Because it’s a monster truck??

Cidu Bill on Apr 20th 2017

strange-monster.PNG

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, John Deering, Strange Brew, comic strips, comics, humor | 38 responses so far

38 Responses to “Because it’s a monster truck??”

  1. Andréa Apr 20th 2017 at 07:59 am 1

    Yes. At first look, I thought the funny part was . . . how’s he gonna get UP and IN that thing? Then I realized . . . monster and his monster truck.

  2. Bob in Nashville Apr 20th 2017 at 08:08 am 2

    Yup.

  3. billytheskink Apr 20th 2017 at 09:04 am 3

    Needs more KC lights to be a monster truck…

  4. larK Apr 20th 2017 at 12:17 pm 4

    Where’s the squirrel when you need him?

    “Because it’s a monster truck!”

  5. Dan Sachs Apr 20th 2017 at 01:59 pm 5

    Another example of Bill’s Corollary to Betteridge’s Law of Headlines: If the title ends in one or more question marks the answer is “Yes”.

  6. Ron Apr 20th 2017 at 02:41 pm 6

    Note that the green guy isn’t “Frankenstein”; he’s “Frankenstein’s monster”
    Thus, the vehicle is “Frankenstein’s monster truck”.

  7. James Pollock Apr 20th 2017 at 02:47 pm 7

    “Note that the green guy isn’t ‘Frankenstein’; he’s ‘Frankenstein’s monster’”

    When Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, the Modern Prometheus, it was still legal for one person to own another person. Surely, we can accept that the monster is his own monster by now? And he’s known to respond to the name “Herman Munster”…

  8. larK Apr 20th 2017 at 03:32 pm 8

    Wouldn’t it be “Frankenstein’s monster’s truck”?

  9. James Pollock Apr 20th 2017 at 03:58 pm 9

    “Wouldn’t it be “Frankenstein’s monster’s truck”?”

    You’d have to check the registration to find out.

  10. Andréa Apr 20th 2017 at 07:22 pm 10

    It’d be Frankenstein’s monster’s monster truck.

  11. Mark in Boston Apr 20th 2017 at 11:21 pm 11

    His piano is a Frankensteinway.

  12. Terrence Feenstra Apr 21st 2017 at 07:56 am 12

    larK gets first prize, with JP a close second. But Andrea is precise.

  13. Andréa Apr 21st 2017 at 10:20 am 13

    I forgot that he’s DR. Frankenstein’s monster’s monster truck . . . to be even more pedantic than I usually am.

  14. Brian in STL Apr 21st 2017 at 12:17 pm 14

    That’s Frahnk-un-steen.

  15. James Pollock Apr 21st 2017 at 12:44 pm 15

    “It’d be Frankenstein’s monster’s monster truck.”

    Unless it’s Frankenstein’s monster truck, and the monster is only borrowing it. In fact, looking at it, I’d guess it might even be Wolfman’s monster truck.

    I think you have to go with
    “The monster truck driven by Frankenstein’s monster”

  16. Stan Apr 21st 2017 at 09:04 pm 16

    “The monster truck driven by Frankenstein’s monster”

    Well, since pedantry seems to be the order of the day, here’s my two cents…”The monster truck seemingly about to be driven by Dr. Frankenstein’s monster.”

    Do I win?

  17. Andréa Apr 21st 2017 at 09:15 pm 17

    . . . only if he actually can get into it and drive . . .

  18. Stan Apr 21st 2017 at 09:24 pm 18

    Wait, wait, wait! I want to change my answer!

    ”The monster truck seemingly about to be driven by what seems to be Dr. Frankenstein’s monster.”

    Ok, how about now? Do I win now? C’mon!

  19. Cidu Bill Apr 22nd 2017 at 12:50 am 19

    Dan (5), specifically if there are two question marks, the question is asking “Is that all there is?”

