SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - The worst newspaper comic ever...and Bill Watterson LOVES it

Posted: Dec 14 2009 10:00 pm

The comic is in question is called Cul de Sac. It is hideous to look at it, and it is unfunny. It can be found here: http://www.gocomics.com/culdesac/

Alongside Dilbert and local favorite Get Fuzzy, Cul de Sac is featured on the front page of the Boston Sunday Globe's comics section. It took the place of Doonesbury, which has generally managed to be funny even at its most partisan. For example, Trudeau's Ron Headrest character and the resulting feud with the Reagan White House. Doonesbury is well-written, funny, and is almost certainly considered one of the great American newspaper comics. In the 80s and early 90s, the front page of Sunday Globe's comic section consisted of Garfield, Doonesbury, and Calvin and Hobbes.

Back to Cul de Sac. I just don't see the appeal. The characters are dull, and unforgivably so. But you know who likes it? Former genius Bill Watterson. He wrote the foreword for the first Cul de Sac collection, saying this:

Bill Watterson wrote:

I thought the best newspaper comic strips were long gone, and I've never been happier to be wrong. Richard Thompson's Cul de Sac has it all--intelligence, gentle humor, a delightful way with words, and, most surprising of all, wonderful, wonderful drawings. Cul de Sac's whimsical take on the world and playful sense of language somehow gets funnier the more times you read it. Four-year-old Alice and her Blisshaven Preschool classmates will ring true to any parent. Doing projects in a cloud of glue and glitter, the little kids manage to reinterpret an otherwise incomprehensible world via their meandering, nonstop chatter. But I think my favorite character is Alice's older brother, Petey. A haunted, controlling milquetoast, he's surely one of the most neurotic kids to appear in comics. These children and their struggles are presented affectionately, and one of the things I like best about Cul de Sac is its natural warmth. Cul de Sac avoids both mawkishness and cynicism and instead finds genuine charm in its loopy appreciation of small events. Very few strips can hit this subtle note.

I want whatever drugs Bill is on, because the comic I read every Sunday is nothing like that. I wish the comic was what Bill described. But it's not, and quite frankly I'm concerned for his mental health. I think he might be in need of some prescription Aricept.

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Yeah, I can't stand that comic. I'm definitely leaning towards "Get Fuzzy" as one of my favorite modern comic.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 01:06 am

Am I a bad person for liking BC?

Joined: May 22 2008 Location: Goshen, VA Posts: 6544

Absolutely. But to be fair, I have always thought you were an awful person.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 01:20 am

God what an awful comic.

However, Fred Basset easily holds the crown of worst newspaper comic ever, imho. You wanna talk unfunny, Fred Basset's writer doesn't even understand the concept of a punchline. The strips just...stop. Its so weird and annoying.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 01:38 am

I LIKE Cul de Sac. I don't read the papers much, but when I do and decide to head over to the comics section, the two comics that I find myself laughing at most are "Cul de Sac" and "Pearls Before Swine" (with the exception of the "play-on-words" strips that Pastis is sometimes fond of...I know they're SUPPOSED to be corny, but I just find myself wondering why I wasted my time on it)

Anyway, I think it's a funny comic because of the naivete of the cast. It's not a great-looking strip, but it does its job. Seems like I'm in the vast minority in this one, but I don't care.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 02:36 am

Maybe Bill Watterson was being ironic?
#edit: After reading through a few weeks worth, some of those are actually funny. The artwork is fucking terrible though.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 02:43 am

FUCK is that comic ugly!

Maybe this situation is the exact opposite of Tim and Eric enjoying Look Around You.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 11:15 am

The artwork just... to busy and poorly drawn...

Gallery 2 · Posted: Dec 15 2009 02:53 pm

I checked it out.

It is not the most terrible newspaper comic I've read in my life (that title belongs to Pricly City...), but it's definitively not worth of the praise of Bill Watterson of all people. The artwork is average at most, the plots rather trite (it's bad already that once in a while tries the same joke twice in a row...) and that's all what I can say about it.

I don't think Bill was on drugs, but rather simply desperate for a paycheck.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 07:18 pm

Yeah, how the hell much did they pay Watterson to get that quote? It's a damn shame, too. I had so much respect for the guy...

Posted: Dec 15 2009 07:33 pm

AtmanRyu wrote:

I don't think Bill was on drugs, but rather simply desperate for a paycheck.

If he was desperate for a paycheck, he'd license out C&H.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Dec 15 2009 08:00 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

AtmanRyu wrote:

I don't think Bill was on drugs, but rather simply desperate for a paycheck.

If he was desperate for a paycheck, he'd license out C&H.

And that my friend is called double standards.

But seriously, as much as I respect Bill, you have to admit that it's very suspicious for him to promote a newspaper comic, let alone a bad one.

With that said, we have the following options:

1) He was on drugs (rather likely)
2) He sold out (rather unlikely, but let's face it: There's tons of artists out out there that at one point in their lives they had to sacrifice their standards)
3) That is NOT Bill Watterson in the quote.

Now the third option seems more than likely considering the fact that is seems that it's fucking impossible to find Bill, as several attempts to interview him (or find him for that matter) on the past years have failed miserably.

