Garfield, assistants & the art form (was:Jim Davis)
Ennead
[As (very) few rac*ers know, I do a daily strip, which has not
had GARFIELD's success (in the same way that HEAVEN'S GATE didn't
have STAR WARS's success <g> ). Some folks will say I'm sucking
sour grapes; I trust most will take my word that I held these
opinions years before doing a comic strip.]
A while ago, Mark Evanier wrote:
[quoting me:]
>: I respect Jim Davis a lot for =not= making his assistants
>: anonymous - it's a shame that other assistant-drawn strip
>: haven't followed GARFIELD's lead in this regard. Still, I
>: think the last 2/3 of this Watterson quote describes GARFIELD
>: to the last whisker; I can't help but feel that both the
>: comics section and the art form would be better off without
>: GARFIELD or any other committee-drawn comic, no matter how
>: great a guy the head cartoonist in charge of the committee is.
: ME: First off, I don't think the Watterson quote really applies
: to Jim Davis.
Well, it's a bit awkward criticizing GARFIELD to your virtual
face; so, to ease my own discomfort, I'll casually mention that I
admire your work - I was a fan of Welcome Back Kotter as a kid,
DNAgents as a teen, and Groo now. (There - wasn't that casual?
Fit right in.)
That said, I think the Watterson quote applies very well to
GARFIELD. I don't know whether it's true that Davis signs strips
that he hasn't written or drawn; you're the only one here who can
clarify that.
But it is true that the characters - and the strip - haven't
"developed" or deepened in years. It's true that GARFIELD is
"utterly predictable," and that the drawings are "slick" and
"without trace of individual quirk." And it's true that, to a
significant extent, GARFIELD is "written and drawn by committee."
: Secondly, GARFIELD is extraordinarily popular. I cannot tell
: you the number of people who love the character
: and his exploits. Why should they be deprived of something
: they love?
(Everything I say in this entire post is IMHO, obviously)
GARFIELD is one of a number of safe, predictable, bland-as-
Campbell's-soup strips. There's nothing wrong with Campbell's
soup in and of itself - it's warm, comforting, reliable, and
rarely causes angry letters to the features editor.
The problem is that, although Campbell's soup is fun for many
readers, it's even MORE tasty to editors and syndicates, who
prefer "safe" and "predictable" to "daring" and "variety."
GARFIELD in and of itself is fine, but the newspaper page is made
up MOSTLY of GARFIELDs of one stripe or another. And those
readers who'd have an appetite for something more individual than
canned soup are left mostly unsated.
No matter HOW popular the strips are, this is bad for the art
form. What if we still had I LOVE LUCY on TV, new episodes
weekly? Maybe Ellen DeGenerous (sp?) would be this decade's
"Lucy," and no doubt she'd be very funny and very popular - but
it would rob Ellen of the chance to develop her own voice. And
(even if they don't realize it) it robs the audience of the
chance to enjoy Ellen's own voice, too.
That hypothetical situation is the reality of comic strips today.
: More to the point, where is it etched in stone that a comic
: strip has to be done by one person? Haven't some fine works
: been done by more than one guy? Al Capp's LI'L ABNER, in its
: golden years, was the work of at least four people at any given
: time. Walt Kelly, Elzie Segar, Milton Caniff, Alex Raymond,
: Hal Foster and Chester Gould all employed assistants, sometimes
: doing considerable amounts of their strips.
Yes, many fine works have been done in collaboration - Doonesbury
is a current example (written and pencilled by G.T., inked by
someone whose name I never remember). So is Groo (I can't think
of it in the past tense yet - gimme a few more months <g>).
But even when Caniff's strip was drawn entirely by Noel Sickles,
I don't think anyone could have described "Terry" as lacking "all
trace of individual quirk" or "so easy to write that a committee
can do it." I think the same is true of all the names above, in
their best years - the strip "felt" personal in a way that
today's canned-soup strips simply don't.
Of course, this is true of some strips that use assistants
minimally or not at all - but the "anyone can recreate it, once
it's been created" attitude of many cartoonists and all the
syndicates keeps these soup-can strips alive long after the
creator has lost the energy and vitality needed to continue a
strip.
: If you don't like a given strip, fine...you're entitled to your
: opinion. But I would think the work should be judged by what
: is on the paper [...]
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. I've long
noticed (and disliked) how bland many strips, including GARFIELD,
are, based on what's on paper - what I'm now doing is suggesting
one reason they are so bland, and why they stick around so long.
If most committee-strips WERE good, most people wouldn't care
that assistants were used. And I doubt that so many cartoonists
would be so careful to keep their use of assistants secret (to
which rule Jim Davis is an honorable exception - which causes him
to catch more flack for this than he deserves).
: As you may know, I've worked with Jim Davis for years; I've
: seen him work on strips and then logged into services like this
: and seen folks say that he doesn't work on his own strips.
[...]
I described Jim Davis as the head cartoonist of the committee
that makes GARFIELD. Is this inaccurate? If so, I'll apologize.
You're understandably annoyed by people getting it wrong: so
please clarify exactly how much work on the strip Davis
personally does, since you're the only one here who knows.
: I have the greatest respect for Bill Watterson on most
: levels...but his circumstance is by and large unique. I am not
: sure too many other cartoonists have ever been (or will be) in
: a position to dictate the terms of their strip so totally,
: including retiring it so abruptly.
But you seem to be saying that it's not a problem that
Watterson's position is unique, whereas I think it's a tragedy
that all cartoonists don't have the rights Watterson fought for.
I don't blame Jim Davis and other cartoonists especially,
although I agree with Watterson that "if writing and drawing
cartoons has become a burden... let's see some early retirements
and some room for new talent." Writing and drawing IS the job;
all the business and merchandising stuff is what DISTRACTS from
the job. If one know longer has the time, or interest, in the
writing and drawing, then one should quit. IMHO.
But there's far too much money wrapped up in GARFIELD for the
syndicate that (I presume) owns the strip to allow it to retire,
even if Davis himself quits. That's the syndicate's fault, not
the creator's. OTOH, if Davis is at all unhappy with the system,
I've never read or heard it; he seems to be energetically and
happily working the system, not involuntarily bound to it. If
I'm wrong about this, please correct me.
Yours,
--Ampersand
"How can we lose when we're so sincere?" --Charlie Brown
read my comics at http://www.teleport.com/~ennead/ampersand
Mark Evanier
I understand what you are saying and I think we have a couple of areas
of disagreement. One is that I like GARFIELD more than you do...and I
did before I had any financial association with the strip. In fact,
one of the reasons I was hired for the TV series is that when CBS
called me up and queried me about writing GARFIELD, they were impressed
with how well I knew the strip and the fact that I had all the
paperbacks, knew all the chara
cters, etc..
Your opinion of the strip is obviously lower than mine...and that's not
really something worth debating. I'm sure you must like some strips
that leave me cold -- and not every strip in the paper has to appeal to
everyone.
You find the strip predictable and "safe." I don't see it that way,
nor do I think that's a negative about all strips. I'm sorry but I
still chuckle when Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown. I do not
disagree with you that most newspaper pages could stand more shake-up
-- but I also think there's something to be said for tradition and for
continuing the adventures of characters that people love. On the other
hand, I think newspapers ARE becoming more willing to dump old strips
and try new ones. The L.A. TIMES certainly is. They used to go two or
three years without changing their comics page and, in the last few
years, they haven't gone two months without a change.
I don't agree that newspaper editors buy strips that are "safe." I
think they buy strips that they think their readers will warm to and,
once a strip has established a following, they are reticent to drop it
and incur the angry letters. Almost any time they drop a strip, they
get mail and phone calls threatening to cancel subscriptions, set up
boycotts, etc.. And some of the angriest responses probably come in
response to the dropping of strips that leave you cold. (Back in its
Ernie Bushmiller days, NANCY was notorious for bringing venomous mail
and death threats when it was dropped.)
The thing I hope you'll consider is that many strips are very, very
popular. They know this because of surveys and mail and because of
things like paperback sales and, yes, even merchandising. One of the
reasons that GARFIELD got into so many papers was that newspapers felt
silly printing that its paperback collections were high on the New York
Times best seller list...but not carrying the strip. Again, YOU might
not like GARFIELD or certain other strips but I think you underestimate
how much a part they are of some folks' lives. If I were editing a
newspaper comic paper, I'm not sure how I could justify dropping a
strip that I disliked but my readers loved.
(By the way, before I forget: The name of the gent who finishes the art
on DOONESBURY is Don Carlton. And I don't think Noel Sickles ever drew
the entirety of any of Milton Caniff's strips...but other artists did.)
I think you're using an emotionally-charged term when you talk about
"committee-created" strips. Most successful strips are
"committee-created" in the sense that more than one person works on
them. If you think a given strip is bland...well then, its sin is
being bland. I can name plenty of bland, unfunny strips that were done
by one man.
Jim Davis is the creator of the daily GARFIELD strip in the same way
that Al Capp did LI'L ABNER and Milton Caniff did STEVE CANYON and so
on. Jim writes most of the strips and does layouts and heavy editing.
I know that some folks here feel that it is sacreligious for an artist
not to do every bit of his strip himself...or to have his name on work
that employs assistants...but, at worst, Jim is just continuing an
industry practice that dates back to the second month of MUTT & JEFF.
