Was Garfield ever funny?
Jeff Somers
On Tue, 22 Apr 1997 02:16:30 GMT, rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt)
wrote:
>I don't wish for this to be taken as a flame or as a troll. If you
>love Garfield, more power to ya, but I beg for the answer, was
>Garfield ever funny?
>
>I remember as a young teen enjoying the strip but I can't think of any
>reason why. Somehow I remember the strip doing different things,
>Garfield saying something that didn't sound like the back of a
>greeding card. Did this happen or did I imagine it?
Here's how I look at Garfield: it's a strip for young kids. Kids
don't mind the simple humor and repetitive jokes. (Ever have to
listen to a youngster tell you a bunch of knock-knock jokes?
<Shudder>). So kids enjoy Garfield and as they grow up and their
tastes mature they wonder what they ever saw in it. Ideally, many
strips would appeal to both kids and adults, but we can't expect all
strips to be Calvin & Hobbes. Also, we shouldn't expect every strip
to be Dilbert, Doonesbury or Thatch because those strips sail right
over the heads of children. Yeah, I know, I know, I'm sure some of
you were analyzing the subtle nuances of Doonesbury when you were
seven, but I'm talking about the average kid here.
This doesn't really answer your question, though. My paper didn't
have Garfield when I was younger, so I don't know if the strip has
changed that much over the years.
jeff s.
jso...@tiac.net
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now, what
I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me. It'll
happen to you! -- Grandpa Simpson
Joshua Adam Hart
Personally, I think Garfield is quite funny. It's not as hilarious as many
other strips, but it's a good, dependable stand-by and has been for almost
20 years. I wasn't reading it when it started up (I think it was 1978) but
I have a few of the early collections. Other than the basic art style, the
strips are about the same as they've ever been...warm and fuzzy with an
occasional cynical bite that was that much more effective coming from such a
cute strip.
I also have a certain fondness for the "Garfield & Friends" cartoon series,
which was largely written by Mark Evanier, once of my favorite comedy
writers.
-jah!
-----------------------
Bastich the Comic Strip - http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~bastich/The_comic
-----------------------
Joshua Adam Hart - Computer Science, California State University, Chico
These opinions are mine alone. CSU Chico is irresponsible. <*>
Rob Merritt
I don't wish for this to be taken as a flame or as a troll. If you
love Garfield, more power to ya, but I beg for the answer, was
Garfield ever funny?
I remember as a young teen enjoying the strip but I can't think of any
reason why. Somehow I remember the strip doing different things,
Garfield saying something that didn't sound like the back of a
greeding card. Did this happen or did I imagine it?
Rob Merritt
http://www.jagunet.com/~robertm
Gwillim Law
In article <5jh793$l6n$2...@skydiver.jaguNET.com>, rob...@jagunet.com (Rob
Merritt) wrote:
>... was Garfield ever funny?
In the early years, there was some real zaniness mixed in with the fat and
lazy jokes. Jim Davis and his crew seem to have found that they could
crank out cat-with-an-attitude gags till the universe collapsed, but
inspired lunacy took more effort than they were willing to put out on a
regular basis.
But there's another factor. When we first meet a comic strip, if it has
any merit at all, it's not just the humor that we relish; it's partly the
style. It's the things that make this strip different from all the
others: the drawing style, the artist's world-view, the aspects of life
that he or she chooses to comment on. It's interesting to hear a new
voice. The novelty of Garfield has worn off for most of us now.
-- Gwillim Law
--
Gwillim Law
gw...@mindspring.com
Steve Simmons
gw...@mindspring.com (Gwillim Law) writes:
>>... was Garfield ever funny?
>In the early years, there was some real zaniness mixed in with the fat and
>lazy jokes. Jim Davis and his crew seem to have found that they could
>crank out cat-with-an-attitude gags till the universe collapsed, but
>inspired lunacy took more effort than they were willing to put out on a
>regular basis.
>But there's another factor. When we first meet a comic strip, if it has
>any merit at all, it's not just the humor that we relish; it's partly the
>style. It's the things that make this strip different from all the
>others: the drawing style, the artist's world-view, the aspects of life
>that he or she chooses to comment on. It's interesting to hear a new
>voice. The novelty of Garfield has worn off for most of us now.
