It’s Not Just You: Garfield Is Not Meant to Be Funny (2013)
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
> For years, Watterson battled against pressure from publishers to merchandise his work, something that he felt would cheapen his comic. He refused to merchandise his creations on the grounds that displaying Calvin and Hobbes images on commercially sold mugs, stickers, and T-shirts would devalue the characters and their personalities.[1]
I'm curious: what led to Garfield's immense popularity as a syndicated comic? Were there in fact legions of people who _did_ find it funny, or entertaining?
---------
[1] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson#End_of_Calvin_a...
I love what a gluttonous, selfish and slightly malevolent pig Garfield is. I especially love it when he kicks Odie off the table.
I can't stand Peanuts, though.
I don't find it quite so directly funny anymore, but it does feel very nostalgic. Read Garfield is very comforting.
Every single agenda I ever had in high school, was a Garfield agenda.
No exceptions. Ever.
No regrets, either.
My favorite Garfield cartoons are the ones where I can read John as self-aware, like this one: https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/?comic=2351
Gary Larson has started drawing again! He's still "retired" but has started self-publishing on an irregular cadence.
That said, some of the art -- especially Al Jaffee's -- was excellent. I can't say the same about Garfield.
The last page (the one you fold) was pretty innovative, too.
I'm sorry ahead of time if this comment comes off as strong, but I'm always confused by people who can't comprehend that there must be people who like thing it's popular to not like.
I hate Adam Sandler, I think he's among the least funny human beings on the planet. I also don't question whether anyone actually enjoys his movies, because obviously people do.
Rather, my question is more in reference to what seem to be incongruous facts: the article points out that the comic was not written with the intention to be funny, so then what explains its popularity as a comic strip?
I don't doubt that there are some (many!) who thought it funny. What I'm trying to understand is the discrepancy between its immense fame AND its apparent lack of humorous intention.
It'd be a little bit like if there was a famous band that was incredibly popular, yet in multiple interviews they reveal that they don't put a great deal of effort behind making appealing music. As such, I would be curious to understand what instead may be the other driving sources of their appeal (ex. good looks, marketing etc.).
For example, here are some other possible candidate reasons the Garfield comics may have been popular. I don't know if any of these are true, rather I would consider them hypotheses that I would be curious to hear others confirm/debunk:
* it was marketed very well and gave people the perception that it was _supposed_ to be funny, and if you didn't find it funny that was perhaps a result of _you_ not getting something. * there was a more limited selection of sources of comic strips, so the standards for what passed as an entertaining comic strip were lower than in our Internet age. * most people knew it wasn't funny, nor that it was meant to be funny. Rather they read it because it was the cultural meme of the day to do so.
1. John was such a clueless loser
2. Garfield got so enraged at Nermal
3. Odie kept bouncing back
This was not a deep humor. It’s the kind of humor where you see a dumb, funny video on the internet, snort a laugh, and move on, completely forgetting it ten seconds later.
I liked Garfield because it dead-panned things that otherwise would have been funny. Hated the television cartoon version though.
Never particularly cared for Calvin and Hobbes (always found it somewhat preachy, tacky, and emotionally kitch, the "I think we've learned something today", going-for-the-feels type), though the writer is nonetheless very talented (and a lot of its strips are great).
The post also mentions the New Yorker cartoons. Never cared for them either, not because I "missed the joke", but because I dislike their faux-high-brow attitude to humor, given that the content is more often than not trite observations about society.
I also like lots of webcomic strips (Cyanide and Hapiness, Dinosaur Comics, SMBC, The Parking Lot is Full, etc), and comics like Gosciny, Mafalda, Mortadelo y Filemon, and so on, besides "serious" comics.
"Oh...so you don't like Garfield? Well, ummm, it wasn't meant to be funny anyway, I WIN!"
Doesn't Tommy Wiseau claim that The Room was meant to be a comedy now?
In its reading, there is usually a "surface level" joke that isn't particularly funny, but some visual detail of representation will point to a hidden meaning that is usually pretty vicious.
See i.e. http://permanent-monday.blogspot.com/2010/05/movable-feast-h...
https://www.quora.com/Garfield-comic-strip/Is-Garfield-suppo...
And this Garfield Isn't Funny meme is absurd. Newspaper comics aren't "funny". Daily comics aren't "funny". reddit.com/r/funny isn't "funny". Newspaper comics are for kids, and kids think Garfield is hilarious, 30 years ago and today.
The idea that Davis would create an intentionally bad comic and that would make people buy his merchandise is ridiculous.
Maybe that's why most people don't get my sense of humour.
Comedy isn't universal at all: I'm sure there are people who don't find Robin Williams funny. With Garfield, there are several layers to the strip, and the more of them you understand, the funnier the strip gets.
I think you have to ...
1) Understand the role of each character;
2) Empathize with Garfield (easy to do, he has many common failings);
3) Feel like cats in general are lazy, eat the same thing, somewhat anti-social, and prone to melodrama (i.e., be a cat owner);
4) Feel superior to Jon, as everyone else in the comic does, but also find him lovable (having a dorky dad helps);
5) Appreciate absurdity
...for the humor to translate.
Here's a random comic I chuckled at : https://www.gocomics.com/garfield/1986/03/22
The foundations of humor are certainly present in this strip, regardless of how much the reader knows about Garfield. It is absurd (a cat crying and watching a sad movie) and incongruous (turns out, he's not watching a movie at all; his reaction is not proportional to the situation). But I think what elevates the strip is the repetition of Garfield's struggle with diets and how Jon always tries (and fails) to cheer Garfield up, combined with the fact that Garfield acts exactly like real-world cats do (crying for attention/food).
This is the more interesting question the article does not even try to explore.
My own theory: he's cute.
People love cute cats. Grouchy cats are cute. Ergo Garfield is cute, and lovable, even when not funny.
Basically, Garfield is for people who like grumpy cats and relatable, albeit, repetitively dry and not particularly witty humor.
1) Garfield is meant to make money.
2) Garfield is meant to be funny and the vast majority of people find it funny.
The classic New Yorker panel is perhaps 'On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_... Clever, timely and memorable, sure. But inducing of mirth? Questionable.
Comedians make the differentiation between 'funny' and 'funny, funny', as between a 'bit' and a 'joke, joke', something that follows the traditional structure of a joke book or cracker. It's an interesting distinction for something that isn't particularly well described by the subtleties of English.
I did greatly enjoy the Garfield and Friends TV show as a kid, I still remember the bit about "Wyoming" meaning no state here.
https://www.youtube.com/user/lasagnacat
I especially love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_NeqMAAsBk
Even Dilbert was a calculated commercial invention, leveraged for all it was worth?