Thanks for sponsoring this video, Audible! To start your free 30 day trial and receive a free audiobook visit https://www.audible.com/brainfood or text brainfood to 500 500!
If you happen to like our videos and have a few bucks to spare to support our efforts, check out our Patreon page where we've got a variety of perks for our Patrons, including Simon's voice on your GPS and the ever requested Simon Whistler whistling package: https://www.patreon.com/TodayIFoundOut
→Some of our favorites: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR0XuDegDqP10d4vrztQ0fVzNnTiQBEAA
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
Never run out of things to say at the water cooler with TodayIFoundOut! Brand new videos 7 days a week!
In this video:
There are generally three things everyone knows about Garfield- it’s all about a cat that hates Mondays, loves lasagna, and that it’s not really that funny. While the latter point may seem subjective, according to Garfield creator Jim Davis, the point of Garfield was never for the comic to be hilariously funny, but rather be relatable and, with that accomplished, serve as a vehicle to sell Garfield merchandise.
Want the text version?: http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2018/08/when-a-marketer-invents-a-comic-the-story-of-garfield/
Music from Jukedeck - create your own at http://jukedeck.com.
As a child I loved Garfield. I literally spent hours reading the Garfield books that I had. Even the original cartoon was great Garfield and friends. It's the recent movies and TV shows that have not been funny.
I'm glad that there's a lot of people defending Garfield in the comments. As usual, the worst Garfield comics are cherry picked and used as proof that the strip isn't funny. Look, no one's denying that there's plenty of mediocre Garfield strips, but there's also plenty of funny ones, as well as surprisingly heartwarming ones that never get mentioned (think about the story arc where Garfield reunites with his mother, the arc where Garfield gets lost and Jon tries looking for him, etc.).
I loved Garfield as a kid. It was one of my favorite comics to read, I had some comic books of Garfield, and a Garfield movie (in the early 90s). I could jive with how Garfield was so grumpy all the time. I'm actually way less grumpy now than I was as a kid. lol
Woah damn i never gave much thought into garfield but now the creator is gonna be one of my role models. It's so astonishing how he thought of the ideas to make garfield to be as universal as possible.
Not having seasons or holidays in a comic seems doubtful to be successful but how he went on with it is eye opening
@Today I Found Out - You're just not a corny person. Some people don't laugh at Family Guy because they don't like Satire. Some people don't laugh at etc. etc. etc.
Edit: late nineties early 2000's of The Simpsons are a great example of Satire. Live action Satire can be found in The Colbert Report featuring Stephan Colbert
Edit 2: 14:35 adult joke equivalent of "dude look at my hands"
Jim Davis being the most succesful Comic Book creator is very likely. I would argue that Eiichiro Oda of the One Piece Manga is definitely up there also. A story that has had weekly installments for over 20 years now.
i read garfield, peanuts, calvin and hobbes, and pearls before swine as a kid, i enjoyed them all, as an adult i find myself returning to calvin and hobbes and peanuts more because of the heart, it isn't just 100% snark
I've heard about this before. Davis is a cynical twat. I hate Garfield, always thought it was lame, the lasagna thing was never funny, Odie was never funny....and they weren't meant to be. It was always just a moneymaking scheme.
Garfield isn't funny because the internet lost it's sense of humor. Offence is the mother of all comedy, if you cannot offend or be offended, then your ability to laugh and connect with others will always be limited to the surface with no depth.
So... In a way, Davis IS Garfield. Somewhat selfish and lazy, but in a lovable and relatable way. He's not going to make your life miserable, but he may smile to himself from time to time when he nabs your lasagna.
Well people love Garfield. I can't remember a single strip, which I assume is the point. Bill Waterson's Calvin and Hobbes might have been the best strip in the past fifty years, but the guys was wack.
The problem with Garfield is that iif you compare it with anything else it is kinda the most unfunny, effortless, copy/pasted cartoon ever made. Even the most funny strips are just decent at best. Almost every comic strip you find when just searching "cartoon" in google would be better.
Though I know humor in particular is not right or wrong. Or mine humor is better than yours. It's just that Garfield is slapstick cheap and lazy humor. And some people love that. I can respect that. But it can never be considered quality.
When I was growing up my parents had several Garfield books full of the old newspaper strips laying around the house, and I used to *love* reading them every night. I found them hilarious. Still do today.
I honestly don't know why ppl still debate whether Calvin and Hobbes or Garfield is better. I mean, the answer is obvious,
Calvin and Hobbes.
Garfield may be funny, but it wasn't really meant to be a good comic. Jim Davis said it himself that he made Garfield solely to sell Merchandise. Bill Watterson on the other hand, did so much to preserve his comic and keep it the way it was, and he did a good job. Honestly, idk why I ever liked Garfield
+Cthulhu Has Risen Not saying it was bad. I'm just saying that Davis might not be to blame it violating his policy against seasonal themes. However, the #1 policy is marketability, and the occasionally seasonal stuff is good for profit.
