# Get Fuzzy and Doonesbury get serious **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 21, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245 "2004-04-21T17:39:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Illinois\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Illinois\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illinois_Boy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/1 "2004-04-21T17:39:28Z")
I was minding my own business, reading the comics. I read the Chicago Trib, and they have a great finish to the comics section. So I’m ready for the big laughs when WHAM([http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20040419.html](http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20040419.html)) and then before I could recover BAM([http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc\_full\_date=20040419](http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040419)). Loss of limb in Iraq, in two of my favorite series. Not what I’m usually looking for while I eat my cereal. I am truly uncertain as to how I feel about this. Foolish as it is, I have genuine concern invested in these characters, and the storyline already is compelling. But, dammit, I needs my funnies, and I prefer they be funny. Any thoughts? Here’s another link to a mention of this in the popular press [http://209.11.49.220/eandp/departments/syndicates/article\_display.jsp?vnu\_content\_id=1000491413](http://209.11.49.220/eandp/departments/syndicates/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000491413) ps. sorry if the links aren’t live. how do you do that? ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/2 "2004-04-21T17:43:11Z")
Don’t really care much about the Fuzzy strip because frankly I’ve never found it funny when it’s TRYING to be funny. Doonesbury has always brought serious strips into the mix from time to time. This whole thing seems contrived and a bit stupid though. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/3 "2004-04-21T18:22:17Z")
> [@RikWriter](#): > > Doonesbury has always brought serious strips into the mix from time to time. This whole thing seems contrived and a bit stupid though. I agree. The war in Iraq is contrived an incredibly stupid. Having a comic character be maimed in it? Not so much. It’s incredibly odd, however, that two strips are doing the exact same plot simultaneously. I doubt it’s planned, since Fuzzy opened Monday with news that “Cousin Willie” had lost a leg, and Doonesbury only revealed BD’s injury today, and he’s not yet even been taken to a hospital just yet. ---
**Author:** ![Illinois\_Boy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Illinois\_Boy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Illinois_Boy)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/4 "2004-04-21T19:22:55Z")
It took awhile for Get Fuzzy to really catch on with me ('m a big fan now though). I sense it’s trying a little too hard at times. Plus this storyline involves a “Cousin Willie” whom I don’t remember appearing before, so it smacks a little of a comics version of a “very special episode”. Doonesbury on the other hand has always struck me as effective in balancing humor and serious topics. Recently it has teetered a bit in regards to Bush/Iraq (you can almost hear Trudeau grinding his teeth in frustration). However, these last three days have been very well done. I am surprised how upsetting it was to see B.D. with a stump in a stretcher this morning. I commend each of the artists in trying to use their strips for a deeper resonance than the usual 3 panel gag. But I’m afraid it may not come off very well. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/5 "2004-04-21T19:52:52Z")
> [@Illinois\_Boy](#): > > Doonesbury on the other hand has always struck me as effective in balancing humor and serious topics. Recently it has teetered a bit in regards to Bush/Iraq (you can almost hear Trudeau grinding his teeth in frustration). However, these last three days have been very well done. I am surprised how upsetting it was to see B.D. with a stump in a stretcher this morning. Not to mention that he didn’t have his helmet on!!! I believe that that’s the first time we’ve ever seen him with no helmet. And he’s having a seriously bad hair day. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/6 "2004-04-21T22:28:12Z")
> [@Menocchio](#): > > I agree. The war in Iraq is contrived an incredibly stupid. Having a comic character be maimed in it? Not so much. So you want to make this a political argument thread and get it closed? Was that your intention? Just checking, because, as you probably know, your comment was incredibly foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/7 "2004-04-21T23:42:27Z")
> [@RikWriter](#): > > So you want to make this a political argument thread and get it closed? Was that your intention? Just checking, because, as you probably know, your comment was incredibly foolish. It’ll only turn into a political argument thread if you start arguing with him. Just sayin’. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/8 "2004-04-22T00:01:01Z")
I would find it interesting to find out why Trudeau felt the need to do this now. B.D. is a vet of both Desert Storm and Viet Nam and he didn’t feel the need to maim him then. It can’t just be because he disagrees with the war since he was just as opposed to the other conflicts. (By the way B.D. must be pushing 60 now) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/9 "2004-04-22T00:05:07Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I would find it interesting to find out why Trudeau felt the need to do this now. B.D. is a vet of both Desert Storm and Viet Nam and he didn’t feel the need to maim him then. It can’t just be because he disagrees with the war since he was just as opposed to the other conflicts. (By the way B.D. must be pushing 60 now) Probably has more to do with re-invigorating a character he was getting tired of writing, then a statement about this war being “worse” than the previous two. ---
