« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
September 30, 2007
Nobody Said Anything Bad About Anybody Before The Internet
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
BAD MANNERS???
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
Sorry, but seeing Stantis whine that the internet is a bad thing because of bad manners I can't help but laugh. Porn? Spam? Those are NOTHING compared to Little Scotty Stantis getting his feelings hurt because people can go on the internet and voice their opinions as to how much he sucks as a comic strip writer. Now THAT'S funny.
This from a guy who uses his internet podcast to make fun of anyone he disagrees with. Ahem.
It's wonderful to be able to laugh reading today's Prickly City, even if it's not for the reason Stantis intended. Old Man Stantis is back to hating the eeevil technology - give him back his telegraph machine so he can send a morse code to everybody that they've been corrupted by science. Again, from a guy whose comic strip I would have never even seen if I didn't read it online since my local paper doesn't carry it.
Conservatives seem to hate technology, but then again they seem to hate everything new and different. Heck, Bill O'Reilly was shocked to find out that a restaurant run by black owners was no different from one run by white, yellow, blue, or green owners. If conservatives still think it's the 1950s when it comes to race, of course they're terrified of what something like the internet can do - especially when it comes to politics. The Republicans are waaaaay behind the left when it comes to using the "netroots" and the "blogosphere" in order to get their message out and help candidates get elected. So instead of catching up, they're acting like Stantis and whining about...bad manners (ha ha ha ha ha).
I like Stantis's reference to spam. This from a Republican whose party used old fashioned direct mail as one of the lynchpins to forming their political dynasty starting in the 80s and through the W administration. Republicans are the biggest assholes on the planet when it comes to sending people crap through the mail that they don't want - at least the spam I get on the internet goes away with a click of a button and not into a landfill somewhere.
And is Stantis really complaining about porn? Heck, if some of his conservative politicians would take care of their urges at home on the internet they wouldn't be bothering people at the airport men's room or molesting guys in their sleep. And lest we not forget, Stantis himself is the one who was sending people to a porn site via his strip.
I'm still trying to figure out Stantis's "witty" attempt at a visual gag by having the last few panels look pixelated, as if created on an old Commodore 64. At least I think that's what Stantis was going for, because to me it looks like Stantis just used big dots instead of straight lines to try and recreate that look. Um, why not draw it like you normally would and then have Toby or some other intern run it through Microsoft Paint and run the ol' pixelate filter there? Would take two seconds and actually look like it's been done by a computer instead of a lame attempt by an "artist" who can't draw in the first place.
I feel sorry for Stantis. Okay, let me be more specific since there are a LOT of reasons to feel sorry for the guy. But I'm sorry that he still feels this need to be afraid of the internet, and to bash it because he's not comfortable with it. Yeah, the internet has its problems - but what doesn't? The good advances far outweigh the bad. And whether Stantis likes it or not, the internet is making us smarter. Do we have to put up with spambots and viruses? Sure. But now if I want to educate my friend on something I just copy and paste a link and email it to her and moments later she's got it. Not sure why that's such a bad thing, but I guess to Old Man Stantis it was better back in the olden days when the mail carrier was lugging around the Fall Sears catalog so the family could pick out the new washboard they wish they could get momma if only the Depression would end.
Sorry Stantis, but I'm happy with putting up with porn and spam, just as long as I can continue express my bad manners by calling you a hack online whenever I can.
***UPDATE***
After our new friend "Shrubville Sucks" decided to bomb the comments section saying he's going to bring the website down, I decided to close the comments. Not that I care how he spends his Sunday nights - it's just that we get emailed every time someone posts a comment and I'm sicking of reading his childish posts. If he had something constructive to say that would be one thing, but saying you're never going to leave and bring the site down is just a waste of time.
September 29, 2007
Slorp Indeed
I've come to a sad realization: Scott Stantis needs an intervention.
While Prickly City has always been one of the worst comic strips out there, this past week Stantis has plummeted to new depths in both story and animation. And I think it's Stantis's way of saying "help me."
Sure, it's been fun for us here at Shrubville to make fun of Stantis for a few years now because of his lack of basic abilities as a comic strip artist. It's sort of the way America laughed at Otis the Drunk on The Andy Griffith Show - we all know the poor guy had a serious problem, but it was fun to laugh at his stumbling and mumbling.
But this is serious. The past week of Prickly City is the equivalent of poor Otis face down in a pool of his own vomit in the gutter out in front of Floyd's Barbershop. It's definitely not amusing, and it's not even fun to laugh at. It's just pathetic, and it's clear at this point the guy needs some serious help.
I mean just look at the part in Carmen's hair today. It's as if her scalp is trying to rip itself open, forming an oddly shaped bald spot in the middle of the poor child's head.
And then there's the subject matter. Sure, it's not a horrible gag - I mean we've seen it a thousand times before, so it can't be THAT bad. But how the heck does it tie into anything that Stantis has done all week on global warming? Is he admitting that yes, the ice is melting so we have to decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing? I guess that's the case, but if it is, why would Winslow say, "Doesn't matter when you're thirsty?" He's spent all week saying how horrible the humans are for causing global warming, so obviously he would see it as a terrible thing if he's demanding that all humans leave the planet. But nope - Stantis pulls a punchline out of the mothballs I wouldn't doubt he's used in another comic and we're left to wonder what it all means.
I'll tell you what it all means. Scott Stantis is begging for our help. He doesn't want to do Prickly City anymore. He wants to quit, and he's intentionally tanking the strip so the syndicate doesn't carry him anymore. And I think we should help him out. If your local newspaper carries Prickly City, please ask them to drop it - for Stantis's sake. Write Scott Stantis directly and tell him it's okay to admit he has a problem, and that no one will call him a quitter if he stops "writing" and "drawing" Prickly City.
It's okay, Scott. We're here to help. You don't have to do Prickly City anymore. We understand. You have a problem, but today can be the first day of the rest of your life. And the rest of ours - without Prickly City.
Will you accept our help?
September 28, 2007
What a clunky attempt at coining a food catchphrase. "Poodles. They're not just for lunch anymore." Blah.
I, myself, would have opted for one of the following:
Poodles -- The New White Meat
Poodles -- It's What's For Dinner
The Incredible Edible Poodle
You Can't Have Poodles For Breakfast, But You Can Have Poodle Crisp
Regardless, Winslow's "Earth First" campaign (with a special magical t-shirt that disappears at random) in which he blames humans for everything wrong on Earth still doesn't explain the ice ages on Mars, a point I'm going to harp on for exactly one more minute... Mars? Ice Ages? Caused by Humans on Earth? [Done. Thanks for indulging.]
Maybe tomorrow's strip -- the oft-overlooked [but not by us] Saturday strip -- will offer some sense and sensibility to the week that was. But I wouldn't count on it.
Posted by CJo at 10:30 AM | Comments (6)September 27, 2007
Yes, But Will it Play in Laughlin?
So now since it has been revealed Winslow is blaming humans for everything bad in the universe, let's revisit Monday's strip. Seemingly Winslow is blaming the human race for the 40 ice ages on the planet Mars, which were caused by -- some speculate -- a wobble in the planet's rotation. Let me reiterate and underscore to further my point: Humans caused a wobble in the rotation of Mars which caused 40 ice ages. On Mars.
