First off, I'd like to thank port1080 for promoting this, and point out that on The Old Site this would have provoked a shitstorm of comments, which might (or even assuredly) have overwhelmed the actual discussion at hand. Yet another reason I haven't gone back.

    So why review an artist of such low key status? Well, that has to do with ones sense of what a critic should be, and what use they can put their soapbox toward; this is always a contentious issue, especially when it comes to cinema. I'm of the school who believes that a critic can occasionally play a role unearthing an angle, some reading, to a well known work, but they're far more important as advocates for artists and creators who may not, in their opinion, be getting enough credit. While Baxter is hardly a starving artist, I wanted to take a moment to introduce him to a group of folks with which I've spent a great deal of time over the last eight years, and a sub seemed easier than sending over a dozen PMs :)
    Why Baxter, then? I understand that discussing comedy too deeply is the fastest way to ruin it, so here's just a couple quick points as a sales pitch. For one, he relishes language in a way that few cartoonists I've ever seen- and I've seen a fair amount- which makes him different right there. Not better, necessarily, but different. (This arose from Baxter being a stutterer as a child, and having to think about word choices very early on.) For another, there's the sheer absurdity; other cartoonists are similar, but far too often rely on simple inversion, such as Charles Addams evil family as heroes, and Gahan Wilson glee in the macabre. Both men did more than that, obviously, but Baxter spends far more time in that area than they do and did. B Kliban is also very close, but he all too often veered into the Playboy "just show 'em some tits!" style of humor, which makes the surrounding absurdity more earthy, less ethereal, just by context. (IMHO, clean humor is harder to pull off, and anyone who can do it consistently is worth a look. YMMV.)
     So is Loomings the best place to start? No. It was Baxter's latest work, which was why I picked it, but it works better if you're familiar with his repeated themes. Pick up one or both of his Unhinged World Of Glen Baxter compilations- your local library should have them- and see if a longer work has any appeal. Is it worth it then? Clearly, I believe so, because Baxter's comics often seem to have unspoken narratives, a penumbra of a story if you will, that isn't addressed in the actual panel. When added together with the repetition of absurd themes, it creates a hidden density to the silliness that I can't see someone like, say, Gary Larson being able to pull off quite so well. A steady diet of these books would be tiring after a while, but at the current rate, they're a nice change of pace. Taste is subjective, but that's what I see and like about this book.

     On a personal note, Baxter will always have a sentimental value at the least. I first picked up The Impending Gleam at about 15, right around the time Philip K Dick also entered the reading list. Between the two, they created a refreshing- no, invigorating is a better- sense that there were people who didn't quite see things the same as everybody else, and that this was OK. This made high school a hell of a lot easier to swallow, and for that alone Baxter will have a soft spot in my head.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Artists must follow their muse.  They will never succeed artistically by trying to do only what the public expects them to do.

The name "Glen Baxter" didn't ring a bell, but as soon as I saw one of his cartoons I remembered him. He's good. I don't have anything against artists trying something new, but one of the things that I like most about cartoons  is they are not longer narratives. Movies, novels, etc. can present a longer narrative, but there isn't another form that can do what a cartoon can. Not even telling a joke, because the drawing provides a background that an isolated joke can't.