**Author:** ![Kamino\_Neko](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kamino_neko/32/34_2.png) [@Kamino\_Neko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kamino_Neko)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/10 "2004-04-22T00:23:49Z")
> [@Loach](#): > > I would find it interesting to find out why Trudeau felt the need to do this now. B.D. is a vet of both Desert Storm and Viet Nam and he didn’t feel the need to maim him then. It was mentioned in another thread that this storyline was planned to go with the last Gulf War. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/11 "2004-04-22T02:40:06Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > It’ll only turn into a political argument thread if you start arguing with him. > > Just sayin’. Just wrong. He started arguing with me already. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/12 "2004-04-22T03:20:46Z")
> [@RikWriter](#): > > Just wrong. He started arguing with me already. Who’s arguing? I stepped up to an obvious straight line and then disagreed with your assessment of the strip. It’s a joke. In any event, when debating a politically charged piece of work (as I’m sure you’ll agree Doonesbury is and always has been), one’s opinions on the underlying issues is not entirely irrelevant. So, Get Fuzzy, crossover or incredible coincidence? I’m leaning towards coincidence myself, for the reasons I expressed earlier. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/13 "2004-04-22T05:32:44Z")
> [@RikWriter](#): > > Just wrong. He started arguing with me already. And you could ignore him. You don’t think that argument should be in this thread, don’t engage with it. Although, all in all, I gotta say that it takes a lot of chutzpah to complain about this, considering the sig line you’re sporting on every one of your posts. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/14 "2004-04-22T11:07:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And you could ignore him. You don’t think that argument should be in this thread, don’t engage with it. > > Although, all in all, I gotta say that it takes a lot of chutzpah to complain about this, considering the sig line you’re sporting on every one of your posts. My sig line is 100% factual, and btw I’ve noticed quite a few anti-Bush siglines around, many incredibly juvenile and idiotic. But the fact remains, he started the argument. You’re trying to insist he didn’t, for reasons unknown, but you’re quite obviously wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/15 "2004-04-22T11:14:44Z")
Not at all. While it takes one to start a war it takes TWO to argue. If you don’t want to then you don’t. There’s no law that says you must reply (or even pay attention). ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/16 "2004-04-22T12:06:28Z")
Hey! They save his knee! Awesome. All the difference in the world. As for the other stuff, I wasn’t paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![Genghis\_Bob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/45deac/32.png) [@Genghis\_Bob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Genghis_Bob)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/17 "2004-04-22T12:21:39Z")
> [@RikWriter](#): > > ,. . . Doonesbury has always brought serious strips into the mix from time to time. This whole thing seems contrived and a bit stupid though. I disagree with the “contrived and stupid” assessment. As you pointed out, Trudeau has always been topical, and there’s nothing more topical than the war in Iraq. Trudeau has never shied away from putting his characters through life-changing (and sometimes life-ending) story line. This gives him the opportunity to take BD in some new directions; BD has needed an overhaul for a long time. It will also open the door for Boopsie’s continued growth. Funny thing - the most shocking part of yesterday’s strip was seeing BD’s _hair_ . I was more surprised by that than by the loss of his leg. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/18 "2004-04-22T12:26:45Z")
You probably don’t read the strip, but it looks like Uncle Walt might be dying in Gasoline Alley. That’s a hell of a milestone (Doonesbury owes a lot to Gasoline Alley, the first comic strip to have its characters change over time). ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/19 "2004-04-22T13:36:56Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Not at all. While it takes one to start a war it takes TWO to argue. If you don’t want to then you don’t. There’s no law that says you must reply (or even pay attention). And there’s no law that says you have to reply to me either. Yet you chose to. And only to me, not to the person attempting to start the argument. Very telling. ---
**Author:** ![RikWriter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/49beb7/32.png) [@RikWriter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RikWriter)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245/20 "2004-04-22T13:39:19Z")
> [@rimshotgdansk](#): > > I disagree with the “contrived and stupid” assessment. As you pointed out, Trudeau has always been topical, and there’s nothing more topical than the war in Iraq. I think it’s contrived because he was ready to use it 12 years ago during Desert Storm. It’s as if he’s had it stored up, just waiting for a war big enough to use it in. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-fuzzy-and-doonesbury-get-serious/241245.md?page=2)