Shopping with and without Daughters
There was a time when my wife would go to the clothing store and buy clothes for my daughter without asking her opinion on the matter. And then one magical day, my daughter informed my wife that she hated a particular outfit she had bought and she would not wear it. I would like to say this was the point at which my wife learned that she needed to take my daughter along on her clothes-shopping trips, so that she would not waste money on clothes my daughter would refuse to wear. However, this was a lesson hard-learned by my wife. After some travail, now they shop together, and my wife only buys clothes that my daughter will wear. This is not to say my daughter has expensive tastes in clothes. She does not. She prefers clothes with darker colours than my wife does. That's really all there is to it. A 10-year-old girl has different tastes than a woman in her 40s. My wife respects my daughter's opinions on clothes apparently more than Elly Patterson respects April's at 17 years old.
If I am interpreting today's For Better or For Worse correctly, April is not allowed the use of her mother's credit card. This essentially means that anything that costs more than what April has in cash requires mom and her credit card. And we know from seeing prior shopping trips with Elly and April, this means Elly must approve of the clothing being purchased. I really don't have a problem with this idea. I certainly would not let either of my children carry around one of my credit cards, and I would not want my daughter to start dressing to show a lot of skin, even if it is fashionable.
The real problem I have with the strip is the idea that there has to be a difference between "like" and "need". This is the crux of the complaint. Eva is buying a shirt she likes but says she does not need. In the case of my daughter, the two are essentially the same. She needs a shirt to wear. She will only wear the ones she likes. The solution is to buy her a shirt she likes, assuming it does not pass some boundary of taste or cost. In the case of Eva, we are talking a situation like, "She was supposed to only buy a belt, but came back with a shirt and a belt." The implication is that Eva's mom has done her some wrong by allowing her this freedom. Now Eva has wasted money on something she likes, but does not need. Is that really true? If she likes it, she will wear it and the clothing has a practical value. It's really only wasted if Eva buys it and never or rarely wears it.
What we don't know is whether or not Eva's mom is giving her free reign to spend all she wants, or if Eva's mom has said, "Stay within this limit, or I take the card away, and take back the clothes." It is implied that there something like this in the arrangement, because Eva uses the word "trust". Eva's mom trusts that Eva will not spend to excess. If Eva were an overspender, she would have bought more than just one belt yesterday, and the line today would be something along the lines of , "Bummer. I just get what I want and mom pays the bill."
The situation last year with April and Elly shopping for April is mostly still the same as this year. April is not trusted. Her decisions are not respected. The difference this year is that instead of complaining about it, April now believes her mom is right not to trust her. Otherwise she would end up like Eva, buying shirts she did not need but liked. With her credit card control, Elly Patterson would be with April, and she would say, "You already have 7 shirts, April, you don't need another one." And April says, "Thanks, mom for giving me these limits, because without you there is no telling how much I would spend." April was more of a normal teenager last year.
If I am interpreting today's For Better or For Worse correctly, April is not allowed the use of her mother's credit card. This essentially means that anything that costs more than what April has in cash requires mom and her credit card. And we know from seeing prior shopping trips with Elly and April, this means Elly must approve of the clothing being purchased. I really don't have a problem with this idea. I certainly would not let either of my children carry around one of my credit cards, and I would not want my daughter to start dressing to show a lot of skin, even if it is fashionable.
The real problem I have with the strip is the idea that there has to be a difference between "like" and "need". This is the crux of the complaint. Eva is buying a shirt she likes but says she does not need. In the case of my daughter, the two are essentially the same. She needs a shirt to wear. She will only wear the ones she likes. The solution is to buy her a shirt she likes, assuming it does not pass some boundary of taste or cost. In the case of Eva, we are talking a situation like, "She was supposed to only buy a belt, but came back with a shirt and a belt." The implication is that Eva's mom has done her some wrong by allowing her this freedom. Now Eva has wasted money on something she likes, but does not need. Is that really true? If she likes it, she will wear it and the clothing has a practical value. It's really only wasted if Eva buys it and never or rarely wears it.
