive underwater scene. Maybe Rivera could move over to a comic strip version of the old TV show, Sea Hunt.

My, my, my, that boat seems to have shrunk today! More surprisingly, this fishing boat now sports a new, second mast behind the cabin (panel 2). Still, panel 1 displays a nicely balanced composition.

Okay, we had a bucketful of comments yesterday, which I enjoyed very much, thank you. Clearly Monday’s strip caused some interest.

Commenter Mark opined that Monday’s strip was Rivera’s best drawing so far. High praise, indeed, but it implies a relativistic judgement. Comments from readers regularly disparage Rivera’s art when compared to the representational style of pre-Rivera Mark Trail. It also seems as if Rivera is moving (or has moved) Mark Trail from a serious adventure strip into some kind of joke-a-day comic with an undertone of absurdist-based continuity (sort of like Doonsbury, but minus the political and social satire). Today is no exception. Clearly, Rivera is aiming for a younger audience, not the long-time, older Trailheads.

Rivera’s irreverent approach would naturally be reflected both in storylines and drawing. We can certainly see masculinity-bashing and parodying of the strip’s historic social and aesthetic ideals taking place in her work. But for many current and former readers, whatever Rivera’s motives really are (including her interesting innovations), they may be entirely irrelevant:  People just don’t like or understand what they see. And that’s the problem.

Okay, I got fooled. The Saturday January 13 strip certainly looked like a typical end-of-story sequence. I bet you thought so, as well. Right? After all, the bonding rituals were made, so what was left to say?

We now see that Mark’s “fishing retreat” is back in action for a fishing cruise. What could go wrong? Observant readers that you are, you only see Mark and Cliff, so we should assume the students are fishing on the other side; or maybe they are stuck in the cabin taking a multiple-choice quiz on types of fishing bait.

The “survivalist” dialog here makes it sound as if they just lived through a significant natural disaster or military action. As we have been seeing lately, Rivera completes the daily strip (panel 4) with a non-sequitur. That is, what does the joy of fishing have to do with hospital trips? We can pass this off as a silly nonsense joke people make from time to time, something my wife will tell you I indulge in, as well. I expect cartoonists to do better than I can. But Mark doesn’t look like he’s joking.

Art Dept. Those are well-drawn fish and wisely swimming away from the boat. They form an odd comparison with the overtly cartoonish appearance of the human figures. Do you think there is some kind of philosophical or metaphysical symbolism behind this?

“We’re game”? Oh, game fish. Yeah, got it. So Mark is optimistic about this not being a total loss, in spite of two injuries requiring hospital visits and virtually no instructional time. But toss in a box of bagels and provide some happy talk and they’re good to go! I guess that is why it looks like he’s ready to move on to a group kiss in panel 3.

Rivera has wrapped up this story of Mark’s failed dream of creating a men’s-only survival retreat, a venture doomed to failure from the moment he got the De-Bait Team involved. It’s doubtful that Rivera will have Mark reconsider his approach and try again. She has accomplished her task. But what was that task?

She stacked the deck against Mark’s dream, shrinking it down to a fishing seminar, all so she could contrive some goofy injuries that provided scenarios where Rivera’s foil, Cliff, could force Mark into a corner to confront the importance of sharing personal feelings with other men. That is, this was not a story about a survival retreat or a fishing seminar at all. That was just window dressing, men’s eye candy to keep the male readers interested (or distracted).

As people who fish know, being quiet is a normal requirement for good fishing. If you want to talk about feelings, go to a bar and get drunk or go home to your spouse.  I have a new theory:  The de-bait team deliberately sabotaged Mark’s survival retreat by conning him into including this “discuss your feelings” component. Why? Because they don’t want competition for their own fishing business.

The art today is not as erratic as it was earlier this week. In fact, I very much like the depiction of Mark in panel 3 (that is, the adult, not the remembered child or father). It’s quite naturalistic, expressive, and well-drawn without being too cartoony (e.g. unlike the prior two panels and the too cartoony flashback figures in panel 3 ). But I still prefer Mark’s original beard.

Yeah, I agree with Mark’s abasement; he did do a crummy job. Mark’s got no reason to console himself, either, as he agreed to include the “share your feelings” component in his so-called retreat. Thank goodness, it looks like this “adventure” is rounding the final turn and heading for the finish line.

Art Dept. The drawing is somewhat better today and more consistent: more, but not completely.  I won’t belabor the point, but simply suggest you inspect panel 3.

