Author: Ruben Bolling

This awesome interview with Achewood’s Chris Onstad.  Man, that guy’s good.

Why can I never remember to insist that my interviews be conducted by e-mail?

I’ve tried to let this issue rest, but I can’t resist commenting on this  — I saw it on Salon (but now I can’t find the link).

So David Horsey, an editorial cartoonist in Seattle did this comic, defending the New Yorker Obama-as-terrorist cover.  I think it makes the case for condemning the cover (as bad satire, not as an enemy of all that is good, you understand).

Without the National Review logo, I’d view this comic as a ham-fisted liberal attack on McCain, simply showing him as an aged, warmongering, constitution-burning etc. etc.  By placing the National Review logo on there, Horsey thinks he’s signaling to the reader that the satiric intent here is obviously to mock the liberal’s VIEW of McCain.

So, to make the analogy complete, he implies that it is the New Yorker logo that makes it clear to any sane reader that the Obama-terrorist cartoon is not satirizing Obama himself, but rather the right wing view of him.  So, really, The New Yorker logo is as integral to understanding the intent of the Obama cartoon as The National Review logo is to the McCain cartoon?  Blitt and The New Yorker meant to include the logo as part of the "message" of the cartoon, and would agree the cartoon doesn’t work without it?  And is The New Yorker logo really the universal symbol for "here’s the left-wing, liberal view of things?"

Frankly, it’s hard to see Horsey’s imaginary McCain cover as anything but mocking McCain himself (again, inartfully).  Even though it was Horsey’s idea to signal the satirical target as critics of McCain by slapping the National Review logo on it, even with it there, I can’t see the cartoon that way, even if I squint.  It just looks like an unambiguous shot at McCain.

Forget the Obama-Terrorist New Yorker cover controversy…

There’s a NEW controversy over the interpretation of a cartoon — Bruno the Philosopher Fish — and it has the internet buzzing!  Alert the Huffington Post!  Fox News!  GoldfishFancy.net!!  What was Bolling trying to say?!  What was the true target of his satire?!  What are the implications to our nation?!  Our universe?!

Honestly, speculation about a fish philosophy comic is SO much more fun than speculation about a Muslim Obama comic.  Check out those comments (in Cosmic Variance)!

The comic is here.

By stating that the New Yorker cover was a less than successful
cartoon, I was not taking the side of The New Yorker Cover Haters, as opposed
to The New Yorker Cover Defenders.  These internet controversies seem to
split into binary camps that throw things at each other until the next
outrage occurs.  So there are a couple of views on the cartoon floating around that I want to specifically disavow:

The cover shouldn’t have been published because people could see the image and be less likely to vote for Obama.

This is a ridiculous argument — art should be judged for what it is, not on its perceived effect on the election.  We’re satirisits, and just because we tend to sympathize with a certain political view more of the time than not, doesn’t mean we’re advocates.  ”Your so-called art does not advance our cause, comrade!”

The cover shouldn’t have been published because right wing nuts are going to use the image to swift-boat Obama.

This is just dumb.  Do cartoonists really have to worry about how the images they create could be misapporpriated by bad people?  Every time I draw a picture, for whatever purpose, should I pause and wonder whether the forces of evil could possibly use it out of context in a nefarious scheme, thus saving the $250 it would cost to hire an illustrator to draw exactly they want?  I’ll only draw Obama with an American flag waving behind him, standing in amber fields of grain.

This week’s The New Yorker cover, by Barry Blitt, depicts a future President Obama and his wife as terrorists, and has stirred up quite a media firestorm.

Now, back in April, I did a comic using the same comic conceit, and it also generated some discussion.

There are some differences in the two cartoons, and it’s not just that
Blitt is ten times the caricaturist that I am (actually, it goes beyond
that, from a quantifiable difference to a qualitative difference:
Blitt IS a caricaturist, and I’m NOT).

Both comics are certainly satirical.  Even people who find them tasteless and offensive would agree with that.  The question is:  what is the satirical intent?  Is it that Obama is a crazy leftist who has Muslim leanings, so wouldn’t it be "funny" if he ended up a terrorist President?  Or is it that people BELIEVE Obama is a crazy leftist who has Muslim leanings, so isn’t it "funny" to mock their misplaced apprehensions by showing how absurd their fears are?

Because my comic is obviously longer and the premise is more developed, I could make it clear (or relatively clear) that I’m mocking people’s misplaced fears about Obama, not Obama himself.  My comic shows explanations for Obama’s nature and behavior that are clearly ridiculous, making fun of the paranoid, delusional explanations that are actually floating around out there — Barack Hussein Obama is clearly not a "typical" American name that would be perfect for a Muslim Manchurian Candidate.  The people supporting him are clearly not terrorists disguised at young white idealists.

