« Car Men, the Drivers of Caminhoneta | Main | Noxious Gases »
June 09, 2007
It's Over - I Think
So Scott Stantis finally spends an entire week - Monday through Saturday - on a single topic, and he devotes it to...outsourcing. While the war in Iraq rages, immigration has split his own party in two, and we're seeing the depths of the U.S. Attorney scandal and how it relates to election fraud finally start to come out, Stantis spends his time on an issue that hasn't been a hot button topic for a while. But at least he's being political and offering up a legitimate position on the issue, right? Right?
Of course not. His brilliant take falls back on the typical Republican talking points, which is that we shouldn't mandate a living wage in this country (an issue that was in front of the Congress several months ago but hasn't been discussed recently while they argue about the war and immigration).
I'm always fascinated by Republicans like Stantis who can't think for themselves, and then when they actually do stop to try and figure out where they stand on an issue it's like a small child trying to comprehend math for the first time. "I think the free market should dictate how much money people make." Well what about the fact that unions have fought for a century to make sure that in this country people have a safe working environment, a 40 hour work week, etc. while other countries still treat workers like slave labor? So instead of refusing to do business with those countries that abuse their workforce many of our corporations instead outsource our jobs to them because it means more profit for them and their shareholders while leaving our citizens out of work? "Well, that's capitalism for you." So no matter what, profit rules all? "Yup." And what happens when our citizens make so little that they can't afford the goods that we no longer make and have to import and we're strictly a service economy? "Hey, let's talk about illegal immigration - that's the REAL problem - those illegals are taking our service jobs." And so it goes.
There is no debating with Republicans. They don't argue from the head, they argue from the heart. When Stephen Colbert jokes about that it really is funny cuz it's true. Stantis must love having Prickly City and his editorial comic, because it gives him a forum where he can spew a few talking points, ignore the real issues, and then act high and mighty because he feels like he's "won" the argument with anyone who disagrees with him. The only time anyone gets to voice an opposing viewpoint is in the letters people send him, and when he actually does a podcast (down to less than once a month now), he offers up even lamer Republican talking points and belittles anyone making a real point because they're a stupid stinky smelly liberal who "doesn't get it."
Today is no different for Stantis. Nevermind how stupid it is that Carmen and Winslow are somehow "back" in Prickly City, which didn't make any sense in the first place. Carmen is a Republican that is here on a "Guest Worker Visa," which I guess means she'll only be here for a short period of time. Of course Democrat Winslow snuck in over the border like an illegal alien, even though he's an American citizen. Then Stantis offers up the conservative Thomas Friedman's lame "the world is flat economically" argument, and Winslow makes an even lamer comment about Indian and Chinese food since those are the equivalent of 3000 auto worker jobs being sent to Mexico or 5000 telemarketing jobs going to India.
I guess I wouldn't have such a problem with Stantis if he actually attempted to create a real dialogue about a real problem our country faces. I understand it's difficult to talk about an issue like this and still try to be funny, but that's what he's paid to do. Rehashing the Hello Kitty Carmen and cracking wise that Winslow snuck into the country while offering up lame one-line Republican talking points ("a living wage is bad - be happy you have a job at all," "it's a free market - deal with it," etc.) isn't insightful political commentary, it's lazy. But it's easy for Stantis to comment on everybody else's jobs while he's got one because of his political beliefs and not his actual work performance. Let's see where Stantis stands on these issues when he's unemployed because people finally wise up and realize the damage he's doing to the comic strip pages not just by being unfunny and lazy, but because he's dragging down other funnier, more insightful strips with him because they're on the other side of the political fence and if he gets fired, they get fired too. That's not the free market at work - that's politics, pure and simple.
But a Bush Republican like Stantis wouldn't have it any other way.
Comments
In two weeks, Winslow goes to jail. Michael Moore lets him out. Carmen sees that he goes back in. Winslow cries. Carmen laughs.
Posted by: Annie at June 9, 2007 11:33 AM
Yes, I was really mad after what he did to my letter to him in his podcast. I wrote a long letter to him about Prickly City. It was not hate mail at all. Rather, it offered him advice on where to go with his strip and so on. But instead of addressing any of that, he instead dodged the question and talked about that one strip where Winslow says, "I'm the fall guy." Stantis explained what that meant in the podcast. Yeah, I got that Stantis. The thing is, I don't think it's funny.
Anyway, the full text of my letter to him (this was in March, I think) is below.
