Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
You're A Good Man, Marten Reed
Skewbrow:
I wouldn't call it elitist, but I confess that I had to refer to a dictionary several times before I was done reading LJA's post. Of course, this bit says more about me than about her argument :-) Also the points she raised are interesting. I don't remember the entire Peanuts series nearly as well as remember QC, so I cannot easily refute any of them. My excuse is that I read translated versions of most of the stories, so I constantly need to keep matching characters and names...
Yet many of us feel that there is a parallel. It may be that many of us simply grew up enjoying Peanuts, and now we are all enjoying QC, and pass the time pointing out and overanalyzing the common elements? May be there is more to it? Let's just enjoy the chat.
At some point Charles Schulz said something to the effect that he was most proud about coining the term security blanket. What do you think Jeph would be similarly proud of? I'm a little bit at loss here myself (just started thinking about it). Of course, only Jeph can give the definite answer, and that only later in his career.
Carl-E:
OK, here goes;
In Peanuts, Schultz tapped into the fact that we all have been, and know, children.
In QC, Jeph has tapped into the fact that we have all been (or are, or (in the case of the youngsters out there) soon will be), and know, twenty siomethings.
Both comics are almost entirely about social interactions within these groups.
Both comics have a wacky non-human instigator.
The protagonist of both comics are, by their own descriptions, wishy-washy (OK, Marten's never used those terms, but come on...)
Both comics deal on a regular basis with universal aspects of being human - insecurity, love, depression, friendship and angst, to name a few. True, the Peanuts crew rarely uses such terms, but they're dealing with these things nonetheless. There's way less sex in Peanuts, of course. But most of the issues are still there.
I dunno, these just came off the top of my head. There are other comics that may cover the same territory, but it's the fact that all these are constantly running as subtext, with only occasional bubbles to the surface that really cement it for me.
Just like in real life...
Skewbrow: Worry hat?
Skewbrow:
Thanks, Carl-E. Perfect!
DSL:
I admit, the tone of LJA's post ticked me off and I regret even the minimal response I gave ... If only because I didn't want to give it even that much attention and because I thought the main thrust of LJA's post was a straw man argument -- that there was an attempt to create an exact, character-for-character correlation between Peanuts and QC.
There isn't, of course, and it's silly to try, and I said so in an earlier post. But as some of you have argued beautifully, the theme is there ... Young-ish people trying to figure out the world and themselves, with the same "humor in the small moment" informing both strips. Also, early and late QC resemble each other about as little as early and late Peanuts, though for different reasons. But I said that already.
Then I was trying to have a little fun with my point, valid though I think it is. I don't intend to write a PhD dissertation titled "Parallels and Correlations demonstrated in Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts and Jeph Jacques's Questionable Content." But I did have to do something to get unstuck from my mind the image of Pintsize on a blimp.
Tova:
I'm a little bemused by the hostility towards LJA's post, who is perfectly entitled to his or her opinion.
--- Quote from: DSL on 30 Nov 2011, 13:59 ---I thought the main thrust of LJA's post was a straw man argument -- that there was an attempt to create an exact, character-for-character correlation between Peanuts and QC.
--- End quote ---
Ironically, I didn't think that was the main thrust, or even an implication, of LJA's post at all. Maybe consider whether you're constructing your own little straw man over there?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version