I'm a middle-aged (or depending on your perspective, SUPER OLD) guy. I had the good fortune to work with some bright young millennials at my last job, and we sometimes talked about pop culture. I really had a hard time conveying how subversive and groundbreaking Gary Larson and David Letterman were in their time.
Their sensibilities are ubiquitous now and so if you grew up in the 2000’s it would be easy to look at them and say, what's the big deal? But at the time their absurdist humor felt rebellious, new, and important.
A permanent high school memory is returning from my job at McDonald’s around midnight. Was tired but turned on David Letterman. Voices were all dubbed over in Spanish, with English subtitles. No one onscreen acted unusual. I was dying to go to bed but stayed up till the end to hear the punch line or payoff. Then the show finished without a single reference to it. I was awestruck. I’ve never heard anyone remark about this — I wonder if I imagined this or it just didn’t shock/impress people like it did me.
Agree and I have the same issue seeing some of the value in certain contributions, especially ones that haven't been driven into my head (Louis Armstrong, Elvis, Robert Johnson for music). A similar parallel would be Lenny Bruce. He fought obscenity regulations and made a ton of things possible. He self published records to get money and his voice out there. Today, he'd have a Netflix special.
Agreed. The edge of absurdity is still funny though, the boundaries just shift over time, and new creativity finds it. I would argue that Sean Tejaratchi is one to chart such waters:
>I really had a hard time conveying how subversive and groundbreaking Gary Larson and David Letterman were in their time.
I don't know. Knowing French and Italian comic strips from the 70s, but also underground US stuff like the Freak Brothers, Crumb et al, I can hardly imagine Gary Larson being "groundbreaking".
And watching some older US hosts, like Dick Cavett, I find them much better than David Letterman (or anybody there today)
I found the madness unleashed by the "Cow tools" panel hilarious. No one got the joke and it generated so much confusion the strip made the news. Larson talks about it The Prehistory of The Far Side.
I never saw that one, and the controversy is hilarious.
"Larson took the unusual step of issuing a press release, explaining the joke and apologizing for the confusion caused:
The cartoon was intended to be an exercise in silliness. While I have never met a cow who could make tools, I felt sure that if I did, they (the tools) would lack something in sophistication and resemble the sorry specimens shown in this cartoon. I regret that my fondness for cows, combined with an overactive imagination, may have carried me beyond what is comprehensible to the average Far Side reader.
Larson further explained that he was inspired by the idea that tool use was the characteristic that separated mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom."
(I would be more convinced with less CG, but they do have a full channel. Maybe the brains behind this could come up with a similar system to allow humans to give up their personal data and social graph, voluntarily and in a low-stress environment?)
I'm extremely glad he's back. I'm sure some part of why my brain is the way it is in 2020 is due to reading old collections of Far Side cartoons as a kid. Some of them I didn't understand properly until years later, but others (like the all-time classic where the cows are in the field standing on their hind legs, until one cow yells "Car!", and they all stand on all fours until the car is past, or "when potato salad goes bad", or the "Llamas at home" one) are the kind of thing that goes straight into your little-kid psyche and stays there.
As good as Larson is, and he’s superb, his style is strongly reminiscent of B. Kliban, who predated him[1]. Kliban was funnier, often X-rated, and infinitely more transgressive. While Kliban was famous for his innocuous cat cartoons the adult material is IMHO as gut-bustingly funny as it is obscene.
I grew up on both and I wouldn’t say Kliban was funnier, rather I would say Larson was a cartoonist while Kliban was an artist. There was a tradition of single panel comics in the newspapers and Larson was a master of that; there was a very different tradition of Absurdist illustration and Kliban was a master of that.
It definitely seems like the humor is in the same vein, but what I notice is that Larson seems the better cartoonist - for example this https://www.gocomics.com/kliban/2012/03/21 strikes me as something that Larson would have improved, I haven't seen anything funnier there, but what I saw seems as funny.
I really hope he keeps making more, given the response to these first few comics.
I grew up reading the Far Side in the newspaper every day. I remember the excitement of running out to get the paper to grab the comics before anyone else.
Today I follow some comics on Instagram, which gives that same sort of excitement. I load up Instagram and among the pictures of my friends are some comics that I enjoy -- including one account that I'm sure is not legal but posts a Calvin and Hobbes comic every day.
I'm not sure if I should feel bad following the account knowing it is probably being done without permission, but at the same time, it brings me daily joy, which is what Bill Watterson always said he wanted to do.
My wife's fashion sense is put-together with a "Stilbruch." I guess I should ask her about it specifically, but I've always taken it to be fashion-punk, to "épater la bourgeoisie" by demonstrating that although it would be within one's means to match the entire ensemble, one is not so herd-bound as to actually do so. Compare sprezzatura.
