Garfield - Now with plot!

[Jesusabdullah]

I remember hating Peanuts as a kid, but loving Garfield. Clearly, something was different between them.
Also, one of my favorite individual strips was a Peanuts Sunday strip. I don't remember it that well (not even the joke), but I remember Charlie Brown talking about sleeping in the back of the car, late at night, while his parents are driving and maybe listening to the radio, and how it felt safe, comforting. The reason I like it is because I can totally relate to that. I've been there, as a little kid, in the back seat of the truck late at night as my parents were driving home, listening to the radio, and there was this feeling with it of, I suppose, safety, comfort, however Charlie Brown said it.

But yeah, Garfield never really did that for me. :/

[Blackaby]

...I don't get how people can be reading the same comic strip as me. I think all of Garfield's jokes are different and funny. And I think the storylines are cute, too.

I read Garfield to be amused and entertained. I've tried reading lots of other strip comics, on the internet and off it, but there's maybe what four or five others that I've really gotten into.

I don't think I was forced into liking Garfield by society or social pressure, I just happened to read it in the newspaper one day when I was a kid and was like, oh, that's so cool! It's a funny cat! And he's an asshat!

[McDuffies]

I wasn't talking about popularity. I was talking how McDuffies thinks Garfield is horrible and Peanuts is good, even though they're basicly the exact same comic, only one features a cat and a lonely man, and one features a dog and a lonely boy. In fact, if I didn't know any better, Garfield might just be Peanuts in the future, where Charlie Brown changed his name to Jon Arbuckle.

I'll probably repeat some things people already said, but I'll try to sum up my reasons why "Peanuts" is better than "Garfield". The reasons keep piling up as I think more about them.

-"Peanuts" evolves, introduces characters that slowly became more and more important, introduces new jokes and new twists. Garfield doesn't. Characters you named are episodic, they lack characterisation and simply said, comic would be pretty much the same without them. Garfield wouldn't change if John was taking the cat to a different vet every time. Oposed to that, take the example of Peppermint Patty who grew from one-story character into some of the more important character. It allowed Shiltz to, for instance, stroll from the basic story about Charlie Brown and Snoopy to talk about his other various characters, so that he could return to central characters later, with new freshness; With Garfield, it's always Garfield, John and Oddie in center of attention.
In any case, you can't deny that Shultz's universe is rich and complex, while Davis' universe is basically John's house with a few occasional visits to other sets. Perhaps that might not be bad itself, but it's hard for me to understand how little that universe has expanded over so many years, and over the years and years of making it, not so many new ideas can be derived from such small universe.

-Even within those original, first characters, "Peanuts" shows more variety. Snoopy talks to a bird, imagines he's a red barron and other various characters, writes fiction, takes a bunch of birds to camping - all the variety of things, with adding new interests over the years. Compared to that, list of things Garfield is interested in is very short and nearly not expanding.

-Note that, as others said, Peanuts precedes garfield and that many things from it that we could consider cliche now, weren't back then.

-Peanuts isn't exactly a gag-ridden comic. It's intention isn't to make you laugh at the end of the strip. Instead, it preferes melancholy and compassion for characters. Garfield is a gag-ridden comic and if it happens to not induce laughs (like in my case), it's because it fails.

-The greatest quality of peanuts and what makes it one of, in my opinion, the best comics ever made, is that it is actually a comic that speaks about grown-up people disguised in a story about kids. All the problems that Peanuts cast experiences are actually those little, daily problems that grownups have. That was, Peanuts is very perceptive. Note that Charlie Brown doesn't get rejected by a red girl, he doesn't even manage to ask her out. It's not a story of a man in love that is not returned, it's a story of a man fighting with his own lack of self-confidence. Same as the story that Snoopy never managed to write a first sentence to. Does tree that eats kites really eat kites or is it just an inanimate object that Charlie blames for his own failures, such as people often do? And I won't even start on Linus's safety blanket. These all talk about human character on an universal level.
Garfield has none of that. It works with cliches. John is a cliche loser and he doesn't get rejected because of who knows what, but because his character sheet contains one word: loser. Thus everything he does has to be unsuccesful, regardless of whether there's a reason for it or not. No complexity of characters, no perception of real world being translated into a comic form.

-Generally, Peanuts has positive message and Garfield has a negative one. Peanuts feels compassion for it's characters. In Garfield, John gets undeservedly trashed, Garfield acts mean to everyone, and the comic (or it's author) never states it's opinion towards those. "Garfield" keeps a safe distance from it's characters, never investing any emotion in it, so that it doesn't have to think about repercussions of what's going on in the comic. If we laugh at Charlie Brown failing, we still feel compassion to him, but when it comes to laughing at John, it's expected of us to be cruel to a man who is facing constant failures for no apparent reason. It's a crule world in both cases, but in case of Garfield, it expects us to be cruel with it.

