May I politely ask that we give the Achewood bashing/Achewood promotion bit a rest?
One element of comedy is our familiarity with it, our comfort level. Lines like Steve Martin/Dan Akroyd’s “We are two wild and crazy guys!,” Jackie Gleason’s “One of these days, Alice . . . bang! zip! pow! To the moon, Alice!,” Don Adam’s “Would you believe . . . ,” or Bill Dana’s “My name Jose Jiminez,” aren’t funny the first time we hear them but become funny because of their association to funny things we've seen in the past. Three of those (all except “would you believe . . . ,” in context) aren’t remotely funny on their own, yet people laugh when those lines are merely uttered.
I’m guessing one of the hardest things for a comic strip writer to do is to preserve the familiarity of the characters without getting into a rut.
With Calvin, you knew to expect a selfish little boy, fond of all things disturbed and gross, with an amazing sense of imagination, and the ability to state things with an awareness beyond his years without actually being aware of whatever it was he stated (if that makes sense). There were repetitive themes, like the snowmen, but as a whole Bill Watterson wrote Calvin & Hobbs in a way where you know what to expect but didn’t know exactly what you were going to get. The same was true with The Far Side, Peanuts, etc.
Sometimes, a creator seems to get bogged down and preserves the familiarity of a character to such an extent that he/she can’t seem to create new jokes. Cathy, to me, is an example. It seems like each joke is either about (a) new women’s fashions, (b) Cathy’s desire to eat food without gaining weight, or (b) how men and women think differently. Garfield, to me, is always about (a) eating lasagna, (b) sleeping late, (c) making fun of a dumb dog, (d) bothering a spider, or (e) making fun of Jon’s lack of a love life.
With Calvin & Hobbs, I knew what to expect but was always surprised. With Cathy and Garfield, I knew was to expect and was rarely surprised. Does that make sense?
As I stated above, we all have a distinct sense of humor, and the fact you may find Garfield (or even Nancy & Sluggo) funny does not make you any better or worse than me. It just makes you different.
I tried the Achewood test, reading several months. I noted some inconsistency on the part of the cartoonist – he doesn’t know exactly what kind of comic strip he intends to draw, because the direction the jokes go is all over the map. Some of the strips were funny (to me) on their own merit. A couple of the strips were VERY funny (to me). I don’t care who draws it, the following strip (I’m paraphrasing) was funny to me:
“What did you give John for his birthday?”
“A short respite on his journey to the grave.”
“Oh. I gave him an Etch-A-Sketch.”
I thought it was great and can see it, slightly re-worded, as an exchange between Suzy and Calvin, or Charlie Brown and Linus Van Pelt (or Peppermint Patty and Marcie). My wife didn’t see the humor at all.
Some of the Achewood strips were puzzling. Many of the jokes are the “we are two wild and crazy guys” jokes, where you are required to know the characters and be familiar with the repeated use of lines to find the humor, if any, in the strip. That’s not unique to Achewood. Garfield’s lasagna jokes are (ostensibly) funnier because you know Garfield likes lasagna. Calvin’s tormenting of Susie is funnier if you’ve read a dozen strips on the same subject. The same holds true for Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.
I don’t think Turbopilot’s trying to be like the elitist artists, trying to convince you that the reason you don’t “see that the single blue brushstroke represents man’s inhumanity to man” is because you’re not intellectual or sensitive enough. My guess is he shared something he thought was funny and realized was an acquired taste. It’s just a case that ONE element of SOME humor is familiarity, hence the need for the acquired taste.
I think the whole Achewood discussion has gotten out of hand. As a Freeper, I’ll defend your right to continue bashing or promoting Achewood, but I would politely suggest you either read and enjoy it or ignore it.
All in all, I think most of us miss Bill Watterson and Gary Larson, who drew comics were you always knew what to expect, but were always surprised and never disappointed by the quality.
I don’t think Turbopilot’s trying to be like the elitist artists, trying to convince you that the reason you don’t “see that the single blue brushstroke represents man’s inhumanity to man” is because you’re not intellectual or sensitive enough.
You obviously haven't read the kid's posts. He calls us "anti-intellectual." He tells me to "crawl back in [my] shell" if I'm not willing to "open up" my mind to a friggin' comic. He states that he knows "with a high degree of probability" that he is smarter than me.
If that isn't pseudo-intellectual snobbery, what is?
The classic is when a mugger holds up Jack Benny with, "Your money or your life!" After a pause, the mugger says, "Well?" Benny: "I'm thinking it over."