Jon Stewart is an incredible attractive guy. However I’m not going to argue that point. Hey, chachun a son gout. But if you’re going to argue that JS has a * hooked nose* this must be a use of the term I’ve never encountered before. Simply put, he doesn’t have one. And if the the great caricaturist Tinsley gave him one I can only think of one “satiric” reason for doing so. Care to come up with another?
Beyond that, my take on it is he actually got e-mails from people who thought he contributed to “America” and he’d rather make very lame stabs at Jon Stewart than admit his fan base isn’t all that bright.
-Tinsley also appears to believe that Stewart was the sole author of the book, and
-Tinsley appears to comment that people might have been misled since the Mallard parody wasn’t signed by the parodist. He apparently didn’t realize that, with the exception of the Mad Fold-In parody (which was actually drawn by Al Jaffee), none of the parody cartoons were signed by the parodist.
P.S. If one were to actually do some research, it would be obvious that the cartoons are fake- the Peanuts parody is given a supposed date of running that predates the introduction of the Pigpen character.
Jefferson is obviously referring to Hallesarian Berry, one of his slaves who was also a talented performer. However, historians are still trying to figure out if most of her “performances” were on the stage or in the bed.
I know I’m cynical. But am I the only one who thinks that this is a prelude to a demand letter? Or, perhaps, the sequel to an unsuccessful demand letter and prelude to a lawsuit? Or, even more likely, the cartoon is a sequel to an unsuccessful demand letter, and Tinsley’s lawyers have explained that, due to its clear nature as a parody, he doesn’t have a claim against Stewart and therefore cannot share in the largesse of America.
In other words, when someone (whose last name might be Tinsley) saw the cartoon in the book, and noticed that it’s, like, number one on the bestseller list for the eight-hundredth year in a row, someone maybe thought, “hey – I could get a piece of that action!” Then, upon serving a demand letter on Stewart, Stewart’s legal goon squad responded with things like, “satire” and “parody” and “First Amendment” and “New York Times v. Sullivan.” To which Tinsley’s lawyers said, “Oh. Yeah. Forgot about that.” To which Tinsley said, “well, even if I can’t get any of the money from the book, let’s see how John Stewart Smarty McSmartpants likes it when someone turns it around on him.” And bad cartooning ensues.
Yes, I am a cynical you-know-what. But that’s my gut reaction.
That’s kind of how I feel about this. I sort of feel that John Stewart should leave him alone and let him keep living in his delusional reality.
But this is kind of backfiring on Tinsley anyway, because now I’m intrigued and might just buy the book.
I wouldn’t jump to any conclusions about the caricature being racist. I did watch the Daily Show tonight and saw that John Stewart’s nose definately does curve downward. It’s exaggerated because that’s how caricature works. Remember the cartoon that depicted Condoleeza Rice as a parrot? That was the same thing.
Also, you have to consider that a few right-wing radio ranters and pundits have started taking shots at Stewart since his appearance on “Crossfire” last year. To them (and their loyal flock), John Stewart and “The Daily Show” are examples of what typical decadent, Godless, America-hating, liberal elitists think are funny and they certainly don’t want to be like those people. Thus, you have James Lileks taking potshots at Stewart in his column, R. Emmett Tyrrell in The American Spectator proclaiming the mock-textbook *America * as the worst book of 2004, and Tinsley’s thin-skinned reaction to having his strip parodied.
I think ya got it on this one bunkie. He wants to sue desperately but know that he’d get tossed out of court and laughed at for being a prick in the media. By doing the cartoons, he appeals to his fan base so he’s less likely to get gutted about his lack of a sense of humor.
The big nose dig is just that: a dig. The “oops I forgot to make a joke” line apparently hit it’s mark and the best that Tinsley could come up with is “Yeah, but you’re nose is big.” It’s lazy, unfunny, and painfully retarted, but I doubt that it’s anti-semetic.
Not quite- a parrot is an animal, not a racial stereotype. Depicting Condoleeza’s substantial hairdo as a modified Angela-Davis-afro, or picturing her as Buckwheat, would be more analagous. Depicting her as the parrot (or as I see her, as “the Brain” [of Pinky & fame]) plays to no stereotypes.
There’s no way that Tinsley didn’t know that an exaggerated hooked nose is the oldest Jewish stereotype. (It’s referred to in Shakespeare, for God’s sake.) If he truly is ignorant of this, then he’s too uninformed to be writing a comic strip whose purpose is political commentary.
Nope–me, too. I think it’s the double-chin action, or maybe just that the dude only has one whiteboy face he can draw in caricature. I dunno.
I’m not sure about the hooked nose business one way or another, but the transcript of America’s MF comic is the first Fillmore ever to make me laugh out loud. Tiensley needs to understand that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and start flattering the hell out of Jon Stewart.
If by “superb” you mean awful, sure. Nobody in a Tinsley comic looks good. They all look like leftovers from the “Eye of the Beholder” episode of the Twilight Zone. Caricature doesn’t necessarily mean make your target into some sorta troll, but that’s all Tinsley does.
Yes, but a) his original characters aren’t so wretched looking that I can’t read Doonesbury while eating (something I can’t say about Mallard) and b) he gets around it when drawing famous people in hilarous ways (drawing Clinton as a waffle and Bush II was a legion-helmed asterik).
FTR, (since I brought up the nose thing in this thread in the first place) While I think Tinsley is an utterly humorless cartoonist who does nothing but bray the least compelling of right-wing talking points, I think his portrait of Stewart is a pretty thin peg to hang a charge of anti-semitism on.
Nope. Without the context of the dialogue, I’d never have guessed that was supposed to be Stewart.
I doubt that it’s intentionally anti-Semetic. I’ve only read Mallard Fillmore when someone posts a link on the SDMB to complain about how bad it is, but the one thing I’ve noticed is that it’s about the least subtle comic strip ever. If Tinsley really were trying to slip an anti-Semetic remark into his comic, I don’t think he’d be able to do it without covering the thing in swastikas and including a Holocaust denial screed. He just doesn’t have the talent to be any more clever than that. I don’t think he’s a bigot, at least, not based off of this comic. He’s just an unfunny hack who can’t draw. Besides which, look at his strip where he explains why what he does is acceptable satire and what Stewart does is dishonest. (“I writes my name on my comics!”) Clearly, this man is plenty stupid enough not to know about the history of Jewish stereotyping, to say nothing of William Shakespeare.