And, as you yourself note, he catches a lot of undue flack because he
is quite open and generous about acknowledging his assistants and
publicizing them.
If someone wants to slam cartoonists for having assistants at
all...well, I also disagree with that. But I think it's unfair to pick
on Jim and it's certainly inaccurate to state that he does no writing
or drawing on the strip that bears his name.
What I was saying about Watterson's position is that it was unique and
had a lot to do with how successful his strip was. When he went to his
syndicate and fought to bar licensing, he was sitting there with 1600
or so papers so he had a "clout" that most cartoonists never enjoy.
Most will never get near that number of papers -- and income from
syndication alone.
You say it's sad that most cartoonists don't have the rights that
Watterson fought for. I think, in a sense, they do...and I don't mean
this facetiously. If and when your strip is in 1500+ papers and is
making as much money as his was, you can probably prevent merchandising
if you wish. I see this all as more a matter of money than artists'
rights. There is no syndicate in the business of doing charity work;
they all expect a proper return for their investment.
Frankly, I doubt most cartoonists really think that licensing is the
horror that Watterson holds it to be -- and which you apparently deem
it to be. In a recent interview, Charles Schulz had a wonderful quote
I can't find right now about how it warms his heart when he sees
someone wearing a Snoopy t-shirt, to think that he has created
something that someone loves enough to wear, instead of just reading it
in the paper and then wrapping a fish in it. Based on my few
conversations with Schulz -- and given how little the income from a
shirt can possibly impact his life -- I believe he is sincere about
this.
I don't believe comic strips have to remain comic strips. I think the
best thing Schulz ever did in his life was that first "Charlie Brown
Christmas" special and I love my little "Songs of the Pogo" record (and
dolls) and my Shmoo doll. I used to have a crate of GARFIELD plush
dolls that I gave out to friends and, geez, they loved them. For
Christmas, my girl friend gave me a very, very old Ignatz doll in a
glass case. I don't think any less of George Herriman because of it.
It looks real nice sitting under a framed Sunday original of his on my
living room wall.
I don't think a comic strip artist has to only be a comic strip artist.
If Schulz wants to write a TV cartoon or Trudeau wants to put out Mr.
Butts ashtrays, fine. My partner, Sergio Aragones, would love dearly
to expand our character, Groo, from the printed page. Sergio recently
did a Groo sculpture that is being marketed. He has been dying to find
a company that would market little toy soldiers he could design and
miniature buildings he could design of Groo's world. I'm currently
working on a record/CD of Groo with songs about his adventures, plus we
recently did a line of trading cards that Sergio drew and I wrote. We
see the character as more than just something that exists on paper. If
the merchandise is good, I see nothing wrong with this.
I think a cartoonist like Bill Watterson has a God-given right to
decide that licensing is wrong for his strip and I admire the fact that
he is willing to put his moola where his mouth is and accept the
financial consequences. But I also think a Charles Schulz or a Jim
Davis has the same right to decide that licensing is okay for their
strips.
In Jim's case, he did something that I respect greatly with regard to
merchandising. He took control of it. You cannot, for any amount of
money, get the right to just slap Garfield on your product. Jim must
okay the product, work on any creative elements, approve every element
of the product and campaign. Please take my word for it that he turns
down millions of dollars every year to put the cat on products that he
feels are inappropriate, either because of their nature or quality.
(For years, they've been after him to sanction a Garfield Frozen
Lasagna but he has never found one that he felt was good enough. In so
doing, he has turned down more money than most cartoonists will see in
a lifetime. Garfield was around for ten years before Jim accepted a
pet food offer.)
This comes as a godsend to me because I put in several years at
Hanna-Barbera where they DID let you do just about anything you wanted
to their characters if the check cleared. Just as there is no poor
quality Garfield merchandise, for years there was very little good
quality Hanna-Barbera merchandise. I used to argue against some of the
artwork they wanted to allow on record album covers, some of the
schlock toys they wanted to stick Scooby-Doo's likeness on, etc..
There is an art form involved there, too...one no less valid on its
terms than drawing a comic strip. I know for a fact (because I've been
involved with some of them) that many animation studios and other
concerns that do licensing have made a conscientious attempt to raise
their standards for merchandising in recognition of Garfield's
achievement in this area.
Lastly -- and I apologize to all for the length of this -- you wrote
the following...
>But there's far too much money wrapped up in GARFIELD for the
>syndicate that (I presume) owns the strip to allow it to retire,
>even if Davis himself quits. That's the syndicate's fault, not
>the creator's. OTOH, if Davis is at all unhappy with the system,
>I've never read or heard it; he seems to be energetically and
>happily working the system, not involuntarily bound to it. If
>I'm wrong about this, please correct me.
This is M.E. again. Jim has changed the system, at least for himself,
in a number of ways. First, he wrested control of the merchandising of
his strip from the syndicate. Then, two years ago, he wrested the
strip; he bought it back from United Media and he now owns it, with
syndication handled by Universal Press. He has more in common with
Watterson than I suspect Watterson would ever appreciate; they are both
irrevocably committed to the notion of the creator of the strip having
total, 100% control of all aspects of it. From that point on, they
have made different decisions about how to allot their time, whether to
do merchandising, etc.. But I think the important thing is that those
decisions be made by the individual creator. Davis has chosen
different routes than Watterson...but he does a different strip -- one
that, for instance, probably lends itself better to animation.
(Watterson thinks his strip would be diminished by establishing a voice
for Hobbes; I think Garfield was enhanced by establishing a voice for
him.)
Again, I'm sorry this was so long but I hope folks find this
enlightening. You and I may not like the same strips or what is done
with some of them...but I would hope we would agree that there should
be room on the funny pages for all kinds of strips and for different
approaches as to how they are created.
Mark Evanier
to...oh, never mind...
I don't put a lot of stock in the polls that newspapers conduct as to
the popularity of their strips. I think they're but one bit of
evidence to add to the pile. Whoever edits any given comic strip page
ought to have some idea of how popular each strip is and there are many
factors involved. (Do we all know the story of the time that the L.A.
HERALD-EXAMINER dropped STEVE CANYON and then reinstated it because
John Wayne called up to complain?)
We agree that a greater variety of strips should be exhibited. Insofar
as strips being continued after their creator dies or departs...well, I
think that depends on the strip and on who's continuing it. (You
mentioned liking Ernie Bushmiller's NANCY. There's a case where
someone took over somebody else's strip and made it his own.)
You know, Ampersand...some of this is just a matter of human factors.
I'll tell you why Milton Caniff's work was so weak the last few years.
It wasn't because of assistants...it was because Mr. Caniff was a very
old man. Very few people in ANY field can do whatever they do as well
at age seventy-something. But Caniff wanted to keep doing his strip
and to stay active, and his work still had value. I would have hated
to see his syndicate say, "He's washed-up...let's dump him and give a
young kid the spot." I'd have been outside their office with a big
protest sign if they had.
You write about artists robbing readers (and themselves) by working on
someone else's strips. In theory, I might agree with you. But in
reality, I have found that many artists like being part of a "team"
effort; it's why some folks who have cartooning talent become animators
in big studios instead of sitting home, working wholly on their own
creations. A lot of great cartoonists are never, at any point in their
careers, motivated to create their own strips, in the same way that
many football players have full, satisfying careers without ever
quarterbacking.
Take someone like Al Williamson, who took over SECRET AGENT X-9 and,
later, STAR WARS. I doubt there is a more respected adventure strip
artist in our business today and I know there are folks at the
syndicates who worship his work. Al was very comfortable with those
assignments...he was never motivated to create his own strip. I think
he did some incredible work on them. I have no problem with this.
I preferred ON STAGE to ANNIE and JULIET JONES to BLONDIE, myself. But
let's remember that the reason Mssrs. Starr and Drake switched from one
to the other was that their own strips had declined in popularity and
were verging on extinction. And no one pointed firearms at them to get
them to make those switches. In Starr's case, I believe he said that
he was enjoying ANNIE as a change of pace. This may have been
promotional talk or it may have been the truth.
I guess my quarrel with your statements about Jim Davis and GARFIELD is
that you're saying, "Well, this is how he should do things because this
is how I'd do things." GARFIELD isn't your job. That attitude reminds
me of the artist who became an editor at one comic book company and he
wanted all the artists to work on kid-finish paper and to pencil in
blue because that's how HE did it. Artists have different skills,
different approaches. At the same time you're arguing for more variety
on the comic page, you're verging on telling another cartoonist that he
should do his strip the same way you would.
I don't mean that in a mean way. As I told you in E-Mail, I was very
impressed with the samples of the strip you do. Now, if I were doing
it, I'd do a whole different style of lettering and I wouldn't point my
word balloons the way you do. But I'm not doing your strip and I never
will...nor would I ever expect you to do things the way I would. (As
you can tell, I'm very high on the concept of cartoonists having total
control of their work.) You may think GARFIELD would be better if Jim
Davis did things differently...but you don't know how Jim spends his
day and you don't know how many hours he spends on his strips
and...well, I hope it's always Jim's decision on how to proceed. And,
of course, it always will be.
