True enough, Bridget. But if they put their own views in the mouth of a character diametrically unlike themselves, and use that character’s moral authority to justify their views, that’s a different kettle of fish altogether.
I’ve never read a Tom Clancy novel (although I’ve seen the first three movies). I’d have to say Clancy’s cultural impact on my life has been pretty negligible by comparison to Trudeau’s.
A better comparison might be Harold Gray, using a ten year old street urchin girl to take potshots at Roosevelt’s New Deal policies, or Milt Caniff using Steve Canyon’s moral authority to take Vietnam protesters down a peg. IIRC, they both faced very much the same criticism.
I don’t think DW Griffith ever had a Black character moan about how much better the world would have been if the South had won the war; even he knew that would cross a line.
It’s really only your opinion that this character must have “views diametrically opposed” to Trudeau’s. In fact, this opinion rests basically on the assumption that your conception of what such a character can possibly be like represents the entire sum of reality with respect to such a person. What’s much more plausible is that pretty much any variation that an author can come up with is likely represented in reality in one way or another.
And it’s rather bizarre in the sense that about half of Trudeau’s work consists of putting words in the mouth of people he is diametrically opposed to. The only difference in this case is that you seem to have personal investment in the idea that this particular kind of character is somehow different from any other kind of character and that you have some kind of monopoly on such a character’s plausible manifestation.
I wrote “diametrically unlike,” not “diametrically opposed.” Let’s say I had crackpot ideas about the benefits of female circumcision and used my comic strip as a forum to promote them: A “diametrically opposed” character would make arguments against the practice, but a character “diametrically unlike” me would agree with me, even though it’s female, black and pregnant and I’m not.
In the strip, BD only listens to this professor’s views because like BD, he’s a war vet and a conservative. If the professor had Garry Trudeau’s life experiences instead (as he shares Trudeau’s views on the war), I don’t think BD would be sitting in the audience, respectful, nodding in agreement.
And you don’t think Trudeau’s not making a valid point here? There are real people like the professor and there are real people like B.D. and if you put them together, it’s plausible to have this kind of outcome.
Which is kind of the point. BD as a character is undergoing a long and really painful change, from soldier to cripple to alcoholic to therapy patient to mentor to another soldier undergoing a similar process. He’s still ready to throw down at the drop of a hat over criticism of the military, as evidenced by early strips in this story, and if the professor teaching the course hadn’t been a vet, BD would likely have made a scene and left in a huff.
But because the prof was a vet, BD stayed to listen (and argue, of course). And it seems likely that Trudeau’s going to have BD do some painful introspection about the war and possibly even come out against it in some public way.
If that’s the arc Trudeau has planned for the character, the prof’s status as a vet is vital to respecting BD’s personality.
This is ridiculous. Trudeau can have any character he wants saying anything he wants. If you don’t like it, don’t read the comic strip. There very well could be an actual veteran saying exactly the same things, veterans aren’t required to think and speak alike. And it doesn’t make any difference if no actual veteran ever would say those words. Whatever Trudeau’s personal views and life experiences are, there’s no reason for his comic strip to be restricted by them.
There certainly are. A more effective presentation would be if Trudeau had name-checked some of them (Sometimes, this strip includes relevant URL’s, for instance, but not this week) and written more in their voice than in his own. In my view, he didn’t do this, or at least failed to do it convincingly.
I don’t see how this particular point of view demands external verification. There’s nothing all that radical about it.
Furthermore there’s a huge difference between declaring he “cheated” and just saying you find this character unconvincing.
I might add that if your only basis for finding this character inauthentic is that he’s a veteran holding the point of view that he’s holding, then this is really just your problem and not Trudeau’s. There’s nothing remotely implausible about the characters as portrayed.
I think BD finally removing his helmet is symbolic of this transformation. It had perhaps come to represent the closed-mindedness of the right-wing mentality and doffing it was the first step toward broadening his viewpoint.
It’s a cheat because Trudeau is using this character to parrot his editorial views. The character didn’t evolve out of a natural storytelling process: It’s a cut-out for Trudeau’s views, with the tacked-on virtues of being a war vet and a conservative, traits that Trudeau specifically lacks, to the detriment of the views he is expressing.
Trudeau’s actual stand-in characters, Mike Doonesbury and Rick Redfern, could never credibly make the statements this one-off professor character makes.
You don’t get it. He can tell the story any way he wants. There’s no rules to cheat on. You sound like the typical conservative who wants to see a Fox News view of the world, and anyone who doesn’t agree with it must have bad motives. Trudeau can put his words in the balloons of any character he wants, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. You don’t have to agree wth him or like it, but your disagreement does nothing to impugn his integrity.
And I want to add something else. While I consider war veterans to generally be due respect simply for their service, there is nothing virtuous about being a Conservative, or any other type of ideologue.
I love the college instructor. I’m not a hard core liberal by any stretch, but it’s like he’s reading my mind. Everyone needs to be reminded of how we wound up in that insane shitpile, and this pushes our noses into it.
You called it a CHEAT! You didn’t say it was unpersuasive.
I don’t want to because I don’t care why he chose it. It’s his story and he can tell it the way he likes. I think your problem is that a person you believe is a Liberal idologue is presenting a character who supposes to be conservative as a rational, intelligent, thoughtful person, something you consider to be liberal attributes.
I’ll make it as clear as possible. There is absolutely nothing untoward or improper about Trudeau’s characterization. You have no standing to make a determination of what a war veteran or True Scotsman will say or do, because no one does. You are free to dislike the comic strip to your heart’s content, but that does not make Trudeau a CHEAT!
As a lifelong Democrat (well, Mom did support Ike because He Won The War), I do remember Republicans who were “rational, intelligent and thoughtful.” Even a few of the conservative ones–quite unlike the peabrained teabaggers of today. Does the OP doubt that this type ever existed? Or that an endangered few might still survive?
Krokodil really needs to read more serious literature; did he sleep through all the English classes? Or he could try Tom Clancy!
Hey, let’s not forget the chicken hawk who started this latest mess–that’s still quite an evil mess, even if most of our people have left.
“virtues” only if you, dear reader, assume them to be. “Moral authority” only if you, dear reader, assume it to be.
It just sounds like you have a problem with a character as Just, Right, and True as a War Veteran stands up and salutes having political opinions no Red Blooded American would ever really have.
Wait, why is the character ‘morally unimpeachable’?
Since when does passing basic training mean that you can’t be full of sh*t or just plain wrong about something? I mean, have you ever actually met anyone who’s been in the service? I have, and they’ve all seemed like human beings to me, as imperfect as any of the rest of us, and just as deserving of criticism when they’re wrong.
I’m sure that if the instructor becomes a recurring character he’ll be imbued with a good mix of virtue and silliness. Trudeau is good about that. But for now he does seem to be a smart, rational, “conservative”, combat veteran who is parroting Trudeau’s own beliefs.
I can see where the OP could have problem with that. It doesn’t bother me. There’s always a chance the Trudeau will lose his mojo and his characters become mere mouthpieces, but I don’t see it happening yet.