Y’know, Wiley’s on the *Media Relations Committee* of the National
Cartoonists’ Society.
Pushin’ envelopes in Sandusky, Ohio,
Don Lee
NCS something or other
–
Don Lee
103327,3…@compuserve.com
LeeT…@aol.com
16
Jan
Re: WHY COMICS SUCK
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)
24 Responses to “Re: WHY COMICS SUCK”
Place your comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Archives
-
Recent Posts
© Discussion of short-form comics 2009 | Created by Jay Hafling.
Powered by WordPress
Sequitoon wrote:
> No argument here about your gripe with the current state of affairs with
> comics. But the ones you need to direct it to is the editors of
> newspapers, not the cartoonists. Many of us try to push the envelope, and
> the reward is cancellation. The modern editor is absolutely petrified
> that their phone might ring and that they’ll actually have to talk to a
> reader who is offended. So they try to circumvent such an occurance by
> running as bland material as they can find. Somehow these pinheads can’t
> quite figure out that if they get 10 people, or even 100 people, calling
> to complain, that still means there are THOUSANDS of their readers who
> AREN’T complaining. Yet they give all the credence in the world to the
> loud minority, and none to the satisfied customers.
> Then they wonder why the newspaper industry is going down the toilet.
> Wiley
Hey, tell me about it. I ran the Quigmans as a Far Side replacement at our
paper, but I was told to get rid of it after three months. (Fortuately a
little strip called Non Sequitur had the good sense to offer itself in strip
or panel form at just the same time, so I switched to a Sequi-panel.)
Then after some other strip died in the Sunday paper I added You Can With
Beakman and Jax. The first strip in our paper? "Why is poop brown?" Yes! We
got calls but as I said to the ombudsman "Well, you learned why poop is
brown, didn’t you?" (bilirubins) Fortunately the strip is still running.
—
*************{snowflakes}*****************************************
Gail Gedan (gg…@inet.net)
Check out my homepage! (http://www.geocities.com/Paris/3344)
*************{yet more snowflakes}********************************
In article <4hpgrj$…@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Ted and Joanne Spieker
<tedj…@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Now, I read almost anything but the lamest of the lame (Blondie, Family
> Circus), but I have to admit that the comics are becoming more and more
> adult-oriented. We need more of a balance.
It’s a sad, sad fact of life that the majority of kids (and yeah, I
know there are lots of exceptions) have little or no contact with daily
newspapers. Newspapers worldwide are struggling to redefine themselves in
an era of declining literacy and in the face of the increasing likelihood
that computer-based media (like this) will finally overwhelm them. If
more comics appeal to adults (e.g., Dilbert) or oldsters (a la Family
Circus), its simply a reflection of the readership demographics — aging.
On the other hand, I’ve also noticed in recentl years that most stuff
made "for kids" is so hopelessly dumbed down that no sane kid would want
to waste her time on it. As a child in the 50′s I read every comic book I
could get my hands on, and I still remember some of the arcane facts that
I first learned from the Junior Woodchucks manual (far superior to the Boy
Scouts). I often encountered words I didn’t know, but if I wanted to get
the joke, I learned I had to either ask my folks or look them up for
myself. No such challenge today. No such comic books today. Thank
heaven for the "adult" (i.e., intelligent) strips — you know who you are.
. . . jim strain in san diego.
p.s. For those too young to remember, the Junior Woodchucks was the
organization to which Donald Duck’s nephews belonged. Whenever the Ducks
were in an impossible pickle, they turned to the Junior Woodchucks Manual,
which contained surprisingly factual info on everything from how to
operate a European locomotive (when the trains were halted by a general
strike), to Newtonian physics.
I have a feeling that not matter what decade you lived in during the
comics’ existence, the same could be said ("comics suck"). When we look at
the history of comics from our perspective we tend to remember only the
stand-outs of the past. We forget that, in any given year, the comics
pages were probably populated by a great many strips that did not stand
the test of time and those that were so down-right mediocre that they died
on their own or were dropped by their syndicates. I doubt that the ratio
of good or great comics to the mediocre and bad is much different today
than it ever was. It is just the nature of the business and history.
