Main content:

It begins

Garfield, 8/20/05

My personal curmudgeonly opinion is that the less said about the 75th anniversary Blondie mutual wank-a-thon, the better, but I feel compelled to drag Saturday’s Garfield out to help illustrate why comics characters drawn by different artists shouldn’t be put in close proximity to one another. Because I’ve been reading Garfield pretty much since I achieved rudimentary literacy, but it wasn’t until I saw Jon next to Dagwood that I realized that OH MY GOD HE HAS NO NOSE! I MEAN, LOOK AT HIM! HIS ENORMOUS, BULBOUS EYES ARE JUST SITTING DIRECTLY ABOVE HIS UPPER LIP! SWEET JESUS CHRIST THAT’S CREEPY! I’m sure the architects of this huge crossoverfest were looking to instill a sense of “warm and fuzzy” in their readers; for me, anyway, they got “aesthetically unsettled” instead.

This entry was posted on Monday, August 22, 2005 at 12:35 pm and is filed under Blondie, Garfield. |

50 responses to “It begins”

  1. Stosh
    August 22nd, 2005 at 12:47 pm [Reply]

    “Yesss! I won’t even have to think!”

    No line summarizes Garfield’s readership better.

  2. Lars
    August 22nd, 2005 at 12:47 pm [Reply]

    That’s a creepy strip.

  3. Lee
    August 22nd, 2005 at 12:49 pm [Reply]

    Stosh,

    It summarizes Garfield’s creator(s) even better.

  4. Steve
    August 22nd, 2005 at 12:51 pm [Reply]

    I liked the Mutts mailman today much better than the Saturday Garfield.

  5. jkdunham
    August 22nd, 2005 at 12:52 pm [Reply]

    In contrast to Jon’s bulbous eyes, I’m surprised that the fact that Dagwood doesn’t even HAVE eyeballs doesn’t creep you out…..

  6. WoodrowFan
    August 22nd, 2005 at 1:08 pm [Reply]

    forget the eyes, what happened to Dagwood’s ONE BIG BUTTON!?!?!?!

  7. buttload of fun
    August 22nd, 2005 at 1:17 pm [Reply]

    You know, I thought for the longest time that he had a huge nose and a teeny tiny mouth that was skewed (our) left-of-center. Now I don’t know what to think anymore.

  8. Ned
    August 22nd, 2005 at 1:31 pm [Reply]

    I just realized that a disturbing number of comic pets will be at this party (Garfield, Odie, Marmaduke, Barfy, &c.). If two of them find love together, God help us.

  9. Nom du Jour
    August 22nd, 2005 at 1:39 pm [Reply]

    I think that Barfy and Odie are going to use this opportunity to come clean with the world and come out of the closet.

  10. Stosh
    August 22nd, 2005 at 1:45 pm [Reply]

    “Dialogue and lettering will be provided”

    Woo hoo! Garfield’s staff of overworked creators have lucked out, and will get to do EVEN LESS WORK for a few days. God knows they deserve a lighter workload. How many people are on the staff? 20? 30?

  11. rich24
    August 22nd, 2005 at 2:09 pm [Reply]

    I heard the Garfield people state proudly once how their strips are produced a couple of years in advance (this one being an exception, obviously). Apparently they have a backlog of close to 1,000 tiresome, soulless, mass-produced “comics” awaiting their soulless, tiresome placement in the daily comics pages of 2006, 2007, 2008…

  12. TheMatt
    August 22nd, 2005 at 2:14 pm [Reply]

    I’m waiting to see what Stephan Pastis does with this. As he has often blasted the comics for keeping around 75-year old comics written by great-grandsons or the like, I imagine Rat and Pig aren’t getting invites.

    But you know he’ll have to comment somehow.