  20. Proginoskes Apr 22nd 2017 at 03:20 am 20

    @ James Pollock [7]:

    > When Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein, the Modern Prometheus, it was still legal for one person to own another person. Surely, we can accept that the monster is his own monster by now?

    Well, in the phrase “Jeff’s uncle”, Jeff doesn’t own his uncle, does he?

    BTW, the monster’s name is Adam in the book.

  21. Dan Sachs Apr 22nd 2017 at 10:56 am 21

    If that’s all there is, then let’s keep dancing.

  22. jajizi Apr 22nd 2017 at 12:42 pm 22

    ”The monster truck seemingly about to be driven by what seems to be Dr. Frankenstein’s monster.”

    In the book, Frankenstein is not a doctor. He is a medical school dropout.

  23. Arthur Apr 22nd 2017 at 01:33 pm 23

    BTW, the monster’s name is Adam in the book.

    That turns out not to be the case. It’s true that the monster
    says to Dr. Frankenstein, “I am your Adam.” But that’s obviously
    just a metaphor for the doctor’s giving him life. He never says,
    “I am Adam.” (Get a machine-readable version and you can easily
    verify this by searching for “Adam”.)

  24. Treesong Apr 22nd 2017 at 01:50 pm 24

    CB19: Isn’t that enough?

  25. James Pollock Apr 22nd 2017 at 03:26 pm 25

    “In the book, Frankenstein is not a doctor. He is a medical school dropout.”

    Doctor Doom was expelled from the university before completing his doctorate (he blames Reed Richards for this, though it is his own fault). Presumably, some Latverian university has conferred an honorary degree on him.

  26. Mark in Boston Apr 22nd 2017 at 09:30 pm 26

    Technically is Frankenstein’s monster a monster?

    A monster is a freak of nature, such as a calf with two heads or a man with six toes on each foot. A “teratoma” is literally a “monster body” such as a tooth growing out of your toe: something growing that should grow somewhere else.

    Frankie is an artifact; a being created by man.

  27. Arthur Apr 22nd 2017 at 11:14 pm 27

    Technically is Frankenstein’s monster a monster?

    My handiest dictionary suggests, yes:

    1. An imaginary creature usually having various human and animal parts
    2. Someone or something that is abnormally large and powerful
    3. A person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed
    4. A cruel wicked and inhuman person

    My second handiest also suggests, yes:

    1. Something of unnatural size, shape, or quality; a prodigy; an enormity; a marvel.
    2. Specifically, an animal or plant departing greatly from the usual type, as by having too many limbs.
    3. Any thing or person of unnatural or excessive ugliness, deformity, wickedness, or cruelty.

  28. James Pollock Apr 23rd 2017 at 12:15 am 28

    “Frankie is an artifact; a being created by man.”
    No, he was created by all his parts’ various parents in the ordinary way of doing so.

    Frankenstein is merely the editor, not the author.

  29. Arthur Apr 23rd 2017 at 12:35 am 29

    No, he was created by all his parts’ various parents in the ordinary way of doing so.

    Only in the same sense as Sagan’s, “If you wish to make apple
    pie from scratch, you must first create the universe”.

  30. James Pollock Apr 23rd 2017 at 03:05 am 30

    Huh?
    The monster is made from dug-up dead body parts. Parts of human bodies.

    Ingen from Jurassic Park is WAY more impressive… they started with just partial strings of DNA and made living animals.
    Or the replicants from Blade Runner… those are made things (which happen to be alive. ALIVE! Mwha-ha-ha!)

    Frankenstein was just a recycler. Oh, sure, he’s made great advances in transplant and resuscitation, but still… the subtitle of the book says it all. He’s Prometheus, stealing fire from the gods… he isn’t one of them.

  31. Mark in Boston Apr 23rd 2017 at 09:40 pm 31

    By the same token, an amethyst necklace is made of dug-up parts. A fine piece of pottery is just dug-up mud, edited on a wheel.

