The Garfield and Friends TV Show, which now is available on DVD, was funny too. They also include the farm themed shorts US Acres. (Orson’s Farm in the UK)

I remember one where the rooster kept trying to steal food from the barn, and it was tied into Orson reading a parody of The Raven by Poe. So the rooster goes into the barn, after a few verses of Orson mourning his lost Lenore, he then says “Quoth the rooster..” and the rooster shouts, “Where’s the floor?!” The floor was taken out of the barn. LoL

Peanuts is an extremely clever and intelligent comic, but Garfield isn’t all bad as you seem to have claimed it is. I really like the animated movies that were based off the Peanuts comics.

I love “Garfield Without Garfield.” It’s a simply brilliant strip, and it almost justifies the existence of “Garfield” itself.

It’s disturbingly good, although I sometimes feel a slight pang of guilt over it; it’s almost like being a Bedlam-tourist…

But why curse the darkness when you can light a candle? When life gives you Garfield, why not make Garfield-free Garfield?

Who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life? Friends, meet Jon Arbuckle. Let’s laugh and learn with him on a journey deep into the tortured mind of an isolated young everyman as he fights a losing battle against loneliness in a quiet American suburb.

I disagree with you about Calvin and Hobbes; Susie and Mom are no less interesting or exciting than Dad is! (The babysitter is a less important character, but I’d say she’s more interesting and developed than, say, the bully character.) Calvin is certainly sexist, but Watterson is aware of that and made fun of it from time to time.

There certainly are comic strips I love that are sexist; Pogo is an obvious example.

Calvin and Hobbes is similar - the women are dull, reasonable stereotypes (Suzie, Mom, babysitter) while the men are exciting, funny, interesting characters (Calvin, Hobbes, Dad).

The fact that it’s sexist in a polite way doesn’t make it any less sexist. Then again, that approach is nigh-universal in humour - men are always the source (and brunt) of the humour, and women always play either the role of the sex object or the “straight man”. If Abbot and Costello movies were made to day, Abbot would always be a woman. The only time female characters are funny is when they’re neurotic.

Peanuts is classic is its own way much the way Disney shorts and no dialogue Tom and Jerry are also. There aren’t anything to compare them too? Mickey Donald & Goofy are who they are? Tom and Jerry chasing each other around the house not saying a word to orchaestral scores is unique and never dull? But throw on Pokemon and I’ll be asleep in two minutes. . . IMO Peanuts is in a class of unique trendsetting iconic features that cannot help but be an Influence in Animation and Comics. That is an Honor my friends not a Disrespect.

Garfield has never made me cry.

I do love a good charlie brown christmas and the great pumpkin though.

I love the collections even more because of his essays–10 Ever-lovin’ Blue-eyed Years with Pogo has some wonderful writing about the McCarthy era. (I especially like the part where his wife is slamming glasses down on the table in a bar, saying “DAMN that CBS loyalty oath!”)

And yes, every Christmas I sing “Deck us all with Boston Charlie….”

Thank you. That was what I meant with “not funny”, but I couldn’t quite nail it down.

Peanuts had a problem for me, even going back to the earlier stuff, that makes me see why someone could say Garfield was superior as humor, even though it’s really shite. The problem with Peanuts is that if, like me, you’re fairly sensitive to certain kinds of embarrassment and pathos, those elements usually trump the funny and it becomes a sort of extended ordeal. Empty one-liners are not much, but they’re not that, either.

I prefer a humor that is kind to its participants. You get the feeling that if the Peanuts gang were employees of the comic strip, they’d be getting dicked out of the health plan, so that we could sympathize with their misfortune. In some ways I’m less comfortable with that kind of cruelty than I am with the facile kind shown in Garfield; and Calvin & Hobbes is, of the strips mentioned, the one I can take ’seriously’ enough to really laugh at, because the C&H world is one in which it’s seriously possible to win, as well as to lose, and that looks enough like my world to make it worth the trip.

That said, I’m grateful to Peanuts for “Sir”, among other things. :-)

I never claimed to be a nice man.

As much as I love Peanuts I think it’s weird that the strip keeps running. I mean, how long has it been since Charles Schultz passed away? I understand he did enough strips in advance to take us into the 22nd century, but come on!
On the other hand, his widow donated a vast library of materials to the Center for Cartoon Studies http://www.cartoonstudies.org/ (which is a real 2-year college for cartoonists in Vermont). So who am I to judge?

Thanks for reminding me about “Sylvia” — Apparently Nicole Hollander is still at it. Check it out - http://www.nicolehollander.com/navigate.htm

Purposely mediocre? That sounds about right for Garfield. Yeah, the first year or two were interesting. Remember when Garfield was actually shaped like a cat and sat on his rear with his big belly rolling out for everyone to see? He was funny in a dry brittle kind of way. Now Garfield is all buff and “proportional” and doesn’t really look or act like a cat, as far as I’m concerned.

I really loved Berke Breathed’s “Bill the Cat”, from Bloom County, which was a a skinny, feral, mangy, flea bitten, hair-ball coughing mess (who wore bvds for some reason) that brought to mind Keith Richards an a bad hair day. I also enjoyed the next strip Berke Breathed did, whose name escapes me right now…it was wonderfully surreal.

And now I bow to the gods of comic strips who made Calvin and Hobbes possible. Thank you.