Joshua Carroll posted, "However, newspaper comics are seldom offensive or
outrageous."
Pushing the envelope, being "offensive or outrageous," in itself does not
make a comic strip great. There are many comics today that appear in
alternative media that try to push the envelope. Unfortunately, most of
them lack some of the other qualities that make a comic strip great. There
are also a few mainstream nationally syndicated strips that push the
envelope as well. It’s just that the daily newspaper envelope is much
smaller, to the dismay of comic strip creators. Some of the conservatism
of newspapers is justified by the fact that all of the comics must coexist
on the same page (with a couple of exceptions). Broadcast television has
much more freedom to schedule the envelope-pushing material so that
audiences can be more selective about what they or their children see.
Newspapers to not have that luxury. I am not defending this criticism
compeletely. Newspapers do tend to go overboard in that conservatism, and
they certainly need to loosen up. There is still plenty of room to allow
more freedom to creators without adbicating their duty to keep the
newspaper fit for general readership.
The most common problem cited by creators of newspaper comics, the
ever-shrinking size we have to work within, is a valid one. It has
certainly had an detrimental effect on the reproduction of the artwork,
and has forced the writing to conform to such a tight space that dialogue
is more difficult to work with. That being said, the best comic strip
creators will still find a way to create high quality material despite
these limitations. The mediocre ones will still be mediocre or worse,
since they don’t have the skills to adapt.
I’ve just noticed that there’s more space in this posting for writing than
there is in a week’s worth of strips, so I’ll finish. Criticism of the
current state of comic strips has validity. Just remember, though, that
there is still a lot of material out there to laugh at. Twenty years from
now, those will be the strips people will bringing up as examples of
excellence when _they_ are lamenting that "comics suck."
Rick Kirkman
Baby Blues
"He who seeks the metaphysical cause of laughter cracks no
smile"–Voltaire? Dr. Wayne Dyer?
In article <jpstrain-0803960858220…@jpstrain.slip.netcom.com>,
jpstr…@netcom.com says…
>p.s. For those too young to remember, the Junior Woodchucks was the
>organization to which Donald Duck’s nephews belonged. Whenever the Ducks
>were in an impossible pickle, they turned to the Junior Woodchucks Manual,
>which contained surprisingly factual info on everything from how to
>operate a European locomotive (when the trains were halted by a general
>strike), to Newtonian physics.
If you want a marvelous tale spun aroung the Woodchucks manual, get last years
Don Rosa Gladstone Uncle Scrooge Adventures comic which tells the tale of the
origin of the Woodchucks Manual. It is a marvelous journey through history,
space, time, and the irony of being. The epitome of the great characteristics
in the comics of an earlier time you praised, which Don Rosa is still striving
to maintain.
The dumbing down of comics is not a phenomenon isolated to the comics. I taught
public schools in the 70′s, and the movement in American culture was already
disastrously under way. I got out of that culture and switched careers becuase
I got tired of fighting a losing battle. So I second the call for comics with
the kind of wit, intelligence, and content kids need to grow up something more
than gameboy morons.
Thanks for listening to the 2cents worth,
Ron.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Ronald D. Edge Manager of Information Systems *
* Indiana University Intercollegiate Athletics *
* 1001 East 17th St Bloomington, IN 47405 *
* e…@indiana.edu voice: 812-855-4978 fax: 812-855-9401 *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
After Calvin & Hobbes ended and was replaced with Rhymes With Orange, a
young boy, about 10 or 12, wrote a letter to The Hartford Courant asking
why there were so few comics that kids could understand. It seems to me
that "in my day", (I’m 37), there were 2 kinds of comics: the soap opera
kind (Mary Worth, Rex Morgan) which I hated, and everything else, which I
loved.
