Brooke McEldowney and the Imbecile Factor
Cidu Bill on Oct 22nd 2009
Okay, so in yesterday’s 9 Chickweed Lane, McEldowney appeared to call readers who criticized him imbeciles. Today in his blog, he says he wasn’t really calling anybody an imbecile, that was only a joke. And we should have known this, rather than taking the joke at face value (there was a joke there?), because we should have known he wouldn’t indulge in gratuitous name-calling and anybody who didn’t realize this is an idiot.
Well, he’s right about one thing: I’m not smart enough to follow his reasoning without getting a headache.
Filed in 9 Chickweed Lane, Bill Bickel, Brooke McEldowney, comic strips, comics, humor | 30 responses so far
Blinky The Wonder Wombat Oct 22nd 2009 at 02:01 pm 1
As much as I appreciate McEldowney’s talent, and often appreciate his work, he is coming off more and more as an affected, er, imbecile. It’s as if he thinks he has to live up to his image of a true artist who must suffer the ignorance of the unwashed masses unable to appreciate his vision.
Elyrest Oct 22nd 2009 at 03:01 pm 2
Blinky - are you calling me unwashed? Or is this whole mass thing a comment on my weight? I shall commence commence considering whether I shall be offended.
jglor Oct 22nd 2009 at 03:04 pm 3
Wow. So he wasn’t really calling anyone an idiot, and if you are too stupid to realize that, you are an idiot?
That’s the kind of logic that Kirk used to destroy Nomad.
paperboy Oct 22nd 2009 at 03:57 pm 4
Okay; this could be stretching it, and it all hinges on the authors’ intent, which readers can only guess at, but McEldowney didn’t call critics imbeciles: Thorax did. It IS possible for writers to put attitudes into their characters that don’t mirror their own. And there ARE jokes out there that require for the humor the shock that someone would ACTUALLY SAY THAT.
Kate C Oct 22nd 2009 at 04:49 pm 5
This isn’t a Brooke/PCWL-specific thing, nor am I being rhetorical; this is something I’ve often wondered. Why is saying “It’s just a joke,” or “I’m only joking” or the like considered to be a 100% reasonable excuse for saying something rude, offensive, etc? Why is humor (or even unfunny attempts at humor) considered this sacred cow, and anything is okay in its name?
Cidu Bill Oct 22nd 2009 at 05:18 pm 6
Paperboy, even if that were the case, Brooke went on to tell us that if we didn’t get his original joke, we were idiots — so I guess he did say that. Unless THAT was the joke, in which case this is either the most infinitely complex multi-level metajoke in the history of comics, or he’s just syaing we’re stupid.
And likewise KateC (although I know you said you were referring to larger issue here than Brooke’s rant), “I’m only joking” doesn’t even apply here when it’s followed up by “and if you didn’t realize that you’re an idiot.”
paperboy Oct 22nd 2009 at 05:22 pm 7
Kate C ; #1- The rude, offensive statement was done in the persona of someone to be laughed AT, not with. #2. It wasn’t, and saying “I’m only joking” is a weasly, but usually accepted, way to back out of a direct apology. #3. There is no right not to be offended.
Normmron Oct 22nd 2009 at 06:25 pm 8
Given the low level of commentary on the web (this site excepted of course), I don’t really blame Brooke for letting off a flame. People get to chew on his ass anytime they want. Eh, if you don’t like the comic, don’t read it. I like Pib and 9CL. Not every day, but I like them. Don’t feel like he was calling me an idiot. Don’t feel sorry for the people who took it personally.
Cidu Bill Oct 22nd 2009 at 06:33 pm 9
You know what, when you do any sort of creative work, people are going to criticize you. Man up and deal with it, it’s part of the job description. If he wants to vent on his blog, it’s not the classiest move ever, but I can understand it. Doing it in his strip is just embarrassing himself.
Hey, sometimes you screw up: When Scott Hilburn realized he was out of bounds with the Karen Carpenter gag, he used his blog to apologize. Brooke used his blog the following day to insult readers who “didn’t get” his “joke.”
AMC Oct 22nd 2009 at 08:41 pm 10
Did Hilburn really apologize, or just give his readers the skinny?
Mitch4 Oct 23rd 2009 at 02:24 am 11
Thanks for the link to the McEldowney blog — I don’t regularly read it.
I thought his blog posting, while not an apology and not exactly a retraction of the name-calling, still was a gesture at reconciling with [most] readers.
mkilby Oct 23rd 2009 at 03:04 am 12
I still think the “imbecile” strip has a wider context that makes it legitimate satire. Every time a newspaper downsizes its comics section, flame wars erupt between comics fans and the editors when discussing which comics should be dropped. Every strip seems to have its own personal supply of ardent supporters and rabid hatemongers, not just 9CL. It’s not surprising that the editors just go ahead and cut whatever they want - they are sure to offend some people either way.
Winter Wallaby Oct 23rd 2009 at 03:50 am 13
Well, I can’t say I’m surprised. I hate 9 Chickweed Lane. It’s a terrible comic and McEldowney should never be allowed to work in this business again.