Regular reader and commenter, Mark (no relation), brought up a comparison between Rivera’s work and that of Ed Dodd, the creator of Mark Trail.  It’s a stark comparison, to be certain; but they come from totally different times, artistic traditions, and visions. I have an equally dramatic comparison between Early Rivera and Current Rivera. Here is an early example I quickly grabbed from our 2020 archive (the screen capture quality is not great):

It’s a dramatic difference from today. This attention to detail, composition, and naturalism did not last long. I have no real idea why Rivera changed from this more polished and impressive style. These early strips glaringly emphasize how simplistic and even amateurish the current strips sometime appear. Heck, there is even a difference in quality between panel 1 and panel 2 in today’s strip, where panel 1 looks like it was inspired by a cartoon wrapper of Bazooka Bubble Gum. Why this change? I have no real idea.

Gawsh, ain’t it just swell how chummy everybody has become!? I know, I shouldn’t be so cynical. Still, Rivera’s scripting doesn’t help. Mark’s acceptance of blame in panel 3 is minimally appropriate, but panel 4 gets me. I’m not sure if it’s the strange “You’re not my dad” statement or Rivera’s pandering, specious comment that “Mark is everyone’s dad!” Since when? In what way? I don’t think Mark is quite that prolific. Still, Mark reacts as if Eli told him he’ll sell him revealing photos of Cherry. Otherwise, just what is the point of Mark’s over-reactive expression, anyway?

Let’s give Rivera points for continuity, as Connor shows a bandage on his right thumb, something that would be difficult to see when printed in a newspaper. Otherwise, the drawings look cluttered and stiff.

For a second, I thought the comic strip syndicate accidentally started reprinting the prior week’s strips. But no, Eli got scratched by a bat this week, just like Honest Ernest the week before. I’m thinking Rivera is suggesting millennials are just too namby-pamby, clumsy, and stupid. Or perhaps Mark and Cliff are just lousy instructors who do not prep their students carefully. For a group that shared a bonding moment, one would think the other students would be here to provide moral support for Eli. It’s like I wrote earlier, superficial bonding activities produce superficial results. Mark’s self-assessment in panel 2 is spot on.

Resolution: Get back to your day job, Mark! Otherwise, ditch Cliff and restart your retreat in Lost Forest, away from the De-Bait Lodge! Focus on survival, not feelings.

Sorry, Rivera. Not that men don’t hug. They do, and it doesn’t have to be just a greeting or a goodbye. But bonding usually comes from shared activities or experiences, not from contrivance. Long-time friends meeting up again; being part of a sports team; having regular get-togethers at a local diner; or experiencing a shared tragedy; examples like these can create bonding situations.

A short and failed fishing seminar, a hike, and a pointless group hug are not enough, except, perhaps, for really shallow people. You don’t suppose Rivera is implying anything like that, do you? As regular viewer and commentator Daniel P recently lamented to Rivera, just get Mark back “in the field” fighting bad guys and heartless institutions that hurt the environment.

As for Eli getting scratched by a bat, get real! Bats are normally nocturnal. Nobody says “Oh look! A bat!” and goes to pick it up. So, what’s the point of repeating this recently-done scenario?

Is the racoon praying for this adventure to end? While Connor doesn’t get the fact that being a good woodsman doesn’t equate to being a good husband, he is at least trying to improve himself. Mark is so focused on the first point (panel 2) that he misses the second one.

Mark also missed the point of Cliff’s invitation in panel 3: Panel 4 shows Cliff has turned the focus from Connor to Mark. That is to say, it appears that Rivera has been nudging the story along to really be about Mark’s reluctance to express his feelings.

If I had to make a guess about Cliff’s motivations, I’d say he has Mark and the Game Warden here in this goofy class to distract them while his de-bait team colleagues are out on the water, illegally poaching fish. I could be wrong, of course.

Sheesh! Cliff’s Touchy-Feely Takeover of Mark’s survival retreat is a done deal. Now if I was Mark, I’d consider treating Cliff to the loving touch of his Fist O’ Justice.

For the record, I think Connor’s wife has a point. I don’t want to be completely down about this, so let me end this post on a positive note …

… um, I’ll get back to you on that.

Mark rises above his inner feelings about Connor to give him needed self-assurance. Good for Mark! But what happened to the “camping survival skills”? That was supposed to be the main point of this enterprise, at least from Mark’s point of view. Instead, that aspiration has been demoted. To be fair, we never saw the advertising sent out for this class. Perhaps it read something like this:

• “How to fish … for your partner’s innermost thoughts”
• “Learn how to pan-fry a filet of feelings”
• “Sheltering from a storm:  When to let a hurricane of emotions wash over you”
• “How to create a campfire that heats up meaningful conversation”

To that end, Rivera skipped over any useful tips Mark and Cliff might have given out about safe hiking and finding your way, in order to focus today’s strip on a positive outcome of vulnerable male emotions. But then she mocks it in panel 4. To my limited, male-dominate mind, this seems hypocritical or maybe it’s just another beat-down of Mark. Am I wrong? Am I misreading the subtext? Help me out, here!