I'm going to disagree with this. The very first Garfield collection is
a hoot. Good luck laying your hands on it, sorry, don't recall the
title. Garfield is much fatter than he is now. He's got a normal
sized head, piggy little eyes, never smiled, never was cute. He was
obese. Garfields novelty didn't wear off. He lost his edge and
got cute.
At the start it wasn't all fat jokes and `Garfield makes rude
remarks.' He was downright mean. None of this oh-so-cutesy tying bows
in Odies tongue, either. The first time he see Odie he kicks him
around the block. And who recalls Lyman, Johns roommate and Odies
owner? Or that John was polite and reasonably intelligent instead of
the fool-joke punch line he's become?
On of the high points of the early strips was the introduction of
`Nermal.' The initial appearances of `Nermal' lampooned all the tough-
but-cute cat strips out there (Motley, Heathcliffe, etc). Two years
later, Garfield himself became the very thing Nermal was lampooning.
Don't get me wrong, tho. Davis owns the strip and can do what he
pleases with it. I don't know if he conciously sought out a more
middle-of-the-road readership or if he got stale on the mean Garfield
or what. Doesn't matter, I guess.
Like a lot of folks, I'm a habit reader -- once I start reading a
newspaper strip, it's got to go stale for a long long time before I'll
start skipping it. Garfield gets skipped. And every couple of years I
dig out that first collection and still get a good laugh out of it.
Damn, now *that* was a cat.
Joseph Nebus
rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt) writes:
>I don't wish for this to be taken as a flame or as a troll. If you
>love Garfield, more power to ya, but I beg for the answer, was
>Garfield ever funny?
Yes, it was. For several years it was a viciously cynical and
extremely funny comic strip. Read the first several books. In fact, I'd
be willing to go so far as to say most anything from the strip before
about 1985 can be depended on to be pretty funny.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who personally suspects the strip in which Garfield notes he's tied
one end of this rope around Jon's foot, and the other end to a 747 headed
for Rome--in the third panel "calling" out "Arrivederchi, Jon!" as Jon
vanishes from view--will probably always make him laugh.
Henry Spencer
In article <5jh793$l6n$2...@skydiver.jaguNET.com>,
Rob Merritt <rob...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>I don't wish for this to be taken as a flame or as a troll. If you
>love Garfield, more power to ya, but I beg for the answer, was
>Garfield ever funny?
I found the first few Garfield collections worth buying and reading.
My enthusiasm for them did gradually fade.
--
Committees do harm merely by existing. | Henry Spencer
-- Freeman Dyson | he...@zoo.toronto.edu
Scott L. Kelly
Jeff Somers <jso...@tiac.net> wrote in article
<335c4912...@news.tiac.net>...
> Here's how I look at Garfield: it's a strip for young kids. Kids
> don't mind the simple humor and repetitive jokes. (Ever have to
> listen to a youngster tell you a bunch of knock-knock jokes?
> <Shudder>).
<snipped>
> jeff s.
> jso...@tiac.net
Yes! And the same knock-knock jokes. Over, and over, and over again. And
you're supposed to laugh, because you want to be a good dad (or mom, or
aunt/uncle/grandparent, etc.). <Double shudder> You hit the nail square
smack-dab on the head.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott L. Kelly
Escondido, CA
slk...@pacbell.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Douglas Pratt
: Personally, I think Garfield is quite funny.
Agreed! I really, truly think it's funny.
There is something absolutely captivating
to me about the concept of coming up with
a new twist on a familiar situation. And
I mean finding a new twist or a variation
over and over and over again. It's a real
discipline.
Here's a test. The next time you see an
installment where Garfield makes fun of
Jon's inability to get a date, ask yourself
why you hadn't thought of that exact variation
yourself. Try this with every other setting
used in "Garfield." In fact, why not sit
down and write just a week's worth of Garfield
strips? If the strip is that repetetive, and
that un-funny, and all its tricks are so well
known, it should be very easy to duplicate
it....right? Well, it isn't easy. The secret
is, they make it LOOK easy. And that is one
level at which I enjoy "Garfield," which I assume
a kid is not capable of doing.
- Doug Pratt
Wei-Hwa Huang
rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt) writes:
>I don't wish for this to be taken as a flame or as a troll. If you
>love Garfield, more power to ya, but I beg for the answer, was
>Garfield ever funny?