No, Sergio and I will never hire anyone else to do GROO. But that's
our decision. We are now doing some projects where other artists ink
his work, freeing him to do more pencilling. For years, he thought he
could never tolerate this but we tried an experiment and it worked
better than expected...and now Sergio is feeling like he might prefer
to pencil two comics a month instead of pencilling and inking just one.
I think it's fine either way, just as long as it's his call. (And I'm
sure someone will complain that his work was better when he inked
it...)
Well, I think that covers all outstanding points. Hey, this is a good
discussion; I hope others here are enjoying it as much as I am.
Thanks.
Ennead
to me. The good news is that, although it is long, it's shorter
than my last one, which many will consider a good trend. <g>]
GARFIELD is, beyond all doubt, extraordinarily popular. I didn't
mean to imply otherwise.
Still, I wouldn't put =too= much faith in those "strip popularity" polls
as a guide to what =all readers= want. I suspect those polls are mainly
answered by people who currently find something in the comics pages to
appeal to them, and so don't skip 'em entirely; the results are thus
skewed. Furthermore, older folks answer ALL general-population surveys
disproportionately - it's by far the easiest demographic catagory to "fill
out" in polls and surveys. For these reasons, I don't think that the
impressive poll numbers disprove my theory that many general readers are
dissatistfied with (or, more likely, simply not engaged by) the comics
page. (I'm a former pollster, btw.)
Am I saying that all strips I find dull should be dropped? No. I'm
saying that a much greater variety of strips should be included; that
there is an audience for a greater variety of strips; and that it's bad
for the art form for strips to continue without their creators (which
isn't the case with GARFIELD), because it ties good cartoonists to other
people's creations, while leaving less space for new strips.
: I do not disagree with you that most newspaper pages could
: stand more shake-up -- but I also think there's something to
: be said for tradition and for continuing the adventures of
: characters that people love.
I quite agree - I've never complained to see PEANUTS in my paper.
(I love Bushmiller's NANCY, actually. <g>)
(I'm not sure why I thought Sickles drew some TERRYs entirely - I thought
Richard Marshall said so, but he just says that Sickles drew "most" of the
strip for a few years. Probably I just misremembered. I find the later
years of Steve Canyon to be very weak; I'm not sure if that's due to
overuse of assistants, lack of space, Caniff losing enthusiasm, or just a
peculiarity of my own taste. In any case, I'm happy to accept your word
for it, as it's clear you know at lot more about "the secret history" of
comic strips than I do.)
***
: Jim writes most of the strips and does layouts and heavy
: editing. I know that some folks here feel that it is
: sacreligious for an artist not to do every bit of his strip
: himself...
I employ an assistant (a colorist, Steve Hess); obviously I have nothing
against using assistants. But I do see a difference between an assistant
and someone(s) who are effectively co-creating the strip.
Maybe I'm projecting. I know that I could draw PEANUTS pretty easily, and
only an educated eye could tell my work from genuine Schultz. But even if
nobody sees the difference, I'm still committing a double robbery - I'm
robbing readers (and myself) of the chance to see my own voice develop,
and I'm robbing readers (and Schultz) of the chance to see if Schultz's
art will change and develop. (This is hypothetical - as far as I know,
Schultz draws PEANUTS himself.)
The loss of my voice won't mean much to readers, since nobody's heard of
me. <g> But, good as Annie is, I think On Stage was better. And Blondie
is, imo, pretty piss-poor compared to Juliet Jones. If those strips
really had to die, I would have prefered to see them replaced by new
strips by Starr & Drake.
So are all co-creators (as opposed to assistants) bad? No; when a
co-creation allows both creators to have and develop their own voices, I
think that can be a wonderful situation. But when one co-creator is
putting his creative efforts into imitating the other co-creator's style,
it keeps both artists from growing. (Or it would if =I= were one of the
artists - as I said, I may be projecting.)
***
I don't oppose licensing (when you talked about Watterson's unique
position, I thought you meant his ability to retire abruptly, not his
ability to refuse all merchandising). I just think it's a mistake for a
cartoonist to spend too much =time= on licensing. Unless you're Scott
Adams, creating a comic strip is a full-time job (or three), not a
sideline.
Look, everything you say about Jim Davis is very impressive (and of course
I believe you!). I don't doubt for a moment that the merchandise is
great, that Davis is ethical, creative, hardworking and skilled in
creating it, and that as a result GARFIELD merchandise is among the best
there is.
But I =do= doubt that GARFIELD is as good a strip as it could be if Davis
put all that energy and creativity into the strip itself. (I like the
early years of GARFIELD much better - am I the only one?)
Although I'm impressed by what Davis does, I still think it'd be better if
he made a choice between working on the strip full-time, or retiring the
strip, continuing GARFIELD in the venues that engage him more.
(There is precident - Breathed took Opus from a strip, to animation, to
children's books, and to who-knows-what in the future. And each time, he
put his full self into it, resulting (I think) in a terrific strip, great
animated special and a few beautiful books. What law says that the strip
MUST continue, in order for all the other stuff to exist? Will you &
Sergio hire somebody else to draw GROO while he works on other GROO stuff,
or will he just put some projects on hold to make the time?)
***
The bottom line, for me:
Any strip that appears in over 500 papers (like GARFIELD, I assume) is
earning its cartoonist an income larger than most, in a job more
satisfying than almost any other. For that, it seems to me that the
cartoonist owes his readers 100%.
100% at the very least.
And you just can't do that if you do merchandising as well as Jim
Davis does it.
But those are my priorities, and (despite appearances) I do realize that
Jim Davis has to make his own priorities, without reference to what me or
Watterson or anyone else thinks.
: In a recent interview, Charles Schulz had a wonderful quote I
: can't find right now about how it warms his heart when he sees
: someone wearing a Snoopy t-shirt [...]
And that's fine with me (I love my Snoopy baseball cap). But it's my
understanding that Schulz's primary work is the strip, and he has
assistants to take as much of the merchandising workload off himself as
possible.
: You and I may not like the same strips or what
: is done with some of them...but I would hope we would agree
: that there should be room on the funny pages for all kinds of
: strips and for different approaches as to how they are created.
Oh, I certainly agree with this. It would have been a miracle if the
two of us could go on, each for such enormous lengths, and not find
ANYthing to agree on. <g> (And, although I haven't changed my mind,
discussing this with you has "softened" my position a bit. I certainly
admire Jim Davis more than I did a week ago.)
Thanks for another thoughtful reply.
Yours,
--Ampersand
"How can we lose when we're so sincere?" --Charlie Brown
read my comic strip at http://www.teleport.com/~ennead/ampersand/kippil.html
Crash
Evanier ) wrote:
> You say it's sad that most cartoonists don't have the rights that
> Watterson fought for. I think, in a sense, they do...and I don't mean
> this facetiously. If and when your strip is in 1500+ papers and is
> making as much money as his was, you can probably prevent merchandising
> if you wish. I see this all as more a matter of money than artists'
> rights. There is no syndicate in the business of doing charity work;
> they all expect a proper return for their investment.
You forgot to mention how he demanded the Sunday page be bought without
the option of dropping panels. I wish more cartoonists would do that. The
Sunday page is becoming little different from the dailies except for the
color. The Los Angeles Times even runs some of their strips in a vertical
format.
Chris Bailey
"Men always call their superiors mad."
Doctor Doom
Visit my GEEK page at
http://www.smartlink.net
Mark Bernstein
I've found this discussion fascinating, and just wanted to add a slightly
dissenting data point. I think your arguments are well-reasoned as well
as heartfelt, and I certainly wish that there was more appreciation of
diversity in strips. There is one point, however, on which I disagree
with you, and it's a point that goes to the heart of some of your positions.
I think Garfield is funny.
Honest. Even now, after having followed it all these years, I still laugh
out loud at least once a week, and usually more often than that. It's
not the same strip it was at the beginning, I know that. In the early
years, the humor came mostly from Garfield's character flaws--his laziness,
surliness, self-centered insistence on having things his way. (Hmmm,
could it be that Citizen Dog is closer in tone to early Garfield than
current Garfield is?) Now, the stuff that makes me laugh most is, well,
the silly stuff. This past Sunday's "goofy expression" competition
between Jon and Garfield is a good example. I can't tell you why I
liked it, but I liked it.
Neither of us have any way of knowing whether Garfield would be better,
or even significantly different, if Jim Davis devoted all his time to
writing and drawing the strip. It's *hard* to come up with a new gag
every day, and if Davis wants to spread out the work, I think the
result is more important than the process. By Mark's account, Davis
is doing things the way he wants to do them, and I think that's great.
Regards,
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@erim.org
Rich Adams
: [This is a reply to Mark Evanier's reply to my reply to his reply
: to me. The good news is that, although it is long, it's shorter
: than my last one, which many will consider a good trend. <g>]
:
: GARFIELD is, beyond all doubt, extraordinarily popular. I didn't
: mean to imply otherwise.
:
: Still, I wouldn't put =too= much faith in those "strip popularity" polls
: as a guide to what =all readers= want. I suspect those polls are mainly
: answered by people who currently find something in the comics pages to
: appeal to them, and so don't skip 'em entirely; the results are thus
: skewed. Furthermore, older folks answer ALL general-population surveys
: disproportionately - it's by far the easiest demographic catagory to "fill
: out" in polls and surveys. For these reasons, I don't think that the
: impressive poll numbers disprove my theory that many general readers are
: dissatistfied with (or, more likely, simply not engaged by) the comics
: page. (I'm a former pollster, btw.)
