7 ms·

It’s Not Just You: Garfield Is Not Meant to Be Funny (2013)

52 points by pingou 6y ago

carls 6y ago
I didn't know how much of Jim Davis' motivations were commercial ones. It seems very at odds with folks like Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson: > 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_and_Hobbes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson#End_of_Calvin_a...
- Rallerbabs 6y ago
  As a kid, I always thought Garfield was absolutely hilarious. I'd cut the comic out of the newspaper and glue them into a book. Loved the cartoons. The Halloween one is my favorite. Up to my 40th birthday, I was given Garfield comics. 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.
  - sethammons 6y ago
    Similar. As a kid, I thought Garfield was very funny. We had a couple books of 'em. I also enjoyed Far Side. I should revisit them :)
    - brandmeyer 6y ago
      > I also enjoyed Far Side. Gary Larson has started drawing again! He's still "retired" but has started self-publishing on an irregular cadence. https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff
  - sp332 6y ago
    Some Garfield strips are really funny. The first couple years had a higher density of actual jokes I think.
  - LeoPanthera 6y ago
    I don't have anything to add except that I wanted to make it clear that you're not the only one. As a child (80s/90s) I thought Garfield was hilarious. I'd always ask for Garfield books for birthday/christmas presents and I would often re-read them. I don't find it quite so directly funny anymore, but it does feel very nostalgic. Read Garfield is very comforting.
    - Rallerbabs 6y ago
      Oh, I almost forgot. Every single agenda I ever had in high school, was a Garfield agenda. No exceptions. Ever. No regrets, either.
      - barkingcat 6y ago
        Agreed. No regrets.
  - dkarl 6y ago
    I was a Peanuts fan as a kid and still am. Rereading books of the old strips was centering and calming for me the way the bible is for some people. It reassured me that it was... safe?... to wish for justice in the world and to want to be a better person. I liked Garfield, too, but it appealed to something meaner in me. There's suffering in both strips, but the way the Charlie Brown endures despite his dignity being stripped from him again and again is realistic, while the fact that Jon always bounces back is meant to be understood as unrealistic. A realistic Jon would be a crushed, hopeless, miserable person. Often the only purpose of putting a smile on his face seemed to be to make it possible to enjoy the cruelty directed against him. (Same with Odie.) Not saying I'm above enjoying it, but it's hard to put a positive spin on it. 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 https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/?comic=2351
  - bitwize 6y ago
    Oh, kids think he's a scream. But the humor wears thin as you get older. I've noticed the same about Mad Magazine. When I was 11 and 12, it was hilarious. But as I got older I realized that half the reason I found it so funny is because I was a kid. The nonstop puns, pop-culture parodies, and low-key raunchy humor pushed the envelope for me. But as an adult I realized that whatever wasn't forced obvious humor, was boomers who haven't moved on, didn't understand new phenomena like video games at ALL (certainky not enough to competently make fun of them), and were fighting 60s and 70s ideological battles in the 80s and 90s. They dedicated an entire section of one issue to moralizing about smoking, for instance. That said, some of the art -- especially Al Jaffee's -- was excellent. I can't say the same about Garfield.
    - ksaj 6y ago
      Mad Magazine was comedic gold for what goes on in the margins (the little mini-cartoons) and the self-referencing jokes. I was a fan of spy-vs-spy, too. It very well might have influenced my career. The last page (the one you fold) was pretty innovative, too.
- throw_away 6y ago
  Don't forget children. The television series are very child-centric and also the plush toys.
- polka_haunts_us 6y ago
  >Were there in fact legions of people who _did_ find it funny, or entertaining? 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.
  - carls 6y ago
    My question in the original comment is not meant to mock or poke fun at those who enjoyed it. I, myself, found it somewhat entertaining to read as a kid. 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.
    - lukey_q 6y ago
      As someone who also remembers Garfield being funny as a kid, I don't read the OP as saying it was never funny, but that being funny was a secondary concern to Davis after being marketable. I just looked up a random Garfield strip from 1988 [1] and I have to say, it's kind of a funny visual gag. Nothing groundbreaking but for a daily strip in a newspaper, it's not bad, and I'm an adult now, as a kid I probably would have found it hilarious. Combine decent humor like that with recognizable and cute characters appearing in the newspaper daily and it's not surprising that the strip became so popular. [1] http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1988/ga880101.gif http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1988/ga880101.gif
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- coldtea 6y ago
  I mildly like Garfield. 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.
- incanus77 6y ago
  I had a bunch of Garfield books as a kid, too. IIRC they were about 9”x6” and mostly black & white. I found them hilarious, I think for a couple reasons: 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.
  - ksaj 6y ago
    I always thought of it as anti-humour, which is a form of humour in and of itself. A lot of almost-joke scenes that just sort of stop without actually going anywhere. I liked Garfield because it dead-panned things that otherwise would have been funny. Hated the television cartoon version though.