>reason why. Somehow I remember the strip doing different things,
>Garfield saying something that didn't sound like the back of a
>greeding card. Did this happen or did I imagine it?
Well, I have one of the earlier paperbacks right here.
Beck here, it was more original, and Garfield was much more of a
grouchy cat who did what he liked and yet was creative about it,
unlike the stereotype he seems to be today.
This was back when Jon was trying to make out with Liz, Garfield's
vet, and when Odie was Lymans's dog, not Jon's. (Lyman was Jon's
roommate, who disappeared at some point.)
The slapstick here was also more original. Nothing rip-roaring
funny, but entertaining.
I'll try to pick out some of the better ones:
[Jon takes Garfield to a cat show]
Jon: Hi, what have you got there?
Woman: This is Monarch, a registered ruddy Abyssinian. He's in the
grand champion division with 1400 CFA points... What's that?
Jon: This is Garfield. He's ... uh sort of yellowish orange and
he's got stripes.
TV: "I've solved the case, Captain. The murderer is..."
TV: "We Interrupt this program to tell you there's a thunderstorm coming
into the area."
Garfield: How dare they break into my favorite TV show for a weather
report!
Garfield: I'm calling the station to give them a piece of my mind!
Garfield [dialing phone]: Boy, am I hot!
Phone: WNRD, Hello?
Garfield [speaking]: MEOW!
Phone: Is this some sort of a joke? Hello?
Garfield: Boy, do I feel dumb.
Garfield: Hey, Nermal. Do you think you could teach me to be cute, too?
Nermal: Sure. First, open your eyes just as wide as you can.
Nermal: Now lose about 20 pounds.
Garfield: Very funny.
--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a funny .sig. LAUGH!! NOW!!!!
Jym Dyer
>>> . . . was Garfield ever funny?
=o= I'd say it was funny for two, almost three years. Right
up until Jim Davis decided to leave it in the hands of an
assembly line staffed with hacks while he went off to peddle
a glut of merchandise.
=o= It's sad to see talent squandered. Davis wrote and drew
the initial comic strips for "U.S. Acres." His strips were
amusing, even if the whole thing was just a cynical merchan-
dising ploy (a farmful of funny animals and we can sell every
single one of them!). Once the strip landed in the hands of
the aforementioned assembly line, it became truly pathetic in
very short order.
> The very first Garfield collection is a hoot. Good luck
> laying your hands on it, sorry, don't recall the title.
=o= It's easy enough to find. You can get the first three
books in one omnibus edition. I think even the first
"Treasury" is still in print (with Sunday strips in color).
That's about all the Garfield worth buying.
> Two years later, Garfield himself became the very thing
> Nermal was lampooning.
=o= Exactly. The Nermal jokes were extremely funny, too.
<_Jym_>
--
"Garfield is not meant to be socially relevent. In no way
shape or form has Garfield, and supporting cast, ever had any
gay tendencies! No, I'm not homophobic. It's just that now
that I've read this article, I'll never be able to think of
my FAVORITE comic they same way ever again."
-- Jeff Mierzwa <Snake...@uiuc.edu>
covington maiko
>>>> . . . was Garfield ever funny?
Garfield was funny for as long as Garfield was a cat. I'd say
that puts it up until around 1985, as other posters have suggested. When
his nose went from being a cat-like shape to a jellybean, that was the
beginning of the end. Garfield is no longer a cat, he is a human in a
cat suit.
Maiko Covington
Jamie Plummer
In article <5jkd6s$j...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Wei-Hwa Huang) wrote:
>rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt) writes:
>>I don't wish for this to be taken as a flame or as a troll. If you
>>love Garfield, more power to ya, but I beg for the answer, was
>>Garfield ever funny?
>>I remember as a young teen enjoying the strip but I can't think of any
>>reason why. Somehow I remember the strip doing different things,
>>Garfield saying something that didn't sound like the back of a
>>greeding card. Did this happen or did I imagine it?
>
>Well, I have one of the earlier paperbacks right here.
>
>Beck here, it was more original, and Garfield was much more of a
>grouchy cat who did what he liked and yet was creative about it,
>unlike the stereotype he seems to be today.
>
>This was back when Jon was trying to make out with Liz, Garfield's
>vet, and when Odie was Lymans's dog, not Jon's. (Lyman was Jon's
>roommate, who disappeared at some point.)
