For Better Or For Worse

Sorry, Froggy, but the "comics" have had serious content for decades. "Terry and the Pirates", "Apartment 3G", "Brenda Starr", "The Phantom", "Dr. Kildare", etc., etc., etc. I think it's one of those problems brought on by Disney that have most people think that all cartoons, animated or still, ought to be funny. And then you look at what the Japanese do for their art...

Paul A. Cutler III

So why don't we have an immigration quota, and enforce it? Froggy,

Of that group, "The Phantom" was the only one I cared to read. "Gasoline Alley", was another that was semi-serious that I read with regularity. I don't know how you would classify "Alley Oop". People riding around on dinosaurs is hardly a serious concept, but the material was not slapstick-funny in the same manner as "Smokey Stover", "Blondie", "Out Our Way", or the "Katzenjammer Kids". Never the less, it WAS entertaining. I always thought "Brenda Starr" and "Mary Worth" were pretty boring. "Dondi", on the other hand- along with "Little Orphan Annie"- did keep my interest. .....Arf.

Except for Walt Kelly's "Pogo", the strips were not the wasteland of half-witted, ill-informed, self-serving political commentary that they have become today. We have enough half-witted, ill-informed, self-serving political commentary right here on this board to satisfy that appetite.

IMO. The venerated Charles Schulz, with his Peanuts strip, was the progenitor of today's boring comic strip. He gets a lot of praise, but I subscribe to the idea that his influence altered the comic strips for the worse.

With regard to "...what the Japanese do for their art", we are not talking about art here. We are talking about content. Great artwork is not an indicator of great content. The one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Sure, the anime and manga is pretty good-looking stuff, but it is just so much wasted effort if the content is rubbish. On the other hand, such is the nature of the comic strip, that marginal artwork is totally overshadowed by superb content. Of course, it is great if they can work together, but in the end, content is the thing.

Froggy,

I'm with Froggy on this one. If they're being presented as comics, they should be funny. Otherwise, call them what they really are - illustrated stories.

I hardly think that Disney can be held responsible for the idea that cartoons ought to be funny. I've never found their stuff to be particularly amusing. OTOH, Warner Brothers cartoons, even those I've seen a thousand times, still have me in stitches. IMO, Chuck Jones and company set a standard for humour that has seldom been surpassed.

Looking back to earlier cartoons, artists like Winsor McCay combined humour and outstanding artwork. Perhaps that's the origin of the idea?

Interesting point. I've just seen "Howl's Moving Castle" with my nephew, aged seven. Ostensibly a children's movie, it is visually stunning, very funny, but also very intelligently written. It's themes and ideas had just as much appeal for me as my nephew. And we both laughed out loud! The contrast between this movie and some of the recent animated offerings from Hollywood could not be greater...

Couldn't have said it better. As far as I can see, "For Better Or For Worse" has no content worth speaking of - and the artwork is nothing special, so what's the point?

So you don't get it. So what? I don't get the appeal of Beetle Bailey - a moronic strip if there ever was one. But there must be an audience for it, else why do so many papers carry it?

One man's humour is another man's "huh?"

About 30 years ago IIRC Psychology Today (or maybe it was Esquire) ran a humour survey, using what the experts told them were examples of the 5 types of joke. They asked readers to rate the jokes on a scale of 1 (dull) to 5 (extreemely funny).

The results, after tabulating several thousand responses:

a) all 5 jokes got the same average score. IOW, all types of jokes were funny to some people and unfunny to others.

b) no reader rated all 5 jokes at the same level of funniness.

c) on average, men scored jokes around 3, and women around 2.5. That's statistically significant, as they say -- it explains why so many men think their womenfold have no sense of humour, and so why many women think their menfolk have a sophomoric sense of humour (at best.)

And _I_ think all this argy-bargy about whether the comics should be/are funny or not is one of the funniest threads to appear on this venerable forum in ages. It's so delightfully _solemn_. Thanks for the entertainment, guys!

He's right,

In the Maritimes (Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, PEI, and New Brunswick) lobster is known as "The poor man's food".

Pete in Calgary, AB, CA formerly Pete in Waverley, NS, CA

Jay Cunn> Newfoundland, described to me by a Canadian, where in 1955, the poor

Many of us have done a similar thing already up here. Improved on it even.

Hey, here's a neat site:

Jay Cunn The

Well, you know what they say, One man's entertainment is another man's ennui. Froggy,

My "huh" is for "Get Fuzzy" and "Mutts" - a waste of space if there ever was one.

And political satire well done is vastly preferable to the preaching in "BC".

Considering it's generally flavorless except for the butter it is usually drowned in, the poor as usual get the mooky end of the stick.

Lobster - flavorless???!!! You must be a smoker. It has a superb taste - unless it is old frozen stock.

But I am 'spoilt', living in an Essex fishing village with fresh daily supplies from a local shop!

David.

Haven't smoked since '71, and I've eaten lobstah in Maine and live lobster here in California - even brought a couple back from Portland once; scared the bejeezus out of the cats when we set them loose on the kitchen floor. Give me halibut or cod or snapper or fresh caught bluegill or trout, anytime.

Not that lobster's BAD, mind you, but there's just not much there there.

Catfish, man, catfish!

Fried of course.

With hushpuppies and mustard greens :-).

I'll have the lobster, thank you. Salt-water fish only please preferably tuna, cobia, or red sea bream, preferably uncooked. Fresh water fish are for making cat food . . .ugh! Nasty with a capital 'N'!

Froggy,

Obviously a man who's never fried up bluegills only a half hour out of the lake, or a trout just 15 minutes out of a Sierra stream. Now, as to those bottom feeding scavengers like catfish or their cousins the carp, I agree.

Like I said before, cat food. Doesn't make any difference how soon you fry them, they're still nasty and "fishy" smelling. Ugh! Balut, or lutefisk is good, if you like it. I don't. We all have our quirks.

Froggy,

Froggy @ thepond..com wrote: [...]

Garrison Keillor had a nice tale about lutefisk a few years ago

Now I know you've never caught and cooked your own trout; at least not out of a mountain stream.