cptnapalm 6y ago
For those that do not know how enjoyable Garfield is when there is no Garfield, I present to you Garfield Without Garfield. https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/ https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/
- anon9001 6y ago
  Hah. I haven't seen that in so many years. Glad to see they're still updating.
  - derwiki 6y ago
    I think I found Garfield without Garfield around the same time I found http://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com http://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com
    - Balgair 6y ago
      Amazing, thank you!
pmoriarty 6y ago
So what is it that makes Garfield popular? 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.
- t0mbstone 6y ago
  "Then, he consciously developed a stable of recurring, repetitive jokes for the cat. He hates Mondays. He loves lasagna. He sure is fat." Basically, Garfield is for people who like grumpy cats and relatable, albeit, repetitively dry and not particularly witty humor.
alisonkisk 6y ago
Smithsonian Magazine (!) Is just blog spamming a Quora post. https://www.quora.com/Garfield-comic-strip/Is-Garfield-supposed-to-be-funny 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.
- tgv 6y ago
  And they say journalism is dead.
InfiniteRand 6y ago
I mildly enjoy the Garfield comic strip, it gives a chuckle or two every now and then but is mostly forgettable (This article is a bit over the top though, written for commercial reasons does not mean not intended to be funny, I find it kind of silly to measure something by the purity of the artist's intentions) I did greatly enjoy the Garfield and Friends TV show as a kid, I still remember the bit about "Wyoming" meaning no state here.
secondcoming 6y ago
These guys did an amazing job with Garfield: https://www.youtube.com/user/lasagnacat https://www.youtube.com/user/lasagnacat I especially love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_NeqMAAsBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_NeqMAAsBk
- tyrust 6y ago
  > not posting their magnum opus https://youtu.be/NAh9oLs67Cw https://youtu.be/NAh9oLs67Cw
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    Ha yes, I forgot about that one. I watched it all the way through once.
    - tyrust 6y ago
      Same, but while working, admittedly. It was fairly coherent throughout iirc.
WesolyKubeczek 6y ago
I frequent r/imsorryjon. Now, those things are funny.
barkingcat 6y ago
I always found Garfield hilariously downright funny. Maybe that's why most people don't get my sense of humour.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Same. I find most of the comics funny, but there are a few that really make me laugh. I actually have a folder on my desktop dedicated to so some of my favorite cartoons. 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 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).
tombert 6y ago
When people say this kind of stuff, I always wonder if it's post-hoc rationalization. "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?
- brundolf 6y ago
  I think it's more that he's embraced it for what it's come to mean to his audience, instead of what he originally envisioned. Which is honestly really admirable.
- waynesonfire 6y ago
  It doesn't matter what is claimed. See our current President.
- nathanvanfleet 6y ago
  Did you read the article though?
dbspin 6y ago
Interesting that the immediate counterpoint is the New Yorker comic strips. While certainly witty, I'd question whether these are even intended to be funny. As in, do people literally read them and laugh out loud, find themselves thinking back on a particular strip and laughing and so on. I always assumed the New Yorker panels were more of an acerbic, dry, 'aha' kind of observation than anything designed to be 'funny' in the traditional sense. Meanwhile, Garfield while hackneyed (as the article points out, even intentionally so) has its moments. 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_you%27re_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.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Let's be honest: every comic artist is hoping to be a commercial success, at least once. To fund their other interests if nothing else. Even Dilbert was a calculated commercial invention, leveraged for all it was worth?
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  Garfield and Dilbert have a lot in common aside from that. Don't know what the genre would be called, exaggerated cynicism?
cm2012 6y ago
Come on now. This headline is so dumb. Both things are true: 1) Garfield is meant to make money. 2) Garfield is meant to be funny and the vast majority of people find it funny.
ouid 6y ago
It's understandable that they would think that new garfield strips aren't being drawn.
bitwize 6y ago
The thing about Garfield being a big orange ball of nothing is you can project anything onto him. Recently there was a phenomenon of turning Garfield into Lovecraftian horror -- exemplified by the ImSorryJon subreddit.
davidwhite 6y ago
"Permanent Monday" is a blog that does an amazing job of teasing out and/or retrofitting the humor buried in the strip. 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-hold-sauce.html http://permanent-monday.blogspot.com/2010/05/movable-feast-h...
ChrisArchitect 6y ago
2013? why share this??
Grakel 6y ago
Cut a slice and take the rest may be the funniest thing of all time (to me). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutASliceTakeTheRest https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutASliceTakeThe...
dang 6y ago
Garfield on the front page the moment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188207
knolax 6y ago
Wow the Smithsonian Magazine has resorted to reposting Quora answers.

