Recent reader comments (you can go back and actually read them, folks!) question the alternative spelling (and even the pronunciation) of the horse rescue organization’s name (“Happy Hoovez”). Is Rivera attempting to be too cute? Is she attempting to suggest that the rescue staff is illiterate? Or does she want to suggest that maybe the owner(s) are foreigners and not sure of the spelling? I’ll make an executive decision and claim that that last idea is just bupkis. Still, I left it in so I could use the word bupkis.

I’m not a conspiracy nut, but maybe Rivera has embedded a tell-tale in the spelling, itself: That is, the misspelling (“Hoovez”) warns that something about the organization—like the spelling—is not quite right. That would be a clever plot device, as you might find in a murder mystery.

But I wrote the paragraphs above on Friday. Today’s strip is leading me to think differently.

BLECH! Maybe Rivera really dislikes Mark Trail. Or its readers. I can’t recall a more disparaging, demeaning sequence.

Clayton, Caretaker and apparent head wrangler of Happy Hoovez, defines his NPO’s mission, which coincides with BLM’s (no, not that BLM!). I hesitate to suggest at this point that Rivera implies that the Bureau of Land Management is not about protecting mustangs as well as the land. But is Clayton all talk and no hat (like Tess Tigress and her faux tiger petting zoo)? Is he fronting a fraudulent organization secretly selling horses for slaughter, in violation of BLM regulations? It’s too early in the story to start making these presumptions, but innuendo sells, right?

And while the artwork is not terrible at this point, it is rather bland. We could discuss the depiction of Mark’s overly-starched kerchief or the ever-changing size of Artemis. But again, innuendo is so much easier and saves me from having to actually think.

Mark has been strategically placed in panel 1 to keep this strip family-friendly. It is just an oversight, I’m sure, that led Rivera to focus more on Artemis, herself, and less on the proportional relationship of the horse to Clayton in panel 1. No matter, as Rivera straightened out the visual ambiguities in panel 3.

[Edit] Mark expresses his ignorance of horses in general or maybe just the mustangs. I suppose that with Rivera’s reboot, Mark’s pre-Rivera past experience with horses (as noted by a comment from Downpuppy a few days ago) has been wiped clean for the sake of this story. Otherwise, Rivera seems to be maintaining a more serious approach than has been usual in past adventures. That’s good, but how long will this last?

Nice to get those comments! I’m back home, so my posts should appear more regularly. In a touch of irony, regular reader Downpuppy made a pithy comment regarding Mark’s missing cowboy hat that I poked fun of. Apparently not wearing a hat in Utah can lead to a bad end. Consider me educated on that topic!

Clayton the Wild Horse Caretaker (who wisely wears a hat!) lays out his case for Mark. For possibly the first time, we have evidence of Mark Trail actually working as a journalist, recording Clayton’s testimony! I’m willing to give Mark a pass today regarding his response in panel 4. It’s not necessarily a pun, nor an obvious joke. It could be a sincere reaction.

It seems that Jake is less concerned about the issue of the wild horses’ geographic ancestry or the BLM’s periodic roundup of the horses than he is about the horses’ ultimate care.

Art Dept. After five days, the black bar between the panels has disappeared. A shame; its appearance held promise and the hope of millions that Mark would finally get to wallop the living #(@! out of some malefactor.

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.