-Art was never a central thing about peanuts, but it was still somewhat expressive as Shultz was painstakingly drawing it and putting himself into it. For still poses, it makes up with vibrating line. Garfield, on the other hand, is drawn by hired artists, you'll notice how in last few decades, drawing style is simplified in a way that allows just about any artist to jump into and start drawing it with as short adjusting period as possible - it's made a template. It uses a lot of copy&paste and, generally, never brings anything worthwhile in the art department.

[Blackaby]

-"Peanuts" evolves, introduces characters that slowly became more and more important, introduces new jokes and new twists. Garfield doesn't. Characters you named are episodic, they lack characterisation and simply said, comic would be pretty much the same without them. Garfield wouldn't change if John was taking the cat to a different vet every time. Oposed to that, take the example of Peppermint Patty who grew from one-story character into some of the more important character. It allowed Shiltz to, for instance, stroll from the basic story about Charlie Brown and Snoopy to talk about his other various characters, so that he could return to central characters later, with new freshness; With Garfield, it's always Garfield, John and Oddie in center of attention.

It's a different kind of cast and writing style, that's all. Garfield's cast is Garfield centric because the comic is called Garfield, and it is about Garfield. Peanuts is about a whole bunch of kids doing crazy stuff. I think it takes a special kind of writer to be able to maintain characters who don't change, which is something I've aimed to do at least in my comicking, as all my favourite comics have unchanging characters. Yes they're both different, but I certainly view unchanging characters as being much better than unchanging ones, while other people prefer changing, transforming characters.

In any case, you can't deny that Shultz's universe is rich and complex, while Davis' universe is basically John's house with a few occasional visits to other sets. Perhaps that might not be bad itself, but it's hard for me to understand how little that universe has expanded over so many years, and over the years and years of making it, not so many new ideas can be derived from such small universe.

There are plenty of set changes. They go on holiday, they visit family, they go to the park, they visit the pound, they go to the little corner cafe and they certainly frequent a lot of restaraunts. There's also the 'cat-life' style comics where Garfield goes out and hangs in cat-like places, where we see things more or lessly the way cats do. Basically they visit all the places where it's feasible for Jon and Garfield to go.

-Even within those original, first characters, "Peanuts" shows more variety. Snoopy talks to a bird, imagines he's a red barron and other various characters, writes fiction, takes a bunch of birds to camping - all the variety of things, with adding new interests over the years. Compared to that, list of things Garfield is interested in is very short and nearly not expanding.

Garfield talks to birds, mice, other cats, dogs, and plenty of other people. (Or at least he thinks at them). He imagines he's varoius things, he tries his hand at writing fiction, he cross-dresses, and he does lots of other interesting stuff. And he roleplays with food. That's pretty cool.

-Peanuts isn't exactly a gag-ridden comic. It's intention isn't to make you laugh at the end of the strip. Instead, it preferes melancholy and compassion for characters. Garfield is a gag-ridden comic and if it happens to not induce laughs (like in my case), it's because it fails.

I laugh.

These all talk about human character on an universal level.
Garfield has none of that. It works with cliches. John is a cliche loser and he doesn't get rejected because of who knows what, but because his character sheet contains one word: loser. Thus everything he does has to be unsuccesful, regardless of whether there's a reason for it or not. No complexity of characters, no perception of real world being translated into a comic form.

I'm not sure. I'm sure that's where the charm of Garfield comes into things. It's very down to earth and it's easy to identify with the characters because they're simple. It's a pretty realistic deal and that's why it's fun. I don't think everyone wants to read comics because they're filled with metaphors and things like that, and I don't think that makes a writer more clever or less clever by whether he chooses to use those kind of devices or not.

I identify much better with the situations in Garfield - they speak more to me, because I either know people like Jon or feel like I've got stuff in common with him.

-Generally, Peanuts has positive message and Garfield has a negative one. Peanuts feels compassion for it's characters. It's a crule world in both cases, but in case of Garfield, it expects us to be cruel with it.

Pretty realistic, in my view.

-Art was never a central thing about peanuts, but it was still somewhat expressive as Shultz was painstakingly drawing it and putting himself into it. For still poses, it makes up with vibrating line. Garfield, on the other hand, is drawn by hired artists, you'll notice how in last few decades, drawing style is simplified in a way that allows just about any artist to jump into and start drawing it with as short adjusting period as possible - it's made a template. It uses a lot of copy&paste and, generally, never brings anything worthwhile in the art department.

