That’s probably a safe bet.
Nancy had way more, or way less going on then you think it did. Either way, the strip was amazing when Ernie Bushmiller did it.
I used to think Nancy wasn’t any good, but then a good friend in college showed me the light. Look more closely and you too can discover the Zen of the three rocks!
[Late to this party but catching up and chuckling my ass off]:
Not to mention the infamous superfluous quotes (I’m assuming… have no idea of the backstory here): She “earned” this office.
That, I can’t criticize. Apparently, she framed her predecessor and got him fired so she could step up. Those are properly used ironic quotes.
Acknowledged, but disappointing.
Oh, don’t worry, Nola Wolverson (!) is also a total whore! Mary will meddle her out of *that *right quick.
As you can see, Nola’s coworkers, Edward G. Robinson and Tina Fey, are on to her: http://www.chron.com/entertainment/comics-games/comic/Mary-Worth/17644/2012-02-23.php
Well, yeah. That’s because South Park occasionally has something to say. The Family Circus is just vapid horseshit.
There is a clear line between legitimate editorial content and crude, juvenile namecalling. Up to now nobody has crossed that line and nobody at all has needed to. I know that Family Circus has had millions of fans since its apperance in 1960 and people have enjoyed it. One Sunday strip–depicting an abandoned house–made quite a few readers cry. I was once of them because since we came to California we have moved fourteen times. 
You seem to be saying that the comic section of a newspaper should consist solely of underground-style strips–and as for anyone who disagrees with that, they can take a flying leap for the moon and get bent.
I’m saying that Family Circus and its like are the comic strip equivalent of bad cotton candy, you get something that tastes sickly sweet and it’s not worth the effort to digest.
Foxtrot is just as family oriented and kid friendly, but it’s actually FUNNY. However, the author realized that he was burning out, so he went to a Sunday only strip.
And I think that this is the difference between the strips we love and the ones we love to hate. The authors of the strips we love recognize it when they’ve exhausted their material, and retire or semi-retire. The authors of the strips that we love to hate don’t recognize this, but keep producing more strips from the same old tired sources. Sometimes the strips were originally very good. Cathy used to speak to me, for instance. B.C. used to be hilarious. Sometimes the strips were simply mediocre or downright bad right from the start, but got picked up because they were safe or filled a niche market. But if a strip isn’t growing, then it’s dying, or dead already.
Given the choice, I would prefer cotton candy to vitriol any day. 
As for whether a strip such as Family Circus has outlived its objective, I think that is a subjective matter. Some Dopers pointed out that Li’l Abner lost its original appeal when Al Capp got older and turned pretty much right-wing. (And it didn’t help that he was pressured to drop the Shmoos.) But I personally disagree: controversy is not a necessary element of the comic page. Doonesbury got irritating to me after a while, with very few exceptions. The only strip that I really thought used commentary deftly was in the sports section–Tank MacNamara. Aside from that, I don’t think controversy is what comics are all about. When I read the newspaper, daily or Sunday, I save the comic section for last, like dessert–cotton candy, if you will.
I said, quite deliberately, BAD cotton candy. The stuff that’s sold in packages like potato chips, or in plastic tubs. Not the sort that is made fresh right in front of you.
And I don’t consider Foxtrot to be vitriolic at all. But then, I don’t consider that Family Circus has EVER been funny, other than very, very occasionally, and even then it evokes no more than a very small smile. I find Zits and Pickles pretty funny on occasion, and I can’t recall ever seeing acid in either of them. Comics don’t have to be sickly sweet to be non-vitriolic.
I like Cul De Sac, but lately I’ve noticed that the drawing is really off; it looks like a badly drawn attempt to imitate the strip in fact.
Then Google ----> Wikipedia revealed (a) I wasn’t imagining it, and (b) the reason is that a series of guest cartoonists are filling in for Richard Thompson while he receives treatment for Parkinson’s disease.
Best wishes for him to get better!
Well-said. Part of the reason Calvin and Hobbes and Far Side are still remembered so fondly is because their creators knew when to quit. That’s in addition to the creativity, the humor, and the good-natured (not vitriolic, not heavy-handed) commentary on the human condition.
And, you know, Peanuts had theologically-oriented strips from time to time, but it was interesting, not annoying the way BC became in late years. I never felt that Schultz had an agenda or was trying to proseletyze. The strip was good-natured and creative and innovative and wonderful. You could take it a face value, or think about deeper meanings, and it worked either way.
I, personally, don’t care for Family Circus because, as Lynn pointed out, it’s treacly-sweet. There are only so many variations on cute kid stories, which is the strip’s focus, and the strip has used all of them. I don’t doubt that it has its fans, and that’s fine. I just think that most of the people in this thread are really saying that they prefer their strips to be a little edgier, that’s all.
