Who Let the Dogs On?
For today’s For Better or For Worse, I researched training dogs, specifically training them to get off couches. There was quite a bit of internet literature on this subject and oddly enough, a number of them said the use of reward systems or means of making the couch unattractive, but pointed out ideally the dog owner wants to be able to use a nonverbal system to communicate to the dogs that being on the couch is wrong. Ironically, a nonverbal method, unless you count exclamation points, is what John Patterson used. Why he felt the need to get up and down from the couch so often or why the sleeping dogs would immediately leap to the couch before he even left the room is a mystery, set in place for comic effect no doubt. It was also ironic that the person in the house, who has demonstrated the least competence with animals, is the one trying to give John instruction.
The other issue that came to mind was the use of the term “couch” instead of “chesterfield.” This was clearly done to assuage the United States / English audience. As near as I can tell from researching Canadian language use for chesterfield, the term is uniquely Canadian, and appears to be in wide use. Some internet web sites indicated that some Canadians do use the term sofa or couch, but point out that chesterfield is used more often. Given the statement being made by Elizabeth, “There are more effective ways to keep the dogs off the couch.” which is made after 7 panels of showing John shooing the dogs off the chesterfield, I think the average reader would have picked up that chesterfield meant couch. I am not sure why Lynn Johnston feels the need to use United States English so much. Andy Capp uses British terms instead of ones from the United States, and I don’t have any problem making the word use connection. I wish Lynn would take as much time to show pride in being Canadian as she did in researching last year’s pow-wow strips.
Lynn Johnston was apparently on CBC radio in Northern Ontario and she mentioned that she plans to have the characters stop aging in Sept. of 2007. The comic will keep running after that, but it will be a mix of old material and new, comparing the Patterson kids when they were young with Michael’s kids. This sounds like framing sequences, like Greg Evans does occasionally, when he draws new Luann talking about an old strip sequence, and then shows the sequence, whenever he wants to take a vacation. It makes sense in a certain way. The Making of a Comic Strip http://www.fbofw.com/features/makingof/ shows Lynn Johnston is the key plotter of the series and the no-headed woman on this page of the Making of the Comic Strip sequence http://www.fbofw.com/features/makingof/index.php?page=10 is probably the ghost penciller, since there were no pictures of Lynn Johnston actually drawing, and it is plain to anyone viewing older For Better or For Worse strips that the penciller is not the same as she used to be. No-head can continue by drawing in the framing sequence, but with no original plots being generated, Lynn can retire knowing her characters are not being tampered with. This also allows the For Better or For Worse to stay on the comics page which will make the syndicate happy and continue to generate the revenues which keep the rest of the staff employed. Everyone is happy, except for the cartoonists who have original material which could have taken the For Better or For Worse spot.
Tomorrow’s strip: We don’t get to see Anthony in the courtroom. Well, Lynn Johnston, @#$%^&*!!!! It looks like the Pattersons are going home. If we can’t see Anthony testify, there is no way Lynn Johnston is going to show anyone else testifying. Our only hope is that on the way home, John Patterson will spill the beans on the Anthony testimony, but I doubt that will happen. susannamoodie, I think you hit the nail on the head in your comment yesterday. We are going to find out the verdict for this trial in a monthly letter. Lynn has played up the “I can’t wait to get done with this” angle so strongly on the part of Liz, I can’t imagine her going back to see the judge give Howard his judgment or the sentencing. In the meantime, I could write up my version of the Anthony testimony from the Howard perspective in imitation of eeknight 's (April's Real Blog poster for Anthony) style, but I would much rather eeknight do it. So, I am going to wait a bit, in deference to the venerable eeknight.
In case, my well-informed anonymous Canadian legal expert is reading, was what John Patterson said about the witnesses not being allowed to discuss the case with each other after they testify, correct?
The other issue that came to mind was the use of the term “couch” instead of “chesterfield.” This was clearly done to assuage the United States / English audience. As near as I can tell from researching Canadian language use for chesterfield, the term is uniquely Canadian, and appears to be in wide use. Some internet web sites indicated that some Canadians do use the term sofa or couch, but point out that chesterfield is used more often. Given the statement being made by Elizabeth, “There are more effective ways to keep the dogs off the couch.” which is made after 7 panels of showing John shooing the dogs off the chesterfield, I think the average reader would have picked up that chesterfield meant couch. I am not sure why Lynn Johnston feels the need to use United States English so much. Andy Capp uses British terms instead of ones from the United States, and I don’t have any problem making the word use connection. I wish Lynn would take as much time to show pride in being Canadian as she did in researching last year’s pow-wow strips.