That is one confused cracker.
And today he wraps Venus into the discussion. And Laughlin, NV, much to the delight of those who are flush enough for a second home, as Laughlin ranks No. 11 (with a bullet, no doubt) in the best places to buy a second home.
In a strip that continually redefines "Worst. Series. Ever." this week marks a new nadir.
Posted by CJo at 09:23 AM | Comments (5)September 26, 2007
Shazam
Carmen: "You know what you are, Winston?"
Winston: "Golllly! No!"
Carmen: "You're a bad nabor."
Winston: "Surprise, surprise, surprise."
This quick recap brought to you by the 2D Players, who remind you that the author of Prickly City half-asses it for billions and billions of dollars, so why can't Sacki do it for free.
Posted by Sacki at 09:38 AM | Comments (6)September 25, 2007
Vindication And Stantis's New Crush
Ahh, I feel vindicated. But then again, so can Scott Stantis's Number One Drunken Frat Boy Fan since he was right too.
Turns out that yesterday's clusterf*ck of a strip was Stantis trying to say that humans are responsible for global warming no matter which globe - here, Mars, Pluto (hmm - maybe I shouldn't include Pluto since those dang liberal scientists don't think it's a planet anymore). While our new commenter Doc theorized it was just conservatives Winslow/Winston was blaming, today the coyote lets us know that it's the human race in general like I was suspecting. Yay me?
(By the way, this thought just hit me: why doesn't Stantis make an evil Winston the Coyote and actually take advantage of his stupid slip of the tongue from a few weeks ago? He could prove us all fools, saying that he's intended all along to reveal Winslow's evil twin brother Winston and that the super secret storyline slipped out ahead of time in the podcast and we should have just waited to see how brilliant this new character would be. At least it would be better than quoting obscure scientists named Norbert with theories about planets that aren't Earth.)
That little aside I just had? You can thank Scott Stantis's Number One Drunken Frat Boy Fan for that, since in yesterday's comments (going under the clever nom de plume "shrubville sucks") he made the point that Stantis was going to explain Monday's strip...on Tuesday. And danged if he wasn't right. Why we should have to wait a day to understand what the heck he's talking about is beyond me, but that's what happened. If we're lucky maybe SSNODFBF will come back and make more fun of me, because I miss those days of the bully on the playground trying to ruin my self-esteem with name-calling. I'm sure it has nothing to do with your tiny penis, sir, or your attraction to Scott Stantis in a way that makes your pants feel smaller. Nothin' at all.
So I guess the rest of the week will be Winslow (or is it Evil Winston?) saying how horrible human beings are because of our gas emmissions. Excuse me for a sec - YAWWWWNNNNNN. What, not enough material to make fun of the Dems, Stantis? Come on, even I want you to rip on them now. Nobody cares what you think about ice ages, Stantis. Except your new man-crush SSNODFBF. He thinks you're dreeaaammmmyyyy.
September 24, 2007
This is Ground Control to Major Huh?
What?
Whaat?
Whaaat?
Whaaaat?
Whaaaaat?
Whaaaaaat?
Whaaaaaaat?
Whaaaaaaaat?
Whaaaaaaaaat?
Whaaaaaaaaaat?
I'd like to think I'm a pretty sharp guy, but today's strip is completely indecipherable. Maybe tomorrow or the next day will help discover a meaning but this is just mystifying.
Maybe "you people" could help me out a little?
PS: Check out Winslow's left hand in the second panel. It's friggin' HUMONGOUS!
Posted by CJo at 10:30 AM | Comments (5)September 23, 2007
Ohhhh, It's A Paint Bucket and Paint Brushes! Now I Get It!
Am I the only person who had trouble figuring out just what the heck was going on with today's Prickly City? This is what happens when a guy who can't draw relies on a sight gag as his punchline.
Rather than waiting the usual two weeks until after the holiday to crack a joke, Stantis jumps the gun by five weeks and goes with the Halloween theme today. Apparently Carmen fell asleep, so Winston painted her face yellow and slipped on a pair of fake coyote ears. No sign of a bowl of warm water or if Carmen still has her eyebrows.
It's not a terrible gag, but geez louise - check out that bucket! A guy who used to write a strip called The Buckets can't even draw one? At first I thought Winslow was holding a meat cleaver. Add in that one paintbrush looks like a line with a feather on the end, and it's hard to comprehend that people pay Stantis good money for this crap.
Can you imagine if this wasn't in color? How would we possibly know that Winslow had painted Carmen? No sign of scissors or construction paper to explain the ears. The paint brush and paint can look like they were drawn by a three year old with a broken hand. The only decent thing about it are the upside down Winslows, but that's ruined when you get to that final image because it's so piss poor.
That fratboy letter CJo quoted from the other day asked something about why we waste our time bitching about the strip. For me a big part of it is Stantis's politics, but he's so terrible at simply drawing two characters that half the time I'm astounded he even has a strip. It would be one thing if he could at least be decent with the animation part of things - then I could sit here and point out how stupid his politics are (and damn, are they stupid). But when a non-political strip like this one comes along, I'm left to wonder at how he makes a living doing this while liberal comic strip artists who can actually draw sit on the shelf because there needs to be a "fair and balanced" comic page.
The worst part: Stantis isn't going to get any better. He's been doing PC for years now, and he hasn't shown any sign of improvement when it comes to drawing the same two characters day in and day out. And when he does add in another character, they're fat gross slobs no matter who the person might be, ranging from Scott the Baby Boomer to Ted Kennedy.
Seriously, if not for his politics would Stantis be allowed anywhere near the comic pages?
September 22, 2007
Don't Go Dragging Larry King Into This
Subtlety, thy name isn't Stantis. Apparently our boy Scotty must have had a birthday or just got his Social Security retirement info from the government, because he sure is pissed off at the baby boomers (of which he claims he isn't one, although I'm guessing he only missed the cut off date by a few years***). It's given us a great view inside the mind of a bitter conservative who, rather than make things called "jokes," has decided to gross out his audience and then make bizarre platform statements as if everybody should know they're true.
There's just something sickly twisted about how conservatives view the world. According to Stantis the baby boomers are the most "self-absorbed" generation, whatever that means. Guess he hasn't checked out the latest batch of X-Box kids coming down the pipe, or the Gen-Xers before them. Yup, the folks that fought the Viet Nam war and who have worked since high school are self-absorbed. Isn't that a great slap in the face? A guy who draws terribly and can't write a joke for a living is telling my Dad, who fought in Nam and has worked in the same job for the past 40 plus years, is a selfish fat pig who wears a diaper and a ponytail.
Hey Stantis, have you even LOOKED at who the readership of newspapers is nowadays? You think it's the kids? Ha ha ha ha ha!
But nope - Stantis can't be stopped to think! He's got too many people to insult! Because, dontcha know, these lazy baby boomers don't want to work anymore (after they've worked from age 18 to 65, since this first round of retirees didn't really go to college)! How dare they pay into something for 47 years and ask to get that money back to support them in their old age?! Ingrates! Nope, now that Social Security is nearly bankrupt they expect their kids to be the ones working! I mean, it's not like the boomers worked to support their parents, did they? Oh, wait, they did?
