To Age or Not to Age: The Baby Blues Conundrum
I'm going to take a break from the typical "look at this ridiculous and unfunny strip" to discuss something I've been thinking about for awhile: why do some comic characters age, and others stay mired at the same age for year after year after year? Yes, I know the characters aren't real and the answer to this question is "the characters do what the creators want them to." OK, but why do some creators choose to age their characters, and others choose not to?
Is one better than the other? Well, in my opinion, all things being equal, the "aging" strips are better. Think of FBOFW v. Hi & Lois (542 U.S. 76). They are essentially the same strip: family with multiple kids, dogs, working dad, part-time working mother . . . I actually enjoy FBOFW. Are the characters sanctimonious at times? Sure. Is it ever laugh out loud funny? Very rarely. But the exact same can be said for H&L, and let's face it, ENOUGH ALREADY with the Chip is a sullen teenager, Dot and Ditto fight, Trixie takes a nap "jokes!" Meanwhile, the "aging" of FBOFW allows us to get to know a vast array of characters and watch them grow up. Do we care about them? Sure we do. Maybe our "care" is that Mike's downstairs neighbor beats him to a bloody pulp, but we do care. Do we care what happens to the Flagstons? Well, no -- because the same things happen to them over and over again.
Does that mean that the "aging" strips are the best way to go? Not by a long shot. I think the two funniest daily strips in the paper today are Dilbert and The Boondocks. In fact, The Boondocks would lose some of its allure if the characters DID age. Most of the humor is that little boys would say such outlandish, angry things (the same principle works for Southpark).
So, I guess the "to age or not to age" dilemma comes down to what the purpose of the strip is. Doonesbury is political, and its characters need to be involved with current issues (B.D.'s stint in Iraq comes to mind). Zits is about a teenage boy, and if Jeremy aged, Zits would no longer be Zits. Which brings me to the Baby Blues conundrum.
I am too lazy to look this up, but if I remember correctly, the strip started either shortly before or shortly after Zoe was born. As the strip's name suggests, it is about the joys and terrors of parenting a baby. Clueless parents of a newborn, as Kirkman and Scott (the strip's creators) know, are ripe for humor: the sleeplessness, the diaper changing, the spit up, the "how do I get her to stop crying?" . . . But as any parent will tell you, there is more to parenting than dealing with a newborn. Heck, there's more to parenting a BABY: there's first smile, crawling around and getting into stuff, babbling, first steps . . . See, Zoe HAD to age, if only to encompass the entirety of baby humor. Heck, if Zoe never aged, we wouldn't have Baby Blues, we'd have Marvin.
But if Zoe kept on aging, the stip wouldn't be Baby Blues anymore. In 10 years, it would be about a dopey dad, a mom with curly raven-black hair, and a 10 year old girl. In other words, it would be Sally Forth.
So, the McPhersons had Hammie! Now Baby Blues had even more "parents of young children" humor: sibling rivalry, the differences in boy and girl babies, the added difficulty of keeping after 2 kids. But, Hammie aged, too. He got to go on play dates, fall in love with dump trucks, and annoy Zoe. But he wasn't much of a baby anymore. They could keep aging, but by the time Zoe and Hammie got to be teenagers, you wouldn't have Baby Blues, you'd have Luann (and ANOTHER mom with the same hair-do also shared by the Zits mom. What's up with that? Note to self: Future posting idea). And doesn't Brad look like Hammie all grown up? (yes, in Luann the brother is older, I know).
So, the McPhersons had ANOTHER baby, Wren, thereby sticking with the "Baby" concept of the strip. So, what's next? Keep aging the kids? OK, so this is the new FBOFW? Will the name change? No more Baby Blues, it's now Adolescent Angsts? Or Teen Terrors?
Or do the McPhersons just keep having kids? Quite frankly, that's not in keeping with this strip's concept, either. The way it is now, the McPhersons are just everyday parents, dealing with life just like anybody would. If they keep having kids, they become "that whacked out couple down the street with 12 kids." (They know what causes that right?) Even worse, they could stop at 4 kids, and become the Family Circus. Horrors!
Do I have an answer? A preference? No, I do not. Do you?
++++++++++++++++++++
Man, thank GOD that Mr. Dithers isn't my boss!
Is one better than the other? Well, in my opinion, all things being equal, the "aging" strips are better. Think of FBOFW v. Hi & Lois (542 U.S. 76). They are essentially the same strip: family with multiple kids, dogs, working dad, part-time working mother . . . I actually enjoy FBOFW. Are the characters sanctimonious at times? Sure. Is it ever laugh out loud funny? Very rarely. But the exact same can be said for H&L, and let's face it, ENOUGH ALREADY with the Chip is a sullen teenager, Dot and Ditto fight, Trixie takes a nap "jokes!" Meanwhile, the "aging" of FBOFW allows us to get to know a vast array of characters and watch them grow up. Do we care about them? Sure we do. Maybe our "care" is that Mike's downstairs neighbor beats him to a bloody pulp, but we do care. Do we care what happens to the Flagstons? Well, no -- because the same things happen to them over and over again.