What we don't know is whether or not Eva's mom is giving her free reign to spend all she wants, or if Eva's mom has said, "Stay within this limit, or I take the card away, and take back the clothes." It is implied that there something like this in the arrangement, because Eva uses the word "trust". Eva's mom trusts that Eva will not spend to excess. If Eva were an overspender, she would have bought more than just one belt yesterday, and the line today would be something along the lines of , "Bummer. I just get what I want and mom pays the bill."
The situation last year with April and Elly shopping for April is mostly still the same as this year. April is not trusted. Her decisions are not respected. The difference this year is that instead of complaining about it, April now believes her mom is right not to trust her. Otherwise she would end up like Eva, buying shirts she did not need but liked. With her credit card control, Elly Patterson would be with April, and she would say, "You already have 7 shirts, April, you don't need another one." And April says, "Thanks, mom for giving me these limits, because without you there is no telling how much I would spend." April was more of a normal teenager last year.
posted by howard at 10:57 PM
23 Comments:
This strip could have been an interesting observation on teenagers...if the punchline had not taken an abrupt, screeching U-turn to give nonsensical praise to Elly.
As a teenager, I was frequently given my parents' credit cards and sent out to buy things, including my own clothing. While I wouldn't recommend this to the parents of most teens, I was very responsible and never conflated "want" and "need" as Eva does. I only bought within agreed parameters. If I'd deliberately abused the privilege, my parents would have taken it away. I guess Eva's parents let her get away with it.
So, we have two teens here. One is given a privilege she abuses and does not deserve. Does April deserve Elly's trust in this matter? A couple of years ago, April was so square that I would have said yes. But since then, we have seen her make many stupid choices, often based on peer pressure. I suspect that "April at 16" (well, 17) would be portrayed as being pressured into making questionable charges by her nutso friend Eva.
Does Elly deserve credit for not trusting April? I don't think so, because I don't think Elly would trust April even if she were deserving of that trust. Also, I think it is Elly's bad parenting that is to blame for April not being trustworthy. I think if Elly had offered trust to April back when she was square and always toed the line, then April would not have turned into the deceitful brat she's become in the last couple of years, surrounding herself with sycophants and impulsive morons who have helped to turn her into a teen who truly is untrustworthy.
howard:
The situation last year with April and Elly shopping for April is mostly still the same as this year. April is not trusted. Her decisions are not respected. The difference this year is that instead of complaining about it, April now believes her mom is right not to trust her. Otherwise she would end up like Eva, buying shirts she did not need but liked. With her credit card control, Elly Patterson would be with April, and she would say, "You already have 7 shirts, April, you don't need another one." And April says, "Thanks, mom for giving me these limits, because without you there is no telling how much I would spend." April was more of a normal teenager last year.
Now, she has, as richardonley said, become the Good Girl in one of those annoyingly sappy films from the sixties predicated on the assumption that if Johnny Teenager didn't stop listening to That Music, hanging out with Those People or generally doing anything that his parents might disapprove of, the Russians would be driving tanks down Main Street, U.S.A. that afternoon. It was a screwy power fantasy cooked up by anal-retentive wackmobiles back when Jack Webb was doing it and it's just as unrealistic now. Only someone totally defeated and broken would be grateful that she's being treated like an infant by a self-destructive ignoramus.
The gratuitous Elly-praise at the end of today's strip makes me want to retch.
Picking up on yesterday's conversation--as you note, Lynn makes a big deal of such things as Duncan being from Barbados, the Enjos being Japanese, and Lawrence being gay. If Eva were really from a war zone and Luis were really a refugee, I suspect these things would have been spelled out plainly. "April, you could live in a war zone, like I did...." "I'm like a refugee." "No you're not--I was so I know the difference."
What we had, instead, were vague smackdown statements. Imagine if Mike had been complaining and Lawrence said, "It could be worse, man, you could be gay." And other than that, there was never any mention of Lawrence's sexual orientation. Would we conclude without doubt that Lawrence is gay?
april_patterson:
If Eva were really from a war zone and Luis were really a refugee, I suspect these things would have been spelled out plainly.
True enough. The two of them are therefore Lynn's take on Bernice from the comic strip Luann: annoying nuisances who bedger a hapless sitting duck with accusations that she's a worthless slacker based on horrors they read about some place.
Do you think Lynn does all her own back-patting, or that her assistants take shifts? The self-congratulatory (or self-justifying, or whatever) tone of this strip is just horrid.
qnjones
This strip could have been an interesting observation on teenagers...if the punchline had not taken an abrupt, screeching U-turn to give nonsensical praise to Elly.