>
>The slapstick here was also more original. Nothing rip-roaring
>funny, but entertaining.
>
>I'll try to pick out some of the better ones:
>
[SNIP some vintage Garfield]
Don't forget the ones with at the diner with the waitress Irma.
Or Binky the Clown.
I'd reccomend picking up the first five, possibly even the first nine Garfield
collections. I think they sell three bound as one these days...
Jamie Plummer jc...@virginia.edu
[I've finally given up. My address is no longer in USENET headers. Damn spam.]
http://wsrv.clas.virginia.edu/~jcp9j
"I am NOT Montel Williams!" -- Det. Munch
Rob Merritt
jcp9j!@virginia.edu (Jamie Plummer) wrote:
>I'd reccomend picking up the first five, possibly even the first nine Garfield
>collections. I think they sell three bound as one these days...
Really? Any idea of the collection name?
Rob Merritt
http://www.jagunet.com/~robertm
Comic Strip Central
>
After reading all these Garfield posts and eyeing my Garfield books that
I never read, I decided to read one of them(the 2nd book)and found it
hilarious. Especially compared to today's strips. I do think Garfield is
funny once in awhile these days but it's not consistent. I think part of
the reason is like someone else mentioned, Jim Davis stopped doing the
strips and laid it in the hands of an assembly line.
--
Comic Strip Central
http://www.northlink.com/~comics/
James Thomas Green
Jym Dyer <j...@igc.org> Pontificated:
> >>> . . . was Garfield ever funny?
> > The very first Garfield collection is a hoot. Good luck
> > laying your hands on it, sorry, don't recall the title.
>
> =o= It's easy enough to find. You can get the first three
> books in one omnibus edition. I think even the first
> "Treasury" is still in print (with Sunday strips in color).
> That's about all the Garfield worth buying.
I was lucky enough to get the first two collections signed by Jim Davis in
San Francisco in the Early 1980s. Garfield was one of my favorite strips
and I read it every morning in the San Francisco Chronicle. I tried to buy
every collection as it came out for about ten years, but as the strip aged,
it got less fresh and funny.
As for Lyman, I wonder if Jim Davis didn't get rid of him so nobody could
accuse Jon and Lyman of being gay? As I recall, there never was a strip
where Lyman moved out, but he did appear later as NOT being a roomie.
"It has always been my goal to become ,---.
Supreme Ruler of Earth . . . but lately I've been CO-|| |
wondering if you dolts are worthy of my leadership." O || |A
O- Dogbert -O | Q /
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-// /"""'
James Thomas Green /|*|\ ja...@databaun.com `'`'
\__{-: http://www.calpoly.edu/~jgreen :-}__/
Spewey
Seems like with the exception of peanuts once a strip get real big
(t-shirts, calendars, mugs, inflatable sex toys..etc..) they stop being
good. I guess the might be afraid that it would hurt the sells of their
stuffed Dogbert dolls if they tried something new. Almost always the best
years of a comic strip seem to be the first two.
William Berkovitz
In article <E94qn...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jcp9j!@virginia.edu
> In article <5jkd6s$j...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
> whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu (Wei-Hwa Huang) wrote:
> >rob...@jagunet.com (Rob Merritt) writes:
> >>I don't wish for this to be taken as a flame or as a troll. If you
> >>love Garfield, more power to ya, but I beg for the answer, was
> >>Garfield ever funny?
> >>I remember as a young teen enjoying the strip but I can't think of any
> >>reason why. Somehow I remember the strip doing different things,
> >>Garfield saying something that didn't sound like the back of a
> >>greeding card. Did this happen or did I imagine it?
> >
> >Well, I have one of the earlier paperbacks right here.
> >
> >Beck here, it was more original, and Garfield was much more of a
> >grouchy cat who did what he liked and yet was creative about it,
> >unlike the stereotype he seems to be today.
> >
> >This was back when Jon was trying to make out with Liz, Garfield's
> >vet, and when Odie was Lymans's dog, not Jon's. (Lyman was Jon's
> >roommate, who disappeared at some point.)
> >
> >The slapstick here was also more original. Nothing rip-roaring
> >funny, but entertaining.
> >
> >I'll try to pick out some of the better ones:
> >
>
> [SNIP some vintage Garfield]
>
> Don't forget the ones with at the diner with the waitress Irma.