And wait a sec - why is Social Security going bankrupt? Ohhh...Bush cut taxes for the rich and had to borrow from SS to do it. Hmm. So how exactly can we blame that on the baby boomers again? Don't worry, Stantis doesn't care about little things like "facts" - baby boomers are self-absorbed pigs and that's that.
I'm just wondering where the heck Stantis got it into his head that Boomers are fat, gross, disgusting, selfish assholes that are greedy pigs only thinking about themselves. Where is that coming from? Because they want their money back that they paid into the account? Because they lost the Viet Nam war? I wonder if that's part of it - if they had won Nam, they would "deserve" their SS retirement, but since they're "losers" they shouldn't get a dime. Can't wait for Stantis to tell that to the guys fighting in the Middle East right now. "Sorry boys, you did your best and it's the government and the politicians that lost this war that we should have never started in the first place, but since you didn't really "win" you don't deserve to retire, you selfish pigs." Sounds bizarre, doesn't it? But that's how Stantis sounds to me when he goes after my parents like he did this week.
I also love the little tack on at the end about Carmen saying she'll never be able to retire. Because, dontcha know, SS will be bankrupt in 2040! Or 2056! Or 2028 - they keep changing the year. Doesn't matter - kids today can never retire! Except, of course, that whenever that year Republicans say SS will be "bankrupt" actually means that the system won't be able to pay out 100% of what it owes - more like 80%. Not exactly bankrupt, but don't tell the Bush Republicans that. Can't let pesky little things like facts get in the way, can we?
Oh, and when did Larry King ask to retire? From the looks of it (meaning: Larry King has looked exactly the same since I was a kid twenty years ago) Larry wants to keep working. And I say good for him. I say if you love your job, keep doing it until you can't anymore.
Unless you're Stantis - if you love your job, the best thing you can do for the rest of us is quit right now.
***UPDATE***
I just pulled up Stantis's wikipedia entry. According to them, Stantis was born in 1959. A Baby Boomer is defined as a person born between 1946 and 1964.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, Scott Stantis is a Baby Boomer.
Talk about your self-loathing.
September 21, 2007
Microsoft Taint
Interesting day here at Shrubville. Not because today's "Prickly City" adds any value to our day (it doesn't). But we received a couple of notes from our various fans spread across this great nation of ours...
Letter No. 1
Ok, I'm sorry if I'm missing the point here, I mean I disagree with the majority of what prickly city says, and as I can tell you do to [sic]. So why exactly, if you hate it so much, do you take the time each day to write a good three to four, and sometimes even more, paragraphs each day about it? And even then it's a bunch of garbled bullshit. You complain about shit mainly because it's not to your liking not because the strip is genuinely offensive. I've been showing this page to my friends and frat brothers all around campus and pretty much everyone agrees you have no life. I mean do you still have brown on your nose from writing that letter to the L.A. times. And it's glad [sic] to see someone out there still uses paint for photo editing.
-John (birminghamkiller@[redactedISP].com)
It's interesting to note that John, AKA BirminghamKiller, left us this message in the comments section of the November 24, 2006 entry. On September 21, 2007 at 4:46 AM, John, AKA BirminghamCrazyEyeKilla, decides to comment on a post that is 301 days old. Interesting approach, John, AKA BirminghamKillerz, to getting your message across to us.
At any rate, John, thanks to you and your many friends and frat brothers all around campus who read this site. We're happy to provide your friends and frat brothers all around campus material to circle jerk to. "Last one to ejaculate on a Microsoft Paint-edited photo from 300 days ago has to lick it off! Look at BirminghamKiller go! Jerk, Jerk, Jerk, Jerk, Jerk!"
Letter No. 2 (via email)
Subject: spred [sic] some truth on that sanwhich [sic] of life
Dude you are such a fucking lame ass. please tell me you look like that comic book geek off of the simpsons! I guess backlashing at a fucking cartoon is a great way to get out your sexual frustration, well have a nice life never sexually pleasing a woman. OMG you even listened to the goddamn podcast everyday!!!LOL you are so fucking lame dude
-Eric Jones (ericlasergunjones@[redactedISP].com)
Guess who came in last (literally and figuratively) in the BirminghamKiller-sponsored circle jerk involving friends and frat brothers all around campus! Don't fret about your homoerotic exploits, Eric Jones; someday you too will sexually please a woman. You've got charm, wit, and a lasergunjones-like precision with language. "Dude, woman, yur so hot. i'm a-gonna spred those legs and make a sanwich wif my manwich dude LOL."
Phew. That was fun. Don't worry: tomorrow we'll be back to our regularly-scheduled "backlashing at a fucking cartoon."
Posted by CJo at 10:10 AM | Comments (3)September 20, 2007
Puking the Corn Flakes
No, dear friends, I did not punch the corn flakes box this morning. Instead, I vomited up the partially-digested milled corn and malt flavoring mix I had consumed. Today has to be one of the most disgusting strips this side of the infamous Broom Hilda upskirt from May 28, 1973.
Everyone's least-favorite once-a-year recurring character, the overweight, pony-tailed, kickball-playing, diapered (diapered!), aging Baby Boomer who now inexplicably talks like Cookie Monster actually eats (eats!) Carmen and Winslow to set up a joke about him passing C & W through his bowels and out his anus.
There's some sort of commentary here about Baby Boomers expecting Social Security benefits and -- one presumes -- Medicare (how DARE they!), but it is 100% absolutely completely without-a-doubt lost amidst the steaming pile of shit with which Stantis ends the strip. Literally and figuratively.
I think it's time to name the Baby Boomer character. Please suggest away in the comments.
Posted by CJo at 10:15 AM | Comments (6)September 19, 2007
I'm Stumped!
Carmen: "Everything goes away."
Winston: "Not the TV show 'According to Jim', the war 'On Terror', or the sexually transmitted disease 'Syphilis'."
I think Stantis has syphilis, his mind is rotting, and he's angry at the system that can't cure him. I'm just speculating, though; there must be some explanation for the inanity that has been displayed prominently in Prickly City this week. If true, though doubtful, he would join a class that features, according to the wikipedia, "...famous historical personages, including...Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Vladimir Lenin, and Ivan the Terrible." I'd throw in Beau Brummell,too, but seriously, we've seen his publicity photos.
Posted by Sacki at 10:02 AM | Comments (2)September 18, 2007
Bad Medicine
It looks like Stantis got another book on philosophy along with that gift subscription to "Popular Science" CJo mentioned yesterday.
Carmen is spouting off about healthcare today, which isn't going to lead to anything good (or funny). Pretty much her position is the same as Ivan Drago's when he stood over the knocked out Apollo Creed: "If he dies, he dies." Nice to know that it's Carmen who has something in common with that Russian pinko.
I have no clue where Stantis is going with all of this. Apparently he seems to think that we should all get sick and die - that would be the best kind of healthcare available. I mean, what else is he trying to say here? He's not really endorsing our current system. He's obviously against universal healthcare (or "thee socialized medicine" if you're Strom Thurmond). So his solution? Get sick, die, whatever - he could care less. Bah. Is there a joke in there somewhere? Cuz I can't find it.