But it’s actually less clear what the satirical intent of The New Yorker cartoon is.  It just shows an America-hating, terrorist President Obama.  Of course, I’m certain Blitt intended to make fun of people’s paranoid perceptions of Obama, not how leftist/radical/Muslim Obama is.  But that’s because I’ve seen his cartoons before, and because I know what could or couldn’t be the stance of The New Yorker.  But if this same cartoon were created by Sean Delonas and published by The New York Post, I’d think it was satirizing Obama himself, and that’s a very different (opposite) point — it would be tasteless and offensive.

A cartoon shouldn’t rely on the context of its creator and publisher in order to successfully make its point.  Some more indicators should have been utilized in the cartoon in order to make the target of its satire clearer.

I was able to do that in my comic because I had eight panels and many, many words.  (And there are those who would argue that I’m not someone who should be arguing that comics should have more words — wait until you see this week’s comic!)

In the early days of this millennium, I performed an occasional radio bit in which I played celebrity reporter Wade Hamilton.  And now, with the limitless space afforded me on the world wide web, I can present the actual scripts I used in these three-minute segments.  I give you Wade:

——————————-

January 9, 2000
Wade Hamilton:  Hobnobbing With Celebs

Hello, fellow Star-Gazers!  I’m Wade Hamilton, and you’re not going to BELIEVE the incredible celeb scoops I’ve got in store for you!  Let’s dive right in, shall we?

Here’s an exclusive, folks.  With the success of Jim Carrey’s stunning portrayal of Andy Kaufman in Man on the Moon, studios are clamoring for biopics of marginally popular comedians!  The big one coming up:  Joel Schumacher is currently directing Tom Hanks’s uncanny portrayal of late-80s-to-early-90s comedy circuit mainstay Barry Sobel.  Everyone involved in the project has expressed amazement at how Tom Hanks has BECOME Barry Sobel.  Joel Schumacher told me that how Tom has taped into the mystery that is Barry Sobel is an almost spiritual thing — Tom even shows up on the set wearing Barry’s trademark knit ski hat.  One complication that the Man on the Moon makers didn’t have to deal with — Barry Sobel is still very much alive and only just learned about the project.  He is hopping mad that he wasn’t even considered for the part.

In an exclusive interview, he asked me, "Who can do my famoust Buck Jackson’s Mother is Dead better than me?  Sorry Barr.  I hear you, but frankly I’d rather watch Tom Hanks become you than watch you.  That’s Show Biz.

It’s now time for a Wade Hamilton Timeline Quiz.
Smooth, by Santana and featuring Rob Thomas, was the video playing on VH-1, Ricky martin ordered the Mussels in a tomato broth with garlic, parsely and shallots, Tobey McGuire noticed that the milk in his fridge expires tomorrow, Tim Russert asked a smarmy question with a smirk on CNBC, and I had a fleeting sexual thought about Salma Hayek.  Was it:
5 minutes ago,
4 minutes ago,
2 minutes ago,
or 30 seconds ago?
The answer and the end of the report.

I don’t have much to say about Jennifer Lopez’s and Puff Daddy’s run in with the law — except that if you can’t be present at a nightclub shooting and then escape with in an S.U.V. with an unregistered gun, then what good is being a celebrity — But I do have something to say about Jennifer Lopez’s famed insurance policy.  Don’t laugh — I took out a $10,000 policy on my own butt in ’84, and I was able to cash it in in ’95 when it started to sag.  Best move I ever made, and I’ve got the Honda Accord to prove it.

Memo to Fox:  I don’t want to say that this will guarantee a good review, but let’s just say that if I get sent out to Maui next week for the junket promoting Leonardo DiCaprio’s latest flick I’ll be very grateful.  The name of the new movie — well, I don’t know… yet!  But I’m willing to be educated on the matter.  I will say that the word SO FAR is that come April 2001, Leo had better dust off a spot on his mantle for a certain gold statuette of a certain guy holding a certain sword whose name happens to have a certain pronunciation that is OSCAR!

Now for the answer to the Wade Hamilton Timeline Quiz.
Santana blended his steamy latin guitar riffs with Rob Thomas’s smokey Anglo-Saxon vocal stylings on VH-1, Ricky Martin went with the seafood, Tobey McGuire had a temporal dairy moment, Tim Russert became part of the story on basic cable, and I had an intruding notion about Salma Hayek while waiting to start this report.  It all happened…  four minutes ago.

That’s it for this week, fans.  Until next time, With a nose for news and a face for radio, I’m Wade Hamilton saying, What good is the ground when you can reach for the stars?

The Skyfari is just about my kids’ favorite thing to do in New York City.  These people spent five hours waiting to get rescued — I’ve probably spent at least a total of five hours in those things in the past few months alone.

I think I took my art a step up this week.  What do you think?

An alert reader writes, in response to the McCain’s Cash Prize comic, that there already is a cash reward for proving the Riemann Hypothesis.  Now I feel foolish for throwing away the proof I devised as part of the research for that comic.

Fill out the form and win big!