Lynn Explains Life Insurance
A number of odd things ran through my head as I read today’s For Better or For Worse. Mainly, those thoughts had to do with trying to understand what would be going on in Lynn Johnston’s life that would bring her to write a strip about life insurance. A quick check using the Universal Reprints search on For Better or For Worse and the word “insurance” found that since 1996, the Pattersons have only spoken about insurance with respect to home owners, car and fire insurance. I have this feeling that Lynn Johnston has been looking over her life insurance policies lately, particularly the ones that said things like “in the event you die, your husband, Rod Johnston, is the principal beneficiary.”
Part of a good life insurance policy is an estimation of how much the person is worth for the purpose of determining what would be required to replace that person financially, so I can see how the punch line “How much are you worth?” might come from someone reading a policy. Unfortunately for Lynn Johnston, she has young Michael making this joke without any reference of any kind to a life insurance policy being a measure of how much a man is worth. John describes it as if it was disability insurance, and then describes it covering funeral costs or as emergency money. Based on what is there, there is no reason for Michael to jump to this conclusion.
The only way you can interpret this is if young Michael has heard about life insurance policies from other associations, and is now testing the waters to see what it would be worth to off his dad. This would explain the odd expression on John’s face in the final panel. And it sends my brain on a tizzy of thoughts like:
a. Is Lynn Johnston thinking about offing Rod Johnston, in the hope that he hasn’t updated his insurance policy?
b. Does Michael’s progressive thinking about insurance mimic Lynn Johnston’s own thoughts about how much Rod Johnston said he was worth for the purpose of their division of property?
c. Maybe there was something to that story Lynn Johnston gave to the Peterborough Examiner about how he cleaned out her bank accounts, because the strip describes life insurance in ways someone might, if they were thinking about paying day-to-day living expenses (like buying those groceries), and the money was gone.
Of course after the final modern strip's references to the Calgary Stampede and the Just for Laughs Festival in Québec; my other thought is that Lynn Johnston might be trying to get that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company money for For Better or For Worse, just like her idol Charles Schulz did for Peanuts.
Part of a good life insurance policy is an estimation of how much the person is worth for the purpose of determining what would be required to replace that person financially, so I can see how the punch line “How much are you worth?” might come from someone reading a policy. Unfortunately for Lynn Johnston, she has young Michael making this joke without any reference of any kind to a life insurance policy being a measure of how much a man is worth. John describes it as if it was disability insurance, and then describes it covering funeral costs or as emergency money. Based on what is there, there is no reason for Michael to jump to this conclusion.
The only way you can interpret this is if young Michael has heard about life insurance policies from other associations, and is now testing the waters to see what it would be worth to off his dad. This would explain the odd expression on John’s face in the final panel. And it sends my brain on a tizzy of thoughts like:
a. Is Lynn Johnston thinking about offing Rod Johnston, in the hope that he hasn’t updated his insurance policy?
b. Does Michael’s progressive thinking about insurance mimic Lynn Johnston’s own thoughts about how much Rod Johnston said he was worth for the purpose of their division of property?
c. Maybe there was something to that story Lynn Johnston gave to the Peterborough Examiner about how he cleaned out her bank accounts, because the strip describes life insurance in ways someone might, if they were thinking about paying day-to-day living expenses (like buying those groceries), and the money was gone.
Of course after the final modern strip's references to the Calgary Stampede and the Just for Laughs Festival in Québec; my other thought is that Lynn Johnston might be trying to get that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company money for For Better or For Worse, just like her idol Charles Schulz did for Peanuts.
posted by howard at 10:13 PM
16 Comments:
She certainly does seem obsessed with the question of money with regards to how much of hers is wasted on her ex. I don't know if he actually did clean her out either but it seems a fair question to ask, all things considered. As for Met Life, I doubt they'll switch to using the Pattersons as mascots any time soon.When Schulz allowed them to use Snoopy, he got them to quietly bankroll some pet projects. There's nothing that Lynn does that they'd feel comfortable being Secret Santa to.
I think I know which rerun strips Lynn is setting up for. Immediately after the old strip where Elly and John are lying in bed and Elly reports that Connie told her she doesn't appreciate John enough, there are three strips where John discusses insurance with Elly. In the first of these, John and Elly sit at a table and John (wearing a button-down shirt with vertical stripes, Lynn!), John tells her he needs to decide how much insurance to get on his dental equipment and wonders how much to get for death or dismemberment. Elly cries, "BAWWN." Next, they're lying in bed and worries about going blind or having an accident that leaves him unable to work. When elly wants to change the subject, he says, "Let's discuss wills." Third strip, they're still in bed and John tells Elly that if he dies, he wants her to remarry. He wants to know what kind of man she'd look for, and she replies, "..Someone who doesn't start conversations like this at 2:00 AM."
april_patterson,
Thanks for the heads up. Now that I know what we're in for, I can streamline my posts for the coming week. It seems to me that Lynn was going out of her way to show us the different prioirties the two had; Elly is more worried that she doesn't appreciate John enough while John is worried that the family will be looked after should he, the sole person capable of working, be injured or die. She should be more worried whether he's properly appreciative of her.
DreadedCandiru2,
As for Met Life, I doubt they'll switch to using the Pattersons as mascots any time soon.