I wouldn't suggest polls are terribly representative either, when the
Detroit Free Press, with a readership which must be at least a million,
ran newspaper cartoon surveys the replies were on the order of 400, give
or take a hundred. The features editor, or whomever oversees the comics
page, must be quite experienced with _how_ to interpret the feedback they
get.
I'd also like to point out I became a sophisticated strip reader at
around 15. While I was much younger I was a rabid Pogo fan for the
whimsical and friendly characters, rather than the clever comentary
beneath the surface. Discussion thus far has overlooked one reason
people, quite likely older people answer comics surveys the way they do.
They choose strips which they deem fit for children or grandchildren.
Like it or not, this is a manifestation of our very conservative society.
I've seen some strips in overseas papers I liked, but I _know_ my
grandparents would consider abominable. To some, dislike for the strip
may be a concious effort to shun something conforming to morals they are
rebelling against.
Personnally, I find Garfield bland, but if I spend some time asking
myself why and being very honest with the reply, I resent it for the bad
attitude of the principle character, the resorting to pathos as a vehicle
for humor, and the rank commercialism I see it as a symbol for. It's hard
to enjoy something when some filter has been placed in the way to say "it
is commercial therefore it can't be funny". In spite of this filter, I do
crack a smile from it once in a while, most recenly at the flattened ghost
of a squished spider. The cat wasn't funny. The tiny ghost was silly
and quite funny. The cat flattening the tiny ghost wasn't funny.
--
~ Well then-if you have no old moldy hamburgers-may I ask if you have any
~ old corroded hotdogs and perchance a stale bun? - J. Wellington Wimpy, 1938
~
~ Rich Adams [DNRC] ri...@alpha.delta.edu
Mark Evanier
(Crash) writes:
>You forgot to mention how he demanded the Sunday page be bought
>without the option of dropping panels. I wish more cartoonists would
>do that.
ME: But even this is a matter of economic clout. Watterson was able to
get away with that demand because most newspapers didn't want to lose
CALVIN & HOBBES...and most of 'em were already running it without
dropping any panels. If a less popular strip made that demand, they'd
merely lose papers.
I'd also like to add that I think Bill Watterson's syndicate is not
given enough credit in these areas. Even before Watterson made his
demands to not merchandise his strip, Universal Press withheld
exploiting it (apart from a calendar or two) because they knew it
bothered him. The whole notion of dictating the size that a newspaper
could run a strip was started when DOONESBURY did it -- at the same
syndicate. (I think they also invented the concept of a cartoonist
taking a vacation...something that Watterson availed himself of several
times.)
Tom Galloway
Mark Evanier <eva...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>factors involved. (Do we all know the story of the time that the L.A.
>HERALD-EXAMINER dropped STEVE CANYON and then reinstated it because
>John Wayne called up to complain?)
More recently (as in, a year or so ago), Spider-Man was restored to the
Boston Globe due in part to John Updike writing in in its defense. Updike
is scheduled to do a public reading in the next few months, and I'm really
tempted to go just to ask during the Q&A session what he was thinking
(my pick for best serial strip at the moment (barring dramedy For Better
or For Worse) would be Gil Thorp. Or Modesty Blaise, if more than one
paper in the US carried it (the Detroit Free Press; at least it's the
only one I know of).)
"The technique he used was Power Wistfulness. Remember the old comic strip
Dondi, starring the little syndicated orphan boy who always looked
heartbreakingly sad and orphanous and never got adopted, possibly because he
had eye sockets the size of manhole covers? Well, my son looked like that."
--Dave Barry
tyg t...@netcom.com
Cerebus The Aardvark
> I'm sorry but I
>still chuckle when Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown. I do not
Wait a minute right there, mister. Are you actually standing up in aforum
of comic strip lovers and comparing the "I love Lasagna and Mondays Suck"
Garfield to Peanuts? How dare you!
Even in the dark ages of Peanuts, it was never the tripe that Garfield has
been since it's fourth year. Garfield started out as a funny strip about a
cat. It quickly became a funny strip about a guy in a cat suit (Garfield
became less and less cat and more and more human). Then, it decided to
stick with 5 or 10 basic strips and re-run them for 10 years. Oh sure,
occasionally there's a funny strip, but even the blind man might hit a hole
in one occasionally.
>The thing I hope you'll consider is that many strips are very, very
>popular. They know this because of surveys and mail and because of
>things like paperback sales and, yes, even merchandising. One of the
>reasons that GARFIELD got into so many papers was that newspapers felt
>silly printing that its paperback collections were high on the New York
>Times best seller list...but not carrying the strip. Again, YOU might
No, the reason Garfield got into so many papers was because it was the best
new strip in years and years. I take nothing away from Garfield's early
days, it could be down right brilliant at times. Now it's stale hash.
>I think you're using an emotionally-charged term when you talk about
>"committee-created" strips. Most successful strips are
>"committee-created" in the sense that more than one person works on
>them. If you think a given strip is bland...well then, its sin is
There's a big difference between Doonesbury, where it's Trudeau's work, his
ideas, and his artwork with someone else inking the final strip and An
Assembly-line of hacks (not that some aren't talented, but they're job is a
hack job) pumping out 52 "I Hate MOndays" a year. Even in the golden age
of the 30's and 40's, there were a lot of strips that had an artist and a
writer (e.g. Secret Agent X-9), and there's nothing wrong with that either.
You know exactly what people mean when they say "committee-created," and
claiming most strips are created this way is cheapening the art form.
>Jim Davis is the creator of the daily GARFIELD strip in the same way
>that Al Capp did LI'L ABNER and Milton Caniff did STEVE CANYON and so
>on. Jim writes most of the strips and does layouts and heavy editing.
In that case, Jim Davis had a lobotomy sometime in Garfield's 4th year and
forgot how to be funny. I suppose it's possible.
>I know that some folks here feel that it is sacreligious for an artist
>not to do every bit of his strip himself...or to have his name on work
>that employs assistants...but, at worst, Jim is just continuing an
>industry practice that dates back to the second month of MUTT & JEFF.
>And, as you yourself note, he catches a lot of undue flack because he
>is quite open and generous about acknowledging his assistants and
>publicizing them.
The only good thing Davis has done in a long time, in my opinion.
>Frankly, I doubt most cartoonists really think that licensing is the
>horror that Watterson holds it to be -- and which you apparently deem
>it to be. In a recent interview, Charles Schulz had a wonderful quote
>I can't find right now about how it warms his heart when he sees
>someone wearing a Snoopy t-shirt, to think that he has created
>something that someone loves enough to wear, instead of just reading it
>in the paper and then wrapping a fish in it. Based on my few
>conversations with Schulz -- and given how little the income from a
>shirt can possibly impact his life -- I believe he is sincere about
>this.
I don't have a problem with merchandising per se, but when merchandising
affects the strip, and affects the characters, then I think it's bad. The
fact is, merchandising, and the wild success of it, is what changed
Garfield; and it changed it for the worse. Merchandising didn't change
Peanuts. I respect Watterson's choice, but I dont' condem Schulz.
>I don't believe comic strips have to remain comic strips. I think the
>best thing Schulz ever did in his life was that first "Charlie Brown
>Christmas" special and I love my little "Songs of the Pogo" record (and
I think that's overstating it a little, but the Peanuts animation shows and
films have been a worthy addition to the canon.
>I don't think a comic strip artist has to only be a comic strip artist.
> If Schulz wants to write a TV cartoon or Trudeau wants to put out Mr.
>Butts ashtrays, fine. My partner, Sergio Aragones, would love dearly
>to expand our character, Groo, from the printed page. Sergio recently
>did a Groo sculpture that is being marketed. He has been dying to find
>a company that would market little toy soldiers he could design and
>miniature buildings he could design of Groo's world. I'm currently
>working on a record/CD of Groo with songs about his adventures, plus we
>recently did a line of trading cards that Sergio drew and I wrote. We
>see the character as more than just something that exists on paper. If
>the merchandise is good, I see nothing wrong with this.
Groo is dying to be an animated show, maybe on Fox or USA.
>>But there's far too much money wrapped up in GARFIELD for the
>>syndicate that (I presume) owns the strip to allow it to retire,
>>even if Davis himself quits. That's the syndicate's fault, not
>>the creator's. OTOH, if Davis is at all unhappy with the system,
>>I've never read or heard it; he seems to be energetically and
>>happily working the system, not involuntarily bound to it. If
>>I'm wrong about this, please correct me.
>This is M.E. again. Jim has changed the system, at least for himself,
>in a number of ways. First, he wrested control of the merchandising of
>his strip from the syndicate. Then, two years ago, he wrested the
>strip; he bought it back from United Media and he now owns it, with
>syndication handled by Universal Press. He has more in common with
>Watterson than I suspect Watterson would ever appreciate; they are both
>irrevocably committed to the notion of the creator of the strip having
>total, 100% control of all aspects of it. From that point on, they
>have made different decisions about how to allot their time, whether to
>do merchandising, etc.. But I think the important thing is that those
>decisions be made by the individual creator. Davis has chosen
>different routes than Watterson...but he does a different strip -- one
>that, for instance, probably lends itself better to animation.
