Re: Why are second-tier comics so bad?

In article <1133283040.690323.84280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
JGM <jgmclean0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>Warning: bad-attitude rant ahead.
>
Don't know anything about the majority of your rantees, but:


>* Ballard Street - a very interesting (though sometimes
>incomprehensible) drawing style in the service of not much. Consider
>the gag here:
>http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2005/11/26&name=Ballard_Street
>. Nothing we haven't seen a million times in Marmaduke, but we never
>had to stare at a Marmaduke panel for three minutes to figure out what
>we were supposed to be looking at.
>

I still read through my old collections of "The Neighboorhood", and still
find them very funny. "Ballard Street", for some reason, I find less so,
though he still hits a homer from time to time -- I certainly haven't
considered dropping it from my Chron page. The art is what it is..

>And, most of all:
>
>* Dinette Set - I simply can't imagine how this panel could have
>reached syndication. The worst aspects of Zippy, Sylvia, and various
>underground Comeeks, all apparently drawn by an 8-year old. Here's a
>week's worth:
>http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2005/11/22&name=Dinette_Set&week=1
>-- can anybody explain *any* of these, or propose any redeeming
>qualities for this thing?
>

Interestingly, someone seems to have liked this enough to syndicate it twice,
once as "Dinette Set", once as "Suburban Torture" (maybe ST is a once a week
pick from DS?). I think I can explain *all* of these, without even looking
at the links: The characters are shallow, and completely without self-awareness.
There. That's the joke. Always. Is it not side-splitting?


Ted
.