Can Farley Talk?
Back in the days before grandchildren, my sisters referred to their pets as their kids and likewise, my parents were their pets’ grandparents. The word “grandpets” was used often. We see a similar sort of logic in today’s reprint of For Better or For Worse, when Elly Patterson refers to John Patterson not as John, but as Daddy, when talking to Farley the dog. John appears to be a little disturbed by this reference, I think. His sentence doesn’t make sense. In the final panel he says, “Wouldn’t it be just as reassuring if he called me by my first name?”
What does this mean? I think the possibilities are:
a. The dreadedcandiru2 often makes jokes about how the Pattersons expect their pets to act as if they were humans in animal suits; but this is one of the rare instances where a situation like that could make the dialogue make sense. Maybe John genuinely thinks Farley can call him by his first name.
b. John has mistaken Elly for a “he,” possibly because her shoulders are the same width as her head in this comic strip.
c. John walked in during the second panel, when Elly says, “He’s going to be daddy’s good puppy! He’s going to do everything daddy says!” and has mistakenly come to the conclusion that “daddy” is Elly’s father and he (John) is the “puppy.” John doesn’t want Elly’s father to call him “puppy”. He would prefer to be called by his first name.
d. John walked in during the second panel when Farley is giving Elly a raspberry, and has mistakenly come to the conclusion that this is Farley’s method of referring to him (John). John doesn’t want Farley to call him by giving him a raspberry. He would prefer to be called by his first name.
e. John sees Elly being kind and affectionate to Farley instead of screaming at or abusing him as is her custom. He is confused by this unusual and rare situation and gets his words mixed up.
f. John has heard what Elly is saying and does not consider it to be reassuring. He makes up an impossible situation to which to compare it, to show that he does not consider what Elly said to be reassuring. It is like saying, "Wouldn’t it be just as reassuring if the moon fell out of the sky and danced a jig on our front lawn?”
What does this mean? I think the possibilities are:
a. The dreadedcandiru2 often makes jokes about how the Pattersons expect their pets to act as if they were humans in animal suits; but this is one of the rare instances where a situation like that could make the dialogue make sense. Maybe John genuinely thinks Farley can call him by his first name.
b. John has mistaken Elly for a “he,” possibly because her shoulders are the same width as her head in this comic strip.
c. John walked in during the second panel, when Elly says, “He’s going to be daddy’s good puppy! He’s going to do everything daddy says!” and has mistakenly come to the conclusion that “daddy” is Elly’s father and he (John) is the “puppy.” John doesn’t want Elly’s father to call him “puppy”. He would prefer to be called by his first name.
d. John walked in during the second panel when Farley is giving Elly a raspberry, and has mistakenly come to the conclusion that this is Farley’s method of referring to him (John). John doesn’t want Farley to call him by giving him a raspberry. He would prefer to be called by his first name.
e. John sees Elly being kind and affectionate to Farley instead of screaming at or abusing him as is her custom. He is confused by this unusual and rare situation and gets his words mixed up.
f. John has heard what Elly is saying and does not consider it to be reassuring. He makes up an impossible situation to which to compare it, to show that he does not consider what Elly said to be reassuring. It is like saying, "Wouldn’t it be just as reassuring if the moon fell out of the sky and danced a jig on our front lawn?”
posted by howard at 9:30 PM
18 Comments:
I was hoping you'd be able to explain this one, Howard, since you're usually able to understand what's going on in these strips even when others can't, and I certainly didn't understand it. But now I want to see the strip where the moon dances a jig on the lawn.
howard,
He makes up an impossible situation to which to compare it, to show that he does not consider what Elly said to be reassuring. It is like saying, "Wouldn’t it be just as reassuring if the moon fell out of the sky and danced a jig on our front lawn?”
That does make more sense than the Pattersons thinking that he's a man in a suit; John knows that this will end up being a disaster because his stubborn goof of a wife will end up making a hash of things. She'll either forget the commands the instant the classes are over or ignore them because she hates being told what to do.
clio_1,
But now I want to see the strip where the moon dances a jig on the lawn.-
OK. I sketched one out, but I think my crescent moon looks a little too much like a banana.
DreadedCandiru2,
John knows that this will end up being a disaster because his stubborn goof of a wife will end up making a hash of things. -
When you get right down to it, John could make that statement about a number of things which happen in this strip.
