So was Strom Thurmond. Taking pot shots at sacred institutions is what we mostly do on these boards.
And what an odd characterization of my argument, which is “If a character exists solely to parrot your editorial views, don’t give him a moral authority that you specifically lack, because that’s a cheat.” Try again.
You are the ONLY person in this thread who…well, who CARES. Or even understands your problem, to be honest. You’re reading the situation completely differently than any of us are. I’m beginning to suspect that your problems with Trudeau well predate this particular series of strips.
I see a big problem with last week’s strips and nobody else does. It really plays well with my “lone voice in the wilderness” self-image. I’d re-evaluate my position more seriously if so many of the responses weren’t of the “Who are you to criticize Garry Trudeau?” variety.
We have a search function on these boards, so you can use it to confirm or refute. I just cross-checked my handle with “Doonesbury” and see a total of three threads where I am critical of the strip’s writing and several others where I praise it. I’m surprised to see this characterized as “problems with Trudeau.”
I also participate in a fair number of discussions about SNL and The West Wing. Do you think I have “problems” with Lorne Michaels or Aaron Sorkin?
I think your comprehension of LHoD’s post is about on a level with your understanding of Doonesbury.
Okay, that’s pretty snarky. But, really, you’ve wildly missed the point here. In any given work of fiction, the statements and actions of the characters within needs to be understood on two levels: there is how that character is perceived by the people reading the work, and there’s how that character is perceived by the other characters in the work. The moral authority derived from this character’s status as a conservative and a veteran is only significant to other character in the comic strip. He does not have any moral authority to the strip’s readers, for one very simple reason, that you touched on earlier:
He doesn’t exist.
Every single person reading this strip is fully aware that this professor is a figment of Gary Trudeau’s imagination. As such, he has precisely as much moral authority as the reader is willing to assign to Trudeau himself. No number of imaginary accolades piled on top of his imaginary character will grant that character’s imaginary words more impact that can be given to Trudeau himself. This is what makes your characterization of this series of strips as a “cheat” particularly nonsensical, because there is no information that Trudeau is holding back from the audience that would alter their perception of the comic. We know the character is fictional. We know the situation is fictional. Trudeau is not pretending otherwise, and the audience is under no illusions about the reality of the situation.
There is, of course, still a reason why Trudeau chose to make that anti-war character a veteran: because those are qualities that B.D. would view as sources of moral authority. Which was the point that LHoD was making. It is important for this character to have those traits not because Trudeau thinks it will make the audience pay more attention, but because those traits are necessary to make B.D. pay attention. At least, if Trudeau wants to keep B.D.'s characterization consistent. B.D. would not listen to those same arguments if they were made by a liberal civilian, because of his own long-established political and social biases. Indeed, he essentially says as much himself in the first strip, which sets up that strip’s punchline.
Three levels, actually: editorial, comedic, and dramatic. This sequence of strips is primarily editorial in nature: they were published as the war in Iraq drew to a close, and the last of the troops were coming home. These strips serve as a eulogy to a conflict that defined the last decade for all of us in real life, and included many pivotal points in the lives of these fictional characters. I don’t think that’s an unreasonable or unprecedented thing to do in a comic of this nature. By having the eulogy come from a college professor, he allows for a few strips where one character can lecture uninterrupted for some time, without it coming across as stilted or artificial.
To a lesser extent, this series of strips functions as part of the on-going dramatic arc. As alluded to above, the professor’s status as both a conservative veteran, and a vocal opponent of the war, is primarily of importance to the current arc of B.D.'s evolving views on the conflict in Iraq. As LHoD pointed out, these characteristics should be understood primarily in relation to the other characters in the strip, and not as part of the editorial content of the strip.
Other than Frank, who’s been making that argument?
Actually, Krokodil’s posts are worth considering and preserving - as an example of how far people will go to avoid thinking:
“Y’know, just about everyone else disagrees with my interpretation. Maybe…maybe I’m just wrong.”
It sure was. Glad you weren’t wearing your Moderator hat when you wrote it.
Back in the 90s, Christopher Buckley flirted with the form known as the “literary feud.” His two targets at the time were Tom Clancy (for general boorishness) and Garry Trudeau, who sported a bomber jacket with some specific regiment insignia like an unearned medal. His comment at the time was that Trudeau hadn’t “earned the right” to wear that jacket. At the time, I thought Buckley was full of shit: Do I have to bust broncos before I’ve “earned the right” to wear Levi’s 501 jeans? A few strips in the meantime–this past week and the Memorial Day strips, for instance–have got me wondering if Buckley didn’t have a point. Does Trudeau believe on some level that he’s a war vet? Does that provoke a feeling of “ick” in anyone else?