I only started noticing the copy&pasting recently, and it is a bit annoying - but I'm used to it now. Some of the best comics are cut & paste - Red meat, for example - and so long as the joke's funny, and the writing is tight, there really isn't a problem.

I don't know. I don't mean to be a major critic of what was just said, but I kinda feel that a lot of the things said aren't really true. And it's a different kind of comic, for a different kind of person.

[KittyKatBlack]

Personally, I think Calvin & Hobbes was a much better comic than Peanuts ever was. Though I don't have a problem with peanuts, and I actually enjoy it sometimes, it's not really what I would consider the best comic, even in it's genre. As far as the factor for compassion for the characters, I think Rose is Rose does a better job, for example. That whole comic is centered around making you go 'Awww...' even though it's unrealisticly happy all the time. All I'm saying is just because something did it first, doesn't mean ti nessciarly did it the best. But if you like Peanuts, that's fine. And if you like Garfield, that's fine too. I like a lot of the strips, like Fox Trot, Get Fuzzy, and Sherman's Lagoon. It's really not about trying to be better. It's simply people providing entertainment. If you don't happen to like what they're presenting, there's a ton of other stuff to read.

[Terotrous]

Well, Calvin and Hobbes is considered to be legendary too, and with good reason.

Personally, Peanuts isn't my favourite comic to read, but it still had enormous impact on comics as a medium. It's kinda like the "Super Mario Bros" of comics: It wasn't the first popular comic ever, but it made such an impact that it defined the way comics would be for the years to come.

[Rock_dash]

KKB mentioned Rose is Rose, which I agree is good. Get Fuzzy is good sometimes, but strangely, I got the 'Fuzzy Logic' book, and it wasn't very good. Most of the jokes in those strips just didn't strike a cord with me. Maybe those are early strips, I dunno. I think Dilbert is good, too. Especially the books that come with Adams' commentaries for each one.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

I enjoy Get Fuzzy for the most part. But sometimes it's like, "Yeah, we get it. You like Leo Kottke and Rugby."

[The Mortician]

I enjoyed a spot of Farside which was not really funny, but mind-messingly fun.

[KittyKatBlack]

I enjoyed a spot of Farside which was not really funny, but mind-messingly fun.

As far as I know "Close to Home" is basicly trying to pick up where Far Side left off.

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

I love the Far Side. I bought that collection with every strip.

[Nanda]

I enjoyed a spot of Farside which was not really funny, but mind-messingly fun.

As far as I know "Close to Home" is basicly trying to pick up where Far Side left off.

And failing miserably, in my opinion. It's not even remotely funny, and the art makes my eyes bleed.

"The Far Side" is easily my favorite of all newspaper comics that ever were. But then admittedly, my sense of humor is a little absurd.

"Simultaneously all three went for the ball, and the coconut-like sound of their heads colliding secretly delighted the bird..."

[TheSuburbanLetdown]

Larson was good at picking names for the random characters. Specificity is funny.

[McDuffies]

I don't know. I don't mean to be a major critic of what was just said, but I kinda feel that a lot of the things said aren't really true. And it's a different kind of comic, for a different kind of person.

That's about the jist of what I was trying to say. The theme was, how can someone like Peanuts and not like Garfield.

It's a different kind of cast and writing style, that's all. Garfield's cast is Garfield centric because the comic is called Garfield, and it is about Garfield. Peanuts is about a whole bunch of kids doing crazy stuff. I think it takes a special kind of writer to be able to maintain characters who don't change, which is something I've aimed to do at least in my comicking, as all my favourite comics have unchanging characters. Yes they're both different, but I certainly view unchanging characters as being much better than unchanging ones, while other people prefer changing, transforming characters.

No doublt that there are some good comics that center around one or a few unchangeable characters, and with same basic premises. "Calvin and Hobbes" is one example. My issue with it is, how many comics can be written under such circumstances without repeating or the need to make major changes. Watterson complained that, because many of his gags are based on Calvin having different perception of daily events than other people, he had to always try to put a new twist to that same premise, in order to avoid repeating. One of reasons he stopped was, he couldn't find any more new twists, and he didn't want to expand his universe. He is a man of great skills and imagination, and yet he couldn't do it forever.
Davis doesn't try to put a new twist, he is cool with repeating the same jokes. He produces comics that can be spent, read and forgotten, therefore he is sure that he can safely repeat the exact same joke from five or six months ago, because noone remembers Garfield that far in past.

Garfield is a gag-ridden comic and if it happens to not induce laughs (like in my case), it's because it fails.

I laugh.

Hence the "if".

I'm not sure. I'm sure that's where the charm of Garfield comes into things. It's very down to earth and it's easy to identify with the characters because they're simple. It's a pretty realistic deal and that's why it's fun. I don't think everyone wants to read comics because they're filled with metaphors and things like that, and I don't think that makes a writer more clever or less clever by whether he chooses to use those kind of devices or not.