I doubt it too; but I could see Lynn’s obsession with imitating Charles Schulz as a strong motivation to have an association with a life insurance company. If it was good enough for Sparky…
aprilp_katje,
I think I know which rerun strips Lynn is setting up for.
Immediately after the old strip where Elly and John are lying in bed and Elly reports that Connie told her she doesn't appreciate John enough, there are three strips where John discusses insurance with Elly.
3 strips with the current 50% ratio of the new-runs to old-runs, means 2 more new-runs with those 3 strips, possibly interspersed between them. This interspersion is pretty clever on the part of Lynn Johnston because:
a. It really confuses the issue of whether or not the material is old or new to those who don’t know what to look for
b. There are no large blocks of reprints for the newspaper editors to complain about
c. It has the effect that Lynn Johnston is forced to write about things other than what would come naturally, i.e. Rod / John is evil.
I am curious about the placement of the raking reprint relative to these strips. And now that we have seen one week of new-runs and old-runs mixed together, I wonder why in the world did Lynn Johnston do what she did with Richard Nichols? It makes even less sense than before.
And now that we have seen one week of new-runs and old-runs mixed together, I wonder why in the world did Lynn Johnston do what she did with Richard Nichols? It makes even less sense than before.
I know! It's like she's painted herself into a corner. Does she plan to avoid arcs that feature the Nichols children, or will she intersperse some strips from collection four, careful to select ones that do not include the Patterson kids, whose age difference would be off?
Interesting. But I'm wondering, if she's going to use the strips mentioned, why she would lead in with little Mike. If Elly goes to pieces at the thought of John's maiming or demise, what does it make the readers think that this doesn't faze Mike one bit?
To me, this one isn't even "child acting way older/ younger", it's a case of not having a normal human response at all.
aprilp_katje,
Does she plan to avoid arcs that feature the Nichols children, or will she intersperse some strips from collection four, careful to select ones that do not include the Patterson kids, whose age difference would be off?
I can definitely see that super-mom Anne Nichols will not be featured, and her husband’s attentiveness during the birth of Richard will be ignored, so Lynn can concentrate on his cheating, a subject near and dear to her heart. As for the kids, either she would have to be careful not to include the Patterson kids or she would have to redraw the Patterson kids if they appeared or (and I think the likely choice) she could just reprint them anyway without worrying at all that they don’t match in age. After all, she had Françoise towering over Robin, and almost the same height as Meredith in the wedding strips, when Françoise is 4 months younger than Robin. What does she care about consistency with children’s ages and height?
CanuckDownSouth,
But I'm wondering, if she's going to use the strips mentioned, why she would lead in with little Mike.
The simple answer is that in the new-runs (or the last year of the modern characters) Elly barely talks to John. Who does that leave? Mike.
If Elly goes to pieces at the thought of John's maiming or demise, what does it make the readers think that this doesn't faze Mike one bit? To me, this one isn't even "child acting way older/ younger", it's a case of not having a normal human response at all.
Aside from the last panel joke, Mike’s reaction seems fairly normal to me.
Whatcha reading, Daddy? - good question.
What’s that? – doesn’t know what a life insurance policy is, and asks for a definition.
John does not actually give Mike a definition. He says, “If something happened to me and I couldn’t work. If I died. If there’s an emergency.” That’s generic without being shocking, but Mike has probably already stopped listening. I know I would if I were 6 and listened to that answer.
Not to mention, kids may often seem unfazed outwardly by things that truly do disturb or shock them. They haven't yet learned to make the socially appropriate expressions/noises and focus instead on their own shock/horror/fear. This may look callous to adults but you can't judge kids by adult standards.
What does she care about consistency with children’s ages and height?
Good point. I guess her attitude is, "Who cares? They're just children!" 0_o
qnjones,
This may look callous to adults but you can't judge kids by adult standards.
Lynn seems to have based her career on not grasping that. Never has it seemed to occur to her that children are not little adults. Always and ever do you see strips based on the premise that children understand adult rules they would not be aware of in real life and refuse to obey them because they're being jerks who want to thwart Mother.
qnjones,
Not to mention, kids may often seem unfazed outwardly by things that truly do disturb or shock them. They haven't yet learned to make the socially appropriate expressions/noises and focus instead on their own shock/horror/fear.
Especially when it comes to concepts like death, or permanent injury, which are out of their range of experience.
aprilp_katje,
Good point. I guess her attitude is, "Who cares? They're just children!" 0_o
Lynn’s point-of-view with respect to kids has often seemed like she wants to tell a particular story with that child, and she doesn’t want to go through the process of figuring out how old the child is and how a child that age would talk. She writes the dialogue to put the story across, and she might make some concession like the use of the word “an’”.
DreadedCandiru2,
Lynn seems to have based her career on not grasping that. Never has it seemed to occur to her that children are not little adults.
I fear you are correct about that. The slice-of-life stories with kids seem to work, but that is mainly because Lynn is taking the story from someone else or herself for which it was a true occurrence and a real kid.
I agree, Lynn seems to be able to render realistic human behavior when she goes off of a real-life occurrence. When she makes stuff up off the top of her head, she is not good at approximating either adult or child behavior. She does a little better with adults because she deals with them daily. Faking it with kids is a total failure.
Post a Comment
<< Home