  32. James Pollock Apr 23rd 2017 at 10:02 pm 32

    These would be fine analogies, if the amethyst had been part of a necklace when buried, and the fine pottery had been fine pottery when buried.

    Frankenstein took parts of human bodies and used them… as part of a human body. Transformative, in 1818, but today, we take cadaver tissues and use them in living individuals rather regularly. Sometimes, we don’t even use human tissues, but other animals. (Cue Dr. Moreau.)

  33. larK Apr 23rd 2017 at 10:25 pm 33

    Prometheus is in fact a Titan, so no, he is not an olympian god, he is of their parents’ generation. He is not so much stealing fire from the gods as he is giving humanity unauthorized access to it — Grampa sneaking you a beer that your parents don’t think you can handle. In any event, Prometheus is credited with creating humanity, so that is more likely what the subtitle in Frankenstein is referring to — either that, or Mary Shelly didn’t really understand the Prometheus myth, Frankenstein being a human being creating another human being, not an older generation god granting access to his creation of a useful thing the younger gods have co-opted.

  34. Arthur Apr 23rd 2017 at 11:46 pm 34

    Re 28-32:

    A person uses words, which have been created and defined by
    other people’s usages. He takes them from other people’s
    sentences and rearranges them into his own sentences. We credit
    such a person as being an author, not an editor. We often call
    such a person creative.

    I believe some people take broken-up mosaics and use the pieces
    in new arrangements. I call such a person an artist.

    Frankenstein made a living, breathing, thinking being from dead
    parts. I believe that’s enough to call him the monster’s
    creator.

  35. James Pollock Apr 24th 2017 at 12:18 am 35

    “He takes them from other people’s sentences and rearranges them into his own sentences.”

    This would be an apt analogy if Frankenstein took a body, disassembled them to the cellular level, and then reassembled them to form a new body.
    That’s not what he did.
    If I take a chapter each from 50 different novels, and put them in the same book, am I a novelist?

    “I believe some people take broken-up mosaics and use the pieces in new arrangements. I call such a person an artist.”
    Let me highlight three words for you… IN NEW ARRANGEMENTS.

    What makes a creator is that they create… make something new.
    Mary Shelley’s vision was the radical (for the time) notion that the miracle of life is no miracle… that is, it is not inherently divine. The “spark of life” is literally a spark, of the relatively poorly-understood electricity, which had recently been discovered in animate tissue (the Galvanic response).

    I, personally, have been cardioverted… an electric shock is used to stop and restart the heart, hopefully to take it out of an irregular rhythm (in my case, AFib with tachycardia). Would you say that the doctor who performed the procedure is my creator? After all, he took materials that had been human tissue before, applied an electric shock to dead tissue, and voila! A living creature emerges! (I’ll concede that I appear monstrous to some, but I contend that I’m just tragically misunderstood. Also, I am not afraid of fire.)

  36. Arthur Apr 24th 2017 at 12:53 am 36

    I’m glad we’re well down into the comments so the rest of you
    can tune out.

    “He takes them from other people’s sentences and rearranges them into his own sentences.”

    This would be an apt analogy if Frankenstein took a body, disassembled them to the cellular level, and then reassembled them to form a new body.

    That might be an apt description if I said that an author takes
    other people’s letters and rearranges them. Words are complex,
    tricky units. Look at how much trouble we have agreeing on what
    the word “create” means.

    What makes a creator is that they create… make something new.

    You seem to be suggesting that the second person to paint a
    seascape was not a creator, nor was the second person to sculpt
    a torso.

    The monster was as different from his progenitor parts as a
    statue of Zeus is from a statue of David.

  37. James Pollock Apr 24th 2017 at 02:29 am 37

    “You seem to be suggesting that the second person to paint a
    seascape was not a creator, nor was the second person to sculpt
    a torso.”

    Except for not at all, sure.

