Interesting news. Apparently the LA Times has finally dropped Garfield like a sack of wet cat hair. I know it's probably the single most popular strip since Peanuts. I certainly had more than my fair share of books as a kid. Garfield led me to develop a love of lasagna, a healthy dislike of dogs, and an ambivalent attitude toward morbid obesity. But it's really really bad these days. Every panel is essentially the same image and every "fat, lazy, hungry" punchline has been done many times before.
Comic by committee:
Gene Weingarten puts it best:
He said the paper displayed "the kind of cojones missing in too many places" and described "Garfield" as "a strip produced by a committee, devoid of originality, devoid of guts, a strip cynically DESIGNED to be inoffensive and bad, on the theory that public tastes are insipid."
Get Fuzzy is far more akin to what Garfield used to be in it's heyday - sarcastic, rude, often nonsensical and subject to flights of fantasy and bizarre antics. Today's orange tabby is just bluntly revisiting past gags with less flair and more familiar, easy-to-digest punchlines. Just compare the two on any given day and the difference is astounding:
Bring back Bill Watterson and the irreverent, insightful humor of Calvin and Hobbes. Watterson's work could be cutting, yet sweet and honest without pandering. Every strip was unique and often unexpected, with heavy doses of philosophy and wit mixed in with sledding, space aliens and giant squids. Here's something for next Christmas.
