Shrubville

« Teeter Totter | Main | A Pat of Dooky »

March 26, 2006

Stantis Unplugged

TODAY'S STRIP

It's Sunday, which means plenty of color and Winslow failing to fly. Stantis tries to get philosophical on us, talking about how people who think reality is subjective are liars. Tell that to your President, Scooter - in his reality Iraq isn't in a civil war, the economy is the best ever, and everyone in his administration is doing a heckuva job. And he's the President, so that unitary power of his says he's right.

As I mentioned yesterday, Scott Stantis held an online chat with folks at the Washington Post online. While most times these chats are a major bore, this was a bit interesting if only because Stantis's work is so polarizing. Prickly City is apparently a love it or hate it kind of strip. Reading through the transcript, it gives us a better idea of how the mind of Scott Stantis works. Below are some excerpts from the chat. There is no effort on my part to take these out of context and somehow embarrass the poor boy - that's why a link to the complete chat is up above. I'd just like to hi-light some sections to show how twisted the mind of a conservative comic strip artist can be. All Stantis quotes are in italics.

Scott Stantis: I am so happy to be here in the lions den of liberalism.

Immediately Stantis frames this as if he's in hostile territory - the dreaded Washington Post. Now most conservatives - the same ones that say the entire media is liberal - believe the WaPo to be somehow slanted towards the left. Granted some columnists are, but isn't that the job of someone who editoralizes? In general the Post reports the news, and if anything during the Bush administration if they've been leaning in any direction it's to the right. This is simply a way for Stantis to set up that if he gets any negative questions, it's because he's on some liberal website instead of deserving of honest criticism.

God bless our sales staff and God bless the Post for running Prickly City. (For our leftist friends that is a totally non-denominational, secular kind of God).

Now he's just being a smartass. Since when do people on the left not like God? I hate that Republicans and conservatives somehow think that God and religion are exclusively theirs. CJo and I are both Catholic (no clue about Sacki, although he seems to be a God-fearing man), and most people I know attend church (some Lutheran, others Baptist). God is God. So quit acting like he's YOUR God, Stantis. Funny - President Bush is OUR President, but God is Stantis's God.

I like to think of Prickly City as a chocolate covered cactus.

That explains EVERYTHING. Let me just run to the store and pick up some cactus for dinner.

The web IS a great place to start. Back when I was your age you had to find a small paper editor who would be willing to run your work. Often for nothing. Now, you can skip the middle person and go straight to a mass audience. The only problem I see with this is there is no editor to tell you when a cartoon sucks. Or makes no sense. Things you don't want to hear but really need to hear if you're going to improve.

Let me use some online lingo to respond here: LOL. You mean to tell me that Stantis DOES have an editor willing to tell him that his cartoon sucks and it doesn't make any sense? Worst. Editor. Ever.

I would love a much broader debate with reasoned discussion from a wider range of people and views.

Debate that includes "Michael Moore is fat," "Teddy Kennedy is a drunk," and "Howard Dean is a liar."

But the fact of the matter is, they DID give money to democrats per Abramoff's instructions.

This is a snippet of a question/answer that has to deal with Stantis's lying about Jack Abramoff and the Democrats. As I've explained previously, Stantis is wrong and I've proven it several times. Abramoff instructed his clients to give LESS money to Democrats since they were going to contribute to them anyway. This sums up Stantis and typical neo-cons in general - they simply can't admit when they're wrong. Instead they'll just repeat the lie over and over again.

Potomac: Many people find your comic absolutely childish, juvenile and just plain offensive. On some days, your points are so broad, so scattershot and so childish, it's as if the strip was "written" by an 8-year-old. And the drawing of the girl--what is wrong with her lips, and why is she always running and jumping off of cliffs? The strip is not funny, not enjoyable, and, really, offensive.

Scott Stantis: Then don't read it.

I think the person from Potomac summed it up pretty well.

But I do agree that the strip needs to expand and I have a handful of new chracters I hope to introduce soon.

Yes! Unless of course they're just as confusing and unfunny as the ones he already has.

If you read through the whole chat, near the end the crowd gets a little more hostile and Stantis does his best to respond - usually with a "then don't read it" response. The lowest part of the chat though is when a reader asks why Stantis can't just be FUNNY, and the moderator bails Scott out. I would have loved to have read Scooter's response to that.

So what can we take away from Scott's interaction with the public? He listens to the people who love his work, he writes off anyone who criticizes him as "not getting it," and he thinks he's doing a heckuva job. See Scott - reality IS subjective.

And I'll leave you with my favorite question and answer:

Ahack, UR: Scott,

Scott Stantis: Thank you. I am trying to figure out where UR is?

Comments

Posted by: Annie at March 27, 2006 08:40 AM

Posted by: Sacki at March 27, 2006 10:40 AM

Posted by: j kendall at March 27, 2006 12:49 PM