Until I read that kid’s letter, I never thought about this: most of the
kid-friendly comics are old & lame (Hi & Lois, Blondie, Family Circus,
Marmaduke, Funky W.). There are a few (Fox Trot, Jump Start, For Better or
For Worse, Peanuts) that appeal to adults and children. But, with the
exception of Fox Trot and Jump Start, all of the comics that The Courant
has picked up in recent years are adult-oriented. I don’t think kids get
Dilbert, The Quigmans, Bizarro, Rhymes With Orange; my 9 year-old
surprised me the other day by mentioning that she liked Thatch, which is
another one I don’t think would appeal to most kids.
Now, I read almost anything but the lamest of the lame (Blondie, Family
Circus), but I have to admit that the comics are becoming more and more
adult-oriented. We need more of a balance. I’d like to see The Courant
drop the soap opera comics and pick up some more strips that appeal to
both kids & adults without being sickly-sweet and way outdated. There
should be room for all kinds of new comics, if the papers had the courage
to put the old stand-bys out of their misery and take a chance on
something new. It amazes me, reading this newsgroup, how many comics I’m
missing out on, because The Courant needs to carry Blondie and Beetle
Bailey every day.
Joanne
Offense and outrage as ends in themselves are pretentious. However, they
are good guages of risk-taking in the arts. The bland quality of comics
is buried in the bland quality of most newspapers. The corperate whip
cracks and the doggies jump, be they behind drawings boards or PCs. Not
much has changed except the price of paper (and if the bastards still
used hemp even that might be the same).
josh
http://www.teleport.com/~jcarroll/tonar5.gif
"That’s what they say. When I find out who they are I’ll kill the
motherfuckers." – Charles Bukowski
In article <4ho2aq$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Sequitoon
<sequit…@aol.com> wrote:
>Somehow these pinheads can’t quite figure out that if they get 10 people,
>or even 100 people, calling to complain, that still means there are
>THOUSANDS of their readers who AREN’T complaining. Yet they give all the
>credence in the world to the loud minority, and none to the satisfied
>customers. Then they wonder why the newspaper industry is going down the
>toilet. Wiley
While I agree with Wiley’s sentiment, his argument is nonsense as
phrased. Readers tend not to complain in large numbers about anything,
so the deafening lack of noise from the majority could be interpreted by
editors in any way they want to — it no more suggests that it’s really
OK to carry Ernie, Rall, and Sequitoon than it suggests that it’s really
OK to carry Nancy, Hagar, and Blondie. (It also ignores the relative
political and financial clout that various segments of the populace —
like, oh, advertisers and church leaders — have.) So, yes, editorial
cravenness is primarily a response to market pressure, even if it’s
misperceived.
Which is why I say again — if you want to make the point that readers
would be happier to buy papers avidly if the new and interesting replaced
the old and boring, but that reader surveys just don’t demonstrate that
because they’re filled out by retirees and fanatic Buchanites, there’s
only one way to make your point: get someone to do a proper survey,
shove it in their faces, and demonstrate to them that they can do well
financially by doing good. Anything less is just pointless bitching.
—
<><><> … who is disappointed that now we’ll probably *never* get a
Greg<> Special Prosecutor to investigate Lamar Alexander’s finances …
<>/\<>
<>\/<> I’ll start a hunger strike if they *do* let Alan Keyes debate.
In article <4i7up6$…@nadine.teleport.com>, joshua carroll <jcarr…@teleport.com> writes:
> The real irony here is that people aren’t buying all that many papers
> anyway. It’s not just the comics page and editorial sections that are
> a-reekin’ lately, it’s everything. Our local daily, the Oregonian, is
> full of wire service rewrites and shitty, shallow columns by writers who
> have almost nothing to say. And the copyediting is godawful as well,
> with numerous syntax and clarity errors. From what I’ve seen, this is
> the case in most cities.
> My high school journalism teacher would be ashamed.
Maybe they oughta take lessons from the computer network. There
are some newsgroups that reek of writers with nothing to say.