It’s tough to be really edgy in a comic strip. A strip can be bizarre, or smart, or hip, or make whithering remarks or wry social commentary …any combination of the above. I don’t know. I loved The Far Side and Calvin as much as anyone. And I agree those strips ran their course and we commend the creators for realizing it and leaving us all wanting more. But that’s the thing…no one can keep being edgy.
Then there are the other strips that seem dumb or repetative but just keep going on year after year after year. Not many strips are able to do this for decades though. How many can we name really that have survived for all that time, a couple dozen? Rarely still does a strip ever reach the iconic status of The Family Circus. Quite remarkable. How can one be “treacly-sweet” year after year after year?
Edgy has a life span, treacly-sweet does not. The successful longevity of The Family Circus gives it the right to go on as such. And I think one has to at least acknowledge how amazing it is for a strip to do what the The Family Circus has done with a single panel and at most 10 characters. And we still don’t know what Dad does for a living, do we? Wow!
The characters in The Family Circus also have a realness even though they don’t age. After all, most of our lives are repetative and mundane. This sameness is actually a kind of strength.
At least **Family Circus **is not offensively adowable, like Rose is Rose, where the characters actually spew Lucky Charms from their heads in Overwhelming Cute Attacks.
And once in a blue moon, **Family Circus ** can hit one out of the ballpark, as can other unexpected strips: Blondie, Garfield, Dennis the Menace, once or twice a year will actually be non-ironically funny. I actually have a lingering fondness for Blondie, though I cannot begin to explain why.
This is actually one of the things which bothers me about Family Circus. It wasn’t always treacly and sweet. I’ve read through the early collection paperbacks (don’t know if there are current omnibus editions in print, but I can find library-bound copies of the early paperbacks at some of the local libraries still), and the old panels used to be sharp, whimsical looks at parenthood: the mortification when the children say something that reveals a bit too much (the illustration at the top of the Wikipedia page is an example), the funny moments between Bil and Thelma when the kids weren’t around, the clashes on them having differing parenting ideas. In fact, the whole thing used to be more about the parents dealing with the kids.
The current panels, got away from the thing which established Family Circus. It lost the focus on the parents, stopped having most of the keen-eyed looks at family. It used to be decent family comedy, now it’s kids saying precious, cute things. It stopped being a panel which appealed to young families, and now it’s just “cute of the day.”
There was a similar decline in Dennis the Menace (early strip, he earned his “menace” name, kinda like a proto-Calvin, and the actual focus was on how the parents and neighbors coped), and now it’s “cute of the day” starring the kids, adults (save George) in the background. And woebetide anyone is only familiar with the last 20 years of Peanuts… but at least there aren’t artists-for-hire continuing to beat it into the mud.
I suppose it reflects the decline of the newspaper comics in general: the primary readers have aged, so young families are definitely not a target demographic, so the focus has changed… but sucks for those of us who liked the heyday of humor strips and panels.
There’s no such thing as a “heyday” that lasts forever. These few long-term strips have aged into what they are today and survived because of it. How many observations can one reasonably make about parenting and childhood that wouldn’t in some way be repetative after all this time…and in some ways make the strip a lot worse than what it is now. Youngsters blurt out embarrassing thing around parents and their friends, parents struggle with parenting, kids say the darndest things. After a while its the same stuff over and over again.
The strip found a way to live. If you have a decent newspaper comic section, there are plenty of other newer strips to try. But how many of them will be around in 30 years? How many of them will even have a “heyday?”
But why should I liking them? (Rhetorical question, I realize that’s not what you’re saying to me.) I don’t mean to be gainsaying you in my earlier quoting of you. I was using your comment to riff on why someone might not like them, an opinion which has seemed to really bother dougie_monty, who apparently thinks not liking the Family Circus right now means I want South Park comic strips. No, I just don’t like Family Circus right now because right now is a far cry from when it was good. I imagine that’s how it is for a lot of folks. I purposefully didn’t read Peanuts from about 1985 on because I had such fond memories of the early stuff that I didn’t want them tainted by the downward slide.
As an aside, for those who do dislike a lot of the current “safe” strips, getting to read the early versions can be eye-opening… Hi and Lois, Hagar the Horrible, Dennis the Menace. Not a fan of their current incarnations, but the first years of the strips were actually pretty darn good.
Today we have a pretty good example of the bizarre Mary Worth art Eve is talking about. I guess that’s Nola’s hand, floating in front of Mary’s face there!
