Roger Rabbit Returns In “Who Wacked Roger Rabbit?”

Roger Rabbit is back! The character, which began its life in an adult-oriented novel written by Gary K. Wolf, will return in a new novel titled Who Wacked Roger Rabbit? It will be released exclusively as an e-book on November 29 by Musa Publishing.

The setting of this new novel—Wolf’s third starring Roger—is the Cartoon Strip, a gritty black-and-white area of Toontown where “toons go to be discovered.” The new characters on the cover are Willy Prosciutto (“the porcine crime lord of Toontown”), Honey Graham (“Willy P.’s moll”) and the dog Mutt. Eddie Valiant is portrayed by author Gary Wolf, who also appeared on the cover of the first Roger Rabbit novel Who Censored Roger Rabbit?

The cover is drawn by Jacques Muller, who was an animator on Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and more recently animated on Sylvain Chomet’s The Illusionist.

Here’s the storyline:

Hard-boiled gumshoe Eddie Valiant lands a plum job as Gary Cooper’s bodyguard while Coop scouts locations for his next movie—a screwball comedy titled Hi, Toon! But Eddie’s dream job quickly turns into a nightmare. The film’s being shot in Toontown, and Coop’s co-star turns out to be none other than Roger Rabbit. Eddie’s a big fan of Coop. Of Roger? Not so much.

A sinister hoodlum threatens to murder Coop if the movie gets made. Before long, Eddie, Coop, Roger, and the ever-glamorous Jessica Rabbit are embroiled in a mystery that could destroy Toontown. When Roger bites off more Toonish trouble than Eddie can swallow, the answer to the question Who Wacked Roger Rabbit? swiftly becomes no laughing matter.


  • Cheese

    P-p-p-p-lease make it into a sequel to the movie once the book gets released.

    Just for fun.

    • Anthony D.

      Gary K. Wolf is supposedly working on a remake of the 1952 film The Stooge with Mickey Mouse and Roger Rabbit and it’s set to be a prequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit!:

      http://www.examiner.com/article/the-creation-of-roger-rabbit-and-more-gary-k-wolf-speaks-part-1

      From what I heard, the proposal is currently making the rounds at Disney.

      • ramapith

        The entire point of THE STOOGE is that the “Mickey” character—he’d have to be Mickey for the roles to correspond—is so unfunny and boring that he needs someone funnier around to make his comedy act work, except he’s too selfish and uptight to realize it.
        The story essentially exists to glorify “Roger” and humble “Mickey.” Given that Disney is successfully making Mickey funny again in popular new cartoon shorts, why in God’s name should anyone want to revisit the boring 1950s mouse—and actually focus on the fact that he’s boring?

        • Thomas Paul Jennings

          Not to mention, where Disney’s hand drawn animation is at.

        • Philip

          I don’t think they’ll have Mickey be the boring 40′s/50′s version of himself in “The Stooge”.
          I think it’ll have him be in his 20′s/30′s/new shorts personality (though with only a little bit of his straight man qualities from the 40′s/50′s, but still having the 20′s/30′s/new shorts traits still dominating his character).
          Mickey CAN get away with being a straight man and being a mischievous scamp at the same time.

  • Geoff

    EBook only? Bah! Guess I won’t be reading this anytime soon
    My excitement quickly turned to disappointment

    • Chris Sobieniak

      Well maybe if an animated promo of sorts gets whipped up very soon, that may help to change some minds!

  • Grimmy

    Shouldn’t it be “whacked”?

    • Barking Bud

      That’s the pun….crazy/wacky > wacked.

    • Ed

      No, ’cause it’s wacky.

      • Cheese

        Wack-a Wacka!

  • Menaceswank

    ugh why does it have to be an e book…thats so annoying

  • Lewie

    Bummer Roger isn’t actually on the cover. Copyright issues? Though they seem to have gotten the right to use Scamp.

  • Oslaf

    The original novel was pretty dreadful beyond the interesting high concept, which thankfully was the only thing actually used for the film adaptation. Too frugal linguistically to be a good Chandleresque parody, and too simple and nonsensical narrative-wise to actually be a self-aware simple and nonsensical exercise. It’s a bit sad the guy keeps latching at the popularity of the film for attention when he should be aware of how hugely different it is from his own work.

  • Befghist

    [Comment removed by editors. Per our commenting guidelines, “It is OK to post with a nickname or alias, but your email address (which we will NEVER share publicly), must be a real, permanent email address. Comments with fake or non-permanent emails will be deleted.”]