  13. Tommyp
    August 22nd, 2005 at 2:23 pm [Reply]

    Jon’s nose is that tiny little dash directly below his eyes

  14. Matt Estes
    August 22nd, 2005 at 2:29 pm [Reply]

    Garfield can’t talk, right? I mean, like his comments in this strip are in thought balloons, so he’s just thinking that stuff and not saying it out loud, right? So why invite him to your anniversary party? If he were a talking animal, that would be one thing, because at least everyone could stand around and gawk. And scope out the words written on the envelope; it’s clear that Jon and Garfield have been invited. So answer me this: why? Why would you specifically invite somebody’s cat to your anniversary party?!

    If this strip had come out twelve years ago, do you think they would have invited Calvin and his stuffed animal/imaginary friend that no one else can see? Do you think The Far Side would have gotten a letter, inviting mass amounts of fat ladies, cavemen, and nerdy little kids to come partake of the Bumstead’s anniversary feast? You’ve gotta wonder.

  15. Matt Estes
    August 22nd, 2005 at 2:34 pm [Reply]

    Incidentally, anybody else notice that in Sunday’s Blondie, Ellie Patterson and The King of Id are waving at each other? What are they, old friends?

  16. Tommyp
    August 22nd, 2005 at 2:36 pm [Reply]

    If you’re gonna invite Gary Larson, Don’t forget the cows wearing really ugly eyeglasses…

  17. Frank Drackman
    August 22nd, 2005 at 2:54 pm [Reply]

    In the Garfield 2d panel..he looks really well endowed

  18. Nom du Jour
    August 22nd, 2005 at 3:02 pm [Reply]

    Ellie and the King went royal roadside a few times. John didn’t notice because he was too busy with his trains. Had anyone from the Toonerville Trolly tried some trackside stuff with her, it would have been an entirely different situation.

    Didn’t anyone notice how much shorter April is than the rest of the Patterson clan?

  19. Fugu Dog
    August 22nd, 2005 at 3:05 pm [Reply]

    Why is Garfield laying like that? Did he just get laid? Back in the 80’s there was a comic where Garfield was gambling and doing cat nip, then woke in an alley with a Barbie doll laying in that same position.

  20. Sheila
    August 22nd, 2005 at 3:05 pm [Reply]

    Those bulging eyes in Garfield have always given me the creeps.

  21. Jocko
    August 22nd, 2005 at 3:25 pm [Reply]

    Speaking of crossovers checkout todays liberty meadows

    http://creators.com/comics_show.cfm?next=1&ComicName=lib

  22. zeno
    August 22nd, 2005 at 4:01 pm [Reply]

    Does Jon go to the same plastic surgeon as Michael Jackson?
    And why would all the auteurs trust somebody else to do the dialogue for their characters? In different hands, this could get interesting…

  23. DrBear
    August 22nd, 2005 at 4:19 pm [Reply]

    Sadly, Liberty Meadows is in perpetual reruns, at least on the Web site.

    And the idea of Garfield’s dialogue being done by, say, the folks at “Get Fuzzy” appeals to me in a strange way…”give me the lasagna, Rob, or be prepared to say goodbye to your naughty bits.”

  24. Dave
    August 22nd, 2005 at 4:43 pm [Reply]

    If you think that Garfield is disturbing, check out today’s Blondie, where all sorts of disturbing juxtapositions take place: http://www.blondie.com/dailies/index.asp

  25. Islamorada Girl
    August 22nd, 2005 at 4:52 pm [Reply]

    Wouldn’t it be great if some of Jack Chick’s characters showed up and told BC he was going to hell?

  26. Sheila
    August 22nd, 2005 at 5:45 pm [Reply]

    BTW, did you all see Zits today, and do you agree that Jeremy isn’t talking about the fish? Are we gearing up for another Columbine?

  27. Notary sojak
    August 22nd, 2005 at 6:32 pm [Reply]

    In all seriosity here, it woulda been clever if Blondie had resurrected some old-time characters like Moon Mullins and Smokey Stover for the big bash.

