December 22, 2005
Note to Johnny Hart: “Night” is a noun
And while we're at it, so is his usage of "care."
But bad grammar lessons aside, just what is Johnny Hart telling us in today's bizarre strip?
First two panels: “Alert! Alert! War on Christmas!”
Last panel: “Oh, such buffoonery! This isn’t a commentary on politics at all! You see -- oh, ha ha! -- there’s this guy, ok, and he inexplicably despises a very specific and elemental part of grammar, so his Christmas story is full of very thick, censor-like lines! Don’t you get the hijinks? We all have something like this, eh? Why, my Uncle Freddie, he hates dangling participles. Just hates ‘em!”
This is so unlike you, Johnny. We all know you’re a raving religious activist; why hide behind a punchline that doesn’t make a damn bit of sense?
Posted by Jason Feifer at December 22, 2005 10:03 AM
Comments
i knew this would be up when i read it in the paper today. Wasn't BC a decent comic, as far as comics go, at one time? Perhaps i was just young and liked comics.
Posted by adam at December 22, 2005 10:15 AM
I feel the same way. I have very clear memories of enjoying BC as a kid, and I think I even bought one of the book collections. Maybe it was funny. I don't know. But then again, I remember also enjoying Garfield and the Family Circus (the latter of which I refuse to read, even if it might provide good website fodder), so chances are our standards were just considerably lower.
Posted by jason at December 22, 2005 10:41 AM
on top of that, the strip is paradoxical on two levels. firstly, christmas did not exist "B.C." and secondly it's a "comic" but is in no way comical.
Posted by mike at December 22, 2005 01:51 PM
Is Family Circus really more terrible than B.C. and Garfield? I mean, don't get me wrong, they are all intolerably horrible, but at least Family Circus has a vision. A hideously awful vision.
My grandmother loves it.
Posted by Steve at December 22, 2005 02:31 PM
Well, Family Circus and BC share many qualities: Both are tired, unfunny, frequently make no attempts at punch lines and are greedily persisting long past their prime. But there’s a key difference, as far as I can tell: Johnny Hart is trying to convince his readers of his point of view, and Bil Keane isn’t.
Keane’s strips say this: “I really love kids and family and Jesus, and here’s my ideal world.” Hart’s say this: “Liberals and secularists are wrong, and I’ll show you why by breaking down the argument and situating it in a prehistoric world with talking animals.” Both are things I’m generally not interested in reading, but I suffer through BC because he’s clumsy and his arguments are frequently so stupid that they’re great to poke fun at. (This is why I’ll also read Mallard Fillmore, although sometimes I have to take breaks from it because its arrogance is so potent.) Family Circus doesn’t play offense like that, so I just save myself the trouble.
Posted by jason at December 22, 2005 03:18 PM
I just noticed that the punchline makes no sense. If the "guy who has an aversion to nouns" wrote the book the caveman is reading (I think his name is Peter, but they all look the same and the characters are so hollow that there is no need to be able to tell them apart anyway), then why did he write the nouns in the first place, only to cross them out? Shouldn't the punchline be, "It's a Christmas Story EDITED by a guy who has an aversion to nouns"? Or something. Man, I don't know.
Posted by Steve at December 22, 2005 05:01 PM
Give me a Far Side comic anyday. Now that was clever stuff.
Posted by Jessie at December 22, 2005 10:54 PM
Post A Comment |