I identify much better with the situations in Garfield - they speak more to me, because I either know people like Jon or feel like I've got stuff in common with him.

But really, is Davis trying to say anything at all? He may not use metaphores to talk about ordinary life, but is he trying to talk about ordinary life at all? Are any of his situations really representative of life? I claim, no, they are simply cliche situations that he saw other, better authors using before him, and is repeating them in their simplest form. Is he perceptive? No. When John gets slapped by girl, you can say "Hah, author just said that losers often get slapped by girls", but that's not really much of a perception.

Metaphores in "Peanuts" are just there because they allow Shultz to talk about some things in easier way, to represent some inner things by some physical, visible objects. AWriter can use those and they indeed make him more clever if he uses them right, though they're not obligatory for good comics.

-Generally, Peanuts has positive message and Garfield has a negative one. Peanuts feels compassion for it's characters. It's a crule world in both cases, but in case of Garfield, it expects us to be cruel with it.

Pretty realistic, in my view.

Pretty inhumane. Representing the world realistically is one thing. Asking a reader to laugh at someone else's missfortune is different thing, and has nothing to do with realistic representation of the world.

I only started noticing the copy&pasting recently, and it is a bit annoying - but I'm used to it now. Some of the best comics are cut & paste - Red meat, for example - and so long as the joke's funny, and the writing is tight, there really isn't a problem.

Red Meat gives it's art an important role. Copy&Paste in it is essential for comic's timing. We all know how timing is important in comedy, how for instance, a bad actor can tell the best joke and have noone in the room laugh. And, while role of the c&p in Red Meat is importnat, in Garfield it serves only to speed up and ease the production of the comic.
Art is an equally important element of comics. In some comics, it is serving the script, but it is never intended to merely illustrate it - it is there to enchance the script-reading experience, to add up to it.
My opinion is that in Gerfield, art has merely an illustrative purpose. In other words, because it would be "lame" to just print out the dialogue.

[Jeffy]

I do believe Garfield was the first thing I REALLY drew, back in 3rd grade. I credit it with improving my drawing at the time, and I liked it then. But, as has been said, I can't get myself to continue enjoying something that just does the ame thing over and over.

[Nyke]

I'm guessing the next plotline in Garfield is "Garfield kicks Odie over a shark".

[Rock_dash]

I'm guessing the next plotline in Garfield is "Garfield kicks Odie over a shark".

DM gets the coveted award.

I enjoy Get Fuzzy for the most part. But sometimes it's like, "Yeah, we get it. You like Leo Kottke and Rugby."

Yeah, that's it exactly. You can only hear so many jokes about tuna before you think, "Okay, enough." Now, the jokes about Bucky trying to eat a monkey. Pure Gold.

[Sortelli]

These days when I read Get Fuzzy, I just replace the dialogue with the following:

"I'm normal, and I am wearily amused by the antics of the cat."

"I'm a cat! I'm fussy and antagonistic!"

"OH MY GOD! I'M A DOG! I'M HERE TO BELABOR THE PUNCHLINE!!!!

WITH A HAMMER!!!!!!

IN CASE SOMEONE DIDN'T GET IT!!!!!!!!!"

[Laemkral]

I just wanted to say, this entire thread has reminded me of an English class where the teacher commented on "over analyzing" literature, poetry in particular.

Calvin and Hobbes was awesome for many reasons. The art was outstandingly complex for a newspaper comic. How many of us can look at the newspaper today, and find even a SINGLE comic that has a Sunday comic even CLOSE to some of the stuff Waterson did? His drawings of the outer space stuff were particularly memorable in my mind.
The writing was also totally brilliant. Especially his inclusion of poetry and prose in what was basically a gag comic is what now strikes me as amazing. My first introduction to William Blakes "The Tyger" is one of his more famous comics, and all of the comics where Calvin constructs some poem about being eaten by monsters or whatever...you don't find that in today's works. Not to mention the insightfulness into our own world.
Plus Calvinball is still the most awesome sport EVER.

Peanuts WAS a very groundbreaking comic and Schultz did draw the strip almost his entire life. I believe it was also the first strip to ever include a black person not as a stereotype but as a normal person.

Garfield does repeat a lot, but it does it with style and flair and that's why it is such a success. Because he is so good at repeating gags and altering them to still be appealing, Davis continues to be a success. His variety in the early days was much better, and lately has tapered off, and now he's reinventing the comic with this new storyline. Maybe he's not washed up just yet.

[Col]

Helps that there's always more and more kids to discover and become fans of Garfield as well.