+Cthulhu Has Risen I don't think I'd hold the animated stuff against him so much, because the original artist usually loses some creative control when their work is adapted for another format. That's one reason Sailor Moon is being remade; Naoko Takeuchi was unhappy with the changes that the original anime made to the manga.
Since you brought it up... I really don't know where the idea that cats are lazy comes from. I'm a cat colony caretaker. I fully care for 25 thrown away cats in my community. I'm very familiar with their behavior. They sleep with one eye open and are rarely ever sitting still. I could make several warm coats a yr with the amount of dead animals they constantly leave on my doorstep (as gifts, they think I can't hunt for myself apparently! Although I often wish they'd leave me wildflowers. ) anyways, they are the least lazy animals I've ever witnessed. Cows, now cow's are lazy! LoL
As I found out when you create a comic strip you also have to be a writer I created my own comic strip but I'm not a writer. I got it in a small town newspaper promise no one got the jokes hey I thought it was funny no one else did William s.
+Dusty Long I'm swedish myself, but I read books and go on the internet sometimes, plus we learn english in school.
"It" is usually used to describe non-sentient objects. I guess some people might use it to describe it to describe pets but some might find it weird, it's kind of contradictory to giving them names?
The gender neutral pronoun you would and should use in english is "They", but a lot of people don't. "He or she" is used a lot, and some people will just say "he" instead. I personally disagree with those people since I think that "they" is the correct term, but regardless of my personal opinion of the use of the word, it's still widely used to refer to people whose gender is unknown or genderless objects. An example would be C3PO from Star Wars, who is referred to as "he", despite as a robot being incapable of having a gender.
Common web dictionary Marriam Webster defines "He" as "that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer", but also as "used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified", with "one should do the best he can" as an example. (With "one" being a genderless general term here")
Wiktionary describes that "He was traditionally used as both a masculine and a gender-neutral pronoun, but since the mid 20th century generic usage has sometimes been considered sexist and limiting. It is deprecated by some style guides, such as Wadsworth. In place of generic he, writers and speakers may use he or she, alternate he and she as the indefinite person, use the singular they, or rephrase sentences to use plural they."
+Dusty Long You said that he was male because he's referred to as he, even though several inherently genderless objects are referred to using gendered pronouns. "He" is also often used to refer to people whose gender aren't known by a lot of people. Notably, a lot of people ascribe gender to household pets specifically without actually knowing what it is. A good comparison would be a robot/android character: they are usually referred to with gendered pronouns even if they are genderless. Stating that something must be male because it's being referred to by a masculine pronoun is factually incorrect, which becomes silly when the same logic is applied to different circumstances. My example was intentionally vulgar to really highlight how silly that assumption can be.
Or maybe you understood what I said and you're arguing that not all men have penises just like not all women have vaginas, in which case kudos to you :P
(Also if we're going that route, many non-men use male pronouns for various reasons, such as because they're closeted trans people, because they're not comfortable with a gender expression that aligns with their gender, or just because they prefer them.)
All that said, if you want to headcanon him as male then sure :P The creator has said that he doesn't have a gender but I don't think that the author's personal opinion on the their work holds any sway over their work compared to other peoples' opinions: what's important is what is actually shown in the work, and I don't believe the actual comics state that Garfield is genderless.
Secrets and Nightmares of the Teenage Circumcision Circuit.
In South Africa thousands of boys are initiated into manhood each year, but all too often they lose far more than they gain.
T he sun is drooping in the December sky as cicadas weave ominous melodies into the summer air. Their shrill vibrato is the soundtrack to Azola Nkqinqa’s last day as a boy. It’s the time of year when Nkqinqa, 18, and about 50,000 other South African boys, come to one of the many remote initiation schools in order to learn how to be a man. This school is located in the Eastern Cape province — the country’s poorest. In the Xhosa culture, the transition into manhood is marked by a month of instruction from elders, who teach the teens how to be a father, a husband. The Xhosa boys are also circumcised during this time, and most years these schools make headlines because dozens of the boys die during the process.
Nkqinqa is feeling particularly insecure. It is customary for the patriarch in a family to send a boy off, but Nkqinqa’s father has not been a part of his life for several years, and three of his uncles are dead. So a neighbor named Patrick Dakwa has agreed to take responsibility for him. Dakwa is a community volunteer who spends a lot of time trying to make circumcisions safer, running seminars near the Eastern Cape town of Flagstaff, teaching traditional surgeons how to safely dress wounds. However, since previous initiates are sworn to secrecy about the ritual’s details, as he lies in a hut with the other boys, rabid speculation is Nkqinqa’s only close companion.
The next day, the 13 boys in his cohort consecutively go to see a surgeon. Using a blade about the size of a steak knife, he slices off each of their foreskins. Dakwa and his fellow health volunteers recommend in their seminars that separate, disposable razors be used for the circumcisions so as to eliminate the risk of HIV transmission. But this is an illegal initiation school that shows little regard for regulations. All boys go under the same knife here.
The surgeon wraps Nkqinqa’s penis with a traditional dressing comprised of medicinal leaves. The pain is unremitting and debilitating, but Nkqinqa tries not to let his discomfort show. He doesn’t want to appear weak in front of the other emerging men.