> Or Binky the Clown.
>
Garfield
> collections. I think they sell three bound as one these days...
>
licking Lyman's face for two panels. Lyman is cracking up because Odie's
toungue is tickling him. Garfield walks in and says, "He (Lyman) wouldn't
be laughing so hard if he knew he (Odie) drinks out of the toilet". When
I first read this, I laughed so hard, I busted a gut.
Willie Berkovitz
ber...@alleg.edu
KB9JTF
I think Garfield is still funny. He simply needs new things to be funny
about. You can only make so many Monday jokes. Hail lasagne!!!
Henry Spencer
In article <19970429170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Spewey <spe...@aol.com> wrote:
>Seems like with the exception of peanuts once a strip get real big
>(t-shirts, calendars, mugs, inflatable sex toys..etc..) they stop being
There's probably a correlation here with the assembly-line style of strip
production. Charles Schulz was noteworthy because he was one of the very
few big-success-strip creators who still wrote and drew everything
himself. (I use past tense because his daughter has now largely taken
over, last I heard.) Most highly-successful strips become group projects,
as the creator takes on assistants, and quality inevitably suffers. With
the exception of the animated features -- which are too big a job for any
one human being -- for many years, every scrap of Peanuts story and art
came from Schulz himself. He had assistants for paperwork but not for
creative content.
Jym Dyer
> Charles Schulz was noteworthy because he was one of the very
> few big-success-strip creators who still wrote and drew
> everything himself. (I use past tense because his daughter
> has now largely taken over, last I heard.)
=o= I doubt that very much. Where did you hear this? As far as
I know, present tense is still applicable and always will be.
<_Jym_>
Wei-Hwa Huang
Henry Spencer <he...@zoo.toronto.edu> writes:
>Most highly-successful strips become group projects,
>as the creator takes on assistants, and quality inevitably suffers.
Which is odd but apparently true...in the US. In the Japanese comics
industry, a series NEEDS assistants to keep up with the pace and
quality of the market.
--
Wei-Hwa Huang, whu...@ugcs.caltech.edu, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~whuang/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What does ar[a++]=a++ do again?"
hath...@stsci.edu
In article <19970429170...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, spe...@aol.com (Spewey) writes:
> Seems like with the exception of peanuts once a strip get real big
> (t-shirts, calendars, mugs, inflatable sex toys..etc..) they stop being
> stuffed Dogbert dolls if they tried something new. Almost always the best
> years of a comic strip seem to be the first two.
Where can we find those inflatables for:
Liberty Meadows
Blondie
Judge Parker (Abby)
Spider-Man (MJ)
Beetle Bailey (Ms. B)
TFC (Vel)
Please do not reveal the locations for:
Apt 3-G (they need it soooo bad it would be wrong to supply it)
Sally Forth (Ted needs sympathy, not help)
Luann (age thing)
Broom-Hilda (obvious)
Cathy (Irving's STDs are incurable)
Henry Spencer
In article <Jym.yc7d8...@igc.org>, Jym Dyer <j...@igc.org> wrote:
>> Charles Schulz ... (I use past tense because his daughter
>> has now largely taken over, last I heard.)
>
>=o= I doubt that very much. Where did you hear this? As far as
>I know, present tense is still applicable and always will be.
Could swear I'd seen that reported a while back... but others have also
cast doubts on it via private mail, so maybe it's bit rot in my memory.
Anyway, this doesn't affect the main point, that Peanuts's long-standing
quality has a lot to do (in my opinion) with it having always been a
one-man show. Perhaps using assistants doesn't *always* cause quality to
decline, but I think there's a strong correlation, especially when the
assistants start writing as well as drawing.
Ali Assa Seen
> > Charles Schulz was noteworthy because he was one of the very
> > few big-success-strip creators who still wrote and drew
> > everything himself. (I use past tense because his daughter
> > has now largely taken over, last I heard.)
>
> =o= I doubt that very much. Where did you hear this? As far as
> I know, present tense is still applicable and always will be.
> <_Jym_>
Really. The idea of Schulz just deciding to let the strip pass to someone
else on a whim is like Watterson suddenly deciding that flooding the
market with Calvin and Hobbes coffee mugs would be a nifty idea.
(Here's where I'd do an ASCII of Hobbes dangling from a tree with the
caption "Hang in there, baby!" if I could...)