Some remaining observations on this popular thread. A reader writes:
Bugs is ethnic humor – Jewish vaudeville schtick. Mickey is WASP, whitebread humor. It's the difference between Groucho Marx and Bob Hope.
Another:
This seems similar to the Letterman vs. Leno debate – do you prefer the sly, offbeat and sometimes ridiculous (Bugs, Letterman) or the predictable and safe (Mickey, Leno)?
Another:
When we talk about Bugs, the question needs to be raised "Which Bugs"? The character had different personality traits depending on who directed the cartoon. In Tex Avery's version, he was violent and somewhat sadistic, whereas in Chuck Jones' cartoons, he was invariably minding his own business when some bully started messing with him. The violence in the Jones' cartoons was always retaliatory ("Of course you know, this means war," being the popular refrain.)
Mickey evolved over time, moving from a Chaplinesque arse-kicking scamp to the friendly everyman corporate icon of today. He had to. If you look at the early, great black-and-white shorts, he was no sort of mascot any multi-national would want to represent them.
Another corrects:
Your reader who references Bugs Bunny asking Elmer Fudd how many lumps he wants with his tea has got his cartoon characters mixed up. Bugs actually asked the question of Pete the Puma, another of his nemeses. Here’s a short clip.
Another passes along the classic "Hillbilly Hare" cartoon and writes:
My late uncle Bill, an artist who escaped to New York from the depressed hinterlands of Maryland and West Virgnia, loved the WB cartoons and cited them often. Same for all his artist pals of his generation who I've gotten to know. Like the oddballs and rejects of Mad Magazine, the WB 'toons were heroes to their young anti-establishment minds: they were triumphant individualists in ink, characters who punched the bullies in the nose and got away with it every time. The guys behind Mad are now celebrated as countercultural icons. The WB artists deserve the same.