As an undergrad, thanks to TeX making the dieresis readily accessible, I was fond of its use. I remember someone commenting that my writing "coördinates" with a dieresis made him want to pronounce it as if he were Inspector Clouseau.
Related to the article's form more than its topic, but "has humbly reëmerged, wanting to reëngage": I'm used to seeing "trémas" in French used for the very purpose of avoiding the usual sound made by two neighboring letters, but I didn't know it was a thing in English.
To me, this is a classic example of a change in medium renewing a creative individual’s creative drive. Similar examples from literature are legion. From Picassos move from painting to collage (giving us Cubism), to the Beatles employing the Sitar in Norwegian Wood.
In sixth grade, my entire class was obsessed with Far Side. Our teacher actually let us tape our favorite comics in two columns onto our school desks. I still remember the one about William Tell helped me answer a test question once.
I'm a big Far Side fan, but I'm not liking the aesthetic of the new tablet medium. The shading in particular looks significantly inferior to the old water color works.
"Its creator, Gary Larson (no relation!), retired in 1995, after having been syndicated in more than nineteen hundred newspapers and selling more than forty million books."
The Newyorker clearly cares a bit about grammar: "its" for ownership - no apostrophe. Then it goes a bit mad: an awkward comma between creator and Gary. There are multiple firing solutions here. You could go in with something like:
"Gary Larson (no relation!) retired in 1995. He was ... etc ...
I'm not asking for a return to the strictures of "Usage and Abusage" but I'd like to think that professional journalists are able to stick words on the page without them looking uncomfortable.
Prose should flow. When you write it, why not read it back to yourself.
[Cow holding a bow, wearing a 10 gallon hat and saying something unlikely to Rowland. Rowland is a chicken]
The New Yorker is known for its superb standards in regards to grammar, though it does tend to favor passive voice like academic circles are wont to do. This is evident here, with a focus first on Larson's work, then an introduction to his person, and given that the article's main focus is on the work and not the person, this is a logical decision.
You have just used what would have been a useful opportunity to discuss Gary Larson's unique art style to insist how much more you, a Hacker News commenter, knows about prose than someone employed by the New Yorker.
Further, due to your comment's lack of clarification, I ironically cannot tell if you are insinuating that the author of the article used "its" correctly or incorrectly. For the record, because this possessive pronoun is referring to Gary Larson's work in the previous sentence, the usage is correct. [1]
> Then it goes a bit mad: an awkward comma between creator and Gary
That's not awkward at all. The comma separates "Gary Larson (no relation!)", a subordinate clause, from the main clause: "Its creator retired in 1995 […]".
Edit: As jcfields so kindly pointed out, it's apposition. Specifically, it's the use of a restrictive appositive.
To my eyes, the real awkward comma is the one after '1995'. However, The New Yorker is known to have its own, fairly specific punctuation style.
In 7th grade my English teacher had us each put together a book on grammar. I used "The Far Side" cartoons to illustrate all of the rules that I had learned. I wish I could link to it, but the only copy, a hard copy, is somewhere in my parents' basement or attic.
I don't find it awkward at all - it's just an apposition.
(Admittedly also reversing the clauses makes for a complicated sentence structure. Depending on the level of literacy of the target audience, it might not be appropriate.)
[+] [-] hairofadog|5 years ago|reply
Their sensibilities are ubiquitous now and so if you grew up in the 2000’s it would be easy to look at them and say, what's the big deal? But at the time their absurdist humor felt rebellious, new, and important.
[+] [-] audiometry|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atwebb|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colinthompson|5 years ago|reply
https://liartownusa.tumblr.com/
...whom, incidentally was also (somewhat) recently profiled in the New Yoker:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/01/the-brilliant-...
[+] [-] coldtea|5 years ago|reply
I don't know. Knowing French and Italian comic strips from the 70s, but also underground US stuff like the Freak Brothers, Crumb et al, I can hardly imagine Gary Larson being "groundbreaking".
And watching some older US hosts, like Dick Cavett, I find them much better than David Letterman (or anybody there today)
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Legogris|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chasd00|5 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cow_Tools?wprov=sfla1
[+] [-] m463|5 years ago|reply
"Larson took the unusual step of issuing a press release, explaining the joke and apologizing for the confusion caused:
The cartoon was intended to be an exercise in silliness. While I have never met a cow who could make tools, I felt sure that if I did, they (the tools) would lack something in sophistication and resemble the sorry specimens shown in this cartoon. I regret that my fondness for cows, combined with an overactive imagination, may have carried me beyond what is comprehensible to the average Far Side reader.
