Monday, 8 October 2012 04:58 pm
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineI've long had mixed feelings about political cartoons and never seriously considered doing a regular one myself. On one hand, they always have fresh material to cover and feel important when new; a few even find their way into history textbooks. On the other hand, (1) their fanbase is inherently limited, (2) it's tricky to be innovative between a tight deadline and plenty of competition from other cartoonists, (3) most such jokes lose their relevance pretty fast, and (4) a certain amount of bitterness is inevitable. The last factor is the worst in my book. Maybe you already dwell on politics for a good chunk of the day and would find the cartooning therapeutic, but I know firsthand how seeking out the negative daily can darken one's soul.
This year I've dropped all fully or semi-political comics from my reading list. Either I disagreed too strongly and/or too often, or I just didn't find them funny anymore.
My current pet peeve is the injection of politics in comics that never used to be political. Imagine you had a friend for ages, frequently funny and eschewing sensitive subjects, who suddenly announced a scathing insult to your position or candidate of choice. And then he did it again a few days later. On some level, you might feel betrayed. Of course, you can tell your friend to knock it off or tone it down, but cartoonists generally don't take writing advice from strangers. And when they do, if they're not Web-only, you may not see the results for a couple weeks.
It's not just the potential difference of opinion that ticks me off about this trend. Take yesterday's "Get Fuzzy": Darby Conley disregarded the premises he himself established, making ignoramus Bucky way too gifted and turning a mere talking-animal world into sci-fi because it was all he could think of to get his message across. Don't tell me that anything goes in every comedy; that's only for the nuttiest. For the rest, I expect a modicum of consistent feeling. It's a well-known if little-stated rule of commerce: To give people what they want, you have to be selective with surprises.
In the unlikely event that I make a political statement in a cartoon, I promise you that it will not be in "Downscale." I'd hate to betray my readers.
This year I've dropped all fully or semi-political comics from my reading list. Either I disagreed too strongly and/or too often, or I just didn't find them funny anymore.
My current pet peeve is the injection of politics in comics that never used to be political. Imagine you had a friend for ages, frequently funny and eschewing sensitive subjects, who suddenly announced a scathing insult to your position or candidate of choice. And then he did it again a few days later. On some level, you might feel betrayed. Of course, you can tell your friend to knock it off or tone it down, but cartoonists generally don't take writing advice from strangers. And when they do, if they're not Web-only, you may not see the results for a couple weeks.
It's not just the potential difference of opinion that ticks me off about this trend. Take yesterday's "Get Fuzzy": Darby Conley disregarded the premises he himself established, making ignoramus Bucky way too gifted and turning a mere talking-animal world into sci-fi because it was all he could think of to get his message across. Don't tell me that anything goes in every comedy; that's only for the nuttiest. For the rest, I expect a modicum of consistent feeling. It's a well-known if little-stated rule of commerce: To give people what they want, you have to be selective with surprises.
In the unlikely event that I make a political statement in a cartoon, I promise you that it will not be in "Downscale." I'd hate to betray my readers.