Now, if these reporters weren't able to find him, are you telling me he suddenly popped out of nowhere to praise an otherwise mediocre comic? Again, either he was incredibly sauced when that happened, or the publishers simply decided to take advantage of his AWOL condition to write stuff under his name, knowing they won't be accused of forging his quoting.

It may sound borderline conspiracy theorist babble, but again, there's simply NO way Bill would think this comic is THAT good...

Posted: Dec 15 2009 10:37 pm

I worked sunday morning in a gas station, a very slow time indeed, so I've read my fair share of comics. The fact of the matter is that newspaper comics are usually not very good in one way or another, and this one seems to lack anything like a punchline or a joke. I read them out of sheer boredom, and I think most people read them out of inertia so having a comic that doesn't rock the boat might be the solution even if it defies the commonly held belief that comics should be funny.

Posted: Dec 15 2009 11:45 pm

Wow, I am lucky, we don't get crap like this in my local newspaper, but we do get Prickely city and Perals before swine (which does have it's good days at least).

Posted: Dec 16 2009 10:10 pm

Maybe it's a different guy. Just some random intern named Bill Watterson or something.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Dec 16 2009 11:07 pm

Yanno, after rereading the quote, I noticed something:

Bill Watterson wrote:

Cul de Sac's whimsical take on the world and playful sense of language somehow gets funnier the more times you read it.

Translation:

"This is one of those comics that you simply have to read over and over until your mind finally caves in and decides to consider it funny."

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

You know he could just like it, it's possible people *gasp* have opinions on things different than your own.

Posted: Dec 17 2009 12:33 am

Optimist With Doubts wrote:

You know he could just like it, it's possible people *gasp* have opinions on things different than your own.

Yeah, like my opinion right now is that I should put my foot into your face for disagreeing with me, which probably differs from your own.

Posted: Dec 17 2009 02:03 am

Oh no he dit-int!

Honestly, it's not the worst comic strip that ever existed. It's pretty fucking bad, but not the nadir of shitty. That's a special place I like to reserve for Tank McNamara.

So. Fucking. Boring.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

That is pretty bad

Another one I've always thought was ugly and unfunny was Agnes

While we're on the subject of comics, I'm amazed every year when our main newspaper takes a poll of everyone's favorite comic and "Family Circus" wins EVERY year with around 40% of the votes. I always thought the dialogue would fit better with two stoners than a family.

Posted: Dec 17 2009 07:25 pm

Yeah, I don't know why anyone likes Family Circus. I guess it's just insipid enough that most people consider it heartwarming or something.

For Better or For Worse was actually pretty interesting considering it progressed throughout the years of the characters' lives and handled some weighty issues (I think there was a rape plotline, even) but then Lynn Johnston was like "Eh, fuck it, I think I'll just re-use the same crap again." Boo.

My real opprobrium, though, is reserved for political/topical cartoonists, who are a penny a fucking dozen. If I was a kid and I had leukemia or some shit, my Make-A-Wish would be to get fifty political cartoonists, line them up and then have at them with a Humvee-mounted .50 caliber machinegun 'til there's nothing left but bloody fucking stumps. If there's anything that runs close to my hatred of Neo-Nazis, intestinal parasites and Nickelback, it's definitely political cartoonists.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

Ok. This article is a perfect description of how sad today's humor has become.

I really don't worry about this stuff anymore, though. I stopped reading newspaper comics after Calvin and Hobbes reached it's final panel. -sniff- God, I miss that comic. AND NOW THE AUTHOR OF IT IS PRAISING SHIT LIKE THIS! IT'S AN OUTRAGE, I SAY!!

Posted: Dec 17 2009 07:31 pm

Quote:

Yeah, I don't know why anyone likes Family Circus. I guess it's just insipid enough that most people consider it heartwarming or something.

For Better or For Worse was actually pretty interesting considering it progressed throughout the years of the characters' lives and handled some weighty issues (I think there was a rape plotline, even) but then Lynn Johnston was like "Eh, fuck it, I think I'll just re-use the same crap again." Boo.

My real opprobrium, though, is reserved for political/topical cartoonists, who are a penny a fucking dozen. If I was a kid and I had leukemia or some shit, my Make-A-Wish would be to get fifty political cartoonists, line them up and then have at them with a Humvee-mounted .50 caliber machinegun 'til there's nothing left but bloody fucking stumps. If there's anything that runs close to my hatred of Neo-Nazis, intestinal parasites and Nickelback, it's definitely political cartoonists.

Family Circus is the worst comic ever. I don't understand how anyone can find that corny garbage amusing. Wait, I take that back. The Hyper Death Babies (maybe kind of NSFW-ish, but I'm an idiot) versions are works of art.

Wizard Joined: Jun 12 2009 Posts: 4209

asbestos_pie wrote:

Family Circus is the worst comic ever. I don't understand how anyone can find that corny garbage amusing. Wait, I take that back. The Hyper Death Babies (maybe kind of NSFW-ish, but I'm an idiot) versions are works of art.

Epic win, right there.