>(Watterson thinks his strip would be diminished by establishing a voice
>for Hobbes; I think Garfield was enhanced by establishing a voice for
>him.)
I think what it comes down to is that many of us do not like the choices JD
has made about Garfield or the direction he's gone in. Garfield's not the
worst strip in the paper, but it's in the bottom 50%, only a little ahaed
of Family (Puke) Circle and Terry & the Pirates.
--
Distrubution of this message by Microsoft, its subsidiaries, or its
software shall constitute a violation of my copyrights. Microsoft may
license copyrights to my messages, for distribution only, for the sum of
$1,000 US per week.
--
| kr...@cerebus.kreme.com 1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100 |
| WWW URL \ <http://ftp.netcom.com/pub/kr/kreme/kreme.html> |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \ Eat the crimson flesh, and wear old clothes, it |
| [303/777-2911] Data \ is a delightfully messy experience. Fanny Farmer|
Peter Davis
comic strip popular?" I think it's only loosely related to how funny
the strip is on a day to day basis. I think a strip needs to be funny
initially to attract new readers, and to gain a word-of-mouth
following.
Beyond that, however, I think readers are loyal to strips because they
like the characters, and want to see them day after day, to see what
they're up to. This is the only explanation I can find for the
continued popularity of so many "legacy" strips, long after their
creators have died and after any traces of humor or originality have
disappeared from the strip.
This is why it's so difficult for new strips to break in ... readers
are loyal to the strips they know, and don't want to take chances on
new, unknown material. It's not just syndicates and newspaper editors
themselves who are to blame. It's readers themselves.
However, I think this dynamic may be changing, as the population
becomes less and less newspaper oriented. Many people do not read the
paper at all, or at least, not daily. Therefore, reliance on
familiarity may no longer hold or build readership. I'm not sure
what's going to replace newspapers and what's going to replace comic
strips, but I believe that as the art form currently exists, it's
going to go the way of the radio play.
--
Peter Davis "Education is not the 617/873-4145
BBN Educational Technologies filling of a pail, but FAX: 617/873-2455
70 Fawcett Street the lighting of a fire." pda...@bbn.com
Cambridge, MA 02138 -- W. B. Yeats
Andy G Ihnatko
My opinion of the strip, for the record, is that it's completely
stagnated; I'm not just trying to be sarcastic when I claim that if I
pulled the last seven years' worth of GARFIELD books off the shelf,
tore the covers off, and handed the pile to the average comix reader,
s/he just would never be able to tell which anthologies came out
first.
But that's just my opinion, and not really the point I want to make.
I do know about the care with which Jim Davis handles the
merchandising of GARFIELD, and can respect it. I also respect the
fact that he's up front about his use of assistants. However, if he's
willing to go to the extreme lengths of winning control and ownership
of his strip from his syndicate, why isn't he willing to exercise the
same amount of influence to officially change the tagline?
I know as much about the production of a modern comic strip as you can
as a fan of strips, I think, and IMHO "GARFIELD By Jim Davis" is just
dishonest. Why not make a _real_ stand and simply announce that
henceforth the strip will be "Jim Davis' GARFIELD"?
I realize that when you have a gaggle of writers, pencilers, inkers,
and other production people on a strip, the issue of credit becomes a
hazy one. But IMHO the person who draws the key action of the strip
(not circles with names inside them, but That Which A Cartoonist
Draws) and the person who comes up with the words deserve credit, and
if the only person specifically credited didn't do both, then that's
just wrong. I can accept the fact that the logistics of having a
rotating roster of names in and out of the strip would be a nightmare
(though what would be so tough about two sets of initials in a corner
of one panel?) but I simply can't accept the concept of a strip being
"by" a man who (speaking in generalities) at best acted as a producer
and at worst just cashed the checks.
I'm flexible on this point. Trudeau faxes roughs to his art
assistant, who then renders finished artwork, but GT still writes and
draws the strip. Ditto for Cathy Guisewite. Both can credibly be
called the writers and artists of their respective strips. But
"GARFIELD By Jim Davis" just bugs me as a reader.
>The thing I hope you'll consider is that many strips are very, very
>popular. They know this because of surveys and mail and because of
>things like paperback sales and, yes, even merchandising. One of the
>reasons that GARFIELD got into so many papers was that newspapers felt
>silly printing that its paperback collections were high on the New York
>Times best seller list...but not carrying the strip. Again, YOU might
>not like GARFIELD or certain other strips but I think you underestimate
>how much a part they are of some folks' lives. If I were editing a
>newspaper comic paper, I'm not sure how I could justify dropping a
>strip that I disliked but my readers loved.
Indeed, that's something which often gets ignored in these little
debates. As convinced as I am that GARFIELD hasn't taken a step
forward in years, well, millions of books sold and thousands of
subscribing papers have to stand for _something_. One must always
remain open to the possibility that a certain strip Just Ain't Your
Dance and move on.
>Frankly, I doubt most cartoonists really think that licensing is the
>horror that Watterson holds it to be -- and which you apparently deem
>it to be. In a recent interview, Charles Schulz had a wonderful quote
>I can't find right now about how it warms his heart when he sees
>someone wearing a Snoopy t-shirt, to think that he has created
>something that someone loves enough to wear, instead of just reading it
>in the paper and then wrapping a fish in it. Based on my few
>conversations with Schulz -- and given how little the income from a
>shirt can possibly impact his life -- I believe he is sincere about
>this.
Indeed...I remember reading a similar quote about the feeling he gets
when he sees a kid hugging a Snoopy doll. Watterson's opinion,
obviously, is the only one that counts, but I think many of his
comments regarding the insidiousness of merchandising were way
overblown.
The fact is, the chalkware Snoopy bank I owned as a kid is right here
on my desk. It's made me happy for two decades now, it put only a few
pennies into Schulz' pocket and somehow the strip managed to struggle
on after the bank rolled off the assembly lines. But hey, to each his
own.
>(Watterson thinks his strip would be diminished by establishing a voice
>for Hobbes; I think Garfield was enhanced by establishing a voice for
>him.)
This might be a bit off-topic, but part of the enormous creative
success of the animated show -- besides the stellar writing, of course
-- was the casting of Lorenzo Music. Brilliant choice. It seems to
me like you can spend ten million bucks on feature-quality animation,
but it'll all be wasted effort if the audience doesn't hear the same
voice they've "heard" in their heads for years. IMHO, this was the
big problem with A WISH FOR WINGS THAT WORK. A great story, animated
well, but that penguin just didn't _sound_ like Opus.
-- Andy
--
WINDOWS95: It's like upgrading from Reagan to Bush.
==================================================================
ANDY IHNATKO'S COLOSSAL WASTE OF BANDWIDTH:
http://www.zdnet.com/~macuser/people/andyi/
Mark Evanier
writes:
>I do know about the care with which Jim Davis handles the
>merchandising of GARFIELD, and can respect it. I also respect the
>fact that he's up front about his use of assistants. However, if he's
>willing to go to the extreme lengths of winning control and ownership
>of his strip from his syndicate, why isn't he willing to exercise the
>same amount of influence to officially change the tagline?
ME: I can't answer for Jim but I suspect that this has never been an
issue. It apparently bothers you but it may not bother the folks who
are actually involved. (Did it bother you that all those years of the
MICKEY MOUSE strip were signed "Walt Disney," even after Walt passed
away? Perhaps it did...but Floyd Gottfredson told me that he declined
to have his name on the strip several times.)
I should also point out that the last few months of U.S. ACRES were
signed by Jim Davis and Brett Koth.
>I'm flexible on this point. Trudeau faxes roughs to his art
>assistant, who then renders finished artwork, but GT still writes and
>draws the strip.
ME: I agree. On the other hand, if you were to obtain a DOONESBURY
original "by G.B. Trudeau," you would very likely be holding a piece of
paper which Garry Trudeau had never touched.
And that raises some interesting questions: Supposing the assistant,
Don Carlton, traced the same rough three times. Has he then created
three pieces of Garry Trudeau original art? Supposing *I* traced
Trudeau's roughs? Is what I would create a Garry Trudeau original?
Supposing Trudeau had a whole staff of guys tracing his roughs over and
over? Would their output be piles of Garry Trudeau originals?
>This might be a bit off-topic, but part of the enormous creative
>success of the animated show -- besides the stellar writing, of course
>-- was the casting of Lorenzo Music. Brilliant choice. It seems to
>me like you can spend ten million bucks on feature-quality animation,
>but it'll all be wasted effort if the audience doesn't hear the same
>voice they've "heard" in their heads for years. IMHO, this was the
>big problem with A WISH FOR WINGS THAT WORK. A great story, animated
>well, but that penguin just didn't _sound_ like Opus.
ME: And many people are unaware that Lorenzo was the SECOND voice of
GARFIELD. The first was a San Francisco based announcer named Scott
Beach. Jim was not happy with the voice so he did extensive auditions
and finally selected Lorenzo. (Garfield's voice was also done on one
occasion by Tommy Smothers.) Of course, I still run into people who
think that Lorenzo's voice is nothing they like imagined for the
character.