Or that U-turn could be taken an interesting character study for April’s self-realization.
I was very responsible and never conflated "want" and "need" as Eva does. I only bought within agreed parameters. If I'd deliberately abused the privilege, my parents would have taken it away. I guess Eva's parents let her get away with it.
We don’t know for sure what Eva’s relationship is with her parents with respect to the use of their credit card. Clearly Eva has defied their “need” expectation by going to a “want” purchase. How Eva’s parents would register that, or react to that, we don’t know. Maybe Eva just lost her credit card privileges with that shirt purchase and Eva doesn’t care because she is overwhelmed by the desire for the shirt. On the other hand, Eva mentions a trust between her and her mother, so maybe she is allowed a certain number of “want” purchases. April is so busy complimenting her mother in her mind, she doesn’t ask that question. All that is important to April is the idea that Eva is breaking the rules for credit card use.
A couple of years ago, April was so square that I would have said yes. But since then, we have seen her make many stupid choices, often based on peer pressure. I suspect that "April at 16" (well, 17) would be portrayed as being pressured into making questionable charges by her nutso friend Eva.
I see April going through a few phases. First phase was where she was corruptible by Becky McGuire, using language of which Elly did not approve and wanting to wear pole-dancer clothing. This phase would have continued on if it weren’t for Elly forcing April to wear tights to cover her body and the timely arrival of Shannon Lake (special needs = pure as the driven snow), who allowed April to see Becky’s true colours. Then April went through a square period, where she judged Becky with her every thought, for doing things which they used to enjoy doing together.
However, I will agree that "April at 16" has been portrayed as being pressured into making questionable decisions. There was her baby-sitting night with Gerald and the alcohol, which was stopped only by an early-arriving Elly, and confessed to Elizabeth. It has not escaped my notice, that April has not been seen baby-sitting Mike and Deanna’s kids since then.
Does Elly deserve credit for not trusting April? I don't think so, because I don't think Elly would trust April even if she were deserving of that trust.
As this strip is portrayed, April is self-aware enough to know that she is, in fact, untrustworthy and Elly is right not to trust her. April looks at her best friend Eva and realizes that she has surrounded herself with an impulsive moron, who has also helped her to realize that she is a teen who truly is untrustworthy. If anything, credit should be given to Eva and not Elly.
dreadedcandiru2
Only someone totally defeated and broken would be grateful that she's being treated like an infant by a self-destructive ignoramus.
When I compare this years’ April to last year’s more defiant April, you can actually see that Elly has finally broken her spirit. It’s kind of a nice way to end the strip. Lynn’s perspective may have been “April is wild and must be broken. The readers want to know if Elly will finally break her before I end the strip.”
aprilp_katje,
What we had, instead, were vague smackdown statements. Imagine if Mike had been complaining and Lawrence said, "It could be worse, man, you could be gay." And other than that, there was never any mention of Lawrence's sexual orientation. Would we conclude without doubt that Lawrence is gay?
You are comparing Lynn writing when she was at the top of her game to Lynn writing now. That’s like comparing apples and oranges as far as I am concerned. The “Lawrence is gay” strips are among the best she ever did, and it was back during a time when Lynn cared enough about the strip to truly develop the side characters. Mike’s friends got royal treatment and that is why they are still around today.
If Lawrence was April’s friend and he said, "It could be worse, man, you could be gay." And Lynn drew him looking down with a depressed look on his face, I would say, “Yes. The man is gay.” I had to figure out Luis Guzmán was from Mexico and not Puerto Rico by the slogan on his shirt. I had to figure out why Paul Wright was “Suds” and Susan Dokis was “Chipper” by an off-hand remark in one of the Elizabeth monthly letters about Paul being a clean freak. I had to internet search to discover that “Dokis” was the name of a First Nation tribe in Ontario to guess at her background.
If Eva Abuya was Mike’s friend, we would know all about her now and there would be no question. However, the writer that put together the “Lawrence is gay” strips doesn’t exist anymore. These days, the readers just get little hints and clues and the main stories are all stuck in Lynn Johnston’s head.
dlauthor
Do you think Lynn does all her own back-patting, or that her assistants take shifts? The self-congratulatory (or self-justifying, or whatever) tone of this strip is just horrid.
