[carls]

I didn't know how much of Jim Davis' motivations were commercial ones. It seems very at odds with folks like Calvin and Hobbes creator Bill Watterson:

> For years, Watterson battled against pressure from publishers to merchandise his work, something that he felt would cheapen his comic. He refused to merchandise his creations on the grounds that displaying Calvin and Hobbes images on commercially sold mugs, stickers, and T-shirts would devalue the characters and their personalities.[1]

I'm curious: what led to Garfield's immense popularity as a syndicated comic? Were there in fact legions of people who _did_ find it funny, or entertaining?

---------

[1] Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Watterson#End_of_Calvin_a...

[Rallerbabs]

As a kid, I always thought Garfield was absolutely hilarious. I'd cut the comic out of the newspaper and glue them into a book. Loved the cartoons. The Halloween one is my favorite. Up to my 40th birthday, I was given Garfield comics.

I love what a gluttonous, selfish and slightly malevolent pig Garfield is. I especially love it when he kicks Odie off the table.

I can't stand Peanuts, though.

[LeoPanthera]

I don't have anything to add except that I wanted to make it clear that you're not the only one. As a child (80s/90s) I thought Garfield was hilarious. I'd always ask for Garfield books for birthday/christmas presents and I would often re-read them.

I don't find it quite so directly funny anymore, but it does feel very nostalgic. Read Garfield is very comforting.

[Rallerbabs]

Oh, I almost forgot.

Every single agenda I ever had in high school, was a Garfield agenda.

No exceptions. Ever.

No regrets, either.

[barkingcat]

Agreed. No regrets.

[dkarl]

I was a Peanuts fan as a kid and still am. Rereading books of the old strips was centering and calming for me the way the bible is for some people. It reassured me that it was... safe?... to wish for justice in the world and to want to be a better person. I liked Garfield, too, but it appealed to something meaner in me. There's suffering in both strips, but the way the Charlie Brown endures despite his dignity being stripped from him again and again is realistic, while the fact that Jon always bounces back is meant to be understood as unrealistic. A realistic Jon would be a crushed, hopeless, miserable person. Often the only purpose of putting a smile on his face seemed to be to make it possible to enjoy the cruelty directed against him. (Same with Odie.) Not saying I'm above enjoying it, but it's hard to put a positive spin on it.

My favorite Garfield cartoons are the ones where I can read John as self-aware, like this one: https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/?comic=2351

[sethammons]

Similar. As a kid, I thought Garfield was very funny. We had a couple books of 'em. I also enjoyed Far Side. I should revisit them :)

[brandmeyer]

> I also enjoyed Far Side.

Gary Larson has started drawing again! He's still "retired" but has started self-publishing on an irregular cadence.

https://www.thefarside.com/new-stuff

[sp332]

Some Garfield strips are really funny. The first couple years had a higher density of actual jokes I think.

[bitwize]

Oh, kids think he's a scream. But the humor wears thin as you get older. I've noticed the same about Mad Magazine. When I was 11 and 12, it was hilarious. But as I got older I realized that half the reason I found it so funny is because I was a kid. The nonstop puns, pop-culture parodies, and low-key raunchy humor pushed the envelope for me. But as an adult I realized that whatever wasn't forced obvious humor, was boomers who haven't moved on, didn't understand new phenomena like video games at ALL (certainky not enough to competently make fun of them), and were fighting 60s and 70s ideological battles in the 80s and 90s. They dedicated an entire section of one issue to moralizing about smoking, for instance.

That said, some of the art -- especially Al Jaffee's -- was excellent. I can't say the same about Garfield.

[ksaj]

Mad Magazine was comedic gold for what goes on in the margins (the little mini-cartoons) and the self-referencing jokes. I was a fan of spy-vs-spy, too. It very well might have influenced my career.

The last page (the one you fold) was pretty innovative, too.

[polka_haunts_us]

>Were there in fact legions of people who _did_ find it funny, or entertaining?

I'm sorry ahead of time if this comment comes off as strong, but I'm always confused by people who can't comprehend that there must be people who like thing it's popular to not like.

I hate Adam Sandler, I think he's among the least funny human beings on the planet. I also don't question whether anyone actually enjoys his movies, because obviously people do.

[carls]

My question in the original comment is not meant to mock or poke fun at those who enjoyed it. I, myself, found it somewhat entertaining to read as a kid.

