To me, there's an obvious thematic structure going on in Fox Bunny Funny. The texts opposes sets of binaries in order to construct an overall message about identity/identity politics. I hesitate to write about any text's "overall message," but I will here precisely because the opposing binaries at work in this text present a very clear message about our protagonist's struggle with his identity. I won't go so far as to say that these sets of binaries (e.g. fox/bunny, black/white, superterranean/subterranean, etc.) work always in opposition, to the eschewal of any form of symbiosis or overlap. After all, the end of the text presents an image of foxes and bunnies combined in a double helix--literally fusing them together in what is a symbol of basic identity, the genetic code.

I am very interested, however, in the way that the "textual narrative" or perhaps "verbal narrative" is refracted in the "visual narrative" that is constructed by the actual illustrations. I know that the text doesn't have any words, so strictly speaking, it would seem that the text doesn't have a "textual narrative" at all. I think that therein lies my questions about the work. Does the genre lend itself to the creation of two narrative tracts--the visual and the textual--in ways that allow messages from the textual to converse with messages in the visual? Would a work be more dynamic with both? Can artist-writers construct dual narratives of this type to present contrasting, and thus more conflict-laden and interesting messages?

It's hard to say with this text because there aren't any words with which to conceive of a textual or verbal narrative. I would like to note that this text, like the history of the "dirty" or "degenerate" comic in the United States, forces its character into the underground to accomplish the fulfillment of its character's degenerate desires.

There are some other really interesting issues that I hope others will comment on. Like, whether the fox's transformation is one to which he consents, or whether the last visual image, which (aside from the huge black dot on the opposing page) shows the fox as bunny, belies something bad about the concept of transformation itself, since the fox-now-bunny's face registers an expression which I think looks almost grotesque.

I know this was sort of rambly, but I hope it generates some discourse. Thoughts?