I can’t force my distaste for the last week of strips on anyone. And it takes more than a list of people who disagree with me to convince me that there’s nothing wrong there.
Sailboat irrelevantly reminded me that I’m not a syndicated cartoonist; that was the bulk of his contribution. Bridget Burke helpfully reminded me of Trudeau’s good works for veterans, which I never disputed. So really, a couple of people.
You have got to be kidding me.
What you have failed to show in any way at all is that this professor character is in any way different from any toher character that Trudeau has written. Every damn character is different from Trudeau in at least one significant measure. Every single one has its own point of view. Furthermore, this particular professor character is, unlike many other characters in the strip, so far completely plausible and not significantly caricaturized. What about this professor seems unreal to you? What about him is inauthentic to you? So far the sole objection you have come up with is that the professor is, unlike Trudeau, a veteran and a conservative and he seems to agree with some of Trudeau’s views about the war. I don’t see that in anyway differnet from many other characters Trudeau has written. Indeed, many of the conservative characters, both fictional and those that repersent real people, are objects of ridicule, unlike this profesor
Okay, that’s a lovely story, but it’s utterly non-responsive to anything I wrote in the post to which you’re responding.
That’s a pretty bizarre accusation. I’m not even sure what it’s supposed to mean. In what way do you suspect Trudeau believes he’s a war vet? Are you saying Trudeau is delusional?
I agree entirely. Which is why, if you’ll take the time to read my posts, you may note that at no point have I suggested that you change your mind because nobody agrees with you. Now, would you care to address any of the things I’ve actually said?
So, just Sailboat, and Frank? Because pointing out that Trudeau helps veterans is really not at all the same thing as dismissing your arguments because you’re not a cartoonist. I mean, I get that it’s not your point now, but your complaint is so incoherent and inscrutable that I don’t think it’s unreasonable to misinterpret it as, “Gary Trudeau hates veterans.”
But, what the hell, let’s include Bridget Burke. That’s three posters out of thirty five. Or, even better, four posts out of eighty eight.
So, when you said you’d “re-evaluate [your] position more seriously if so many of the responses weren’t of the ‘Who are you to criticize Garry Trudeau?’ variety,” the phrase “so many” refers to less than 5% of the total posts in this thread.
That really doesn’t seem like all that many to me.
Fair enough, let’s go back to an earlier post:
“He doesn’t exist” just ends the discussion of any fictional character and is kind of non-responsive. Within the context of Doonesbury, these characters exist–to bounce off of each other for comic effect (or dramatic effect, as you noted), to stand in for the author, or to stand in for a part of society the author wants to discuss. The professor was ostensibly intended to represent veterans who had successfully re-integrated onto society, but instead lapses into Trudeau’s voice (in a way that, say, the counselor at the Veteran’s Center does not). To give this voice added authority, Trudeau endowed him with two glaringly un-Trudeau qualities. You’re okay with it, I think it’s a cheat. Having a character that agrees with you, but has saintly qualities, is on a storytelling par with having a character you disagree with also be a racist and a wife-beater. I enjoyed your analysis of what moral qualities a reader attaches to a given character, but doubt it describes many people’s Doonesbury-reading experience.
No, I’m sure his intent is to show respect. It strikes me as distasteful, but not delusional.
Glad to hear it. I should have added “I’m talking to YOU, galen ubal!” His post was right after yours. I was remiss in this regard. My apology.
I feel like I have and am repeating myself. “It’s a Trudeau stand-in with the appropriated moral authority of a conservative and a war vet, which I think is a cheat” pretty much covers it. I get that you disagree with me and find this characterization no worse than any of his other characters; I would characterize most of his other characters as endearing fuck-ups, and this guy is somewhat less than well thought out.
“How dare you disagree with Garry Trudeau,” “How dare you disagree with a published cartoonist” and “How dare you disagree with this wonderful man who has done so much for our veterans” are fair characterizations of their dismissals of my opinion. I don’t see a huge difference between them, but YMMV. I might be giving them extra weight because I take them personally.
Who knew the thread would get this big? Take out the posts that weren’t written by me and factor in the generally ad-hominem dismissals of some other posters and I think those percentages will grow a little bit. After further evaluation, I still think it’s a cut-out for Trudeau with the appropriated and un-Trudeau-like virtues of being a conservative and a war vet, and I still think it’s a cheat. He can wear the bomber jacket if he wants, but I hope he stays away from vet biker rallies when he does. 'Cause I really want to see how this thing with Alex and Toggle plays out.
The Christmas Day cartoon is rather dark…
But not as dark as the bitterness of our OP, who has demonstrated little understanding of satire & not much of a way with words. It’s no surprise that he didn’t make it as a cartoonist.
