Post Content

Doonesbury, 8/4/04

Baby boomers! Who doesn’t love ’em? Well, their parents probably didn’t like it when they rose up and rejected age-old values like unquestioning patriotism, tie-wearing, and regular baths. And we who are their kids got pretty annoyed by their endless nattering on about how they changed the world and invented free love and took drugs and blah blah blah and, oh yeah, you shouldn’t be doing any of that stuff, so go do your homework.

Maybe their grandkids will have a little distance from the whole thing.

But boy howdy, baby boomers sure do love baby boomers. When you read the boomer-drawn Doonesbury, especially in the long term, you’ll notice that it’s the boomers who are inevitably the viewpoint characters. Now, I’ve always loved this strip; I’ve used old anthologies as my primary source about what young people thought about politics and popular culture during the Nixon administration. But future generations will use today’s strips to find out what middle-aged people think about the Iraq war, which, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, is a wee bit less exciting.

Today’s strip is a good example. In both 1974 and 2004, you have parent-child arguments in Doonesbury. But back then it was the parents who were old, out of touch, reactionary, unable to appreciate good music, and hostile towards issues that really mattered; now, it’s the kids who are young, ignorant, unable to appreciate good music, and willfully apathetic towards issues that really matter.

Payback’s a bitch, ain’t it, Gary?

Post Content

Garfield, 8/3/04

There’s so much evidence of Garfield’s artistic, intellectual, and moral laziness, but I think this is enough to give you a picture. If Garfield can’t talk (and he can’t) why is he cupping his hand by the side of his (not open) mouth to shout his withering insult after Jon?

Well, smart guy? Why?

Also, why does he hate Mondays so much if he doesn’t have a job?

OK, my work is done here. I hope that Bill Murray now regrets his decision on how to follow up his Oscar-nominated Lost in Translation role.

Post Content

Cathy, 8/2/04

Comics readers across the world were stunned when Cathy of Cathy accepted (apparently on accident) her long-time beau Irving’s proposal of marriage earlier this year. If you’re like me (and if you’ve stuck with this blog for this long, I’m assuming you’re at least a little bit like me), your first reaction was “Oh please God, let this be the end of the strip! Please! PLEASE!”

Cathy has long defined itself by being centered on a single career woman, and, more specifically, by tapping into every ugly stereotype of career women, or for that matter women generally; her grating, monomaniacal obsessions endear her to absolutely nobody I know, or, for that matter, to any of the other characters in the strip. But now that the strip’s raison d’être — namely, Cathy’s unique and fascinating status as a single female — will be no more, surely we can all breathe a sigh relief as she and Irving and their dogs ride off onto their honeymoon and the strip’s space is taken over by a newcomer.

That is, unless the strip continues, exploring Cathy’s neurotic reaction to marriage, family life, and potentially children. Hmmm … that is rich humorous territory — plus, it’s material that’s almost never explored on the comics pages! It’s sure-fire comedy gold!

On a more personal level, I’d like to point out that I’m getting married next year and of course am in the midst of the wedding-planning process — and thus for months will see that process vomited back at me in a most unappealing way in Cathy. Thank you, Gods of the Comics!

Bonus fact: Universal Press Syndicate’s Cathy site includes a number of (significantly out-of-date) character bios, including this extremely convoluted one for Irving: “Cathy’s on-again off-again relationship with Irving is currently ‘off,’ but judging by their history together, it’s unlikely that he won’t reappear to stir up the relationship waters once again.” I think we’re all glad that he beat the odds against his not reappearing once more.