  28. Anderkoo
    August 22nd, 2005 at 6:51 pm [Reply]

    Old wounds, I know, but seeing this paired up with Rose is Rose’s invitation, in full color, was enough to send me into apoplexy yesterday morning.

  29. Chris
    August 22nd, 2005 at 7:00 pm [Reply]

    Someone mentioned in a previous entry that Mary Worth and Rita should be invited to the party If that’s the case, it would be pretty cool to see them all drunk.

  30. CoolJerk
    August 22nd, 2005 at 7:11 pm [Reply]

    I’m hoping that in a couple of strips, maybe an Al-Qaida truck-bomber from the current “Funky Winkerbean” storyline will plow into the Bumstead’s garage and extinguish the lot of them in one fell swoop (although, perhaps Jeremy from “Zits!” could survive, using Helga the Horrible’s endomorphic, Scandanavian man-body as a human shield).

  31. Chris
    August 22nd, 2005 at 7:50 pm [Reply]

    Funny thing is, the whole “Blondie” storyline isn’t really all that horrible. I mean, sure it’s bad, but compared to the most recent storylines offered by “Luann”, “Mary Worth”, “Funky Winkerbean”, and FBOFW, this is a “Pogo” masterpiece compared to them.

  32. Molly
    August 22nd, 2005 at 8:15 pm [Reply]

    Re: #14 — In Sunday’s Blondie http://www.blondie.com/dailies/index.asp Garfield’s talking on his way into the Bumstead’s house. Once given the magical power of speech, he’s clearly worth inviting to the party.

  33. Chet McCord, Wildlife Defender
    August 22nd, 2005 at 10:00 pm [Reply]

    I do believe the top right panel of the Blondie Sunday strip is a copy of a panel that has received some commentary before. Something about Blondies 75-year-old accoutrements.

    So now, I will have to go look for it, since I don’t hear anyone else volunteering. Sheesh…

  34. Chet McCord, Wildlife Defender
    August 22nd, 2005 at 10:28 pm [Reply]

    Here it is:
    Compare the first three panels here
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/king.htm?name=Blondie&date=20050710
    With those from last sunday:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/king.htm?name=Blondie&date=20050821

  35. PizzaBagel
    August 22nd, 2005 at 10:29 pm [Reply]

    Chet, here it is: See Josh’s 7/14/2005 post “Oldies but goodies” at
    the CC “Blondie” page     for the strip of, ahem, interest. The comments are at
    this page    .

  36. Chet McCord, Wildlife Defender
    August 22nd, 2005 at 11:25 pm [Reply]

    Yes, you’re right. I had found another set of duplicates, so I stopped looking. I suppose if we look for duplicate panels, we’ll start finding them throughout Blondie.

    And for some reason I could not locate the brilliant uplifting discussion of the pneumatic Blondie. Many thanks, indeed.

  37. Mary Brandt
    August 23rd, 2005 at 12:29 am [Reply]

    I just have to wonder what all the other strip artists will be doing for the duration of the “party”, since all their characters are currently in another strip.

  38. Dub Not Dubya
    August 23rd, 2005 at 2:07 am [Reply]

    Mary Brandt: “Let’s do the Time Warp again!”

  39. Mibbitmaker
    August 23rd, 2005 at 3:21 am [Reply]

    #8: It’ll probably get worse… the animals could get together and produce litters of new comic strips! We are very near the end of civilization.

    #37: I’d love to see all the strips in question just be empty, with only bare-bones familiar scenery showing. Kind of like in Bloom County’s strike storyline. It’d be… conceptual.

    All the juxtrapositions of characters all together in this thing…. “Sam’s Strip” is rolling over in its grave!

  40. Sheila
    August 23rd, 2005 at 4:57 am [Reply]

    Notary Sojak, that’s a GREAT idea! The hell with Garfield and Hagar — they should be inviting Li’l Abner, Pogo, Krazy Kat, Mr. Abernathy, Smokey Stover (isn’t that were “notary sojak” is from?), Little Iodine, the Katzenjammer Kids, and all of those old defunct strips. I’m sure there are some I’ve completely forgotten, that would be fun to see again.