Larson further explained that he was inspired by the idea that tool use was the characteristic that separated mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom."
[+] [-] 082349872349872|5 years ago|reply
Twenty-first century Cow Tools are more sophisticated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cWiEp10ruA
(I would be more convinced with less CG, but they do have a full channel. Maybe the brains behind this could come up with a similar system to allow humans to give up their personal data and social graph, voluntarily and in a low-stress environment?)
Edit: less CG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXUUTz6sHhU
[+] [-] Legogris|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spats1990|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arbuge|5 years ago|reply
This one on the other hand, might be oddly prescient in hindsight: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/423056958717553865/
* "Notice all the computations, theoretical scribblings, and lab equipment, Norm. ... Yes, curiosity killed these cats."
[+] [-] tomcam|5 years ago|reply
https://www.gocomics.com/kliban/2012/03/19
[+] [-] prvc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] biztos|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bryanrasmussen|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] o_____________o|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgv|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jedberg|5 years ago|reply
I grew up reading the Far Side in the newspaper every day. I remember the excitement of running out to get the paper to grab the comics before anyone else.
Today I follow some comics on Instagram, which gives that same sort of excitement. I load up Instagram and among the pictures of my friends are some comics that I enjoy -- including one account that I'm sure is not legal but posts a Calvin and Hobbes comic every day.
I'm not sure if I should feel bad following the account knowing it is probably being done without permission, but at the same time, it brings me daily joy, which is what Bill Watterson always said he wanted to do.
[+] [-] prvc|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 082349872349872|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhosek|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Biganon|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Daub|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neap24|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bstar77|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] war1025|5 years ago|reply
Gotta get a good shot in at those dastardly Republicans I guess.
[+] [-] hevelvarik|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] habi|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] m463|5 years ago|reply
Also gone were Bloom County with the banana jr 6000 self-portable computer (looking like a macintosh with legs) and Monty Python.
That said, we got futurama, xkcd and ... others?
Anyone want to share some good sources humor (that aren't too dumbed-down?)
[+] [-] geocrasher|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] spodek|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rectang|5 years ago|reply
> On the comics page, “Calvin and Hobbes” and “Bloom County” shared Larson’s wild playfulness;
[+] [-] aaron695|5 years ago|reply
It abstracted higher than comics around it.
But internet humour like all the internet has iterated and abstracted many times since.
I think nostalgia will keep it going, but it's had it's day.
[+] [-] kingbirdy|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ISL|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gerdesj|5 years ago|reply
The Newyorker clearly cares a bit about grammar: "its" for ownership - no apostrophe. Then it goes a bit mad: an awkward comma between creator and Gary. There are multiple firing solutions here. You could go in with something like:
"Gary Larson (no relation!) retired in 1995. He was ... etc ...
I'm not asking for a return to the strictures of "Usage and Abusage" but I'd like to think that professional journalists are able to stick words on the page without them looking uncomfortable.
Prose should flow. When you write it, why not read it back to yourself.
[Cow holding a bow, wearing a 10 gallon hat and saying something unlikely to Rowland. Rowland is a chicken]
[+] [-] tropdrop|5 years ago|reply
You have just used what would have been a useful opportunity to discuss Gary Larson's unique art style to insist how much more you, a Hacker News commenter, knows about prose than someone employed by the New Yorker.
Further, due to your comment's lack of clarification, I ironically cannot tell if you are insinuating that the author of the article used "its" correctly or incorrectly. For the record, because this possessive pronoun is referring to Gary Larson's work in the previous sentence, the usage is correct. [1]
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive#Pronouns
[+] [-] hedora|5 years ago|reply
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/ad/81/c4ad811c149c46a576bef2554...
https://bookriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/it-just-says...
[+] [-] zapzupnz|5 years ago|reply
That's not awkward at all. The comma separates "Gary Larson (no relation!)", a subordinate clause, from the main clause: "Its creator retired in 1995 […]".
Edit: As jcfields so kindly pointed out, it's apposition. Specifically, it's the use of a restrictive appositive.
To my eyes, the real awkward comma is the one after '1995'. However, The New Yorker is known to have its own, fairly specific punctuation style.
[+] [-] ponker|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WillyF|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Reelin|5 years ago|reply
(Admittedly also reversing the clauses makes for a complicated sentence structure. Depending on the level of literacy of the target audience, it might not be appropriate.)
[+] [-] rdiddly|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beervirus|5 years ago|reply
But you're still right. That sentence is clunky with all the commas, and your revision is an improvement.