Friday, February 15, 2008

Michael Defends Those He Abuses

There is a recurring joke among groups that the only people allowed to use insults to that group have to come from that group. For example, a man cannot call a woman the “B” word, but it’s perfectly fine for women to call each other that name. Jane Fonda dropped the “C” word recently on national TV, and I figure it’s only a matter of time before the ladies are bandying about the “C” word to each other, in jovial conversation.

In a similar fashion, there is the family tradition of protection practised by mobsters and also by Pattersons, as it turns out. The stereotype in the old mobster movies was that inside the family you can sanction violence, but outside the family such things led to bloody retribution. In today’s For Better or For Worse, we see the same practise with young Michael Patterson, who declares to Lawrence Poirier that hitting his baby sister is off-limits to everyone except him. The Theme to the Godfather started running through my head as I read it.

This is one of the few times where I can see that the younger Michael character did not transfer to the older Michael character. Later on, when Michael’s family is threatened by the Kelpfroths, he takes action by putting tape on the floor and writing a libelous article about them, while leaving the direct confrontation with the Kelpfroths to Lovey Salzman and Mira Sobinski. I attribute this passivity with years of dealing with a screaming mother. However, the other possibility is that Michael’s threats against Lawrence Poirier only occurred; because he knew that Lawrence was weaker than he was. In other words, he can be aggressive with a lesser opponent, but not so with a greater one.

I note that in the last panel, it looks like Michael’s face is a Laura Piché redraw. I am sure aprilp_katje can check her collections to confirm or deny my suspicion.

7 Comments:

Blogger DreadedCandiru2 said...

That same unwillingness to deal with stronger opponents is why he preferred it when Elly tried to discipline him. John made his punishments stick, you see. Elly always caved in so he knew he could get away with more.

3:17 AM  
Blogger howard said...

dreadedcandiru2,

In this respect I am very much like Michael, so I can symphathize. No one wants to get beaten up, if they can avoid it.

Standing up to Lawrence should have been no big deal to Michael, because he had an already-apologetic Lawrence, who was not very likely to hurt him in the first place. Now if Michael had stood up to an older, stronger kid who hurt his sister; then we would have gotten a good impression of his character. As it is, Lynn Johnston had to resort to Michael's thoughts that he wanted to be the only one to tease his sister, to pervert whatever good feelings we may have gotten about him for defending his sister.

I find it interesting that even when Michael is not torturing his parents or his sister, Lynn felt the need to portray him in a poor light.

6:02 AM  
Blogger April Patterson said...

howtheduck, as you can see from my post over at Foobiverse (and team_kelpfroth's as well) the eyes in that last panel were definitely redrawn, to ill effect.

I hope I'm not stepping on toes having done this, but I switched your "1979" and "age 5" to "1980" and "age 6" in today's Michael entry, as the location of this strip near the end of the first collection places the strip in 1980 and after Mike's last day of kindergarten (12 pages earlier).

7:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Without the previous "Him Hit Nizzie" strip for context, too, Michael seems more like a psychotic little twerp than a stalwart defender. Also, knowing what we know now about Lawrence, I can't help but want to smack Michael and tell him not to bash the gay kid.

7:45 AM  
Blogger DreadedCandiru2 said...

howtheduck:

I find it interesting that even when Michael is not torturing his parents or his sister, Lynn felt the need to portray him in a poor light.

Well, at least he isn't unique in that respect. All the Pattersons, Elly included, were portrayed in the harshest light possible back then. This is because Lynn thought at the time that for a strip to be true to life, warmth and sentimentality had to be downplayed. She'd rather have had the family look nasty than too perfect to be believable.

8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, at least he isn't unique in that respect. All the Pattersons, Elly included, were portrayed in the harshest light possible back then. This is because Lynn thought at the time that for a strip to be true to life, warmth and sentimentality had to be downplayed. She'd rather have had the family look nasty than too perfect to be believable.
Nowadays the Pattersons look perfectly nasty. Lynn's reached a great compromise, I see. *eyeroll*

11:13 AM  
Blogger DreadedCandiru2 said...

Anonymous:

Not only are they perfectly nasty, they're so god-awful as to defy belief, which makes Lynn's compromise even greater.

11:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home