(Present company excepted. :-)
The newspaper industry is confronted by a crisis, the hemorrhaging of
circulation numbers, and is fast on its way to becoming an irrelevant news
source. Some of the industry response is healthy — such as newspapers’
race to establish themselves on the internet. But from my admittedly
limited perspective, I see a fear-induced conservatism regarding comics,
the reasoning for which goes beyond reader surveys. Any sane industry
whose core customer base was as alarmingly geriatric as the newspaper
industry’s would launch radical initiatives to reverse the demographic
slide. But many editors’ decisions (or lack of decisions) on comics seem
to be based on a paralyzing fear of offending readers who aren’t even
going to be around in 10-20 years. Given the importance of comics (survey
after survey shows that comics are one of the most popular and well-read
parts of a newspaper), you’d think newspapers would be falling all over
themselves trying to use that medium to attract younger readers and to
show them that their sensibilities are represented in the paper.
Self-interestedly yours,
Ruben Bolling
The real irony here is that people aren’t buying all that many papers
anyway. It’s not just the comics page and editorial sections that are
a-reekin’ lately, it’s everything. Our local daily, the Oregonian, is
full of wire service rewrites and shitty, shallow columns by writers who
have almost nothing to say. And the copyediting is godawful as well,
with numerous syntax and clarity errors. From what I’ve seen, this is
the case in most cities.
My high school journalism teacher would be ashamed.
josh
http://www.teleport.com/~jcarroll/tonar4.gif
In article <4i5hop$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com> tedr…@aol.com (Tedrall) writes:
>Greg Diamond wrote:
>>Which is why I say again — if you want to make the point that readers
>>would be happier to buy papers avidly if the new and interesting replaced
>>the old and boring, but that reader surveys just don’t demonstrate that.
>>There’s only one way to make your point: get someone to do a proper
>>survey, shove it in their faces, and demonstrate to them that they can
>>do well financially by doing good. Anything less is just pointless
>>bitching.
>But since we poor starving cartoonists don’t have the hundreds of
>thousands of dollars necessary to do serious reader surveys, what is
>realistically needed is editors with great personal taste in comics and
>the guts to know that their taste is good.
>Ted Rall
I tend to agree with Greg Diamond – if you don’t like the way things are
it is up to you to create an alternative and/or show that another way
is better. You be the Editor!
The question interested me, so I researched the comics page of the
Rocky Mountain News, Denver, at ten year intervals. I noted everything
on the comics page and as many other comics as I could find elsewhere
in the paper.
Abbie ‘n Slats 1966 1956 1946 =3
Alley Oop 1996 1986 1976 1966 1956 1946 1936 =7
Annie 1996 1986 =2
Archie 1966 =1
Baby Blues 1996 =1
Barney Baxter in the Air 1936 =1
Benchley 1986 =1
Berry’s World 1996 1976 =2
The Better Half 1966 =1
Bloom County 1986 =1
Boomer’s Song 1986 =1
Boots 1956 1946 =2
Boots and her Buddies 1936 =1
The Born Loser 1996 1986 =2
Bugs Bunny 1966 1956 =2
Caldwell 1986 =1
Calvin and Hobbes 1986 =1
Captain Easy 1976 1966 **** **** **** =5
Chaos 1996 =1
The Circus of PT Bimbo 1976 =1
Crankshaft 1996 =1
Crock 1986 =1
Dann Dunn 1936 =1
Doonesbury 1996 1986 1976 =3
Drabble 1996 1986 =2
The Dropouts 1976 =1
Eek & Meek 1966 =1
Ella Cinders 1946 =1
Ernie 1996 =1
The Family Circus 1996 1986 1966 =3
Ferd’nand 1966 1956 =2
For Better or For Worse 1996 1986 =2
Fox Trot 1996 =1
Frank & Ernest 1996 1986 =2
Freckles 1946 =1
Funky Winkerbean 1996 1986 =2