The voice of Opus was changed on that special, only days before it
aired. They apparently never found a voice that pleased Breathed
completely. Several different people had the job and, when it was
animated, they animated to a voice track by Frank Welker, then recast
at the last minute with...I forget. (Was it Michael Bell? I know the
TV Guide listing was wrong because it was changed AFTER that went to
press...) I agree with you that they didn't find precisely the right
one.
Andy G Ihnatko
>ME: I can't answer for Jim but I suspect that this has never been an
>issue. It apparently bothers you but it may not bother the folks who
>are actually involved. (Did it bother you that all those years of the
>MICKEY MOUSE strip were signed "Walt Disney," even after Walt passed
>away? Perhaps it did...but Floyd Gottfredson told me that he declined
>to have his name on the strip several times.)
OK, good point. Still, if you had worked on GARFIELD for four years
as an uncredited and wholly anonymous artist, how confident would you
be about suddenly demanding an in-strip credit? Not that I would know
how Davis would react to such a demand, of course.
re: Disney -- my first moment of animation geekdom came when I was
seven or eight, saw an old Disney short, and realized that this one
Disney guy couldn't _possibly_ have made the entire thing without
assistance...shortly thereafter I realized that Granny's voice in the
old WB shorts sounded a hell of a lot like the same lady who voiced
Rocky The Flying Squirrel...
>ME: I agree. On the other hand, if you were to obtain a DOONESBURY
>original "by G.B. Trudeau," you would very likely be holding a piece of
>paper which Garry Trudeau had never touched.
>And that raises some interesting questions: Supposing the assistant,
>Don Carlton, traced the same rough three times. Has he then created
>three pieces of Garry Trudeau original art? Supposing *I* traced
>Trudeau's roughs? Is what I would create a Garry Trudeau original?
>Supposing Trudeau had a whole staff of guys tracing his roughs over and
>over? Would their output be piles of Garry Trudeau originals?
I believe in Schroeder's Principle: the status of comic strip artwork
cannot be resolved until it is observed. At the exact moment that
Carlton takes a final swig of Coke, wipes his glasses (assuming he
drinks COke and wears glasses) and decides that today's strip is ready
to go, then it's A Doonesbury Strip. I think of Trudeau's roughs as
the screenplay from which a movie is made. The screenplay for STAR
WARS is not the movie, but it's an interesting artifact nonetheless.
The sketch is original Garry Trudeau artwork, but it's not original
Doonesbury artwork. Call it production material, like the storyboard
sketches which define and shape a cartoon but don't actually appear in
the thing.
But it is an interesting question. I don't own much original cartoon
art, but one of the pieces I did buy is a vellum from Peter Bagge's
HATE. He draws his loose, energetic pencils on vellum, then puts it
on a lightbox and paints his tight inks on another layer of vellum on
top of _that_. Which is the "original" artwork? The ink vellum,
which is what afctually appeared in the printed comic, or the pencils,
which were really just an intermediate step but are where the visuals
of that page actually took shape? Or is it the sheet of notebook
paper upon which Bagge laid the page out with bare geometric shapes?
The answer's pretty straightforward, I think. I bought the pencils
because they show more of the process, of the decisions Bagge made and
then rethought as the work progressed. According to what I value in
artwork, there's no question. Which just demonstrates that as with
all art, it's the value you see in it and not the value which is
inherent in the thing. The best feature of the PEANUTS strip on my
wall isn't the polished inks, but the areas where I can see that
Schulz wasn't satisfied with how he'd positioned Snoopy on the
doghouse.
And if you or I traced over Trudeau's roughs, then sure we'd be creating
piles of Trudeau originals. Haven't you ever seen those $2500 Limited
Edition Original Production Collectors' Artworks at The Disney Store? :)
>The voice of Opus was changed on that special, only days before it
>aired. They apparently never found a voice that pleased Breathed
>completely. Several different people had the job and, when it was
>animated, they animated to a voice track by Frank Welker, then recast
>at the last minute with...I forget. (Was it Michael Bell? I know the
>TV Guide listing was wrong because it was changed AFTER that went to
>press...) I agree with you that they didn't find precisely the right
>one.
I always imagined Wallace Shawn, perhaps a touch deeper. As a Monday
Morning Voice Director, I can say that it appears that they cast the
voice based on Opus' appearance and not his personality.
Mark Evanier
writes:
>
>OK, good point. Still, if you had worked on GARFIELD for four years
>as an uncredited and wholly anonymous artist, how confident would you
>be about suddenly demanding an in-strip credit? Not that I would know
>how Davis would react to such a demand, of course.
ME: How would I feel? I think it would depend on what I felt I was
contributing, what my working arrangement was, etc.. I don't think
this is something that anyone can answer for someone else.
About three weeks ago, I did a ghost writing job on a magazine piece
for a major publication. A friend of mine was officially its author
but he was ill and I stepped in to help him make his deadline, writing
in his style, expressing his viewpoint, etc.. If he had offered to put
my name on it, I would have declined, as I don't feel that it
represents "my" work. There are artists who feel this way. When I ran
the Hanna-Barbera comic book department, I used a number of artists who
were used to being anonymous either on "funny animal" comics or TV
animation work. I offered them credit and several of them declined;
they were doing work in someone else's style on someone else's
characters...and they wanted to save their signatures for work that
they considered "theirs."
I am not defending not giving artists credit. I think they should,
wherever appropriate. But you can't presume to speak for others as to
when THEY will feel it's appropriate. I have frequently assisted with
the writing, drawing or lettering of comic books and strips without
credit and felt it was not appropriate for me to get my name on it.
>I believe in Schroeder's Principle: the status of comic strip artwork
>cannot be resolved until it is observed. At the exact moment that
>Carlton takes a final swig of Coke, wipes his glasses (assuming he
>drinks COke and wears glasses) and decides that today's strip is ready
>to go, then it's A Doonesbury Strip.
ME: Yeah...but is that a piece of Garry Trudeau art? Don Carlton art?
Trudeau/Carlton?
And here's a thought to complicate this question: When I was working
with Jack Kirby, there was an artist I'll call John Doe, who would take
a Kirby drawing, trace it and ink it. Then he'd sign and sell the
finished product as a "Kirby/Doe" drawing. This was done completely
without Jack's knowledge of consent...and, of course, Jack never
touched the piece of paper. If this drawing was not a piece of Kirby
art, can a finished DOONESBURY strip be a piece of Trudeau art? (I
don't pretend I have an answer for this...)
>I always imagined Wallace Shawn, perhaps a touch deeper. As a Monday
>Morning Voice Director, I can say that it appears that they cast the
>voice based on Opus' appearance and not his personality.
ME: Well, I'd suspect they cast what Berke Breathed "heard" in his head
and either they couldn't find what he imagined, or he couldn't decide
precisely what it was. I had this problem with Mike Peters when we
were casting MOTHER GOOSE & GRIMM. Mike had "heard" a voice for his
characters in his head but he had trouble matching any real voice to
that mental voice. (Wallace Shawn as Opus, by the way, is a terrific
idea. I wonder if it occurred to them.)
Jason John Seaver
Andy G Ihnatko <an...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>I know as much about the production of a modern comic strip as you can
>as a fan of strips, I think, and IMHO "GARFIELD By Jim Davis" is just
>dishonest. Why not make a _real_ stand and simply announce that
>henceforth the strip will be "Jim Davis' GARFIELD"?
Hmmm... Unobjectionable, but refer to the other thread on this group
about howit can take newspapers an eternity to change attribution.
>>Frankly, I doubt most cartoonists really think that licensing is the
>>horror that Watterson holds it to be -- and which you apparently deem
>>it to be. In a recent interview, Charles Schulz had a wonderful quote
>>I can't find right now about how it warms his heart when he sees
>>someone wearing a Snoopy t-shirt, to think that he has created
>>something that someone loves enough to wear, instead of just reading it
>>in the paper and then wrapping a fish in it. Based on my few
>>conversations with Schulz -- and given how little the income from a
>>shirt can possibly impact his life -- I believe he is sincere about
>>this.
>
>Indeed...I remember reading a similar quote about the feeling he gets
>when he sees a kid hugging a Snoopy doll. Watterson's opinion,
>obviously, is the only one that counts, but I think many of his
>comments regarding the insidiousness of merchandising were way
>overblown.
>
>The fact is, the chalkware Snoopy bank I owned as a kid is right here
>on my desk. It's made me happy for two decades now, it put only a few
>pennies into Schulz' pocket and somehow the strip managed to struggle
>on after the bank rolled off the assembly lines. But hey, to each his
>own.
I love all of my Peanuts and Bloom County stuff, too, and I don't
see the strips diminished by them. Certainly, merchandising isn't the
evil that Those Who Slavishly Worship Watterson would have us believe it is.
>>(Watterson thinks his strip would be diminished by establishing a voice
>>for Hobbes; I think Garfield was enhanced by establishing a voice for
>>him.)
>
>This might be a bit off-topic, but part of the enormous creative
>success of the animated show -- besides the stellar writing, of course
>-- was the casting of Lorenzo Music. Brilliant choice. It seems to
>me like you can spend ten million bucks on feature-quality animation,
>but it'll all be wasted effort if the audience doesn't hear the same
>voice they've "heard" in their heads for years. IMHO, this was the
>big problem with A WISH FOR WINGS THAT WORK. A great story, animated
>well, but that penguin just didn't _sound_ like Opus.
