Art Development
Looking at these old For Better or For Worse strips, I can see the art style of Lynn Johnston in its development stage. She has little Michael in two panels with no eyes. She has used silhouettes, however infrequently, and usually only in the background. She does have the tendency to change perspective from panel to panel, but it does not happen every time. The difference from the old strips to the more recent ones, is a subtle thing. In the old strips, Michael’s lack of eyes can be explained by a lack of resolution in drawing a character way in the background. The silhouettes make more sense to black them in so you make a point with the foreground characters. The change in perspective can liven up an otherwise dull subject. In the new strips, the sense behind the art seems to be lost. Eyes disappear on characters’ clearly visible faces. Silhouettes are on foreground characters, sometimes filling the ½ the panel with black. The change in perspective occurs between each and every panel. It is almost as if modern Lynn has forgotten the reason why she did those things as a part of a storytelling technique, and now just does them out of habit.
One thing which has changed for certain, is Lynn Johnston’s tendency to imitate the drawing style of Charles Schulz. The facial expression on Elly’s face in the last panel of today's strip is a Peanuts expression, complete with the curly smile line. Change the hair, and it could just as easily be Sally Brown cuddling up to her Sweet Baboo, Linus van Pelt.
One thing which has changed for certain, is Lynn Johnston’s tendency to imitate the drawing style of Charles Schulz. The facial expression on Elly’s face in the last panel of today's strip is a Peanuts expression, complete with the curly smile line. Change the hair, and it could just as easily be Sally Brown cuddling up to her Sweet Baboo, Linus van Pelt.
posted by howard at 10:50 PM
6 Comments:
I wish I knew why she did that sort of thing. I don't really think he condition is much of an excuse because Schulz had the same thing but he never forgot how to draw or write a story. My guess is that she's burning herself into the ground in a ludicrous attempt to prove herself.
dreadedcandiru2,
A lot of times artists start off drawing things the way another artist drew them, because they liked the way they looked. In some respects it's good that Lynn Johnston did finally get away from art style in obvious imitation of Schulz, but it's odd that after almost 30 years in the industry, she doesn't seem to understand the story-telling aspects of what Schulz did with his art that made him so good.
She doesn't really have the same drive to perfection he had, the same need not to rest on his laurels and turn out nonsense. He was turning out first-rate material right up to the end because he couldn't do otherwise. She, on the other hand,is content to turn out piece-work for her worshipers.
I will give Charles Schulz credit for sticking to it, doing his own art and stories to the very end, despite physical difficulties. However, I would not rate the material of his latter years with the material he produced during his prime. The endless menagerie of Snoopy’s brothers and the interminable Saguaro cactus arm jokes which populated many of those strips were not as enjoyable to me. I remember an older Schulz responding to critics’ complaints that he was no longer funny. Like Lynn Johnston, he was aware of how people felt about his work. However, he did Peanuts for almost 50 years with characters who didn’t age, and stayed in the same basic neighbourhood setting. Given those circumstances, he was arguably turning out first-rate material right up to the end. No one could have done any better.
As for Lynn Johnston, her most recent material is definitely a mixed bag. On the one hand, she tackles issues dealing with Special Needs kids, and issues with someone having aphasia due to a stroke, and showed First Nations culture. I can applaud her efforts to research those things and include them in her comic strip. On the other hand, the storylines involving those same things were maddening, because the way they showed those problems oftentimes appeared to insult the very persons or issues she was seeking to illuminate. I have similar issues with the current hybrid. Early For Better or For Worse strips do not age nearly as well as early Peanuts strips, so including them as a part of a look back with modern strips can help to maintain people’s interest in them. On the other hand, there are few worse characters that could be used as narrators than Michael and Merrie for the material being presented. It is the mixture of genius and idiocy which makes the current For Better or For Worse so interesting.
Very well put, Howard. The lack of resolution or commitment in Lynn's stories is ridiculous. Interesting storylines and possibilities are touched on, then dropped or ignored.
It's equivalent to all the Mike and Liz running back home, as though scared of anything that isn't familiar.
DJ
DJ,
It's equivalent to all the Mike and Liz running back home, as though scared of anything that isn't familiar.
The funny thing about it is that back a long time ago, I used to think things like, “After Anthony Caine and his wife are divorced, how can he find a job up in Mtigwaki so he can be with Liz? Maybe the reason they keep talking about this bigger nearby town of Spruce Narrows is so that Anthony can work there and Liz can still teach First Nations kids and still be close to her old Mtigwaki friends.” or “Once Mike sells his novel he has been talking about forever, then with that income in supplement to his salary at Portrait Magazine, he and Deanna can afford to buy a house in Toronto.”
How naïve I was.
Post a Comment
<< Home