52 points by pingou 6y ago

I didn't know how much of Jim Davis' motivations were commercial ones. It seems very at odds with folks like Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson: > 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_and_Hobbes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson#End_of_Calvin_a...

Rallerbabs 6y ago
As a kid, I always thought Garfield was absolutely hilarious. I'd cut the comic out of the newspaper and glue them into a book. Loved the cartoons. The Halloween one is my favorite. Up to my 40th birthday, I was given Garfield comics. 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.
- sethammons 6y ago
  Similar. As a kid, I thought Garfield was very funny. We had a couple books of 'em. I also enjoyed Far Side. I should revisit them :)
  - brandmeyer 6y ago
    > I also enjoyed Far Side. Gary Larson has started drawing again! He's still "retired" but has started self-publishing on an irregular cadence. https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff
- sp332 6y ago
  Some Garfield strips are really funny. The first couple years had a higher density of actual jokes I think.
- LeoPanthera 6y ago
  I don't have anything to add except that I wanted to make it clear that you're not the only one. As a child (80s/90s) I thought Garfield was hilarious. I'd always ask for Garfield books for birthday/christmas presents and I would often re-read them. I don't find it quite so directly funny anymore, but it does feel very nostalgic. Read Garfield is very comforting.
  - Rallerbabs 6y ago
    Oh, I almost forgot. Every single agenda I ever had in high school, was a Garfield agenda. No exceptions. Ever. No regrets, either.
    - barkingcat 6y ago
      Agreed. No regrets.
- dkarl 6y ago
  I was a Peanuts fan as a kid and still am. Rereading books of the old strips was centering and calming for me the way the bible is for some people. It reassured me that it was... safe?... to wish for justice in the world and to want to be a better person. I liked Garfield, too, but it appealed to something meaner in me. There's suffering in both strips, but the way the Charlie Brown endures despite his dignity being stripped from him again and again is realistic, while the fact that Jon always bounces back is meant to be understood as unrealistic. A realistic Jon would be a crushed, hopeless, miserable person. Often the only purpose of putting a smile on his face seemed to be to make it possible to enjoy the cruelty directed against him. (Same with Odie.) Not saying I'm above enjoying it, but it's hard to put a positive spin on it. 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 https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/?comic=2351
- bitwize 6y ago
  Oh, kids think he's a scream. But the humor wears thin as you get older. I've noticed the same about Mad Magazine. When I was 11 and 12, it was hilarious. But as I got older I realized that half the reason I found it so funny is because I was a kid. The nonstop puns, pop-culture parodies, and low-key raunchy humor pushed the envelope for me. But as an adult I realized that whatever wasn't forced obvious humor, was boomers who haven't moved on, didn't understand new phenomena like video games at ALL (certainky not enough to competently make fun of them), and were fighting 60s and 70s ideological battles in the 80s and 90s. They dedicated an entire section of one issue to moralizing about smoking, for instance. That said, some of the art -- especially Al Jaffee's -- was excellent. I can't say the same about Garfield.
  - ksaj 6y ago
    Mad Magazine was comedic gold for what goes on in the margins (the little mini-cartoons) and the self-referencing jokes. I was a fan of spy-vs-spy, too. It very well might have influenced my career. The last page (the one you fold) was pretty innovative, too.
throw_away 6y ago
Don't forget children. The television series are very child-centric and also the plush toys.
polka_haunts_us 6y ago
>Were there in fact legions of people who _did_ find it funny, or entertaining? 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.
- carls 6y ago
  My question in the original comment is not meant to mock or poke fun at those who enjoyed it. I, myself, found it somewhat entertaining to read as a kid. 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.
  - lukey_q 6y ago
    As someone who also remembers Garfield being funny as a kid, I don't read the OP as saying it was never funny, but that being funny was a secondary concern to Davis after being marketable. I just looked up a random Garfield strip from 1988 [1] and I have to say, it's kind of a funny visual gag. Nothing groundbreaking but for a daily strip in a newspaper, it's not bad, and I'm an adult now, as a kid I probably would have found it hilarious. Combine decent humor like that with recognizable and cute characters appearing in the newspaper daily and it's not surprising that the strip became so popular. [1] http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1988/ga880101.gif http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1988/ga880101.gif
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 6y ago
I mildly like Garfield. 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.
incanus77 6y ago
I had a bunch of Garfield books as a kid, too. IIRC they were about 9”x6” and mostly black & white. I found them hilarious, I think for a couple reasons: 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.
- ksaj 6y ago
  I always thought of it as anti-humour, which is a form of humour in and of itself. A lot of almost-joke scenes that just sort of stop without actually going anywhere. I liked Garfield because it dead-panned things that otherwise would have been funny. Hated the television cartoon version though.