Rather, my question is more in reference to what seem to be incongruous facts: the article points out that the comic was not written with the intention to be funny, so then what explains its popularity as a comic strip?

I don't doubt that there are some (many!) who thought it funny. What I'm trying to understand is the discrepancy between its immense fame AND its apparent lack of humorous intention.

It'd be a little bit like if there was a famous band that was incredibly popular, yet in multiple interviews they reveal that they don't put a great deal of effort behind making appealing music. As such, I would be curious to understand what instead may be the other driving sources of their appeal (ex. good looks, marketing etc.).

For example, here are some other possible candidate reasons the Garfield comics may have been popular. I don't know if any of these are true, rather I would consider them hypotheses that I would be curious to hear others confirm/debunk:

* it was marketed very well and gave people the perception that it was _supposed_ to be funny, and if you didn't find it funny that was perhaps a result of _you_ not getting something. * there was a more limited selection of sources of comic strips, so the standards for what passed as an entertaining comic strip were lower than in our Internet age. * most people knew it wasn't funny, nor that it was meant to be funny. Rather they read it because it was the cultural meme of the day to do so.

[lukey_q]

As someone who also remembers Garfield being funny as a kid, I don't read the OP as saying it was never funny, but that being funny was a secondary concern to Davis after being marketable. I just looked up a random Garfield strip from 1988 [1] and I have to say, it's kind of a funny visual gag. Nothing groundbreaking but for a daily strip in a newspaper, it's not bad, and I'm an adult now, as a kid I probably would have found it hilarious. Combine decent humor like that with recognizable and cute characters appearing in the newspaper daily and it's not surprising that the strip became so popular.

[1] http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ga/1988/ga880101.gif

[bitwize]

Adam Sandler basically ceased trying soon after leaving SNL. Like Jim Davis, he puts no effort into trying to be funny to a wide audience. He makes his movies as an excuse to goof off and hang out with his friends, while trading his name for cash from studios like Netflix.

[DoofusOfDeath]

I don't find Adam Sandler that funny either. But as a dad, I recommend the movie Fast Forward to other dads.

[deberon]

You might be thinking of the movie "Click"? If so, I also recommend it. Hits harder than you'd expect from a goofy Adam Sandler movie.

[DoofusOfDeath]

Sorry, yes, I meant "Click". Thanks for the correction.

[mhh__]

Adam Sandler can actually act e.g. Punch Drunk Love and Uncut Gems

[kgwgk]

That's orthogonal to being funny anyway.

[mhh__]

Perhaps, but making a funny film isn't as simple as getting people who are "funny" and letting them run free.

[bitwize]

Yeah. The difference between making a funny movie and just "being funny" is the difference between Ghostbusters (1984) and Ghostbusters (2016).

[kgwgk]

Maybe I misunderstood your comment and "Uncut Gems" was an example of a funny film :-)

[ausbah]

Sandler can play serious roles very well, check out Uncut Gems

[incanus77]

I had a bunch of Garfield books as a kid, too. IIRC they were about 9”x6” and mostly black & white. I found them hilarious, I think for a couple reasons:

1. John was such a clueless loser

2. Garfield got so enraged at Nermal

3. Odie kept bouncing back

This was not a deep humor. It’s the kind of humor where you see a dumb, funny video on the internet, snort a laugh, and move on, completely forgetting it ten seconds later.

[ksaj]

I always thought of it as anti-humour, which is a form of humour in and of itself. A lot of almost-joke scenes that just sort of stop without actually going anywhere.

I liked Garfield because it dead-panned things that otherwise would have been funny. Hated the television cartoon version though.

[coldtea]

I mildly like Garfield.

Never particularly cared for Calvin and Hobbes (always found it somewhat preachy, tacky, and emotionally kitch, the "I think we've learned something today", going-for-the-feels type), though the writer is nonetheless very talented (and a lot of its strips are great).

The post also mentions the New Yorker cartoons. Never cared for them either, not because I "missed the joke", but because I dislike their faux-high-brow attitude to humor, given that the content is more often than not trite observations about society.

I also like lots of webcomic strips (Cyanide and Hapiness, Dinosaur Comics, SMBC, The Parking Lot is Full, etc), and comics like Gosciny, Mafalda, Mortadelo y Filemon, and so on, besides "serious" comics.

[throw_away]

Don't forget children. The television series are very child-centric and also the plush toys.