I recently ran across this article at Slate on the business process behind Garfield. In short, Jim Davis is a tool. It’s not news that his strips aren’t funny to anyone over eight — how many times can someone tell a lasagna joke? — but it also turns out that Davis is merely a man behind a curtain pulling levers and twisting knobs:
Garfield’s origins were so mercantile that it’s fair to say he never sold out—he never had any integrity to put on the auction block to begin with. But today Davis spends even less time on the strip than he used to—between three days and a week each month. During that time, he collaborates with another cartoonist to generate ideas and rough sketches, then hands them over to Paws employees to be illustrated. […]
So, it would seem that drawing the strip is merely a means to an end for Davis: he keeps the cogs in the machine turning just so that he can power his licensing efforts. To be sure, I have nothing against artists profiting off their work; still, I’m put off that a so-called artist would go through the motions, knowingly churning out drivel just for the check.
You aren’t alone. Bill Watterson of Calvin and Hobbes fame was a vocal critic of Jim Davis.
I don’t think that’s entirely fair. I mean, it’s true that it’s a rubbish cartoon and I remember giving up years ago after the third book of strips (it was actually funny for a while, at the start), but at the same time it’s just a product. It’s a way for him to earn a good living. He very definitely isn’t artist; he’s the manager of a cartoon factory, churning out tepid, tasteless, cholestrol-laden cartoon burgers.
Not having a go now, but you can’t say that you’ve only just spotted that it’s a purely commercial venture. Otherwise he would have killed the strip (and that damn tabby) years ago. Just as he did with his preceding and much less successful strip. Perhaps he’s having his own joke at the expense of a very competitive, low-margin industry? For every Jim Davis there are literally thousands who never make it.
It’s true, Garfield is terrible. Even after running for 28+ years in various incarnations, the only Garfield product I know of that is even remotely interesting is the series of strips that ran for Halloween in 1989 (available in YTMND form here).
I can’t believe I share a birthday with that cat.
I think it’s tasteless how you people trash this strip. Everyone repeats the same stuff. How many times did Calvin act like a brat on anything from school to vacations to even being good at christmas?. Some other guilty people here are For Better Or Worse, Michael constantly doing dumb stuff as a kid, Curtis pigging out and being infatuated with Michelle, Doonesbury complaining about every republican in sight. I think you people should say the same of them also and not just Davis. Let’s see how about Walker’s Bailey with Snorkel beating up Bailey repeatedly, that’s funny?. Maybe Baby Blue or Zits which both whine about the difficulties of raising kids? Perhaps the clever Dennies the Menace which should’ve died out after thirty years?. Oh right, this kind of thinking requires you knuckleheads to act logical, silly me. Regardless, I still like Garfield since he tries to be funny and not preachy like Doonesbury, Mark Trail, and Boondocks.He also doesn’t avoid getting criticized like the boring Dilbert. Nor does he have the joy of being around so long nobody would dare criticize him such as nobody does with Blondie and Dennis the Menace. So bug off you bunch of nitwits.
Garfield is a terrible strip. I loved it when I was a child, but then discovered how great Calvin and Hobbes was despite being an early fanboy. I realized that the strips were not funny at all and were lacking in creativity more and more as the years went on. Repetition of themes occurs in Calvin and Hobbes as well, but never will it approach the level that Garfield has achieved. There is much more dialogue in Calvin and Hobbes strips. Why? Because it requires thinking.
The real nitwits are those too blind to turn away from garbage such as Garfield and look for better alternatives.
Might I ask just how is Garfield really as repetetive as so many people clamor it to be?
It seems to me that the ones who make such claims are only familiar with the most obvious material (lasagna, Mondays, etc.) and neglect to find the less obvious material (Happy Birthday, Isaac Asimov!) – hence the “stable of recurring, repetetive jokes for the cat.”