cptnapalm 6y ago

For those that do not know how enjoyable Garfield is when there is no Garfield, I present to you Garfield Without Garfield. https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/ https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/

anon9001 6y ago
Hah. I haven't seen that in so many years. Glad to see they're still updating.
- derwiki 6y ago
  I think I found Garfield without Garfield around the same time I found http://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com http://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com
  - Balgair 6y ago
    Amazing, thank you!

pmoriarty 6y ago

So what is it that makes Garfield popular? 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.

t0mbstone 6y ago
"Then, he consciously developed a stable of recurring, repetitive jokes for the cat. He hates Mondays. He loves lasagna. He sure is fat." Basically, Garfield is for people who like grumpy cats and relatable, albeit, repetitively dry and not particularly witty humor.

alisonkisk 6y ago

Smithsonian Magazine (!) Is just blog spamming a Quora post. https://www.quora.com/Garfield-comic-strip/Is-Garfield-supposed-to-be-funny 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.

tgv 6y ago
And they say journalism is dead.

InfiniteRand 6y ago

I mildly enjoy the Garfield comic strip, it gives a chuckle or two every now and then but is mostly forgettable (This article is a bit over the top though, written for commercial reasons does not mean not intended to be funny, I find it kind of silly to measure something by the purity of the artist's intentions) I did greatly enjoy the Garfield and Friends TV show as a kid, I still remember the bit about "Wyoming" meaning no state here.

secondcoming 6y ago

These guys did an amazing job with Garfield: https://www.youtube.com/user/lasagnacat https://www.youtube.com/user/lasagnacat I especially love: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_NeqMAAsBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_NeqMAAsBk

tyrust 6y ago
> not posting their magnum opus https://youtu.be/NAh9oLs67Cw https://youtu.be/NAh9oLs67Cw
- secondcoming 6y ago
  Ha yes, I forgot about that one. I watched it all the way through once.
  - tyrust 6y ago
    Same, but while working, admittedly. It was fairly coherent throughout iirc.

WesolyKubeczek 6y ago

I frequent r/imsorryjon. Now, those things are funny.

barkingcat 6y ago

I always found Garfield hilariously downright funny. Maybe that's why most people don't get my sense of humour.

mywittyname 6y ago
Same. I find most of the comics funny, but there are a few that really make me laugh. I actually have a folder on my desktop dedicated to so some of my favorite cartoons. 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 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).

tombert 6y ago

When people say this kind of stuff, I always wonder if it's post-hoc rationalization. "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?

brundolf 6y ago
I think it's more that he's embraced it for what it's come to mean to his audience, instead of what he originally envisioned. Which is honestly really admirable.
waynesonfire 6y ago
It doesn't matter what is claimed. See our current President.
nathanvanfleet 6y ago
Did you read the article though?

dbspin 6y ago

Interesting that the immediate counterpoint is the New Yorker comic strips. While certainly witty, I'd question whether these are even intended to be funny. As in, do people literally read them and laugh out loud, find themselves thinking back on a particular strip and laughing and so on. I always assumed the New Yorker panels were more of an acerbic, dry, 'aha' kind of observation than anything designed to be 'funny' in the traditional sense. Meanwhile, Garfield while hackneyed (as the article points out, even intentionally so) has its moments. 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_you%27re_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.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Let's be honest: every comic artist is hoping to be a commercial success, at least once. To fund their other interests if nothing else. Even Dilbert was a calculated commercial invention, leveraged for all it was worth?

raxxorrax 6y ago
Garfield and Dilbert have a lot in common aside from that. Don't know what the genre would be called, exaggerated cynicism?

cm2012 6y ago

Come on now. This headline is so dumb. Both things are true: 1) Garfield is meant to make money. 2) Garfield is meant to be funny and the vast majority of people find it funny.

ouid 6y ago

It's understandable that they would think that new garfield strips aren't being drawn.

bitwize 6y ago

The thing about Garfield being a big orange ball of nothing is you can project anything onto him. Recently there was a phenomenon of turning Garfield into Lovecraftian horror -- exemplified by the ImSorryJon subreddit.

davidwhite 6y ago

"Permanent Monday" is a blog that does an amazing job of teasing out and/or retrofitting the humor buried in the strip. 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-hold-sauce.html http://permanent-monday.blogspot.com/2010/05/movable-feast-h...

ChrisArchitect 6y ago

2013? why share this??

Grakel 6y ago

Cut a slice and take the rest may be the funniest thing of all time (to me). https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutASliceTakeTheRest https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutASliceTakeThe...

dang 6y ago

Garfield on the front page the moment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188207 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25188207

knolax 6y ago

Wow the Smithsonian Magazine has resorted to reposting Quora answers.