Fusco Brothers 1996 =1
Garfield 1996 =1
Geech 1996 1986 =2
Gopher Gus and Scoop Jones 1936 =1
The Great Atomic After- 1976 =1
math and Fresh Fruit
Festival
Gumdrop 1986 =1
Hagar the Horrible 1996 1986 =2
Hartland 1986 =1
Heathcliff 1986 =1
Herman 1986 1976 =2
Hi & Lois 1996 1986 =2
Horrorscope 1996 =1
Ick 1996 =1
In the Bleachers 1996 =1
Kerry Drake 1976 1966 1956 =3
Joe Palooka 1936 =1
Li’l Abner 1966 1956 1946 1936 =4
Little Eve 1956 =1
Little Liz 1956 =1
Little Sport 1956 =1
Long Sam 1956 =1
Marmaduke 1996 1986 =2
Marvin 1986 =1
Miles to Go 1986 =1
Mother Goose & Grimm 1996 1986 =2
Mutts 1996 =1
Nancy 1986 1976 1966 1956 1946 =5
Non Sequitur 1996 =1
Our Boarding House 1966 1956 1946 1936 =4
Out Our Way 1966 1956 1946 1936 =4
Over the Hedge 1996 =1
Peanuts 1996 1986 1976 1966 1956 =5
Pickles 1996 =1
Pluggers 1996 =1
Pogo 1966 1956 =2
Pot-Shots 1996 =1
Real Life Adventures 1996 =1
Robotman 1996 1986 =2
Rose is Rose 1996 1986 =2
Shoe 1996 1986 =2
Shortribs 1976 1966 =2
Side Glances 1936 =1
Sydney 1986 =1
Tank McNamara 1986 1976 =2
Ter’rble T 1956 =1
Tizzie 1966 =1
Tumbleweeds 1986 1976 =2
Twin Earths 1956 =1
Wash Tubbs **** **** 1956 1946 1936 =5
Willy’N'Ethel 1996 1986 =2
Winthrop 1966 =1
Wordsmith 1976 =1
Ziggy 1996 1986 =2
Zippy 1996 =1
—- —- —- —- —- —- —-
90 strips total 39 36 15 19 19 10 11
Statistics, averages
The mode for the strips was 1 appearance in this survey.
The median for the strips was 1 appearance in this survey.
The mean for the strips was 1.7 appearances in this survey.
The results are muddied a bit because at least one strip changed its name
during the course of this survey. And because some strips fall on the
boundary of this survey and get chopped in the statistics.
1946 definitely had larger strips. 1936, by contrast, looked small.
I note that today’s readers have more strips to read than the readers of
the other survey years. !
Perhaps someone else can rate these strips by good or bad, and figure
the percentage of good to bad at each survey year. Perhaps someone
else will do a similar survey of their hometown paper. I am currently
do the same survey on Denver’s other newspaper, the Denver Post.
David Olson, my posting, my response, my research.
Given the recent surge of three-prong youth marketing (feature, toy,
food) and its obvious success (as witnessed by Burger King’s Pochohontas
burger ‘n’ toys campaign) one can only conclude that the corperate world
has engaged in an intense campaign to turn Americas very young into
in-house sales representatives who lobby their parents at every turn.
One hour of saturday morning cartoons will convince anybody that it must
be working.
Newspapers are doing it too, but the audience is supposedly mature. USA
Today set a precedent with pie-graphs, four color ads and fluffy
front-page features that most metro papers seem to be following. It
seems now that the major editorial criterion is this: DON’T UPSET THE
ADVERTISERS!!!
Especially not in the comics page.
Too bad that 900 number ads have such a bad rep….they give a paper
some degree of impugnity in publishing controversial material.
josh
http://www.teleport.com/~jcarroll/city.gif
In article <4iac33$…@tel.den.mmc.com>,
dol…@den.mmc.com (David W. Olson) wrote:
>Boots and her Buddies 1936 =1
>Dann Dunn 1936 =1
>Gopher Gus and Scoop Jones 1936 =1
>Joe Palooka 1936 =1
>Side Glances 1936 =1
I can’t believe they got rid of Boots and her Buddies. That strip ROCKED!
—————-
Steve Silberberg
stev…@onramp.net
http://rampages.onramp.net/~stevebo/
Does anyone actually read the comics to their kids anymore? That’s MY
beef! I have a six year old and when I try to read him the comics I spend
15 seconds reading the strip and 15 MINUTES trying to explain the subtle
adult satire and references that make it funny.
