Post Content

B.C., 4/14/06

I’m not a Christian, but I have no objections whatsoever to Johnny Hart doing Jesus-themed cartoons, really. Especially this weekend. Hart loves Jesus, this weekend is the holiest in the Christian calendar, so: knock yourself out. Bonus points for not hating on Darwin or the Jews.

What I object to is Johnny Hart doing Jesus-themed cartoons that make absolutely no sense. Is “stood on the truth” an idiomatic expression that anyone has used, at any time, ever, such that it would justify the word “truth” being carved, in faux Roman capitals, on an ant-sized podium in the middle of bleak ancient/post-apocolyptic hellscape, in order to set up this joke (and I’m using the term “joke” loosely)? In case you had trouble following that sentence, I’ll supply the answer to the question, which is: No.

(Also, the word “truth” doesn’t occur in John 1:14, in case you’re wondering.)

(UPDATE: Er, so it’s been pointed out to me that “truth” is in fact the last word in John 1:14. Apparently I looked up that verse, scanned it, didn’t see the word “truth”, and never got to the end. I’m as bad as Jeffy Keane (see below)!)

But hey, at least he managed to keep his eye on divine, soul-saving ball for the whole strip:

Family Circus, 4/14/06

It looks like this one started out as being Jesus-themed (“Mary”, “lamb” — lamb of God!) but then fell prey to the irresistible pull of an adorable malapropism. I’m pretty sure that people would read the Bible more often if it featured less smiting and thundering against hypocrites and more little kids mispronouncing words in hilarious ways.

Post Content

Hi and Lois, 2/10/06

Sally Forth, 2/10/06

B.C., 2/10/06

A recent study has shown that many online arguments start because it’s difficult to convey one’s tone through text alone. Thus, we must pity the poor cartoon character, trapped in a world where all conversation is conducted via written letters floating just above hair level in word balloons. How are they to detect that most important arrow in any post-modern humorist’s quiver, sarcasm? Maybe Chip isn’t being fresh; maybe he has some sort of horrible disease that’s throwing his body temperature out of whack. When Hi is weeping bitterly over his son’s early grave, he’ll no doubt be begging a cruel God to let him go back in time and never spout this little quip.

The Forths over in Sally Forth at least have been given a vital clue for text based communications — the quotation mark, which as we know often indicates sarcasm (especially when it takes the form of “air quotes”). Still, Ted doesn’t pick up on it, proving his dorktacular cluelessosity (as if his peach-colored golf shirt weren’t clue enough).

Finally, if you need someone to take things too far into total incomprehensible insanity, well, you can always count on B.C. How many Nurenberg-level Crimes Against Punctuation are perpetrated in this strip? Panel two at least deploys the correct method of nesting punctuation marks (double on the outside, single on the inside), while panel one uses British-style single quotes for no good reason. Putting that aside, though: are the quotes around “gag rule” meant to “clue us in” that they’re going to be “key” to the upcoming “punchline?” Do we need quotes around “hurling” because otherwise we won’t get that it’s a synonym for “vomiting”? Does “voted-in” need quote marks at all, or for that matter a “hyphen”? These questions will never be answered, but it’s “important” that they be asked.

Post Content

B.C., 1/24/06

Shoe, 1/24/06

The Lockhorns, 1/24/06

I love it when people write angry letters to the paper. I’m a connoisseur of ridiculously overblown outrage. My favorites, as you might imagine, are the people who complain about the comics, how they are full of sleaze like single mothers and gays and uppity Negroes and people who use the word “butt” and/or “Jesus Christ” (the latter irreverently) and won’t someone please think of the CHILDREN? It’s always the CHILDREN who must be protected, because, as we all know, the CHILDREN are the ones who read the comics pages.

Well, if I were a child, I would be less disturbed by gratuitous use of the word “butt” and more by authors who think that its funny to admit that you have no concept of how high tech devices work. If I were around 8, I’d just be puzzled that there was anyone out there who was so dense; if I were around 12, I would just feel disgust and contempt for such fogeys. I don’t mean to hate on those who are baffled by all our modern conveniences — I’m sure that fifty years from now all the kids with their skull-installed data ports will be mocking me — but today’s Shoe and B.C. just seem to exude a certain stubborn pride in not getting it. (Does Johnny Hart really think that the word “iPod” should appear in a different font from the rest of the sentence? Does he even know what one is, outside the context of those ads with the shadow people?) The Lockhorns, meanwhile, doesn’t even bother to engage with technology, and merely seems to believe that mother-in-law-joke + “e-” prefix designating technology of some kind = comedy gold.

Some comics actually do a good job of dealing with technology jokes. Dilbert and Fox Trot are obvious examples; and For Better or for Worse does a pretty good job of showing how Internet communication is a casual part of people’s lives (particularly young people’s lives). Even Cathy’s endless Irving-becomes-obsessed-with-some-gadget storylines ring true in terms of how some people go a little tech-crazy. Those plots still aren’t funny, mind you, but they don’t come off like they’re being pounded out by some gin-crazed 90-year-old on a aging Selectric typewriter, or shouted into one of those old-timey phones with a crank on the side.

Oh, and I couldn’t let this one by:

Words to live by, my friend. Words to live by.