Comments on: Okay, the way I see it…

By: KateinPA

KateinPA — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:57:41 +0000

At first glance, I thought Jeremy was just being a jerky teenage boy by shoving Sarah on her face. Then I read the caption and noticed that it must be a little digital camera in his hand. That made me think he, in a teenage prank-way, pushed her so he could get the shot to put on youtube. It also looks to me that he was taking a shot of her tush.

Am I the only one who thinks that most teenage boys would make a point of aiming to include the fanny in the picture?

I never much liked the “Love is…” figurines and I didn’t know there was a strip. I never thought the figurines were creepy just weird and a bit preachy. This comic on the other hand struck me as a bit creepy.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:00:56 +0000

In reflection, the reason I see the Zits one as creepy - or maybe just creepiER, not necessarily offense - is just that the characters in Love Is.. aren’t meant to be realistic in any way. They’re more like bobbleheads or Trollie dolls. Jeremy and Sarah, on the other hand, are supposed to be much more representative of actual human beings. So if anyone does find the Zits one sort of off-putting, that might be why.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:53:14 +0000

Mitch4: Well, ‘amused debate’ is in the eye of the beholder. My subjective impression was grossed-out debate, but I could be wrong (emotions are often hard to discern in posts, compared to face-to-face conversation). I take things very literally (always loved to read, hated it when teachers asked us, ‘What was the author trying to say in this story?’) So I take the little naked people in ‘Love Is . . .’ and the parodies in ‘Zits’ as cartoons, nothing more. No deep analysis or hidden meaning. That’s why my comment argued for keeping the focus on what the joke was meant to be and whether it was funny.

trlkly: The above is why I (one subjective person) enjoy the cartoons, and could never come to the conclusion that there is some ‘right context’ in which they would be deemed ‘creepy’.

By: trlkly

trlkly — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:27:08 +0000

I’m pretty sure the child porn thing is part of the point: it’s a Take That recognizing how creepy the “Love is” cartoons actually are, when understood in the right context.

By: Mitch4

Mitch4 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:39:15 +0000

Paul, why are you lumping the amused debate over what the camera might be seeing with an exaggerated concern about propriety in family newspapers? I’m noting mostly the former in this thread, very little of the latter.

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:37:14 +0000

Yes, I know — but let’s keep the analysis on track, please. Debating whether the gag is funny or whether it’s a good or bad parody is fine (even though the matter is so subjective, there’s really little to debate). Trying to make sense of cartoons where the gag doesn’t come across right away — if at all — I can also understand. But debating whether the CARTOON characters in question have real, anatomically correct body parts that are inappropriate for a family website takes it to an absurd level.

By: Elyrest

Elyrest — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:32:48 +0000

“Do we have to analyze everything to death?”

Paul - what would our purpose here be otherwise?

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:01:36 +0000

Haven’t seen ‘Love is . . . ‘ in several years, but they were always cute and innocent and not even slightly offensive or titillating. The parodies in Zits are also not even slightly offensive or titillating. Most important, they are funny.

So if you’re grossed out by these strips, that is your problem. But if you’re trying to read anything else into them, please stop! Do we have to analyze everything to death? Exception for David N, because his comment was funny. Me, I just assume that the cell phone is simply a cartoon prop, used as needed. Note that we don’t see Sarah’s wallet, which she would have needed to pay for her lunch. Why isn’t it there? Because it isn’t pertinent to the gag.

By: David N

David N — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:11:05 +0000

Me, I just wondered how he carried his cell phone. Holster clip, ouch.

By: Mitch4

Mitch4 — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:12:44 +0000

To clarify a little … I’m among those saying they are nude (albeit “symbolically” or “schematically” or “stylistically”), and the camera is aimed square-on to her raised presenting-posture posterior. … But that’s not a criticism or complaint!