You know what would be really funny? If Carmen and Winslow were playing doctor, and Carmen - as the receptionist taking Winslow's information - refused to treat Winslow because he didn't have the right HMO. Actually that wouldn't be funny, but it's better than the crap Stantis is trying to wipe off on us today.
I think it's time to play "Which gear will Stantis shift into tomorrow?" It seems like this week is going to be a mish-mash of different topics, since Stantis is like a hyperactive kid with ADHD drinking Jolt cola so he can't focus on one thing for longer than a day anymore. So what's up for tomorrow? Back to Winston's campaign for president? Fat kid jokes? Britney? Let us know what you think Stantis will do tomorrow, because I'm sure it'll be funnier than what he actually does.
September 17, 2007
Jai Guru Deva Om
Wowee. Someone got a gift subscription to "Popular Science" for his birthday. Neat. Tell us more of these "recent discoveries," Scott; please.
As for Carmen and her wish to book a seat on the next flight out of this universe... Try calling 1-800-HEAVEN'S-GATE.
Posted by CJo at 09:29 AM | Comments (3)September 16, 2007
Fightin' Conservatives
I think today's Prickly City is interesting more for what it doesn't show than what's actually there, and it ties in nicely with what Salon writer Glenn Greenwald talked about in his post yesterday. In PC Carmen is "fighting" with herself, daydreaming that she's a warrior, fighting herself as a sumo wrestler, a boxer, and I'm guessing a samurai (yeah, that one doesn't make much sense - I wonder if he started drawing Carmen fencing herself but since she'd be wearing that weird silver face mask we couldn't tell it was her). This internal struggle, of course, is trying to figure out what it means to be a conservative today.
What's interesting to me is that she summed up the current conservative leadership pretty well by showing the one thing so many of them refuse to do: actually fight in our military as a member of the armed forces as real warriors. These tough guys are so anxious to fight they're more than happy to send other kids off to battle in wars based on lies, but don't you dare ask them to go themselves or send some of their own loved ones. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner referred to the deaths of our troops in Iraq as a "small price." Bill O'Reilly is more than happy to send off another thousand troops to die in Iraq - just don't ask him or his family to volunteer. Of course they're joined by the various neo-conservative warhawks like the Kagan family and Bill Kristol, who have been wrong about everything when it comes to these wars yet are now pushing to invade Iran. Needless to say none of them have sacrificed anything when it comes to being true warriors and actually fighting themselves.
I understand it must be difficult claiming to be a conservative these days. Guys like Stantis were more than happy to support Bush in 2000 and 2004. What's the difference now that it's 2007? Well, all of the conservative policies Bush and the conservative Republicans put in place and they loudly endorsed have proven to be catastrophic failures. Nothing's changed in their actual belief systems - it's just been proven that their form of governing doesn't work, and they can't accept that. "It must be the Democrats' fault!" "Let's blame it on the terrorists!" "George W. Bush isn't a REAL conservative!" And on and on it goes.
That internal struggle of yours, Carmen/Stantis? Has nothing to do with being a conservative. It has everything to do with you coming to terms with the fact that the politics you believe in are a complete and utter failure. You had your chance. Six years of unchecked power. And you've given us two wars without end, a recession, and a world that hates us all while the rich get rich and the rest of us suffer with medical bills and a crumbling infrastructure. And you failed. You shouldn't be fighting with your conscience.
You should just be apologizing to the rest of us.
September 15, 2007
You Can't Spell "Stantis" Without "A-S-S"...or "T-A-I-N-T"
There are times, like CJo pointed out yesterday, that Stantis seems to "get it." Even today, with the first few panels, it's as if Stanis really does understand things and is poking fun at himself.
And then he goes and proves that nope, he really doesn't understand at all and is a completely unfunny hack who writes the worst comic strip in the world.
Everything starts off well enough. Winston/Winslow admits that his "joke" yesterday about Ted Kennedy was "ill-timed and dated" (no mention of it not being funny, but heck two out of three ain't bad for Stantis) and that the "liberal intelligentsia(?)" has abandoned him.
(Quick note here: yesterday it was brought up in the comments section that Winslow might not have been acting out of character since he's being portrayed as an idiot lately. So what's with the big word? Once again, no character continuity).
Then Carmen shows up and assures Winslow that he still has the "liberal un-intelligentsia" on his side. And what's the ultimate punchline that Stantis comes up with?
A Sean Penn reference.
Now I can pretty much guarantee that this is NOT a mobius strip of self-referential comedy here. Stantis did not choose Sean Penn because he realized it was yet ANOTHER ill-timed and dated joke, like with the Ted Kennedy thing. Nope, I'm almost positive that Stantis still thinks it's funny to bring up Sean Penn, Liberal. Even though nobody's really talked about Penn and his politics for months and months. And yet again let me point out that if Winslow really is a liberal, why would he make fun of Sean Penn? It's not like he's talking to the crowd now and going for an easy joke like he did with the Ted reference - this is something he's saying to Carmen without the mic on. Once again, out of character.
You really can't write stuff this bad, I'm telling you.
So there you have it: even when Stantis thinks he's being witty and clever and poking fun at himself, in doing so he reveals that nope - he isn't witty, he isn't clever, and the only poking being done is in the eyes of anyone who wastes their time reading his crap.
September 14, 2007
Art Imitating Life
At least deep down somewhere in the recesses of Stantis's empty shell-of-a-being there's a trace of a sense of humor. Today's strip shows a self-awareness that I didn't think Stantis could ever possess.
Winslow tells a terribly unfunny, hackneyed, and potentially libelous joke in front of a "Libs Give Fundraiser." The crowd is understandably stonefaced, possibly even hostile.
This is exactly how Stantis must have felt presenting his unfunny, hackneyed, and potentially libelous political cartoons in front of a hostile crowd, as detailed by The Furnace yesterday.
Congrats to Scott Stantis for finally showing a sense of humor about how terrible his work is.
Posted by CJo at 10:18 AM | Comments (3)September 13, 2007
Fun With "Live" Blogging
It was brought to our attention the other day that a speech Scott Stantis gave on First Amendment protection and media changes had popped up on the GoComics website. Since CJo is busy being a TV star or whatever the heck it is he does when he's not writing here, he asked that I take a whack at trying to sit through it. Since I'm a glutton for punishment with a little time on my hands, here are my live blogging thoughts as I try to sit through a speech Scott Stantis gave and people actually listened to:
Whoa - wait - there's VIDEO with this blog? That's going to throw me off. Apparently the fine folks at GoComics put together a photo montage to go along with Stantis's speech. Interesting. In the first minute they make sure to point out people who are SLEEPING AS HE TALKS, which tells me that someone has a sense of humor over there (since we know Stantis doesn't have one). So I'll do my best to blog while this is playing, but it won't be easy.
Ah - the video does help, since it's stills of the comics Stantis is talking about. A whole lot more interesting than just hearing Stantis drone on about them. Stantis is making jokes, but he's getting pity laughter for the most part. This thing is thirty minutes? Yeesh - this is going to be some Deep Hurting. Uh oh - they've bleeped out when Stantis swears. That's half the fun!
