The Daily


Where Are They Now? Part One

August 25, 2014 | by

The first in a week-long series of illustrations by Jason Novak, captioned by Eric Jarosinski.




Eric Jarosinski is the editor of Nein Quarterly.

Jason Novak is a cartoonist in Oakland, California.



  1. frank santoro | August 28, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    You owe Kate Beaton an apology

  2. Mr. Meh | August 28, 2014 at 3:45 pm

    Somewhere Kate Beaton and Jules Feiffer are doing better stuff than this.

  3. Jason Novak | August 29, 2014 at 1:06 pm

    I can’t speak for my writing partner, but for what it’s worth, I owe – not an apology – but a debt of gratitude, first to Ronald Searle, who is possibly the finest cartoonist who ever lived. And secondly to Tom Oreb, a long-forgotten animator at Disney who designed the characters for 101 Dalmatians, and who openly acknowledged Searle’s influence by inviting him to tour the animation studio during its production. I can’t speak for Kate Beaton, but perhaps she was also raised on a heavy rotation of Disney movies. Who wasn’t?

    Jules Feiffer, being in his eighties, was part of the same milieu as Searle. You could, on that count, accuse me of ripping off nearly every cartoonist active in the ’50s and ’60s, but I have a nice note from Feiffer complimenting my work, so if he feels ripped off, perhaps he forgives me. You’re welcome to add these tidbits to your seminar on cartooning – I won’t feel ripped off.

  4. G | August 29, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    I don’t know if that’s the real Frank Santoro above, but if so I’m disappointed in him. What a ridiculous thing to write.

    Kate Beaton’s work is no more or less ‘original’ than this. As Jason noted in his response, both artists likely draw from similar influences. All artists are a collection and conveyance of influence. One should read some of the above mentioned Borges to gain a great understanding of that.

    More specifically, both of these artists make satirical use of historical and literary figures in their work, but Kate’s work is far more ‘clever’ whereas Jason tends to be more abstract and uses a lower frequency of clearly delineated punch lines. They just aren’t all that similar.

    In reference to the Mr Meh comment, they are entitled to their opinion. The Feiffer influence is incredibly obvious to all of us but I don’t see any reason to make a value judgement about it. Lots of people have been influence by Feiffer.

    I want to add – I’m not even a huge fan of Jason Novak – but I think he deserves a bit more respect.

  5. Regina Sokas | August 29, 2014 at 10:48 pm

    I agree with G. This work deserves respect.

  6. Balu Kirch | September 8, 2014 at 12:13 am

    so tired of these philosopher/writer cartoons trying to make a smart, funny point.

  7. Javed | January 9, 2016 at 9:40 pm

    Somewhere in the older issues of The Paris Review, good taste and intelligent humour are sitting quietly, too quietly. It’s sad such mediocre writing and less-than-great drawing is pretentiously published here as some kind of new and wonderful cartooning.

  8. Javed | January 9, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    Sorry, maybe I overstated my criticism just a bit. But really, we need cartoons that match the literary standards of TPR.

  9. Javed | January 9, 2016 at 10:06 pm

    The drawing’s interesting, good, but put to not so great use.

Leave a Comment