My choice for the role probably would be Jason Alexander, to get
really off-topic, but I don't know if he was doing voice work then. Whoever
came up with Lorenzo Music for Garfield did do a brilliant job.
--
Jason Seaver: jse...@wpi.wpi.edu |"Is this a good thing, Bull?"
WPI Student and fan of Atari, |"No, Axl, it's a continuous employment
Taz-Mania and SeaQuest 2032. | thing - and that's better than good!"
Boy, can I pick 'em or what? | -Taz-Mania, "Taz Babies"
Mark Bernstein
: (I just worked with Lorenzo again last
: week; I cast him in a new CD I'm helping with..."Stan Freberg Presents
: the United States of America, Volume II")
How about that. It *is* possible for one's heart to skip a beat. When
should I start watching for this in the stores?
--
Mark Bernstein
ma...@erim.org
Mark Evanier
Seaver) writes:
>
> Just out of curiosity, Mark -- have you ever seen Lorenzo's face?
>I'm not interested in a description or anything, but I know he is (or
>used to be) near-maniacal in hiding it, and in the "making of..."
>special Jim Davis admitted that he had never seen his face. The tape
>of the voicing session also only showed the guy's back.
ME: Seen it hundreds of times. I direct the voices on Garfield, and I
knew Lorenzo before he ever got the gig. Years ago, I was one of the
writers on a TV show based around his character from the Rhoda
show..."Carlton, Your Doorman." (I just worked with Lorenzo again last
week; I cast him in a new CD I'm helping with..."Stan Freberg Presents
the United States of America, Volume II")
Lorenzo keeping his face hidden is just a running joke. He actually
has appeared on TV quite a few times; even starred briefly in his own
talk show. Jim was just keeping the joke going when he said he'd never
seen it.
Jim, by the way, was the person who cast Lorenzo in the role and I
agree with you that it was a brilliant choice. Lorenzo is a very
clever, funny actor, who contributes immensely to whatever merits our
shows have.
Andy G Ihnatko
>In <DLEso...@world.std.com> an...@world.std.com (Andy G Ihnatko)
>writes:
>>
>>OK, good point. Still, if you had worked on GARFIELD for four years
>>as an uncredited and wholly anonymous artist, how confident would you
>>be about suddenly demanding an in-strip credit? Not that I would know
>>how Davis would react to such a demand, of course.
>ME: How would I feel? I think it would depend on what I felt I was
>contributing, what my working arrangement was, etc.. I don't think
>this is something that anyone can answer for someone else.
Absolutely. But my point is that academically, I don't think an artist
who _wants_ credit would feel all that confident about _asking_ for it.
Granted, though, they knew what the deal was when they signed on.
Perhaps I'm a bit biased on this. Before I told her to just reject
such offers out-of-hand, my agent would phone me at least once a month
with an offer to ghost-write a book for a Famous Computer Press
Personality (identity of FCPP would change regularly). And when those
books hit the stands some months later, they completely offended me;
The Steve Bigname Book Of Windows by Ed Freelancer would have been
perfectly honest and really won't have cost Steve Bigname a thing.
But The Book Of Windows By Steve Bigname? That's just dishonest.
(to be completely honest, though, I did ghost one book, when a
publisher unexpectedly accepted my usual "so absurdly high no
publisher will possibly pay it" Minimum Ghosting Fee. But I can't do
a good job when I don't respect the project so I don't do such things
any more)
I can't _attack_ Jim Davis for the crediting situation with GARFIELD,
but nonetheless I'd feel a whole lot better about it if in some small
fashion the strip acknowledged that it was a team effort. "Jim Davis'
GARFIELD" instead of "GARFIELD by Jim Davis," therefore.
>they considered "theirs."
(oops...you were giving examples of artists turning down offers of
credit). Well, the distinction here is that they were _offered_
credit, at least.
>I am not defending not giving artists credit. I think they should,
>wherever appropriate. But you can't presume to speak for others as to
>when THEY will feel it's appropriate. I have frequently assisted with
>the writing, drawing or lettering of comic books and strips without
>credit and felt it was not appropriate for me to get my name on it.
As usual, I must of course defer to your vault of professional
experience in the field(s). But nonetheless, if a guy's job is to
wake up in the morning, answer the phone, be told "Panel One: Boots
and Julie walk in the park. Two: Close-up of Julie, talking. Three:
Long shot of Boots and Julie", draw the strip, and then letter the
dialogue which comes via fax later in the afternoon...and he does this
every day for ten _years_, then he deserves credit in the strip.
That's a separate issue from the idea of him getting credit or being
offered it. When I hear that a guy _was_ indeed the artist for a
famous strip for ten years, and the creator adamantly refused to even
acknowledge his presence in the studio, then I can't help but think
that the creator was a gold-plated bum. Obviously, though, this isn't
the case with Jim Davis.
>ME: Yeah...but is that a piece of Garry Trudeau art? Don Carlton art?
>Trudeau/Carlton?
Well, to get technical: The roughs are Garry Trudeau artwork, and
Garry Trudeau art. The only single-name way to describe the printed
result is as Doonesbury Art, though technically it's Don Carlton
artwork based on Garry Trudeau art direction. But surely such fine
distinctions are the sole province of the taxmen and collectors. I
mean, hell, waaay back then who knew that a Li'l Abner strip would be
highly sought after not because of Capp or the characters, but because
of the contributions of an anonymous assistant? I'm perfectly
comfortable acknowledging that Tex Avery storyboarded RED HOT RIDING
HOOD, which was then animated by Preston Blair (the hubba-hubba stuff
anyway), voiced by three other people, etc.
(incidentally, I notice that there's a new edition of Blair's classic
Walter Foster animation books. What caught my eye is that this
edition features the actual characters Blair was famous for, not ones
which were recognizable but Just Different Enough to avoid copyright
violations. Any inside poop on this?)
>And here's a thought to complicate this question: When I was working
>with Jack Kirby, there was an artist I'll call John Doe, who would take
>a Kirby drawing, trace it and ink it. Then he'd sign and sell the
>finished product as a "Kirby/Doe" drawing. This was done completely
>without Jack's knowledge of consent...and, of course, Jack never
>touched the piece of paper. If this drawing was not a piece of Kirby
>art, can a finished DOONESBURY strip be a piece of Trudeau art? (I
>don't pretend I have an answer for this...)
What can I say, except "When John Doe dies, may St. Peter charge him
two dollars for that sin...and when everything's tallied up, may he
then find himself one dollar short of the funds necessary to purchase
admission into Heaven."
But to answer your hypothetical, I think it _would_ be a Kirby/Doe
drawing if it were indeed a collaboration.
On a slightly different subject, Trudeau doesn't physically touch a
DOONESBURY strip, but my understanding is that his faxes are indeed
substantial roughs and not just circles with "MIKE" and "ZONKER"
written in them. Therefore, I think that while Don Carlton could
indeed draw a strip with the Doonesbury characters, if Trudeau were
out of the picture the strip would be missing an ineffable quality and
would cease to be DOONESBURY. Sort of like how one can tell the
difference between a Michelangelo and a painting done by one of his
pupils, under the master's direction, even though the pupil might have
copied his technique _precisely_.
>ME: Well, I'd suspect they cast what Berke Breathed "heard" in his head
>and either they couldn't find what he imagined, or he couldn't decide
>precisely what it was. I had this problem with Mike Peters when we
>were casting MOTHER GOOSE & GRIMM. Mike had "heard" a voice for his
>characters in his head but he had trouble matching any real voice to
>that mental voice. (Wallace Shawn as Opus, by the way, is a terrific
>idea. I wonder if it occurred to them.)
Must be an awfully large task. A mental image of a sound is almost
impossible to convey to another human being and you'd have to be part
Kreskin to find a voice which truly pleases a creator. How happy
was/is Jim Davis with Lorenzo Music?
Andy G Ihnatko
>ME: Well, I don't think it's as much a "team effort" as you do. And
>why are you picking on Jim for this? I can name a dozen current strips
>that are produced by as many hands or more. How many names do you see
>on BEETLE BAILEY? Or B.C.?
I was speaking in generalities, and Jim's name popped up in examples
because, well, this thread started out as a discussion of GARFIELD.
My opinions apply equally to all strips in which the gags, the words,
and the pictures don't begin with the titled author's picking up a
pen.
>>(incidentally, I notice that there's a new edition of Blair's classic
>>Walter Foster animation books. What caught my eye is that this
>>edition features the actual characters Blair was famous for, not ones
>>which were recognizable but Just Different Enough to avoid copyright
>>violations. Any inside poop on this?)
>ME: Nope. In fact, I hadn't noticed. Thanks for pointing that out.
It's a standard-sized trade-paperback which collects both of Blair's
books. It would appear that Blair re-wrote and re-drew major sections
of it (though it doesn't cover any new ground). Came this close to
buying it in San Francisco last week but shied away from the $29 cover
price (hell, I can pay full price here in Boston).
Mark Evanier
writes:
>Absolutely. But my point is that academically, I don't think an
>artist who _wants_ credit would feel all that confident about _asking_
>for it.
ME: Well, I've never encountered one who was reticent about that.