Let’s hope he has a better new year…
The OP used his experience as a cartoonist as a support for his arguments against the strip. I think it’s fair to point out that the OP couldn’t carry Trudeau’s pencil case.
Frank, the OP did not use his cartooning experience to support his argument. Someone posted a response to his point, and included a semi-rhetorical question which received a subdued two sentence response.
The OP’s cartooning experience might make people take him more seriously, but the OP did not bring it up out of the blue, or use it to say that his opinion was more valid than others.
Your remark about his relative artistic skill compared to Trudeau was a cheap shot. Pretty much everyone in the world is worse, and that has nothing to do with the merits of the OP’s argument.
Merry Christmas.
I saw this as saying that he takes the medium more seriously than we do, and thus his opinion is more valid.
That said, maybe I’m doing the same thing as the OP, and reading more into it than was meant. I’ll drop that line of argument.
And Merry Christmas to you too!
This is excessively personal. Please dial it back.
Added authority to whom? If you’re suggesting that Trudeau gave him those qualities in order to give his arguments authority to the reader, I think you’re completely wrong, and I see no evidence that supports your point of view. Consider, for example, the fact that Doonesbury’s average reader is liberal, not conservative: having a mouthpiece who is conservative would give the character LESS authority to the average reader, not more.
If you’re suggesting that he gave the prof those qualities in order to give his arguments added authority to BD, then where’s the problem? He’s got a direction he wants the story to go in, and he’s trying to get there in an honest fashion that respects his characters, and so he gives the prof exactly the traits that BD needs him to have before BD can listen.
Thanks, by the way, Miller, for explaining my point so well earlier.
Edit: let’s try it from the back end, Krokodil. Do you agree with me that giving the prof the conservative vet template makes his arguments more palatable to BD? Do you agree that making those arguments more palatable to BD is an important goal for Trudeau? Do you agree that, in storytelling, you can give characters traits that advance the story, especially when they’re new characters? Do you agree that Trudeau’s desire to advance this story in a particular direction provides sufficient explanation for giving those traits to that character?
If you agree with all that, then why speculate on some additional motive on Trudeau’s part? If you disagree with any of it, please be specific about your reasons for the disagreement.
There is no “average reader.” Liberals don’t all think alike anymore than conservatives. Do all the conservatives vets from Iraq think alike about the war now?
I don’t know many bikers, but the one that I do know is a veteran of the war in Vietnam. He could not be more against war in general.
I rather like having another complex character introduced. I want to hear what he has to say.
Meanwhile, you have a tendency to speak about large groups of people as if they are all thinking alike and you know what they’re thinking is and what their motives are. That kind of labeling will not serve you well.
Can you explain why you chose the word “cheated”? Do you feel that you or other readers have been deprived of something you were promised?
I suspect making the presentation more palatable to BD is an unintended side effect. It may well have been an intended one (BD’s reflective tone at week’s end sort of happened after I started the thread), but I still think the intended audience was the reader, though.
It’s specifically a narrative cheat, and one very uncharacteristic of Trudeau. He presents a very well-considered position on the issues, but gins up sympathy for it by putting it in the mouth of an unassailable authority figure, rather than by a more fleshed-out character. I can see Rick Redfern or Rev. Scott Sloan picking up some side dollars by teaching as an adjunct at this community college, but Trudeau elected instead to introduce this new character who’s a bit of a cipher, one whom BD is largely denied the opportunity of challenging (the TSA joke on 12/21 notwithstanding) because of his (the Professor’s) morally impeccable status.
And because the character is such a cipher, it comes off as speaking with Trudeau’s voice, with tacked-on elements (conservative, vet) that Trudeau himself could never say with a straight face, which is a rhetorical cheat and one he really didn’t need to make, but specifically chose to.
A couple of people in this thread have asked how this makes the professor any different from any other character in the strip, since they all on some level represent an aspect of Trudeau. The difference is, these other characters can and do disagree with one another, and no one gets to do that with this (still nameless) Professor. This is kind of an important distinction: Thesis statements are supposed to be debatable, not inarguable absolutes. Trudeau usually adheres to this, and doesn’t in this instance. For his overall style as an “investigative cartoonist,” this is a bad thing.
I like having another complex character around, too, and this isn’t one of them (see my previous post). As for large groups and labeling, I’ll work on it.
I answered a specific question from Sailboat, as directly and honestly as I could. It wasn’t intended to make this thread about myself, I assure you.
But I’ll tell you this: I promise you I’m a bigger fan of Trudeau and the strip than you are. And you’re right about the pencil case.