$135
In today’s reprint in For Better or For Worse, Lynn Johnston has changed the price for jogging suits from its $35 price back in 1980 to $135. Considering this is in the same time period where Elly begs John for a dishwasher, this expense seems a little out-of-character. Even with 1980 prices, it would have been out-of-character for Elly. However, the discussion about justifying the expense by jogging for a couple of weeks is very reminiscent of a Cathy comic strip style joke. “Guilt from buying” is a recurring theme of Cathy’s.
As a family, you oftentimes have to undergo these sorts of money trials. For example, my son and I went skiing last weekend with his Boy Scout troop. The leaders who planned the trip made a big list of things you needed to go skiing, like thermal underwear, ski goggles, waterproof jacket, waterproof pants, waterproof gloves. And when I say “need” I mean they actually checked to make sure each scout had them, or they didn’t get to go on the trip.
Back in my youth in the mountains of western North Carolina, when I would go outside sledding in my backyard, I think the only part of that which was required was the thermal underwear. We would just come inside from sledding soaked from the snow, change clothes and go back out again. With kids in particular, if you spend money on skiing, you really hope that the stuff will fit their younger sibling, when they get bigger and can no longer fit into it. It’s very expensive. For stuff for me, we have to think about it as a long term investment. That ski jacket is going to be my only ski jacket until I die. With your kids, it’s a lot harder to fork over the money knowing that they may only be able to wear those ski pants a few times. On the other hand, I attempted to learn to ski for the first time at age 47. I can tell you first hand, after flunking ski school and having a number of hard, knock-the-breath-out-of-you wipeouts, that I am very happy that my son has learned this skill when he was young. There is the real investment for me.
When it comes to Elly and Anne’s jogging suits, there is nothing really required there for jogging. When summer time comes, they will switch to shorts and a t-shirt for comfort. It’s not like they were buying special shoes to help with traction or the impact on their feet, where a $135 investment might make a lot more sense. However, Anne’s comment implies that if they don’t jog for at least 2 weeks, then it will be a wasted investment, when it is really only a fashion statement.
On the other hand, what we have with Elly is a lifelong commitment to occasional jogging. We know Annie doesn’t stick with it. Perhaps her upcoming pregnancy, where she gives birth to her son Richard recently placed back in her womb, throws her off. I know it would do that to me. I can’t imagine going through the birth process twice for the same child. Elly continues to jog, and just maybe in those 30 years of jogging, she might have justified in her mind, spending an outrageous sum of $135 for the suit.
As a family, you oftentimes have to undergo these sorts of money trials. For example, my son and I went skiing last weekend with his Boy Scout troop. The leaders who planned the trip made a big list of things you needed to go skiing, like thermal underwear, ski goggles, waterproof jacket, waterproof pants, waterproof gloves. And when I say “need” I mean they actually checked to make sure each scout had them, or they didn’t get to go on the trip.
Back in my youth in the mountains of western North Carolina, when I would go outside sledding in my backyard, I think the only part of that which was required was the thermal underwear. We would just come inside from sledding soaked from the snow, change clothes and go back out again. With kids in particular, if you spend money on skiing, you really hope that the stuff will fit their younger sibling, when they get bigger and can no longer fit into it. It’s very expensive. For stuff for me, we have to think about it as a long term investment. That ski jacket is going to be my only ski jacket until I die. With your kids, it’s a lot harder to fork over the money knowing that they may only be able to wear those ski pants a few times. On the other hand, I attempted to learn to ski for the first time at age 47. I can tell you first hand, after flunking ski school and having a number of hard, knock-the-breath-out-of-you wipeouts, that I am very happy that my son has learned this skill when he was young. There is the real investment for me.
When it comes to Elly and Anne’s jogging suits, there is nothing really required there for jogging. When summer time comes, they will switch to shorts and a t-shirt for comfort. It’s not like they were buying special shoes to help with traction or the impact on their feet, where a $135 investment might make a lot more sense. However, Anne’s comment implies that if they don’t jog for at least 2 weeks, then it will be a wasted investment, when it is really only a fashion statement.