I like your jig-dancing moon, Howard. He's got so much more personality than the Pattersons do. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
(missed something - reposting, sorry)
I think there's a reasonable interpretation for what John's doing. Although it may not be the only good interpretation, I see it as John not liking Elly referring to their dog as if Farley were a human child. This attitude is shown by the reverse - Elly talking to the dog and telling the dog that John is "daddy". He may find it cutesy, or just plain wrong.
He doesn't need to think that Farley can talk - just that Farley is being conditioned to label John with the name "daddy", which will be said by other humans and John will find embarrassing. John is really saying 'can't you call me John to the dog?' indirectly, in the terms of Elly's present "conversation" with Farley.
aprilp_katje,
I like your jig-dancing moon, Howard. He's got so much more personality than the Pattersons do. :)-
Thanks for the compliment, especially having seen Pattersons dance before.
InsertMonikerHere,
He doesn't need to think that Farley can talk - just that Farley is being conditioned to label John with the name "daddy", which will be said by other humans and John will find embarrassing.-
This was the essence of my opening explanation before I launched into my humourous alternatives. The humour in the strip (if there is any) is that John is squeamish about having himself referred to as daddy with reference to the commands to the dog. If Connie Poirier saw Elly tell Farley “Go to Daddy”, then John might be embarrassed. But if Michael or Lizzie said the same thing, I am not sure how John would be embarrassed by it. Plus, I certainly don’t expect the dog trainer at the obedience school to use that language. The problem, you see, is not so much reference to John with respect to the dog, but the reference to John from the person commanding the dog. This is what makes John’s statement about what Farley would call him even stranger.
InsertMonikerHere,
Although it may not be the only good interpretation, I see it as John not liking Elly referring to their dog as if Farley were a human child. This attitude is shown by the reverse - Elly talking to the dog and telling the dog that John is "daddy". He may find it cutesy, or just plain wrong.
That does make a lot of sense; it would make more sense if he'd used the right pronoun. If he'd said "Wouldn't it be just as reassuring if YOU'D called me by my first name?" we wouldn't be wondering if he had gone nuts.
Eeeek! Howard, please warn us before you link to a strip like that!
That was one of the most nauseating of a continuous line of nauseating strips during the last year of FBoFW.
DreadedCandiru2,
If he'd said "Wouldn't it be just as reassuring if YOU'D called me by my first name?" we wouldn't be wondering if he had gone nuts.-
There’s the pronoun Lynn needed. She has shown she has no problem altering prices to match or exceed the increases since 1980. Perhaps she also could be convinced to alter the dialogue to match the increase in English comprehension of her reading public since 1980.
debjyn,
Eeeek! Howard, please warn us before you link to a strip like that! -
What? “Pattersons dance” wasn’t enough warning?
Oh, boy, howtheduck, I am looking at the strip that is likely to run tomorrow and I can hardly wait to read your dissection of its bad art and other oddities. One thing you'll notice is that Lynn was apparently not in the mood to draw Farley, so she kept cropping him at the bottom of the panels, so you barely see his head in much of the strip, and just a sliver of his back in a couple of the panels. Also, Elly, Mike, and Liz are, bizarrely, spectators as John and Farley attend the class.
Oh, and also? Silhouettes. :)
...And I almost forgot. Eyelessness!
aprilp_katje,
One of things I find interesting about looking back at things is when Lynn's bad art habits started showing up. In Year One, she was busy imitating Charles Schulz's art style and stealing storylines from him, Hank Ketchum, and Cathy Guisewite. In Year Two we see less of that. She brought in Farley. She introduced the Connie / Phil love story. We have stories that are not in imitation of some other established artist, so there is less of a sense that she is struggling to figure out what her editors want.
I think she said she did 6 months advance work for approval to start the strip. Then while that material is being published she presumably worked on the material that followed, which was being checked out. By the time she is in Year Two, she seems to be past those worries. New and different stories appear and also. With the art, she starts to bring in the lazy. What you have described: Keeping characters off panel and not fully drawn, the use of silhouettes to eliminate details, and the elimination of eyes are characteristics of her lazy art for the next 30 years. We have already seen examples of her not erasing in reprint strips earlier this week. I used to think of Lynn Johnston as a fairly detailed artist; but now I am beginning to wonder if I have been fooled all these years by her use of a background artist.
OK. I sketched one out, but I think my crescent moon looks a little too much like a banana.
Totally. And it reminds me way too much of something out of Shel Silverstein's books for some reason. I was trying to figure out which poem had a dancing banana in it. :P
Post a Comment
<< Home