June 18, 2008: "Destroying Nostalgia"
(click for archives)
Labels: dumbstruck
June 18, 2008: "Destroying Nostalgia"
(click for archives)
June 18, 2008: "Destroying Nostalgia"
(click for archives)
June 18, 2008: "Destroying Nostalgia"
(click for archives)
15 Comments:
Because you were six.
If that. But still, how did Charles Schultz achieve international fame with that!?
You, the writer/creator of Dumbstruck is criticizing Charles Shultz? Sweet Jesus - what brazen ignorance! Maybe you outta dig a little deeper than your one collection of a strip that ran for 50 years. It's like walking into the middle of a movie, watching it for five minutes, then walking out scratching your head saying, "I don't get it."
I'm not ignorant of Peanuts (I do hold a degree in comics, after all). Like I said, Peanuts has always been a huge influence on me and my art style. I do not deny that Schultz eventually reached a sublime mastery of the comic strip art form (specifically his subversively funny strips of the 60s and 70s). Perhaps my question should be "Why did people in the 1950s think Peanuts was so great?" Cuz it weren't so great in the 50s. Perhaps because it was a generation that allowed things like comic strips to develop over time rather than our current instant-gratification culture that cancels promising TV shows after only two episodes? I dunno.
Yeah, leave real comics to the big boys and go read Garfield.
1. A degree in comics doesn't mean you have a complete and thorough understanding of the medium.
2. Peanuts in the 50's was masterful.
3. Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant.
Ok then, what about Peanuts in the 50s was masterful? If I am ignorant, please enlighten me.
As an example, I would direct attention to today's strip on snoopy.com (published in 1961) which is a clever word pun and IS funny. Compare that to the strip which I put in my comic, from 1953, which I would argue is not very funny.
I could mention things like subtle line quality, beauty in simplicity, brutal honesty, social commentary in a time when other strips were (generally) silly and/or superficial, a vast range of emotions that was very uncommon at the time - especially in a strip dealing exclusively with children, and so on and so forth.
But it doesn't matter.
The reason you're ignorant is NOT because you don't like it, different strokes move the world. The reason you're ignorant is because you judge something without really knowing it.
Not that it matters, debating on-line is such a stupid exercise...but Peanuts was not always supposed to be funny. It wasn't always designed to make people laugh. Sometimes it was supposed to advance the characters, sometimes it was supposed to make them think, look at themselves, look at each other, etc., etc.
You guys are all nutz.
Good points from everyone (if there is more than one person here, since everyone is named Anonymous). I have no argument with any of them. But I WOULD argue, as someone who IS pretty familiar with Peanuts throughout the years, that the good character development, social commentary, and humor did not materialize until the very late 50s and became staples of the strip in the 60s and 70s.
What exactly is "good" character development?
Good characterization is when a joke, gag, or story relies as much if not more so on established character traits. Aside from Lucy, who was always the aggressive curmudgeon, many of the Peanuts kids in the early to mid 50s were interchangeable. The introduction of Lucy's advice booth, the little red-haired girl, the softball team, Sally, Rerun, etc. (all debuting in the late 50s/early60s), allowed the characters to develop unique traits not present in the first ten or so years of the strip.
Good grief.
Post a Comment
<< Home