On the other hand, what we have with Elly is a lifelong commitment to occasional jogging. We know Annie doesn’t stick with it. Perhaps her upcoming pregnancy, where she gives birth to her son Richard recently placed back in her womb, throws her off. I know it would do that to me. I can’t imagine going through the birth process twice for the same child. Elly continues to jog, and just maybe in those 30 years of jogging, she might have justified in her mind, spending an outrageous sum of $135 for the suit.
posted by howard at 10:31 AM
6 Comments:
I hate beating a dead horse but it's clear that Lynn took the easiest way out possible here. She could have let the original thirty-five dollar price stand and hope that people would accept that that was a lot of money to spend on clothes back in the early eighties or she could have changed a three into a six, thereby making the price of the ugly track suits more consistent with real-world pointless excess. Instead, she got silly and scribbled in a one before the three and made Annie and Elly look stupid. I'll bet they didn't spend anything like that on the shoes.
... or she could have re-done the text in the bubble to say the "money we both spent on these track suits", thereby *making* it timeless.
(It's about the same length, and the reader can infer a sum of money you'd regret not making good use of.)
That she changed this one shows just how out-of-touch Lynn is. I work with several married women with kids. Went clothes shopping with some of them a few weeks ago. Believe me, even in 2009 dollars, they feel guilty spending $35 on clothing for themselves. Of course, Lynn who thinks it's easy for anyone to be a millionaire does not have any kind of perspective on that.
DreadedCandiru2,
I hate beating a dead horse but it's clear that Lynn took the easiest way out possible here.
The easiest way out possible would have been to have made no change at all. Lynn has gotten it into her head that her strip needs to be timeless. We cannot know for sure why she thinks this way. It could be that she considers her mentor, Charles Schulz’s strip Peanuts to be timeless and wants to do one more thing just as well as her old friend. We have been told by Lynn and through the press that the syndicate wanted her to do straight reprints, but Lynn wanted to do the hybrid and the new-runs instead. There is a piece of this information which is suspect though --- Lynn.
With the new-runs and the hybrid, Lynn seems to have the following concerns:
a. She wants to get paid the rate for doing new material.
b. She likes taking 1-2 week vacations every month.
c. She wants to bash Rod Johnston via his character of John Patterson.
d. She wants to push the Farley children’s book and plush toy.
If the syndicates wanted straight reprints, why would Lynn insist on updating any of the reprints to make them timeless? It seems like an awful lot of trouble to redraw a strip to eliminate a typewriter. Some of the changes, like the $135 today and Shania Twain show a lackadaisical attitude towards the timeless aspect, as if these are changes which Lynn does not really want to make and were being forced on her. It makes me think that maybe Lynn is not the one pushing the timeless material. It makes me think that someone in syndicate said, “We wish your material was timeless, like Classic Peanuts.”
qnjones,
That she changed this one shows just how out-of-touch Lynn is. I work with several married women with kids. Went clothes shopping with some of them a few weeks ago. Believe me, even in 2009 dollars, they feel guilty spending $35 on clothing for themselves.
That's a good point. Elly and Annie would have done better to do their shopping at a consignment store and thus save a lot of money and guilt. Too bad that Lynn doesn't seem to know that that's what they'd have done in real life.
howard,
If the syndicates wanted straight reprints, why would Lynn insist on updating any of the reprints to make them timeless? It seems like an awful lot of trouble to redraw a strip to eliminate a typewriter. Some of the changes, like the $135 today and Shania Twain show a lackadaisical attitude towards the timeless aspect, as if these are changes which Lynn does not really want to make and were being forced on her. It makes me think that maybe Lynn is not the one pushing the timeless material. It makes me think that someone in syndicate said, “We wish your material was timeless, like Classic Peanuts.”
That does seem to make the most sense. Lynn might actually not be the one most to blame for the worst excesses of the new-run era. This might also explain her attempts to foul up the continuity; she might just be trying to fail her way out her contract.
It makes me think that someone in syndicate said, “We wish your material was timeless, like Classic Peanuts.”
It's all Lynn. Believe me.
Post a Comment
<< Home