Post Content

Ziggy, 8/5/04

Willy ‘n Ethel, 8/5/04

Several times on any given day, the compulsive comics reader will think to him or herself, That’s not funny. What’s more rare, and therefore more precious and intriguing, are those moments where we think, I don’t even understand why that’s supposed to be funny.

But today, ladies and gentlemen, we have a pair, a two-fer, a bifecta of incomprehensible comics. Take the scene of turmoil at Casa Ziggy. Ziggy is angry (and when’s the last time you saw Ziggy angry?); his little dog is confused, or surprised, or possibly sad (you can only express so much emotional nuance through eyebrows). But why is the parrot’s statement eliciting these reactions? Is the dog upset and disillusioned that Lassie has stooped so low as to pose in the nude? Since they’re all watching TV (and presumably watching Lassie), does Ziggy’s dog realize that they’re watching a nude scene and suddenly feel uncomfortable and weird?

This all might make more sense if I could remember whether Lassie (or Ziggy’s dog, for that matter) was male or female. But then again, it probably wouldn’t.

At least in Ziggy I have a sense of what’s going on, if not the motivations behind the characters’ reactions. Meanwhile, Willy ‘n Ethel, a strip that is not traditionally difficult to parse (Willy is lazy! Ethel doesn’t like it! Ethel’s sister is fat! Willy is lazy!) is on a whole different plane of baffling today. All I’m getting out of it is that Willy got hit in the head, possibly by a T-Ball bat. Other than that, it’s completely opaque. “She”? “T-Ball”? “Master”? Buh?

Anyway, I’m posting these to lend assurance to anyone who’s ever said “I don’t get it”: you are not alone! And if there’s some comics guru out there who does have a notion as to what the hell these two strips are about, please post your explanation in the comments. Your fame shall be everlasting, and I’ll post the best explanations in the blog.

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.