I agree. However, one of the nice things about the reprints is that we can see that at one point, Elly Patterson was not thought of as the best parent who ever lived by her friends and family.
And Lynn drew him looking down with a depressed look on his face
Where you see a depressed look on Eva's face, I see a poorly drawn profile. The Lynn who writes carelessly also draws carelessly, and I'm afraid Eva's face in that panel is quite Rorschachesque.
Yes, April has been broken. Just like Liz has been. How horribly sad that Lynn (and her admirers) see this as a wonderful conclusion to a strip of formerly spirited, independent young girls. They are now properly taking their place, becoming obedient children and dutiful wives while inwardly railing against others and wanting to do more with their lives. Just like Elly has done.
And like you, I'm having a problem with "need" and "want". Unless the entire idea is that you wear one outfit (with one extra when that one is in the wash) until it falls apart at the seams, I don't get it. When girls "like" something, it can become something they need. If they have so many shirts they can't get them worn (or won't wear them, as you said) then they become a need in their heads. "I just HAVE to have that!" was pretty much a catchword when my girls were teens. I probably don't "need" more than one pair of black shoes; however, I plead guilty to a variety in different in heels and styles.
Maybe John should point out when he gets the credit card bill, that Elly doesn't REALLY need a cup of coffee when she goes out; water would do fine. I mean, that takes care of a "need"; coffee is a want.
April:
Rorschachesque? I love that!
aprilp_katje,
Where you see a depressed look on Eva's face, I see a poorly drawn profile. The Lynn who writes carelessly also draws carelessly, and I'm afraid Eva's face in that panel is quite Rorschachesque.
My interpretations of Lynn's drawing:
Happy = triangle mouth, wide open circle eyes, maybe even a sticky-out tongue
Sad = tears spewing in geysers
Angry = head completely back, nostrils make guest appearance, mouth gaping maw, usually shrieking
Inspired = Head up, looking to the sky, slight breeze blowing hair
Surprised = Head straight, eyes wide open with pupils directly in the center, lips slightly apart
Reading = Head down, eyes closed
Depressed = Head down, eyes open.
debjyn,
They are now properly taking their place, becoming obedient children and dutiful wives while inwardly railing against others and wanting to do more with their lives.
Yes. Welcome to the 1950s, where the women went after getting a taste for a different life during WWII.
If they have so many shirts they can't get them worn (or won't wear them, as you said) then they become a need in their heads.
This is probably where Lynn was headed, but she sabotaged herself with “only buy the belt” Eva. If Eva had bought all those clothes she tried on, then the condemnation for buying yet, another shirt, would have worked.
Maybe John should point out when he gets the credit card bill, that Elly doesn't REALLY need a cup of coffee when she goes out; water would do fine.
I am now trying to think of a strip where a Patterson drank plain water. None are coming to mind, unless you count the dogs.
Rorschachesque? I love that!
Thanks. :)
Hey, it's kind of like when a dog tilts its head and one person says, "Oh, look, that dog is so inquisitive!" And another says, "He's so intelligent!" And another says, "God, he's stupid!" Then someone else says, "It's a dog tilting its head."
Oh, look, Eva has her head down, but her eyes are open. ;)
aprilp_katje,
It is the nature of Lynn’s art, that it requires interpretation. Without that interpretation, you would have to assume that most of her characters are changelings or have been severely maimed. One of these days, I am going to figure out what those little dots that look like the character has fleas mean in Lynn cartoon-speak. You and I have both struggled with this interpretation and it is not like Lynn makes it easy on us, since she seems to have forgotten what erasers are.
If 2008 Lynn drew Lawrence looking down with a completely ambivalent look on his face, and he said, "It could be worse, man, you could be gay." I would still say, “Lawrence just said he was gay.” 15 years ago with 1993 Lynn, I might wonder; but with 2008’s Lynn Johnston, that is probably all I will get.
Lynn Johnston’s art barely communicates these days. Just showing Paul Wright and Susan Dokis together in an apartment means they have been sleeping with each other for months. Having Liz Patterson stay in the car and tell Anthony to take her home (to his house) means they are going to sleep together. Lynn Johnston is not taking the time to spell everything out in definite terms. We get one confusing, ambiguous moment after another, and we don’t have monthly letters anymore to explain all those missing details.