Stantis at least admits he supported Bush and supported the war (at first) but now he's open to bashing him. He's obviously not just talking about Prickly City here, since he hasn't said anything negative about Bush there. Stantis is now going off on random drug testing of kids in schools, one of his editorial single panels. Ugh. Do I have to sit through all of these editorial comics? Can't I just fast forward to the part where he talks about Prickly City? From the looks of it this is going to be mostly Stantis just talking about his strips that deal with the First Amendment - no real insight, just him putting up a strip, telling everyone in the audience what it says, and then moving on to the next strip. No real insight, and no real jokes. Just like Prickly City.
Okay, if you watch this podcast, make sure you get to the point where Stantis completely loses his audience. It's during an editorial comic where he's drawn Ground Zero, and there's a hippy saying "but if we fight back it might make them mad." You can hear a freakin' pin drop when Stantis talks about this. It's obviously based on what Karl Rove (and later a drunken Tom DeLay) said about how after "viewing the savagery of 9/11, liberals wanted to issue indictments and offer therapy to the terrorists." Wasn't funny then, definitely isn't funny now. Why? Because normal people know that never happened - that after the attacks liberals were just as anxious to catch the REAL bad guys and punish them for what they had done (not do something like, oh, I dunno, invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11). It's just awesome listening to the audience completely turn on Stantis with this strip. He tries to explain the silence by saying "sure when it hits close to home there's not much laughin' back there." No Stantis, there's not much laughin' because it's not funny, and the audience just showed that to your face. Amazing. I might not be able to sit through this whole thing, but it was worth watching the first four minutes just to hear Stantis have to hear the reaction all of us have when we read his unfunny crap.
Now he's going after France to get the audience back. Oh, and Howard Dean. The obviously very old crowd (you can just hear it in their voices) is digging on a few of his strips, but in general they're crapping all over him. What's funny is that he hasn't figured out that only 30% of the country supports Bush and this war, so slamming on the other 70% isn't going to win you any new fans. I'm not sure if this crowd was there specifically to see Stantis or he just happened to be one of the speakers, but the crowd seemed open and receptive at first but now they've completely turned on him because of his pro-Bush views. Heck, even an editorial strip slamming Cindy Sheehan didn't muster nearly the response I'm sure Stantis was hoping for, since he's gone after her time and time again in Prickly City as well. Must be hard for the guy to realize that in general, people don't think he's funny.
Okay, Stantis is finally going to "criticize" Bush and the surge. And really folks - I suggest you watch this and pay close attention to the audience. Here Stantis is going after Bush, but they're not laughing. The reason? Not because he's criticizing Dear Leader, no no no. They're not laughing because the strips he wrote simply aren't funny. And it's clear in the way the audience is reacting. It's not that they don't want to bash Bush - they did earlier. But Stantis's work is so poorly written even they know it's not funny. His Bush-as-Washington-crossing-the-Delaware is the first strip to elicit what I think are crickets chirping. It's simply that poorly done, and the audience isn't shy about letting him know that.
Bush pushing a boulder that looks like Iraq up a hill with the caption "Sisyphus" got a big laugh. Will probably be the only one of the day, since that's not a bad strip.
WHOA. This is awesome. Stantis follows up his best strip of the night with one that shows (I guess - the GoComics guy who put the video together didn't include it) a Democrat saying to the troops "More bullets? I don't think so" since the Dems screwed things up even more than Bush by wanting to cut funding, at least according to Stantis. NO LAUGHS. AT ALL. COMPLETE SILENCE. Stantis just quietly moved on, but wow - the audience did NOT like that strip at all, and Stantis knows it. This is one weird crowd.
Man alive, I'm not sure how much more I can listen to this, because I actually - swear to god - feel bad for Stantis. This crowd HATES him. He's now showing an editorial he ran after Supreme Court Justice Blackmun died, where he's up in heaven and there's a sea of aborted babies(!) and one is asking "what trimester were you in?" The audience reaction is as if half of them want to stand up and walk out. It's a combination of the visual (thousands of dead babies) and slamming a guy who just died that really has this crowd pissed off. It's not funny, it's not insightful - it's just wrong. And the audience is letting him know.
Okay, Stantis just showed one of his Terri Schiavo "comics" and the audience must be stone faced. Not a peep. This is really getting painful, and I'm not sure how much more I can put up with (which is how I'm guessing the audience must have felt).
Ah here we go - Stantis making fun of fat kids! The audience will probably offer a few chuckles at this, because who doesn't like to laugh at fat people? But he's following it up with Katrina(?!). I think I'm going to scan forward and see if he talks about Prickly City.
Okay - ten minutes in. Prickly City's first mention. It was in the middle of him talking about the illegal wiretapping, something that Stantis has been against in his editorial comics and has touched upon a few times in PC. He reads about three strips, none of them particularly funny. Is that it? I'm going to skip around some more.
About twenty minutes in there's just a still of Stantis's contact information, so it sounds like he's going to take questions from the audience for the last ten minutes. I'll listen to one question, but if it sucks I'm calling it quits.
Um, it's a question about Alabama football. The second question: "What should we do about Iraq?" Why are they asking him? He says leaving is a mistake, but saying is a mistake, and is now saying he's done a lot of "research." Um, okay.
I'm stopping it here since I've got better things to do. But you get the idea. Stantis went in front of a crowd that he thought would be into him and instead was completely destroyed. Sure he got some cheap laughs, but from what I saw his editorial comics were a huge bust even in Alabama. If you're interested in listening to Stantis bomb in front of a crowd, I highly suggest listening to the first five or six minutes.
***
As for today's Prickly City, it looks like either Stantis or his editors got cold feet and instead of pissing off one person they've probably pissed off dozens. When Winslow says he needs to raise campaign funds again (yup, we're back to that unfunny storyline), Carmen suggests someone named "George Spanos," since he "gives cash to dumb causes." So Stantis, which George Spanos are you talking about? The sound effects guy? The hero of the Icarian revolution? Or were you really trying to insult George SOROS by saying he gives money to "dumb" causes, but got cold feet? I do think it's great we get to see into Stantis's viewing habits, since there's one person who's been going after George Soros and his contributions to Democrats for most of the year: Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly. Yup, nothing like the ol' fair and balanced commentary in the Stantis household. Personally I think it's silly if you or your editors changed this, Stantis - why not join the Fox News fun and go after Soros too? I mean O'Reilly sits there and lies about his involvement in Media Matters on a regular basis (fun fact: Soros hasn't given money to them, even though O'Reilly says he has), so why should you worry about simply saying he gives money to "dumb" causes? Yeesh, at least be man enough to name the guy you really have a problem with instead of dragging a lawyer from Petoskey, Michigan into this. Uh oh...a lawyer...better get your legal rep on the line, Stantis! Get that proof together that he gives to dumb causes! Maybe he likes to donate to Republicans - then you might have a point.
Then Winston talks about having been to Iowa, blah blah blah - this really isn't going anywhere. Why dredge up a storyline that bombed out the first time? Time to go back to making fun of fat kids, Stantis, because those cheap laughs are the only ones you're good at getting.
September 12, 2007
Mail Sacki
Good comments yesterday, folks. Let's dip into the mailbag and see what we have.