Posted by: Chris at June 9, 2007 06:29 PM
Dear Scott Stantis,
I’m a politically liberal, blue-state teenager. I do, however, read “Prickly City” online daily. I suppose that you are now under fire, to a certain extent, due to the poor timing of those strips boasting about the fantastic state of the economy. To be fair, you DO write your strips a few weeks before they run, so how could you know that they would run shortly after that stock market plunge? You can't be blamed for that, and I’m not going to blame you for it in this letter.
You can, however, be blamed for the mediocrity of your own drawing. The March 7 strip is probably the most overjoyed we've ever seen Carmen, and frankly, due to your limited drawing ability, the result is something less than appealing to the eye. You aren't the only poor artist in the business, however. "Pearls Before Swine" has Stephan Pastis; "Dilbert" has Scott Adams; "Unfit" (now defunct) had Mike Belkin; "Diesel Sweeties" has R. Stevens. And good writing is what makes up for the poor drawing in those strips. And please don’t get me wrong – I love “Pearls Before Swine” and “Dilbert.” I’m afraid I don’t like “Diesel Sweeties” nearly as much, but it was clearly Stevens’s writing that got him syndicated, not his drawing.
So, the bottom line is... you don't need to pretend to be a magnificent artist when you're not, you just need to learn to write better. Because good writing is almost always more important than good drawing, right?
For instance, this is a comic strip. It's not the editorial page; it’s not a political cartoon. It's a comic strip, with recurring characters. More than anything -- commentary, opinion, etc. -- it's supposed to be funny. So instead of blasting arch-conservative ideas at us like you have done in many recent strips, make consistently funny jokes built around those ideas. I realize that you think you're already doing this, but trust me, you could be doing a lot better.
Start by adding more characters. Maybe Dio and Kevin the Lost Bunny of the Apocalypse didn't work out for you; I don't know. But don't retreat to the two-character format just because of that. Try again. Personally, I dislike "Garfield," but for the sake of having an example, take Lyman. He was Jon's roommate from 1978-1983 before he inexplicably disappeared from the strip. Why? The character didn't work. In "Pearls," there was Leonard, briefly a boarder with Rat and Pig. He was killed off because, once again, the character didn't work.
And don't think that you're too far into the comic to introduce new characters. You're less than three years in! Go for it! The March 4 Sunday strip was the perfect example of a strip that needs a third character. Winslow's line in the last panel just isn't Winslow. But it's not Carmen either. I'm begging you, add another character or two. If they're well-thought out characters that fit with the strip, you won't be sorry. (Note: The Mexican immigrant coyote was a good character. Will he ever return? Also, I was wondering if the hooded Church of the Unquestionable Paradigm guy from a few weeks back will be a recurring character...)
Furthermore, the strip used to be funnier, in my opinion. You used to really write jokes, but now it's just your viewpoints -- and your viewpoints only. If I want that, I'll watch the news or read the paper. This is a comic strip, so don't forget to keep the comedic part of it strong. The best “topical” cartoonists will combine storylines involving their characters with commentary. (The desert hamsters storyline was a good example. So was the illegal immigrant coyote series. Also, the Winslow-goes-to-Washington series.) But honestly, you aren't doing it enough. I'm sure you've read at least some "Bloom County." Although it's a liberal strip, it would be good for you to check out (if you haven’t already) because Breathed was a master of fusing his commentary with stories involving his characters.
In addition, please try to keep recurring gags fresh (specifically, Winslow wanting to fly). How many times are we going to see Winslow fail and make an unfunny joke (for example, the March 20 gag, “I’m the fall guy.”)?
Now, I don't agree with your politics, but I'm not writing this in response to your politics. I'm writing in response to your comic strip. I don't have the cartooning credentials that you do, of course, but then I'm only a 14-year-old, aspiring cartoonist, whereas you’ve gotten syndicated three times and had several editorial cartoons published. However, I'm very well-read in terms of comics and this is my honest critique of your work so far.
I've read "Prickly City" online from Day 1, despite my opposing liberal viewpoints, and I think it must be because I saw something quite promising in it. Now, 2.5 years later, it's time to start to develop it a bit more. And that's my honest opinion.
Sincerely,
Chris
Posted by: Anonymous at June 9, 2007 06:31 PM
Sorry, that says "Anonymous" but it's me. Anyway, if you read the letter, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it is not random hate mail. I think it is well-grounded advice based on actual example in the comics.
Too bad Stantis brushed it off.
Oh yeah, and technically, it's been 1 month and 27 days since the last podcast, despite Stantis's promise that there would be a new one "coming soon." Yeah right.
Posted by: Chris at June 9, 2007 06:35 PM
Odds are Stantis couldn't accept that a teenager was able to offer such great insight. If you can see it, why can't he?
Posted by: The Furnace at June 9, 2007 10:38 PM