>I can't _attack_ Jim Davis for the crediting situation with GARFIELD,
>but nonetheless I'd feel a whole lot better about it if in some small
>fashion the strip acknowledged that it was a team effort. "Jim Davis'
>GARFIELD" instead of "GARFIELD by Jim Davis,"
ME: Well, I don't think it's as much a "team effort" as you do. And
why are you picking on Jim for this? I can name a dozen current strips
that are produced by as many hands or more. How many names do you see
on BEETLE BAILEY? Or B.C.?
>(incidentally, I notice that there's a new edition of Blair's classic
>Walter Foster animation books. What caught my eye is that this
>edition features the actual characters Blair was famous for, not ones
>which were recognizable but Just Different Enough to avoid copyright
>violations. Any inside poop on this?)
ME: Nope. In fact, I hadn't noticed. Thanks for pointing that out.
>Must be an awfully large task. A mental image of a sound is almost
>impossible to convey to another human being and you'd have to be part
>Kreskin to find a voice which truly pleases a creator. How happy
>was/is Jim Davis with Lorenzo Music?
ME: Jim picked Lorenzo and has always thought he was perfect.
Randy Meredith
: : (I just worked with Lorenzo again last
: : week; I cast him in a new CD I'm helping with..."Stan Freberg Presents
: : the United States of America, Volume II")
Mark,
I recently read Freeberg's autobiography (part one). Do you have any info
on the second volume?
Randy Meredith
Holy Cow Communications
Columbus, OH
Ennead
: I can't _attack_ Jim Davis for the crediting situation with GARFIELD,
: but nonetheless I'd feel a whole lot better about it if in some small
: fashion the strip acknowledged that it was a team effort. "Jim Davis'
: GARFIELD" instead of "GARFIELD by Jim Davis," therefore.
Credit =is= given in a small fashion, in (all or some of?) the GARFIELD
collections (as well as in interviews Davis has given). Ironically, t's
because Davis doesn't keep it a secret, that he gets so much more
critisism for use of "assistants" (I agree with you that "collaborators"
would be a more accurate term for GARFIELD) than other cartoonists.
Yours,
--Ampersand
There's a new Kippil every day at
http://www.teleport.com/~ennead/ampersand/today.html
Rob Means
>From: Eva...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Evanier )
>Subject: Re: New Freberg CD (Was Re: Garfield . . .)
>Date: 22 Jan 1996 18:24:44 GMT
>In <4e05am$3...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us> rmr...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Randy Meredith) writes:
>>I recently read Freeberg's autobiography (part one). Do you have any info
>>on the second volume?
>ME: It's quite a ways off. I'd guess at least three years.
Which would put it, what, about 35 years after the first volume? 40?
Rob Means
Delphi International
1090 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Tel.: 202/898-0960, ext. 67
r...@delphi-int.org
Mark Evanier
Mark Evanier
>
>In article <4e0kpc$a...@ixnews8.ix.netcom.com> Eva...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Evanier ) writes:
>>From: Eva...@ix.netcom.com (Mark Evanier )
>>Subject: Re: New Freberg CD (Was Re: Garfield . . .)
>>Date: 22 Jan 1996 18:24:44 GMT
>
>>In <4e05am$3...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us> rmr...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Randy Meredith) writes:
>
>>>I recently read Freeberg's autobiography (part one). Do you have any info
>>>on the second volume?
>
>Which would put it, what, about 35 years after the first volume? 40?
>
ME: The first volume of Freberg's autobiography came out four years
ago...so if the second comes out in three years, it will be seven years
after the first, not 35.
The second volume of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will be out this year,
after 33 years. The third volume will probably follow a lot sooner.
John Saponaro
>writes:
>
>>Must be an awfully large task. A mental image of a sound is almost
>>impossible to convey to another human being and you'd have to be part
>>Kreskin to find a voice which truly pleases a creator. How happy
>>was/is Jim Davis with Lorenzo Music?
eva...@ix.netcom.com(Mark Evanier ) wrote:
>
>ME: Jim picked Lorenzo and has always thought he was perfect.
Mark -- how the heck did Jim Davis choose Lorenzo Music? I remember him
as one of the producers of RHODA, and (of course) the voice of Carlton
the Doorman. Now it seems all he does is voices (Tubbi on GUMMI BEARS as
well). Has he ever regreted no more producing? Few shows today equal or
excel RHODA or BOB NEWHART.
Douglas Pratt
Freberg's copyright on "It Only Hurts When I Laugh" is dated 1988. My
copy is from the second hardcover printing, purchased January, 1989.
(Inside joke to Mark -- for me it will always be "Freberg of Arabia.")
- Doug Pratt
Grg Walker
>ME: Well, I don't think it's as much a "team effort" as you do. And
>why are you picking on Jim for this? I can name a dozen current strips
>that are produced by as many hands or more. How many names do you see
>on BEETLE BAILEY? Or B.C.?
As one of the "uncredited" contributors to a number of comic strips over
the years, I have followed this discussion with great interest. I'd like
to set the record straight on Mark's comment, however. Beetle Bailey is
not produced by a 'dozen hands or more' this would be difficult to do even
if we all used both hands in our work. A number of people do contribute
ideas to the strip (nowhere near a dozen) but Mort always makes the final
choices of which ideas to use and very often re-writes, embellishes,
tweaks or otherwise makes the gags his own. At the drawing stage, he
=always= does the pencils and I do the lettering and inking (this is not a
"secret" even if not generally known). The layout and composition of the
panels is completely Mort's. A Beetle Bailey original is more Mort Walker
than many works that are attributed to Michelangelo are his. Are either
more or less valid because of this? I think that many of the so-called
"team" or "factory" strips you mention (and many, if not most, that are
not recognized as such) are produced in this fashion and with this
division of work. Almost everyone =other= than Schulz and Watterson use
assistants.
BTW, Jim Davis is an exceptionally nice person. Regardless of whether one
likes or dislikes Garfield, I think most of us in the cartoon field would
love to have the success he enjoys.
John Saponaro
> Just out of curiosity, Mark -- have you ever seen Lorenzo's face?
>I'm not interested in a description or anything, but I know he is (or used
>to be) near-maniacal in hiding it, and in the "making of..." special Jim
>Davis admitted that he had never seen his face. The tape of the voicing
>session also only showed the guy's back.
>
> As I said, I'm just curious.
I can confirm that Lorenzo Music wants to be obscure when it regards to
photographs. In my day job, I typed bios of New York-born celebrities
for a special advertising section. All were invited to send brief
information and a picture. Lorenzo sent no picture, explaining that in
his line of work, having a face is a liability.
On a similar note: A friend tried to get a voice actor to send him an
autographed picture of this actor. He got the autograph, but not the
picture.
Tom Galloway
Mark Evanier <Eva...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The second volume of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA will be out this year,
>after 33 years. The third volume will probably follow a lot sooner.
Would there be any chance of a 2-CD version which'd include the first
volume as well?
Objstrips: Some strip, somewhere, must have stolen a gag from Freberg.
"John. Marsha. John. Marsha. John. Marsha. John. Marsha. John. Marsha."
--a Freberg bit that loses an unbelievable amount when put in written text.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Mark Evanier
>
>Would there be any chance of a 2-CD version which'd include the first
>volume as well?
ME: Definitely.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Yeah, but is there any chance of getting a copy of the first CD
*without* the extra stuff that had been cut for the original album?
Perhaps it was just my (overwhelming) familiarity with the album, but
I found the extra lines/scene jarring and thought that they detracted
from rather than adding to the work.
[This has gone incredibly far afield for this group, but I can't for
the life of me figure out where follow-ups should go.]
----
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |C: What was that?
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |K: French Horns
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(415)857-7572
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Evan_Kirshenbaum/
--
Evan Kirshenbaum
Mark Evanier
writes:
>Yeah, but is there any chance of getting a copy of the first CD
>*without* the extra stuff that had been cut for the original album?
>Perhaps it was just my (overwhelming) familiarity with the album, but
>I found the extra lines/scene jarring and thought that they detracted
>from rather than adding to the work.
ME: The new CD release of STAN FREBERG PRESENTS THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, THE EARLY YEARS will almost certainly have all the same "new"
stuff as the first CD. Maybe you oughta get one of those CD Players
that enables you to program tracks to skip.
>[This has gone incredibly far afield for this group, but I can't for
>the life of me figure out where follow-ups should go.]
ME: I'm going to cross-post this reply to rec.music.dementia with the
hopes that anyone who replies to this will delete the "strips" sector
of the cross-post, thereby transferring this discussion over to the Dr.
Demento newsgroup. Let's see if it works.
C/D Eskridge
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>In article <4eckpn$3...@cloner3.netcom.com>,
>Mark Evanier <eva...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <tygDLt...@netcom.com> t...@netcom.com (Tom Galloway) writes:
>>>
>>>Would there be any chance of a 2-CD version which'd include the first
>>>volume as well?
>>
>>ME: Definitely.
>
>*without* the extra stuff that had been cut for the original album?
>Perhaps it was just my (overwhelming) familiarity with the album, but
>I found the extra lines/scene jarring and thought that they detracted
>from rather than adding to the work.
>
>[This has gone incredibly far afield for this group, but I can't for
>the life of me figure out where follow-ups should go.]
>
That's simple rec.music.dementia -- That's the Dr Demento group
where Freberg fans lurk and post.
Curt