July 22, 2004
Hidden agendas?…
Regular Rhetorica reader and cogent commenter, Charles, criticizes yesterday’s entry about Doonesbury. In my reply, I ask this question: What cartoons regularly published in mainstream newspapers are not political?
I’m a loyal reader of these:
Doonesbury
Dilbert
Non Sequitur
Zippy
(I mourn the loss of The Farside and Calvin and Hobbes)
Obviously political? I think so. But what about Hi and Lois or Beetle Bailey? Peanuts (in re-runs)? Or Garfield; is he just a political tool? Family Circus? Let me know what you think.
Posted by acline | July 22, 2004 | Posted in: Main |
“Dilbert”? Obviously political?
Well, I’m defining “political” rather broadly
I’m not a fan of Doonesbury. I think Trudeau lost his comic edge and light-hearted touch decades ago.
The comic pages in general have lost their edge, partly as a result of diminished page-size, limiting the canvass the artist has to work with, but also due to the failure to jetison strips that have long since ceased to be fresh or funny.
Because of all the deadwood there’s no room for new material. I say change the format to allow larger strips, and jettison two or three stale strips a year to make room for new talent.
I’d agree. Dilbert is overtly political. Non Sequitir has always been fairly political, and if you haven’t been reading Boondocks, I highly recommend it. It’s available on the Ucomics website if your local paper doesn’t carry it, and it’s a wonderful comic about African-American culture and the media.
Oops, I missed your mention of Non Sequitur (and originally spelled it incorrectly).
Chuck…the KC paper carried Boondocks and Zippy–both missing in Springfield. I usually read Boondocks on Sunday.