  41. Smitty Smedlap
    August 23rd, 2005 at 8:04 am [Reply]

    I hope Dondi shows up — if only to prove that he’s Dagwood’s illegitimate child. He inherited Dag’s empty eye sockets.

  42. Lee
    August 23rd, 2005 at 11:15 am [Reply]

    Re #29:

    Chris, I think I was the one who brought up the possibility of Mary and Rita getting invited. Now it’s starting to sound like a good idea, if we can throw in a few Saint Pattersons. It would be amusing to see how they’d handle a drunken Rita.

  43. Nom du Jour
    August 23rd, 2005 at 1:22 pm [Reply]

    The Saint Pattersons will be offended by the idea that the Bumsteads are asking for cash for their second honeymoon cruise and not for gifts. They will not know what to do with the pair of porcelain swans they bought at Kresges.

  44. rich24
    August 23rd, 2005 at 2:34 pm [Reply]

    Ellie Patterson brings Elizabeth to the party to get her mind off Howard and Anthony. Lizzie immediately hooks up with the kid from “Zits”, further complicating her love life. They soon pile into a car, along with Dilbert, Beetle Bailey, and Chip from “Hi and Lois”, go “roadside” and make a “Dagwood sandwich.”

  45. Nom du Jour
    August 23rd, 2005 at 2:43 pm [Reply]

    and make a “Dagwood sandwich.”

    Which brings a whole new meaning to the phrase, hold the pickle.

  46. Brian
    August 23rd, 2005 at 3:55 pm [Reply]

    I was looking through some of the older “Garfield” strips, and it looks like Jon’s never had a nose. Always just that little curl above his upper lip. I wonder if that’s why Davis so rarely shows him in profile, he’s always only about 3/4s turned. His eyes have gotten huge like everyone else’s in that strip, but no real nose change.

    As for all the characters side by side, I agree it looks funny but I’m impressed with the artwork nonetheless. I gather it’s pretty hard to imitate someone else’s cartooning style so well. When all the cartoonists did that April Fools’ gag a few years ago ALL the cartoons looked odd. When I look at the Blondie strip the other day which had all the other characters, they ALL looked good. The only one that looked even a little off to me was Satch, and I think that was only because I’m not used to seeing him so far into the background. Either the other cartoonists contributed or I am very impressed with the skill of Blondie’s cartoonists.

  47. Lor
    August 23rd, 2005 at 6:04 pm [Reply]

    rich24, Nom: Spew of the day!

  48. David
    August 25th, 2005 at 11:36 pm [Reply]

    I just want to know how tall that damn table or whatever Garfield is laying on is. It comes up to Jon’s neck.

  49. JKS
    August 26th, 2005 at 3:59 pm [Reply]

    #34 – if you look at those 2 comics closely you’ll see that they’re not the same exact panels. the more recent ones are more “3-D”. the wall is flat and straight in the older ones, and it is seen on an angle in th enewer one. not saying the rest was’t the same, but, for the sake of argument or whatever, they’re not technically the same.

  50. mbt
    August 22nd, 2010 at 8:57 pm [Reply]

    MBT stands for “Masai Barefoot Technology.”Mbt anti shoes are physiological footwear – the first footwear that has a positive effect on the entire body. Designed using a multi-layered, curved sole which can have a positive impact in improving posture and gait, reducing stress on the knees and hips, and even help with joint, mbt stockists ligament and tendon injuries, women’s mbt shoes makes for a unique and rewarding walking experience.http://www.healthmbtsale.com/

Please read the posting and discussion policies before posting. You are not required to supply an e-mail address to comment; however, doing so decreases the likelihood of your comment being flagged as spam. E-mail addresses will never be made public or seen by anyone but the site writers, who may use them to communicate with commentors.

Leave a Reply

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. If you are HTML-savvy, you can use the following tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>