Annie writes:
This may be a firefox vs. explorer problem, but whenever I try to read a story on Slate (I use firefox), it get a banner ad for Prickly City stuck in the middle of the page. See: http://www.slate.com/id/2173689/, where it's hiding a piece criticizing the Department of Homeland Security for its lack of strategic thinking.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Winston is the coyote formerly known as Winslow. Whether he was transformed into a firefox along with the name change has not been made clear. And while Carmen may be a "girl of color" according to Stantis, she should in no way be confused with Dora, the bilingual explorer. Carmen would never deign to speak anything other than the official language of the United States, were there ever to be one.
John writes:
I thought Stantis was actually making fun of people who have a double standard about the illegal spying program. Another rare occasion where Carmen was the butt of the joke.
Maybe I am giving him to much credit if it was unintentional, but that is how I read this one.
This brings up the question of where Prickly City stands on the comedy scale. Does it fall into the slapstick, observational, situational, or satirical categories? No. As far as I can tell, it falls into the "unintentional" style of comedy, so you can properly give it credit for fulfilling its promise, John.
Prickly City News Flash! writes:
On a side note, Charles Brubaker has a blog and on it he mentions that Stantis -- yes, Scott Stantis -- is one of his biggest influences. I realize that he was always more on the pro-Prickly City side on this blog, but one of his biggest influences? And here we thought he left because of the masturbation jokes.
I'm getting a boner just thinking about there being a CB blog out there. Hook us up, PCNF!
The Furnace writes:
Well Sacki's on Wednesdays now, and he stopped caring about Prickly City about a year ago.
Well Sacki? Furnace, you ignorant slut, I'm top shelf Sacki. Anyhow, stopped caring? A year ago? You must have just started reading this a year ago, because I never cared. Is called "prioritizing" by the Dutch who speak English.
Posted by Sacki at 10:03 AM | Comments (1)September 11, 2007
Who Do You Trust?
The sad thing is Mindcrime was written twenty years ago, but it's even more relevant today. Just like "John Carpenter's They Live."
Hey, you know when today's strip might have been relevant? Maybe back in December 2005, when the story about Bush illegally spying on us first broke. Which, as some of you may recall, was well over a year AFTER the New York Times reporters discovered what was happening, but the paper's editors chose not to run the story in late 2004 for fear of "influencing" the election. Yeah, last thing this country needed in October 2004 was to find out the truth about Bush's spying on us without warrants. That surely wasn't important.
Even though I don't think he realizes it, Stantis does a great job today of pointing out how - pardon my french - but how f*cking stupid conservatives are that follow Bush and the Republicans. The key is that second panel, where Carmen says, "Why shouldn't I believe whoever's in charge has my best interests in mind?"
Of course Winston follows that up by scaring Carmen into believing that maybe Hillary will someday have those powers, so she must be stopped. So does this mean that Carmen DOES trust Bush to do the right thing? Does Carmen, and therefore Stantis, truly, honestly believe that Bush gives a damn what she thinks or wants?
This isn't just about illegal spying. It should encompass everything Bush has said or done during his entire reign as imperial president. Do Republicans honestly believe that Bush invaded Iraq and continues to stay there because he thinks it's best for the average American? Cutting taxes for the rich while they rise for the middle class? Blowing off Katrina? Ignoring warnings that Osama is determined to strike in the U.S.?
Of course they do. Republicans HAVE to believe that everything their leaders do is in their best interest, because they're the daddy party and they know what's right and they'll protect us and beat up the bad terrorists and blah blah blah. Suuuuure, Bush is spying on us, but he can be TRUSTED. But Hillary? That bitch would use it for evil. She'd probably illegally spy on her political opponents and use that information to rig elections. She'd wiretap normal Americans and then use things she found out completely unrelated to terrorism in order to put people in jail that she doesn't like. Then she'd probably let them sit and rot in G'itmo for years and years, like the evil witch she is.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm just really grumpy this morning. But it's just amazing to me that a grown man like Stantis - sure he's a college drop out, but he did finish high school (I think) - can sit there and tell us that we should trust Bush to spy on us, but if a Democrat gets in there, they'll take advantage of us. That's so completely nonsensical - ESPECIALLY based on everything we know about Bush and his cronies - that it's hard for me to fathom that these people are still willing to bow down and kiss Bush's ring.
Then again, 40% of Americans STILL think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Maybe it's not so surprising that Republicans have given up on thinking for themselves and instead want George W. Bush to do all of their thinking for them. That sure does explain why our country, and the world, is so f'd up.
September 10, 2007
Been There, Complained About That
Stantis pulls the old string-can phone bugging gag again. Whoodeefuckingdoo.
He's been outspoken (political cartoons, his political cartoon blog, his rare appearance on podcasts) against Gonzalez and I imagine he wants folks to credit him with being critical of the Bush Administration. "I'm no lapdog! See?! See?! Lookie!!!"
But as I complained about back in January 2006 when he first pulled the old string-can phone bugging gag:
"There's no reason for alarm. There's no reason for concern. Just let the Exectutive Branch of the government do what they see fit. That's why Stantis spent so much newspaper space and so much energy in 2004 to ensure Bush was re-elected. Can you imagine the Tax Sandwich we'd all be chewing on had Kerry been elected. It would've been a disaster.You did a heckuva job, Scott; heckuva job."
You sowed this field, Scott Stantis. (Don't Fear) The Reaper.
Posted by CJo at 10:41 AM | Comments (0)September 09, 2007
I Want To Know Why Stantis Still Has a Job
This is a REALLY strange strip considering this past week's storyline, and it goes to show how poor Stantis is as a writer and really needs a to take a refresher course on little things like "characterization."
One of the Prickly City regulars questions the moon, demanding to know "why?" The moon responds with the expected "why not?" And that's your strip. Simple, to the point, cliche' to the extreme.
Here's the thing: the character asking "why?"
It's Carmen.
For an entire week we heard about how faithful Carmen is, how God is the Word, and how mean and nasty "secularist" Winslow is for calling her names because she loves Jesus and he can't accept that.
So please, tell me Mr. Stantis, why is Carmen in the middle of the desert asking the moon "why?" Um, shouldn't the answer for a good Christian be "because it's what God wants?" And why isn't she in a church asking this question?
Has Carmen lost her faith? Over the course of a week, because of Winston's name calling, did she lose her belief in the Almighty?
I'm guessing that's not the case at all. Instead, you're a lazy azz writer who can't be bothered with little things like keeping your characters straight and making sense with your strips. I wouldn't have a problem with today's strip if it had been Winslow up on that rock asking the eternal question. That would make sense, and be in line with his "secularist" sensibilities. But nope. You had to go and put Carmen up on that rock, completely ignoring an entire week of strips where you establish that Carmen believes God is the Way and Winslow is a heartless bastard who won't leave her alone with her faith.
I hope everyone enjoyed yesterday's PC, which wasn't horrible. Because as predicted, Stantis is right back to form - he's still your Worst Comic Strip Writer In The World.
September 08, 2007
Now I Hope Stantis Introduces a Mormon Character
Or maybe a scientologist...
This is one of those strips that I'm betting Stantis hopes people across the land will cut out and put on their refrigerators, a daily reminder of how cutesy and witty "Prickly City" is. You see, Carmen is God-fearing and heaven sent, while Winston/Winslow is man-centric and earth bound. But if there's one thing they can agree on, it's lunch! Amen to that, brother!