Does that mean that the "aging" strips are the best way to go? Not by a long shot. I think the two funniest daily strips in the paper today are Dilbert and The Boondocks. In fact, The Boondocks would lose some of its allure if the characters DID age. Most of the humor is that little boys would say such outlandish, angry things (the same principle works for Southpark).
So, I guess the "to age or not to age" dilemma comes down to what the purpose of the strip is. Doonesbury is political, and its characters need to be involved with current issues (B.D.'s stint in Iraq comes to mind). Zits is about a teenage boy, and if Jeremy aged, Zits would no longer be Zits. Which brings me to the Baby Blues conundrum.
I am too lazy to look this up, but if I remember correctly, the strip started either shortly before or shortly after Zoe was born. As the strip's name suggests, it is about the joys and terrors of parenting a baby. Clueless parents of a newborn, as Kirkman and Scott (the strip's creators) know, are ripe for humor: the sleeplessness, the diaper changing, the spit up, the "how do I get her to stop crying?" . . . But as any parent will tell you, there is more to parenting than dealing with a newborn. Heck, there's more to parenting a BABY: there's first smile, crawling around and getting into stuff, babbling, first steps . . . See, Zoe HAD to age, if only to encompass the entirety of baby humor. Heck, if Zoe never aged, we wouldn't have Baby Blues, we'd have Marvin.
But if Zoe kept on aging, the stip wouldn't be Baby Blues anymore. In 10 years, it would be about a dopey dad, a mom with curly raven-black hair, and a 10 year old girl. In other words, it would be Sally Forth.
So, the McPhersons had Hammie! Now Baby Blues had even more "parents of young children" humor: sibling rivalry, the differences in boy and girl babies, the added difficulty of keeping after 2 kids. But, Hammie aged, too. He got to go on play dates, fall in love with dump trucks, and annoy Zoe. But he wasn't much of a baby anymore. They could keep aging, but by the time Zoe and Hammie got to be teenagers, you wouldn't have Baby Blues, you'd have Luann (and ANOTHER mom with the same hair-do also shared by the Zits mom. What's up with that? Note to self: Future posting idea). And doesn't Brad look like Hammie all grown up? (yes, in Luann the brother is older, I know).
So, the McPhersons had ANOTHER baby, Wren, thereby sticking with the "Baby" concept of the strip. So, what's next? Keep aging the kids? OK, so this is the new FBOFW? Will the name change? No more Baby Blues, it's now Adolescent Angsts? Or Teen Terrors?
Or do the McPhersons just keep having kids? Quite frankly, that's not in keeping with this strip's concept, either. The way it is now, the McPhersons are just everyday parents, dealing with life just like anybody would. If they keep having kids, they become "that whacked out couple down the street with 12 kids." (They know what causes that right?) Even worse, they could stop at 4 kids, and become the Family Circus. Horrors!
Do I have an answer? A preference? No, I do not. Do you?
++++++++++++++++++++
Man, thank GOD that Mr. Dithers isn't my boss!
posted by big al at 6:20 PM
2 Comments:
I suspect that the strip will follow its established pattern. The children will age, but very slowly, and by the time Wren is about Hammie's current age, Wanda will become pregnant again. Her pregnancy will progress more or less in real time, as her prior ones have, and then they'll return to the slow aging. For some reason, I imagine they'll go to five kids and retire the strip not too long after. Just a guess.
Preference? I don't know--it's kind of a tough call. The parents in the strip have complained about how strapped for cash they are with three kids, a big mortgage, and one income. If they have more children, they'll probably complain even more vigorously, and readers will begin to wonder: have these folks not heard of birth control? But the strip is called "Baby Blues," and it's been established as a strip where the characters age, albeit slowly. So, I don't know. :)
It seems to me that if they continue having kids the strip will become contridictory to the character of Wanda (the mom). Part of what made Baby Blues interesting (to start out with) is that Wanda was a heavy corporate hitter who took a long hiatus on her career to become a fulltime mom.
I can't imagine any woman who began and ENJOYED (as Wanda admitted she has) their career to completely give that up to be a fulltime baby machine and housewife forever.
But I'm finding the comic has already lost it's spark and jumped the shark after the birth of Wren.
I especially find it sad that lately single/childless characters (ex- Wanda's sister) are made to look pathetic and jealous. Knowing several people who are childless (some on purpose) it seems biased and unrealistic.
Post a Comment
<< Home