10 Responses to Jim Davis and His Fat Feline Celebrate an Anniversary

1. vollsticks says:

   Jun 28, 2011 at 6:18 PM

   I wonder if there’ll ever be a critical re-appraisal of Garfield in the next decade or two and Fanta’ll give him the “Peanuts” treatment; maybe get a cartoonist who’s in the early stages of their career now to do the design work; someone like Michael Deforge….that’d be excellent.

   And I like how Garfield was drawn in those early strips, too. He has a real mass, almost like a fuckin’ Kirby drawing, or something. Hahah. I just wrote that.

   Reply
2. Kim Thompson says:

   Jun 28, 2011 at 7:23 PM

   No.

   Reply
3. Chris Stangl says:

   Jun 29, 2011 at 2:03 AM

   Since the entire run of Garfield is in print and readily available in numbered volumes — in color and black and white, in single volume and omnibus editions— there would be little reason to mount another reprint series, unless one is desperate for Garfield hardcovers.

   Reply
4. michael L says:

   Jun 29, 2011 at 5:39 AM

   lol @ kim’s reply

   but there’s something to be said for that buoyant, rubber-stamp art style that davis perfected. dumb as it is, garfield has a certain “scanability” that Davis (like bushmiller before him) utilizes to draw the eye and deliver the gag as expeditiously as possible, with an aggressive simplicity of text, layout, and image. though i admit theres an awkward ugliness that kind of grates the eye

   i remember in grade school it seemed like garfield (and maybe tintin) was the only comic that /everyone/ read, and i think that was due to the immediacy of its aesthetic rewards (bright colors, expressive characters, and clear contours) — so much so that it didn’t seem to matter that most of the gags were pretty “whatever.”

   Reply
5. Gar Molloy says:

   Jun 29, 2011 at 9:19 AM

   The first comic I ever read was a collection of Garfield strips my brother had brought home from the U.S. (to Ireland) in 1984. They made such an impression on the family that when we adopted a kitten later that same year, we named her Garfield (gender-appropriateness be damned!)

   Reply
6. Dominick Grace says:

   Jun 29, 2011 at 11:08 AM

   I remember Garfield as being extremely funny in its early days and even had several of the early collections. I should go back and reread those early strips now, I guess, to see if I still respond that way, because today, nine times out of ten, I scratch my head in bafflement as to what’s even supposed to be funny about the strip.

   On a totally unrelated topic, what in God’s name has happened to the Adam comic strip? It used to be at least mildly amusing consistently when Bassett did it, and I thought his art was very good. Then, some time back, the art style shifted when someone else took over (and the humour quotient dropped signififantly, along with the quality of the art). . . and for the last few weeks . . . . yikes!

   Reply
7. Randy @ WCG Comics says:

   Jun 29, 2011 at 2:14 PM

   Bob, another great profile!

   Reply
8. Sluggodie says:

   Jun 29, 2011 at 8:21 PM

   The Davis/Bushmiller comparison is so apt that a hundred alt-comics cartoonists just simultaneously shot themselves.

   Reply
9. DanielJMata says:

   Jun 29, 2011 at 10:40 PM

   The timeline is all over the place. How long did it take to write this piece?

   I never did care for Garfield, but I am impressed at how big PAWS is. Kudos to Mr. Davis. He really does know how to write everyday humor. That craft bit was my favorite part.

   Reply
10. James says:

    Jul 9, 2011 at 10:52 PM

    If Mark Newgarten wrote an analysis of Garfield it would be about three sentence long.

    The most enlightening thing about Garfield is GarfieldMinusGarfield.

    Reply