Comments on: Checker to Release BC Collection

By: Dan Coyle

Dan Coyle — Thu, 10 May 2007 03:21:44 +0000

I dunno, even in recent years the comic was good for a smileworthy one-liner, though that may be just contrasting it against the REALLY unfunny strips out there.

Like Funky Winkerbean! Hey, guess what? Lisa’s cancer isn’t in remission! They made a mistake!

By: Greg Morrow

Greg Morrow — Wed, 09 May 2007 22:33:59 +0000

I swear that the first ten years or so of B.C. were actually interesting and funny. (My dad had the paperbacks.)

It is the case that I haven’t read them in probably twenty years or more, and so I may have aged past liking them.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Tue, 08 May 2007 11:15:35 +0000

Ed, let’s clarify: the obits I saw didn’t say they disliked Hart’s beliefs, but the way he expressed those beliefs. And I have to agree, because they sure didn’t seem to me to reflect Jesus’ Golden Rule.

By: Ed Sizemore

Ed Sizemore — Tue, 08 May 2007 10:03:05 +0000

Nat, I already have the book on order through Previews. I’m trying to get all of Schulz’s cartoons. I really enjoy seeing his work outside of Peanuts. Thanks for the recommendation.

By: Nat Gertler

Nat Gertler — Tue, 08 May 2007 03:30:34 +0000

Schulz did very little pitching of religious views in Peanuts. Get outside of the "true meaning of Christmas" in something that was specifically a Christmas special, and a storyline about religious camp where he came out against end-of-times preaching, and what you're left with is largely allegorical moments. (He did some work for religious publications that went further, but even that was generally not proselytizing. You can read this material in the upcoming book Schulz's Youth -- and you should read it, and I say that as a totally biased and involved party!)

By: Ed Sizemore

Ed Sizemore — Tue, 08 May 2007 02:31:08 +0000

David, I disagree. Every reflection of Hart’s death I read included some disclaimer about not liking his ‘fundamentalism’. It seems like a requirement among journalistic or pundits that you had to denounce Hart for his religious views before you could say anything possible about his comedic ability. I bearly read any mention of Schultz’s religious views in similar rememberances. Also the LA Times and a few other papers ran Hart’s Easter strips in the editoral section of the paper. But I guess it’s a matter of perspective. As a fellow evangelical Christian, I saw a lot of what Hart wrote as simply Biblical truth without the sugar coating so prevalent in modern America. I saw him as straight forward and not ham-fisted.

As for Trudeau, we will have to agree to disagree. I think Trudeau deserves all the grief he gets and then some.

By: David Oakes

David Oakes — Mon, 07 May 2007 20:13:02 +0000

I don’t think BC stands out for being “Christian” cavemen. Even before Hart was born again he had Wiley writing about Christmas and nobody cared. (Though I have to admit even at age 10 I noticed the perhaps unintentional humour in the situation.)

FBOW is preachy, but mostly in a feel-good, “can’t we all just get along” sort of way. BC seemed often mean-spirited, as embodied by the “I*SLAM/Something stinks” strip. Heck, Peanuts almost defines the modern image of Christmas, but nobody faults Schultz for that, because he seems honestly “pro-Christ” and not “Anti-Everybody else”.

Doonesbury is over the top, but he is also likely to laugh at geeks an hippies as well as Republicans. And more importantly, Doonesbury has (naerly) always been a political strip. You knew what you were getting into from the begining, instead of growing up with Broad jokes and clams, and then suddenly being confronted with orthodoxy. Imagine one day Blondie is not just working out of the home, but has become a Militant Feminist. Even if you agreed with her views, you might find the shift a bit abrupt.

But mostly, except for the two strips – “Menorah/Cross”, “I*SLAM” – I don’t recall Hart really getting much flack at all. Sure, everyone would bring up one or both when his name was mentioned, but it’s not like he had been religated to the OP/ED pages and perrenially villified like Trudeau. It seems more a tempest in a teapot, not even up to the levels of “White Christians sulk realizing they no longer rule the world” you usually get from this sort of thing. It was a non-issue.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Mon, 07 May 2007 11:21:36 +0000

Ed, it may be that BC stands out because its premise of cavemen contrasts so badly with the Christian preaching. I’ve never seen FBOFW preach to the extent that BC does.

By: Dan Coyle

Dan Coyle — Mon, 07 May 2007 04:46:11 +0000

People didn’t mind BC’s ham-fisted-ness until Hart did that 2001 Easter strip with the Menorah transforming into a cross. That got a lot of people nervous.

By: Ed Sizemore

Ed Sizemore — Mon, 07 May 2007 03:14:31 +0000

Johanna, is BC any more ham-fisted than Doonesbury, Non-Sequitur or For Better or for Worst? My impression is that Hart gets more flak because his agenda was conservative and religious than those whose agenda is liberal and political. Honestly, I think the most ham-fist comic strip is Doonesbury and he doesn’t get half the grief.

Dave, you bring up an interesting point. Does anyone know what Hart’s views were regarding evolution after his conversion? Believe it or not I know a few conservative Christians who support evolution. I wonder if Hart was also in that camp.

By: Dave Lartigue

Dave Lartigue — Sun, 06 May 2007 23:09:09 +0000

How ironic that they chose a play on the classic illustration of evolution for the cover.