Needless to say, I don’t take the time to do that very often…
Can’t someone write a comic that a REAL kid can enjoy and laugh at?
art
In article <4irn72$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, arts…@aol.com (ARtSbOx) wrote:
> Does anyone actually read the comics to their kids anymore? That’s MY
> beef! I have a six year old and when I try to read him the comics I spend
> 15 seconds reading the strip and 15 MINUTES trying to explain the subtle
> adult satire and references that make it funny.
> Needless to say, I don’t take the time to do that very often…
> Can’t someone write a comic that a REAL kid can enjoy and laugh at?
A child too young to read the comics on his/her own neither wants nor
needs an explanation of the adult satire. It’s enough to sit for a few
minutes in dad’s lap and have him share something that is supposed to be
funny or fun. If you’ll just keep doing that and forget the explanations,
some day you’ll be very pleasantly surprised. Guaranteed.
. . . jim strain in san diego.
The great thing about Warner catoons was that they worked on at least
two levels all the time. While the goofy slapstick was occuring, Daffy
would have a very adult (and occasionally illuminating) aside for the
audience. Damned few cartoonists know that trick (sorry, Ted…Watterson
did this regularly…sniff)
josh
http://www.teleport.com/~jcarroll/c+cradio.gif
>>In my own youth, too, I remember many times reading a comic strip that I
knew was intended to be funny, but missing the point. Then, maybe years
later, I read something in the news and Bingo! I got the joke. (This
happened regularly with _Pogo_.) In that way, I found the comics to be
a small education in themselves.<<
Many people have had similar experiences with "kiddie" shows such as
"Beany & Cecil" and "Rocky & Bullwinkle." I remember being very surprised
when my mother turned of the "Aesop & Son" version of Androcles & the LIon
because she just KNEW the Lion would eat Androcles and she couldn’t
stomach it. I protested, she turned it back on, the Lion DID eat Andy
(offscreen) and I thought my Mom was psychic.
In article <4iac33$…@tel.den.mmc.com>,
David W. Olson <dol…@den.mmc.com> wrote:
>The question interested me, so I researched the comics page of the
>Rocky Mountain News, Denver, at ten year intervals. I noted everything
>on the comics page and as many other comics as I could find elsewhere
>in the paper.
>Abbie ‘n Slats 1966 1956 1946 =3
>Alley Oop 1996 1986 1976 1966 1956 1946 1936 =7
etc.
Since I don’t think anyone else has said it, I just wanted to thank David
Olson for a real contribution. Arguing without data is fun, but arguing
with data is even more fun, and more productive.
—
<><><> "As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have
Greg<> its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will
<>/\<> cease to be popular."
<>\/<> — Oscar Wilde
In article <4irn72$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, arts…@aol.com (ARtSbOx) wrote:
>I have a six year old and when I try to read him the comics I spend
>15 seconds reading the strip and 15 MINUTES trying to explain the subtle
>adult satire and references that make it funny.
Big deal. Try explaining Zippy to your kid. Hell, explain it to me some time.
—————-
Steve Silberberg
stev…@onramp.net
http://rampages.onramp.net/~stevebo/
In article <jpstrain-2103961047180…@jpstrain.slip.netcom.com>, jpstr…@netcom.com (Jim Strain) writes:
> In article <4irn72$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, arts…@aol.com (ARtSbOx) wrote:
>> Does anyone actually read the comics to their kids anymore? That’s MY
>> beef! I have a six year old and when I try to read him the comics I spend
>> 15 seconds reading the strip and 15 MINUTES trying to explain the subtle
>> adult satire and references that make it funny. [...]
> A child too young to read the comics on his/her own neither wants nor
> needs an explanation of the adult satire. It’s enough to sit for a few
> minutes in dad’s lap and have him share something that is supposed to be
> funny or fun. If you’ll just keep doing that and forget the explanations,
> some day you’ll be very pleasantly surprised. Guaranteed.
I’ve read comics to my progeny off and on for years, sometimes with and
sometimes without explanations. When one son was in kindergarten, the
teacher told us that when she made a funny remark, it would usually zip
right over the class’s heads, but she would notice Reed off to one side
with a wry grin.