Winter Wallaby Oct 23rd 2009 at 03:51 am 14
Wait, Bill! Before you delete my previous comment, keep in mind that only an idiot would think that I hate 9 Chickweed Lane. Clearly my previous comment is a joke. Or maybe this is my weird passive-aggressive way of criticizing McEldowney while pretending I’m not. I can’t tell! I’m so confused.
Bearman Oct 23rd 2009 at 06:09 am 15
Why are people who will criticize others suddenly sensitive to jokes about it?
S.P. Charles Oct 23rd 2009 at 07:16 am 16
At least on this blog, Bearman, we might criticize McEldowney’s work, but Bill won’t let us just call him an imbecile.
Carl Oct 23rd 2009 at 08:45 am 17
@mkilby, if McEldowney was trying to talk about inter-comic flamewars in newspaper editorial suggestions, then that non-humorous strip in which Thorax hand-writes in two different fonts just didn’t make his point–and I’m sure he thinks I’m an imbecile for thinking so.
John Duncan Yoyo Oct 24th 2009 at 12:09 am 18
I thought it was character based humor. Thorax may say something like that and be in character while not being the belief of the writer.
S.P. Charles Oct 24th 2009 at 12:12 am 19
But then what’s the context of the panel, John? Why would Thorax be making this sort of comment other than as Brooke’s mouthpiece?
Keera Oct 24th 2009 at 09:31 am 20
I’m still not offended. To me, Brooke was just pointing out a fact of life: Some people will waste a lot of time nitpicking the (lack of) physics in cartoons and for what? To quote Mrs. Gump (though she wasn’t the first to say this): Stupid is as stupid does.
CTew Oct 24th 2009 at 04:45 pm 21
I never thought of either of Brooke’s cartoon series as intended for children, and I can’t imagine why anyone would want to entangle him in with Sendak’s personal battles. The subjects Brooke’s tackled this past year certainly are not stories for children. I still think the original Chickweed cartoon was funny, and I did and do think that Brooke was targeting some of the goblins who try to post on his site. If anything he has posted sounds like an apology, he has displayed less fortitude than I would expect from a violist.
CTew Oct 24th 2009 at 04:54 pm 22
BTW, “an” is singular. One imbecile per cartoon created. That’s hardly denigrating one’s entire readership. In fact, that hardly reflects what I see every time I visit the local grocery store and note how many less than astute people can’t comprehend the arrows that show in which direction traffic is supposed to flow through the parking lot.
CTew Oct 24th 2009 at 05:02 pm 23
BTW2, if one reads Brooke’s post with a common, everyday understanding of the English language, the person who thinks of Brooke’s readers as “dolts and idiots” is not Brooke himself but the “winner” who first commented on the cartoon. How low can the standards of Idiot America (read the book) be that we engage in this kind of nonsense without bothering to understand the language most of us speak and read as our native tongue?
Cidu Bill Oct 24th 2009 at 05:10 pm 24
Possibly true, CTew — assuming Brooke is as precise in his use of language as you are; but to use your own example, how long do you think the grocery store manager would last if he put up a sign saying that anybody who can’t figure out the parking lot signs is an imbecile?
Even if a lot of the customer would agree with him.
Actually, though, I was in a movie theatre parking lot the other night where cars were routinely driving through the “no exit” lane because if you’d never been there before, and didn’t know the Egress Secret, you could find yourself in an infinite loop and be stuck there for life. It was like a Roach Motel for moviegoers.
Cidu Bill Oct 24th 2009 at 05:11 pm 25
No, CTew, Brooke doesn’t get to create a causality loop and then blame it on somebody else.
John Small Berries Oct 26th 2009 at 10:05 am 26
Having read McEldowney’s blog post in question, I find it quite telling that (a) he doesn’t permit comments on his blog, and (b) he comes right out and states that he never reads responses from his readers (not even the objection to the ‘imbecile’ strip, which his wife characterized as a ‘winner’, and which had her laughing).
This is a man who, it seems, not only cannot bear criticism of his work, but who holds his audience in utter contempt; while he provides an email address both on his blog and under every strip on comics.com, he will not read anything sent to it (”I never do”); his readership’s opinions are apparently wholly worthless to him.
p Oct 26th 2009 at 03:55 pm 27
wait, wait, wait… Brooke McEldowney is a MAN?!
Keera Oct 27th 2009 at 02:53 am 28
Small Berries, I interpret Brooke as being sane: Any artist who wants to go on enjoying making his art may find it necessary to shut out the critics. (At least he lets his wife keep track.) If we don’t like what he makes, we can stop reading his strip. Comments are allowed for Pibgorn, BTW.
Cidu Bill Oct 27th 2009 at 04:31 pm 29
Keera, there’s a difference between shutting out critics and going into attack mode.
Keera Oct 27th 2009 at 04:41 pm 30
Bill, you and I won’t agree on Brooke’s intention. I see neither harm nor insult, whereas you do.