I can't really rag on today's entry too much. It's better than anything Stantis has done in ages, probably all year. Granted it comes on the heels of one of his worst storylines ever, where some mysterious secularists spent the whole week calling people of faith names (or at least in Stantis's paranoid mind that's what's happening in our country). Oh for the days when today's strip would have been on Monday, followed by a day of making fun of Britney Spears, then a day of pining away for Conde, maybe an afternoon of studies on fat kids, and finally the week would end with Stantis bitching about technology. Then I'd get a weekend of nothing strips so I could don the future goggles and bitch about things Stantis hadn't even done yet. Those were the days.
Instead, Stantis makes stuff up about "secularists." It would have been nice to know that Carmen was religious and Winslow was a heathen before all of this started, but I guess in the stereotyping mind of Stantis since Carmen is a conservative and Winlow is a liberal we should have already known that.
The big question: will Stantis dare talk about Larry Craig? Or the resignation of Karl Rove? Or the resignation of Alberto Gonzales? Tuesday will be the 9/11 memorial, so does that mean the rest of the week will be devoted to talking about Iraq (yes, I know one has nothing to do with the other, but tell that to our President - who's going to release the "Petraeus" report that day)?
Who knows, who cares. I say enjoy Prickly City while you can, because lord knows it's going to suck tomorrow. And the next day. And the day after that...
September 07, 2007
It Might Be...It Could Be...It Isn't
Peanuts was usually an alright comic, I think that most of you would agree. The tv specials, too, like A Charlie Brown Christmas. Except for the times when Linus, or one of the other schmucky characters, would get up and start reciting lines verbatim from the bible.
Consider this excerpt, which sounds like it'd be accurate, cribbed from the First Unitarian Church of Rochester:
Charlie Brown: Nine home runs in a row! Good grief! What can I do. We're getting slaughtered again, Schroeder. . . I don't know what to do. Why do we have to suffer like this?Schroeder: "Man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward."
Charlie Brown: What?
Linus: He's quoting from the Book of Job, Charlie Brown, seventh verse, fifth chapter. Actually, the problem of suffering is a very profound one, and . . .
Lucy: If a person has had bad luck, it's because he's doing something wrong, that's what I always say!
Schroeder: That's what Job's friends told him. But I doubt it. . .
Lucy: What about Job's wife? I don't think she gets enough credit!
Schroeder: I think a person who never suffers, never matures. Suffering is actually very important.
Lucy: Who wants to suffer? Don't be ridiculous!
Schroeder: But pain is a part of life, and. .
Linus: A person who speaks only of the "patience" of Job reveals that he knows very little of the book! Now, the way I see it. . .
Charlie Brown: Good grief! I don't have a ball team. I have a theological seminary!
The only way that could have been funny is if Charlie Brown had chased after Schroeder Marichal-style and said "Suffer this!" And yet it went on...and on...and on....It's the comics page. The only time Jesus was ever funny was when he was hanging up there and got off that one liner about how he could see his house; anything else, leave it off my funny pages.
Posted by Sacki at 02:30 PM | Comments (1)September 06, 2007
I Had a Dream, I Had an Awesome Dream
One night I had a dream. I dreamt I was walking along the beach with Jesus and Scott Stantis.
Across the sky flashed scenes from my life.
For each scene, I noticed three sets of footprints in the sand. One belonged to me, one to Jesus, and the other to Scott Stantis.
When the last scene of my life flashed before me, I looked back at the footprints in the sand.
I noticed that many times along the path of my life, there was only one set of footprints. I also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in my life.
This really bothered me and I questioned Jesus about it.
"Hey Jebus," I said, "You said that once I decided to follow you, you'd walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you the most you would leave me."
The Lord replied, "My precious CJo, I love you and would never leave you. During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then I carried you."
"Wow," I said. "Thanks, dude. But where was Stantis during those times of trouble?"
"Oh him," Jesus said, rolling his eyes. "He had to stop walking during your times of trouble because he was doubled over in laughter. He really enjoys tweaking liberals and seculars and the like. But, man, send one cross word his way and he goes apeshit."
"That's kind of hypocritical, isn't it, Yahweh?" I asked.
Jesus chuckled. "Tell me about it. But I tolerate his presence. In fact, I love him like I love everyone and everything! That's what being Jesus is all about. Not like those Evangelicals would have you believe. To them it's either Believe (their particular brand of religion) or Burn. That's utter bullshit. So when you hear Scott Stantis and others complain about the 'Seculars' making fun of the believers, don't buy it. Sure, maybe some folks (secular or otherwise) mock the fanatical, but the fanatics are ripe for mocking; they get about 85% of my teachings dead wrong."
"OK, cool. Hey, listen. My legs are getting tired. Could you carry me just up over that hill? Thanks, dude; you're awesome."
Posted by CJo at 09:47 AM | Comments (3)September 05, 2007
Delay, The Truth, and Delight
Sorry folks for the delay, I was working under the impression that today was Tuesday, and as I'm the Wednesday guy around here, I thought that I was in the clear, but unfortunately for me, here I am at Shrubville, slogging through Prickly City once again.
It appears that this week is devoted to something or another that I can't quite put my finger on, and even if I were to think about putting my finger on it, I'd probably require surgical gloves to prevent infection, and if I were to go to the store to buy a bulk pack of antiseptic gloves, I'd probably be rung up by Homeland Security, so all in all, I say: screw it.
Slogging through the septic muck, it appears that this week features a debate on the heathens versus the devout. That's a funny word, "devout." Let it roll around your mouth, off your tongue, into the world. "Devout." But then, what's a "vout"? According to my sources, vout is an acronym for "View Obstructing Ugly Thing." So, to extrapolate, a devout person is someone who has to create an obstruction in order to divert themselves from the ugly reality of it all, aka the supernatural. (By the way, if anyone wants the worksheet detailing my solution, feel free to email me.) So there you have it folks, the devout choose to ignore the ugly truth by purposely denying it. Meanwhile, the rest of us ask: What Would Helen Keller Do?
Posted by Sacki at 12:27 PM | Comments (3)September 04, 2007
Because Saddam Was Secular, So It's A Better Slam Than Calling Him An Atheist
If it were up to that secular Winston, Xmas would be more about presents and candy than Baby Jesus's birthday. Which was probably in April, but that's besides the point. The real point is, anybody who disagrees with Stantis is going to hell.
Uh oh...looks like somebody's been reading Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly again. What happened Stantis - did you to take the family to the beach and decide to bring along with your personally autographed copy of "Culture Warrior" to pass away the time?
Of course I'm just guessing that's what happened based on this latest storyline. Suddenly Winslow is "secular" and living in a "secular society." Huh...outside of O'Reilly and his bashing of people he refers to as "secular progressives" (translated: liberals and anybody who disagrees with him) I haven't heard of anybody referring to this as a secular society. But I must admit I haven't been attending the mandatory George Soros meetings like a good little secular progressive so I might be out of the secular loop.