In my own youth, too, I remember many times reading a comic strip that I
knew was intended to be funny, but missing the point. Then, maybe years
later, I read something in the news and Bingo! I got the joke. (This
happened regularly with _Pogo_.) In that way, I found the comics to be
a small education in themselves.
– Gwillim Law
In article <4j4399$…@news.onramp.net>, stev…@onramp.net (Steve
Silberberg) wrote:
> Big deal. Try explaining Zippy to your kid. Hell, explain it to me
> some time.
Ditto. I wish someone could clue me in as to what the
hell is supposed to be funny, or even just interesting,
about this comic. It’s stooopid. No, no, it’s moronic.
–john
>>Ditto. I wish someone could clue me in as to what the
hell is supposed to be funny, or even just interesting,
about this comic [Zippy]. It’s stooopid. No, no, it’s moronic<<
ALBERT: Foo you own self– It don’t mean nothin and I don’t unnerstand it.
OWL: Yo’ doesn’t understand Russian, so Russian means nothin’?
WORM: NYET!
CHURCHY: Spoken like a white Pravda.
In article <john_dingman-2603960844590…@199.4.254.86>, john_ding…@sterling.com (John Dingman) writes:
> In article <4j4399$…@news.onramp.net>, stev…@onramp.net (Steve
> Silberberg) wrote:
>> Big deal. Try explaining Zippy to your kid. Hell, explain it to me
>> some time.
> Ditto. I wish someone could clue me in as to what the
> hell is supposed to be funny, or even just interesting,
> about this comic. It’s stooopid. No, no, it’s moronic.
A major essence of humor is the unexpected or the incongruous. Jerks,
jolts, sudden jumps (the sound of "K" is supposed to be funny.)
Zippy (and Griffy to some extent) see the world in a way that is way
out of the ordinary, with observations made and views expressed that
are odd, quirky, disjointed. Some people see the discrepancies, some
don’t, some live it. Griffy uses this structure of wackiness to
slip in his criticisms of the mindless, tasteless culture of sheeple
who buy into whatever the commerical ad fantasy makers sell. I
couldn’t enjoy a majority of strips using Zippy’s style, but I’d
sorely miss the rare "spice" of surrealism the strip provides.
Tastes vary – if everyone liked it it would stink, IMHO.
In article <1996Mar26.132127.1@stosc>, <hatha…@stsci.edu> wrote:
> A major essence of humor is the unexpected or the incongruous. Jerks,
>jolts, sudden jumps (the sound of "K" is supposed to be funny.)
>Zippy (and Griffy to some extent) see the world in a way that is way
>out of the ordinary, with observations made and views expressed that
>are odd, quirky, disjointed. Some people see the discrepancies, some
>don’t, some live it. Griffy uses this structure of wackiness to
>slip in his criticisms of the mindless, tasteless culture of sheeple
>who buy into whatever the commerical ad fantasy makers sell. I
>couldn’t enjoy a majority of strips using Zippy’s style, but I’d
>sorely miss the rare "spice" of surrealism the strip provides.
To me, one mark of poor craft is arbitrariness. My main complaint about
the post-comic-book incarnation of Zippy is that the humor seems mostly
arbitrary. What I’ve wanted to do for some time is to doctor up some
Zippy cartoons to show to "Zippy" fans, with Zippy’s non sequiturs mixed
up from one day’s strip to the next. My guess is that it would not make
much of a difference at all to the humor content, such as it is. I’ve
felt for a long time that Zippy’s malaprops exist only to allow Griffith,
through Griffy, to spout his pained aspirant-to-cynicism schlemiel world
view. Now, as world views go, Bill Griffith’s is more tolerable than
most, but it’s rarely funny and not enough to carry the cartoon — and
hitting the reader over the head with a big sign saying that "Life is
Absurd" (the ostensible "message" of Zippy’s character) doesn’t help.
—
<><><> "As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have
Greg<> its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will
<>/\<> cease to be popular."
<>\/<> — Oscar Wilde