Swinging a Cat

Today, it occurred to me that Garfield might be targeted specifically at housewives. He hates Mondays, not because he has to return to work, but because he doesn't; this is so horrible to comprehend that he inevitably sleeps through them, (at least in the early years of the comic; eventually Mondays become slapstick as more and more ridiculous things conspire to wake him up). His tasks around the house are centered on the preparation of food and keeping the home pleasant by eradicating any pests; he deals with these pests, particularly the mice, through negotiation rather than violence - overall, a more feminine solution.

He is a cat, a traditionally feminine animal, and yet he is labeled a male. Why? Does he act male in any way? Even his agression is typically passive, and his relationship with Jon is a traditional husband/wife division of spheres of influence. For contrast, observe Bucky Katt in Get Fuzzy; he's destructive, power hungry, openly antagonistic, and a skirt chaser. He constantly attempts to wrest control from the alpha male, unlike Garfield, who is happy to keep to the house and exert external power through Jon - the typical explanation for why women "didn't need" the right to vote.

No, Garfield is a male cat because Garfield is a caracture of what a housewife looks like viewed through a male lens: lazy, catty, and overly interested in consuming the fruits of someone else's labor. Intentional subtext? Probably not, but Jim Davis did start the comic in 1978, a time of division and extremism in the feminist movement. I should probably do a more through study and critique . . . but since I hate the comic strip, I will refrain.

Like Hemmingway crossed with Baudelaire

Every time I read book jacket blurbs, I'm reminded of the writing class scene from Kicking & Screaming. After reading the main character's new story, the students fall over each other trying to invent the best compliment to "critique" the story before them - "The main character reminded me of Holden Caulfield meets Raskolnikov," "The narrative tone suggested Nietzche crossed with Jack Kerouac," "I saw similarities to Fizgerald and Goethe." The main character soaks it up as praise for a great story, but one look at the proffessor's face shows you it's nothing of the sort; it's just people trying to show off what great things they've read. It's asking a question to show you're incisive, not because you want to know the answer.

I read Coraline today, and was distinctly underwhelmed. It's not a bad book . . . but it's not a good book either. Highly derivative, almost devoid of new ideas, and certainly not as creepy or atmospheric as older books like Moon Eyes, (nor as fun as anything by Lemony Snicket). I'm not sure it's even as good as the much-maligned Goosebumps! series; while the imagery is strong, it's very one note, (a problem I often have with Gaiman).

That's all aside from the point; as I said, the book's not bad, and I have nothing against anyone who likes it. I do, however, have an objection to Diana Wynne Jones, (whomever she is,) who says "I think this book will nudge ALICE IN WONDERLAND out of its niche at last. It is the most splendidly original, weird, and frightening book I have read, and yet full of things children will love." Pardon me, but that's ridiculous. Not only is the book explicitly horror, which Alice in Wonderland is not, but it posesses none of the same proficience with language, (or with nonsense). This book will not "become a classic," as two other reviewers said, nor is it the most "fantastic journey" through a door "since Narnia." It's an okay book! It has some good imagery! Leave it at that!

Lest you think this is merely a rant about Coraline, check out this review of Terry Prachett's Small Gods: "Think J.R.R. Tolkien with a sharper satiric edge" -- Houston Chronicle. What? I haven't read the book yet, but I can tell you that sentence doesn't mean anything. Or how about this review of Robin McKinley's Rose Daughter: "Any book that, at one point or another, reminded me of The Sheikh, Gunga Din, Islandia, and Lord of the Rings can't be anything but a true original" - Asimov's Science Fiction. Still trying to work out the logic on that one.

It's all just games-playing, I guess - trying to write the most glowing line so your name will be sure to appear on the book jacket. I've done enough P.R. and interviews that I myself am pretty good at coming up with sound bytes. But, man, don't say that something okay - or even good - is in the same firmament as something great, something that's stood the test of time. Let things stand on their own, or you shame them by showing how small they are next to the heroes - and you devalue the heroes into the bargain.

Plus it makes you look stupid to people who know better.