Take this week for example. On Monday, April is all smiles when Eva is trying on clothes, but when Eva only buys the belt; she has a different look on her face. Based on that one expression in that one panel, I jumped to what should be considered a rash conclusion, i.e. we are headed toward a “Becky / April” type smackdown with Eva. Then we have today’s strip and there you have it, credit card use smackdown, courtesy of an April Patterson thought balloon. Interpretation is key to understanding this strip, in its current state.
howard:
Lynn Johnston’s art barely communicates these days. Just showing Paul Wright and Susan Dokis together in an apartment means they have been sleeping with each other for months. Having Liz Patterson stay in the car and tell Anthony to take her home (to his house) means they are going to sleep together. Lynn Johnston is not taking the time to spell everything out in definite terms. We get one confusing, ambiguous moment after another, and we don’t have monthly letters anymore to explain all those missing details.
Which makes her spending at least half the remaining time on incoherent reminiscences whose only purpose is to confirm that Elly was the Greatest Mother Ever even more annoying. We're left to interpret snippets of what used to be a coherent narrative and end up beng baffled. It's as if she's sacrificed meaning for the sake of cheap praise.
When I compare this years’ April to last year’s more defiant April, you can actually see that Elly has finally broken her spirit.
This is really depressing. On the other hand, it does suggest that April's finally become trustworthy. Elly can freely let April out of the cage in the basement, because she can be trusted to carry the cage with her.
Really, it's all Elly asks of her children.
debjyn:
Yes, April has been broken. Just like Liz has been. How horribly sad that Lynn (and her admirers) see this as a wonderful conclusion to a strip of formerly spirited, independent young girls.
What's even more disgusting is that they don't even see that they don't need to nail themselves to their crosses. Thwy've traded their dignity for cheap, phony sympathy.
dreadedcandiru2,
We're left to interpret snippets of what used to be a coherent narrative and end up beng baffled. It's as if she's sacrificed meaning for the sake of cheap praise.
Yes. You need at least one strip where April is shown to be an irresponsible spender for the praise to work. Otherwise April is a pompous ass condemning Eva’s mom for not being as good as Elly, based on Eva’s single shirt purchase. We have to interpret that somewhere in there, April spent too much money and needs Elly’s help to keep it under control, and Eva’s purchase is simply reminding her of that.
paladin,
Elly can freely let April out of the cage in the basement, because she can be trusted to carry the cage with her.
Just as long as she pays for that cage with her own cash.
I think you are doing yeoman's duty with your interpretation of facial expressions, howtheduck, and yes, you did correctly predict a smackdown. However, I suspect interpreting Lynn-produced facial expressions is hit or miss these days. Heck, do we even know who's drawing the facial expressions on any given day? If the Archie Joke Generator has its turn, who's to say it won't accidentally produce a face that could be interpreted as sad/depressed/giddy/guilty/criminal/whatever. Lynn c.2008 is unworthy of your interpretive chops, howtheduck.
aprilp_katje,
However, I suspect interpreting Lynn-produced facial expressions is hit or miss these days.
True. My plan is to take every clue as to what’s going on as if it is going to be the only clue. I believe that is Lynn’s style these days.
Heck, do we even know who's drawing the facial expressions on any given day?
Well, Laura Piché has only admitted to drawing the backgrounds. Even if it is Lynn Johnston doing the art, sometimes it is difficult to interpret a face, when the eyes are missing or are crawling off the character’s head.
I'm in my 40's, and my mom STILL "misses" every time she tries to buy me clothes. :p Her tastes are simply not like mine, yet she has never figured this out. Drives me nuts.
OTOH, I do trust my own 17-year-old daughter to make good choices when she buys clothes with her own money, and when I am shopping for her (always WITH her), I buy what SHE wants to wear, clothes that that suit HER taste.
(She, inclined to both saving money and an awareness of the benefits of a reasonable level of modesty, hasn't ever picked out anything I find "inappropriate" or that I'm not willing to pay for. But I'm not going to give myself "credit" for her behavior. :p At her age, a lot of who she is now is no longer based on my parental influence in her early childhood.. :) )
Post a Comment
<< Home