Today Winston forces Carmen to wear a "God hat" with the word "dunce" on it. Because everybody knows that "secularists" love to force their views on religion on everybody else. Unfortunately they can't say that if you don't agree with them you'll go to a place filled with fire and brimstone, so instead they have to use silly looking hats as the ultimate threat.
What exactly is Stantis getting at here? Where are all of these liberals and atheists and "secularists" that he's talking about who say if you believe in God you're an idiot? There's this bizarre belief in the 28 percenters that if you don't agree with Republicans - especially Bush - then you're a godless heathen who thinks everybody else is an idiot and wants to make everybody renounce their faith. Where do they come up with this stuff? Please, Stantis, tell me where this storyline originated. I would love for you to explain to me where you're coming from in all of this. Did you happen to catch Christopher Hitchens on the late night tee vee one night and since he's an atheist, then all atheists are like that? Heck, all Stantis had to do was see Hitchens's last book "God Is Not Great" on the bookshelf and decide he was an evil secular progressive that must be dealt with by handing out a crushing Christ-powered blow via the pen and the mighty Prickly City Players.
My favorite little part in today's strip is when Carmen asks Winslow, "can we discuss this?" As if she's the calm, cool, well-reasoned one of the two who would like to take the time to discuss things rationally with the heathen Winston. The same girl who once punched him in the face because he disagreed with her. Nice try Stantis, but we're not THAT stupid. Keep the dunce cap for yourself.
Posted by The Furnace at 08:30 AM | Comments (4)
September 03, 2007
Well, this should be fun. It looks like our comic strip writing friend is going to tackle Ye Olde Sins of the Secular Heathens. He's trotting out his familiar refrain: How Can the Party/Ideology/Etc. of Tolerance Be So Intolerant blah blah.
But let's examine how he's framing it today. Winslow -- seemingly a "devout secularist" -- insults Carmen -- seemingly a "[person] of faith" -- by calling her a moron, which Stantis uses to illustrate his point. But Winslow could be calling her a moron because she is, in fact, stupid, not because she eats the flesh of Jesus. Winslow's "insult" is not directly linked to Carmen's "faith."
Apparently Stantis would have it that "people of faith" cannot be insulted AT ALL, even if said insult does not result from said faith. Almost as if the True Believers should be protected by some sort of magical, invisible Godforce Field. Isn't it enough that they are going to be beamed up to Heaven whilst the seculars face the Armageddon End Times on Earth? Now they get a special magical, invisible Godforce Field too?? It's not fair.
Posted by CJo at 08:30 AM | Comments (2)September 02, 2007
I Wish Someone Would Silence Stantis
As some of you may know, there was controversy this past week in the comics world as one artist was censored for his views. The Washington Post even refused to run the strip. Of course I'm talking about Opus, one of the best in the biz. (What, you thought I was referring to Stantis covering his ass with the whole slam on the peace movement? Please. I think it's safe to say he got cold feet and did his own editing on that one). Go read that instead of Prickly City, which is once again crap-tacular. Seriously, the Energizer Bunny? What, didn't think you could draw the "Where's the Beef" old lady? God Stantis, learn from the best and read Opus like the rest of us. You might learn something.
Posted by The Furnace at 09:16 AM | Comments (1)September 01, 2007
The Struggle (With Coherence) Continues
Stantis emphatically declares today that yes, this whole tug-of-war storyline is about the war in Iraq. In fact he uses several exclamation points to hammer it home as Carmen screams "surge!!!" while she pulls on the rope with renewed vigor.
Where she's on the other end. My head hurts.
It is amazing to me the way Stantis apparently writes his strip. He seems to come up with an idea ("how about a metaphor for Iraq...it's like a big tug-of-war we'll never win...") but has zero clue what he really wants to say with it all so he just makes it up as he goes along. Let's take a look back at this week and see what kinds of messages Stantis seemed to be sending:
Monday: The madness begins. Carmen is pulling on the rope, looking the same in each panel. At least Winslow is mixed up a bit. Here we discover that Carmen thinks that a mysterious "them" are pulling against her, even though apparently she can't see the other end so she really doesn't know for sure (later Stantis gives us his "awesome" reveal - it's really Carmen. But he does that on Friday, despite carrying the strip on to Saturday. Sort of like telling the audience who the killer is a half hour before the end of the movie, making us all sit around waiting for the damn thing to end so we can go home). Is she talking about the terrorists? The insurgents? The Shi'ite death squads? Democrats? Republicans? Nobody knows for sure, least of all Stantis. And he writes the damn thing.
Tuesday: The first two panels are the same, the last two mix up Winslow a bit. The first signs that this was about Iraq. Carmen explains that if she gives up "they win." Who's they, exactly? Later we learn it's...Carmen. It's at this point I think everybody realized Stantis had no clue what he was really trying to say with all of this.
Wednesday: Four identical strips. Even Winslow isn't changed up at all. Somebody went to Kinkos. The message? Carmen explains that she saw a rope and it needed tugging. That's it - that's the whole reason she's in this mess. What is Stantis trying to say here? Does he even know? Is the message that Republicans love war so much that they'll start one "just cuz?" Now she's in the middle of a quagmire and doesn't know how to get out - well, wait, she doesn't want to get out because that would mean admitting defeat. Even though nobody said she had to start pulling the damn rope in the first place.
Thursday: The controversial "peace activists give up too easily" strip. Apparently they're to blame for the mess in Iraq because they opposed it but didn't try hard enough to stop the neo-cons from starting the war. Or something.
Friday: As CJo pointed out it's two panels repeated then flipped, with the big reveal that Carmen IS in two places at once and simply pulling against herself in a lose/lose proposition. Which I'm guessing means that Carmen is a terrorist. I could be wrong there though, but is that my fault or Stantis's for not knowing what the heck he's doing?
Saturday: After two identical panels, Carmen gets the bright idea to "surge" - which means turning the other way and pulling harder. Yes, nothing like wasting more time - and lives - on something you admit is an exercise in futility.
At this point I really don't know what to make of all of this. First of all, it shows exactly how incredibly lazy Stantis is as an "artist." But secondly, I don't understand what Stantis is trying to say with all of this, and he doesn't either. Talking about the war in Iraq through a comic strip is a hard proposition, no doubt. Stantis learned the hard way that by doing so - and being a terrible writer - can get you into trouble with his lame "desert hamsters" storyline from a while back. Here Stantis is trying to be more obscure (or is the word "obtuse?") by setting up the whole tug-of-war idea, which isn't in itself bad but is made worse by a guy who has no clue what he's doing. Is he trying to say that we're wasting time, money, and lives by engaging in a war we can't win? That it's ridiculous to call for a surge knowing it's an impossible situation where there is no winning? That seems to be the case, but with Stantis it's impossible to tell.
I have to give the guy credit for at least trying to tackle the subject. But he's in way over his head with this strip, and he knows it. How does he plan on ending this? Will the rope simply snap and that'll be the end of it? If only the war in Iraq had such a simple solution. Stantis has painted himself into a corner - much the same way Bush and the neo-cons have in Iraq. The scary part is that if Stantis really wanted this to be a metaphor for what's happening in the Middle East, Carmen will see another rope on the ground labeled "Iran" and start pulling on that too. God help us that doesn't happen. Both in reality, and in Prickly City.
picture courtesy of JB