    “Look at how much trouble we have agreeing on what the word “create” means.”
    If “create” doesn’t mean “make something new”… what does it mean? Which of the words are you objecting to? Make? Something? New?

    “That might be an apt description if I said that an author takes other people’s letters and rearranges them.”

    And letters are to words as the various components of cells are to cells. So… ANOTHER thing Frankenstein didn’t do was build the monster out of amino acids, proteains, and lipids.
    The correct analogy, which was presented, is that Frankie took chapters… not words.

    Note: You can, in fact, take chapters from existing works and create some entirely new creation. Only about 20% of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is new, and it’s a COMPLETELY different book. But if you just keep the same chapters, and don’t add anything new… you’re an editor.

    So… had Frankie said something like “You know what? I don’t think the shoulder is where this arm should be attached. I’m going to attach it to the lumbar spine, instead.” or “Man, I hate getting kidney punched. I’m going to put the kidneys inside the rib cage. Hmmm. There’s not enough space. I’ll put another six ribs in, that should take care of it.” or “You know what would be an improvement? If the knee worked both forward AND backward. Let me see about that…”

    “The monster was as different from his progenitor parts as a
    statue of Zeus is from a statue of David.”
    ???

    If I put together a jigsaw puzzle, that doesn’t make be the creator of the picture on the front of it.

    If I take all the pices of hundreds of jigsaw puzzles, and assemble them to form a life-size sculpture of “The Thinker”, I am the creator of that sculpture.

    Consider an object of the nature of a book entitled “The Best Stories from Astounding Science Fiction, 1939″. It has within it a number of things (stories) which each have a creator. The editor has selected which parts to include, and has rejected a good many more potential parts. (Sound familiar?) The editor has selected the order in which the parts (stories) will run The editor’s role is an important one, but… and this is the critical difference… it is not the author’s role. And the editor of such a volume has shown more creativity than dear old Frankie, who maintained rigid adherence to the original design, whereas the anthology editor has abandoned the rigid magazine format and substituted something new and different out of the component parts.
    Now, I come along, notice that the copyright on this hypothetical volume has expired, and scan the pages of the volume to a multi-page PDF digital file that contains all the words of the original volume, which contains parts from all the issues of Astounding Science Fiction published in 1939 reassembled into a new volume..
    Am I an author? Have I created?

  38. Arthur Apr 24th 2017 at 09:23 pm 38

    “Look at how much trouble we have agreeing on what the word “create” means.”
    If “create” doesn’t mean “make something new”… what does it mean? Which of the words are you objecting to? Make? Something? New?

    Here is the full definition of “create” from my handiest
    dictionary:

    1. Make or cause to be or to become
    “create a furor”

    2. Bring into existence
    “The company was created 25 years ago”;
    “He created a new movement in painting”

    3. Pursue a creative activity; be engaged in a creative activity
    “Don’t disturb him–he is creating”

    4. Invest with a new title, office, or rank
    “Create one a peer”

    5. Create by artistic means
    “create a poem”; “Schoenberg created twelve-tone music”;
    “Picasso created Cubism”

    6. Create or manufacture a man-made product
    “We create more cars than we can sell”

    Certainly by definitions 1, 2, and 6 Frankenstein created his
    monster. I believe that 3 also applies. “New” is used only in
    #4, which is obviously not pertinent. You seem to be using only
    definition 5.

    In this and other discussions (see “Spring”), you latch onto the
    definitions which support your stands, and denigrate definitions
    other people are using. And I think you generally start telling
    people that they’re wrong before you tell us which definition
    you’re using. That sounds like the tactics of someone who wants
    to be right rather than someone who wants to become right.

    There’s a Nancy button which reads, “Fandom–where people
    contradict you just to be polite”. This is CIDU, not fandom. I
    would rather be discussing the comics rather than watch you
    playing rhetorical games when you feel like it.

    (I’m posting this with an edress that Word Press doesn’t like,
    but which Bill can use to e-mail me if he so pleases.)

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply