Ham on Rye - web comic (1 Viewer)

I don't see what Big Tiger is doing as being lazy. we don't call a film maker lazy for adapting a novel. we might not like the results, but we don't accuse them of sycophancy.

oops, I stand corrected; just found the headline for Pauline Kael's review of Doctor Zhivago:

Hey, David Lean? Think Up Your Own Shit, Asshole.
Using a big Hollywood movie as an example doesn't go very far in convincing me of your point, since Big Hollywood is a titling shithouse of unoriginality. There is no other "creative industry" that fears the original idea more than Hollywood.

They wake up in a cold sweat from nightmares where they were forced to do something new or original. "It was terrible, I tell you! We had to write scripts from scratch, like animals! Oh my god, I can't stop trembling! Get New York on the phone!"

We're already in a world where everything is a remake of something else, so everyone should be comforted by that.
the studio is lazy, yes. the guy picked to direct The Hunt For Red October is just collecting a paycheck. he's trying to make a good action flick, but he's not going to fight the system for his artistic vision. the guy adapting Factotum is already swimming upstream and is doing it because he loves the book, or Bukowski, etc.

Big Hollywood in general is lazy and greedy, but not every film maker in the system is.
This thread took a predictable detour, but it's a valid discussion (as always). I don't think anyone has been murdered yet.

And I'm sure Mr. Tiger will be back with more kitties for anyone who finds them irresistible.
Well...it is wrong to make someone's story into a movie, if they (or their heirs) didn't sell you the rights to that story or agree to let you adapt it.

That's right. Still, the quality of an adaptation and having the rights are two different things. You could easily imagine somebody getting permission to set Buk's words to music with a bad result and somebody else doing a better job of it without having permission. In Big Tiger's case, he's just doing it as an exercise not meant for publication.

You can't compare Big Tiger's work to the Moby Dick illustrations or Crumb's illustrations of Bukowski's work because they aren't the same thing. All Big Tiger is doing is what the kids who "write" music around Bukowski's words are doing. Hitching a ride on someone else's creativity.

I don't see the difference between Crumb's illustrations of Buk's work and Big Tiger's, apart from the permission thing.

My argument with this type of thing has never been that it isn't valid or doesn't have any merit (especially in music, where cover versions have a long and respected history that started before modern recording methods existed), but rather that it's lazy, and more than a little parasitic.

True, you could argue those type of things are lazy and parasitic if they don't add anything new to the original work. Some music cover versions were better than the originals and some were worse.
People are looking at and commenting on (and coming to virtual blows over) Big Tiger's drawings because of Bukowski's words. Take those words away and the interest in the cats is nil.

True, the words are always more important than the artwork in comics. It's all about the story. Without a good story you just end up with a bunch of drawings whether they're great or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
In Big Tiger's case, he's just doing it as an exercise not meant for publication.
Not for nothing, but a few of you have made that excuse point, and you're incorrect.

As far as the law and a judge and Jesus Christ are concerned, everything typed and posted here and in any other publicly accessible place on the Internet is indeed published.

Whether a derivative work is made for profit or not (or as an "exercise" or not) has no bearing on potential infringement. Publishing your "adaptation" without permission is still infringement. The creator (or the creator's estate) are assumed to have control over any "interpretations" of the work.

I'm really a little baffled that anyone would argue against that. There isn't an argument against it. You can't just rape someones god damn art and push the mutant child out into the world all droopy-eyed and giggling and drooling.

Debate the minutia all you'd like. Bottom line is it just isn't right. It's not right to do that to someone else's art.
Last edited:
Jordon the thoughts were mine. But to call me shit because you don't like my opinion and then accuse me of not having an original opinion is unbecoming and kinda goofbally
As for your list of things I think are shit-well from looking at my post I said the his illustrations of Ham On Rye were shit-(since he asked for feedback)-the list you provided is typical straw man theatrics-as was the ad hominem-you're shit
What he is doing is the same as Vanilla Ice-using one persons excellent effort to elevate his own. And I believe my advice is better than any praise-go find something original to do. Ask your self this if he placed one of his illustrations around one of your books and claimed it as his own without your knowledge would you be pleased? or would you think that was a shity thing to do? Careful with your answer-he's reading this thread too.
Jesus, this has all turned kind of nasty. I get the feeling a lot of what's getting debated here hasn't got much to do with my work but more about people ripping off Bukowskis work in general. I've not seen any of the film or music stuff people have done so I can't comment.

I started this about 6 months ago, its something I do in my spare time, evenings and weekends. As some of you have pointed there's a lot of my interpretation of things, some elements get removed and occasionally I have to add little things in. I can do a couple of pages in a day, not including the thumbnails and when I redo some of the frames. Once I'd done the first few chapters I started this thread, when I'd finished five I posted a link for my 120 FaceBook friends, once. Other than that the only other place I've put links is on an art forum I use to get sequential art specific feedback.

My site gets around 150 visitors a month, I don't ask for donations, I'm not sharking for publishers. I'm not getting rich from this, or makng any money at all, all I was getting was a couple of compliments for my fragile ego.

Left to my own devices I end up just drawing or painting similar subject matter, characters, people I see about and some stuff from photos. What's great for me about using somebody else's material is the challenge, I need to draw things I'd maybe normally avoid. I'm pretty rubbish at drawing backgrounds and environments which this pushes me to practise. Drawing cars is something I've always struggled with, here its not just a car, it needs to be a 1920's model-T, I need to do research and some draft drawings. Why do I do it? I enjoy it.

Reading the book, this is how I see it, drawing it feels right to me. I'm not claiming to be a genius, I'm not even claiming to be that good at drawing. I'm a 34 year old with a shit job and a dream about drawing for a living that gets more unlikely every year.

I did write once, last year I did a sit-com for a competition, I enjoyed the writing process but it doesn't feel like its what I'm made for and I don't think it was that good. It was based in a taxidermists in Inverness, I'll upload it if anybodies interested, if you read it you'll agree I should stick to art.

The Vanilla Ice thing is fine for me, to be compared to the second greatest white rapper in the world, and, if you've seen his blockbuster movie “Cool as Ice (1991) ” the greatest rapper actor our generation has ever seen. The 10 minutes I managed to watch of moved me to tears. Turns out its a rap-oriented remake of "The Wild One," talking of dancing on graves.

Why stop with Vanilla Ice, “Rapper's Delight” by The Sugarhill Gang uses “Good Times” by Chic, Public Enemy and most early hip hop used huge amounts of samples. In fact check out the modern day example by Pharoahe Monch.

I understand how some people feel about certain artists, we feel they belong to us. I was once a postman so I feel like I've got a kinship with Bukowski that nobody else understands, I recognise other people can like him more and probably understand him.

Putting aside the massive copyright infringements I'm committing by allowing a couple of hundred people to see this for no profit, I just would like the people that enjoy reading it to do so, I'll keep drawing more and maybe I'll get better.

As Vanilla Ice says in Cool as Ice, “You're not wasting my time, I'm just cooling.”
I only brought up copyright because people kept saying you didn't intend to publish these, when the fact is, you already have.

My issue with this kind of thing has always been artistic and aesthetic, not legal. And someone either understands that or they don't.
Not for nothing, but a few of you have made that excuse point, and you're incorrect.

As far as the law and a judge and Jesus Christ are concerned, everything typed and posted here and in any other publicly accessible place on the Internet is indeed published.

I wasn't trying to excuse Big Tiger. I only pointed out what he himself said about the exercise not being meant for publication. Point taken, regarding the concept of publishing. I never thought of posting amateur artwork on the internet for a small group of people and for free as publishing, but that's my mistake.
Last edited by a moderator:
I heart the forum. This is the only place where I do not feel that I'm the only non-depressing person in the room. Yall are great.

Big Tiger, I for one respect your story and your sensibility, and that's saying a lot because I consider pretty much every culture product since the industrial revolution to be garbage. So, find someone who is alive and looking for an illustrator. Putting aside massive copyright infringements is easier said than done ... It sounds pretty cut and dry that you can only make this work publicly accessible IF you get the OK of the estate. Even then, MJP will probably scorn you, so whether you want that hanging over your head is another question. And by all means, don't be that guy who only cares about his thread - there are some awesome threads around here and a lot of conversations that could be worth reinvigorating.

I'm not claiming to be a genius

Thanks for the modesty.

Mike aka "The Genius"

p.s. you can still work on ham, just don't make it publicly accessible. can anyone say 'l'art clandestin' in latin?
These are really good man! Keep up the work! I've always wanted to see a visual translation of Ham on Rye. So many great images in that book and I love the style you used to bring them to life. Seriously though, if this was published. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

Users who are viewing this thread