Lynn Johnston was apparently on CBC radio in Northern Ontario and she mentioned that she plans to have the characters stop aging in Sept. of 2007. The comic will keep running after that, but it will be a mix of old material and new, comparing the Patterson kids when they were young with Michael’s kids. This sounds like framing sequences, like Greg Evans does occasionally, when he draws new Luann talking about an old strip sequence, and then shows the sequence, whenever he wants to take a vacation. It makes sense in a certain way. The Making of a Comic Strip http://www.fbofw.com/features/makingof/ shows Lynn Johnston is the key plotter of the series and the no-headed woman on this page of the Making of the Comic Strip sequence http://www.fbofw.com/features/makingof/index.php?page=10 is probably the ghost penciller, since there were no pictures of Lynn Johnston actually drawing, and it is plain to anyone viewing older For Better or For Worse strips that the penciller is not the same as she used to be. No-head can continue by drawing in the framing sequence, but with no original plots being generated, Lynn can retire knowing her characters are not being tampered with. This also allows the For Better or For Worse to stay on the comics page which will make the syndicate happy and continue to generate the revenues which keep the rest of the staff employed. Everyone is happy, except for the cartoonists who have original material which could have taken the For Better or For Worse spot.
Tomorrow’s strip: We don’t get to see Anthony in the courtroom. Well, Lynn Johnston, @#$%^&*!!!! It looks like the Pattersons are going home. If we can’t see Anthony testify, there is no way Lynn Johnston is going to show anyone else testifying. Our only hope is that on the way home, John Patterson will spill the beans on the Anthony testimony, but I doubt that will happen. susannamoodie, I think you hit the nail on the head in your comment yesterday. We are going to find out the verdict for this trial in a monthly letter. Lynn has played up the “I can’t wait to get done with this” angle so strongly on the part of Liz, I can’t imagine her going back to see the judge give Howard his judgment or the sentencing. In the meantime, I could write up my version of the Anthony testimony from the Howard perspective in imitation of eeknight 's (April's Real Blog poster for Anthony) style, but I would much rather eeknight do it. So, I am going to wait a bit, in deference to the venerable eeknight.
In case, my well-informed anonymous Canadian legal expert is reading, was what John Patterson said about the witnesses not being allowed to discuss the case with each other after they testify, correct?
posted by howard at 9:28 PM
4 Comments:
While chesterfield may be a Canadianism for couch it is getting "out of date". You would not hear too many people of Elizabeth's generation (let along John and Elly's) who say it frequently.
Here is something written on this subject.
I'm not the same anonymous poster as above, but I use "chesterfield" and "couch" interchangeably. I'm somewhat more likely to say "chesterfield," and much more likely to write "couch".
I suppose the legalese part of the strip is correct today, although the gag reflex induced by the strip is interfering with my thought processes. If there's a chance that Liz and/or Anthony may be recalled as witnesses, they can't discuss their testimony. They may be recalled if there is defence evidence that wasn't addressed in their original testimony.
I'm obsessing over the exposed brick walls in the courthouse, and what would happen if security had to restrain people in the hallways -- a not infrequent occurrence.
Anonymous #1 - John is 57 and Elly is 55, Lynn Johnston is 59. The crossover point where the majority switches from using chesterfield and couch appears from your link to be about 48 or 49. They have a lovely graph which illustrates it nicely. I would put John and Elly in the chesterfield crowd. However, considering the United States phrasing that has infiltrated the strip lately (particularly in the trial material), my guess is that chesterfield was never considered. Do you agree with Anonymous #2 about the saying vs. writing aspect of chesterfield and couch?
Anonymous #2 - Thanks again for the legal advice. It's nice to know there is something Lynn didn't get wrong about the legalese. I am not familiar with Canadian architecture, but where I am, exposed brick walls, usually means an addition to the original structure. Is that the case in Canada also?
Howard that something was written in 1995. Somebody 48 or 49 then is 59 or 60 now.
Post a Comment
<< Home