Posted on 05/03/2005 2:13:25 PM PDT by Pikamax
This is actually a running debate.
first the strip that offended Ebert and others.
http://poynter.org/forum/view_post.asp?id=9440
| Title: | "B.C." vs. "Doonesbury" |
| Posted By: | Jim Romenesko |
| From ROGER EBERT: I am not suggesting that Johny Hart's "B.C." comic strip today should be censored in any way, but I will be fascinated to see if any editors do spike it, as they sometimes spike "Doonesbury," etc., for political reasons. | |
|
5/3/2005 11:48:52 AM
From MATT MENDELSOHN: Thanks to Roger Ebert for the heads up on Johnny Hart's slam on Darwin and evolution. When I Googled "Hart" I expected to find one -- just one -- story of a newspaper holding the strip. But instead I found and E & P story which said that not one of 1,200 Creators Syndicate clients had any reservations. And Creators President Rick Newcombe's lame defense, "Anyone who runs 'B.C.' at this point knows Johnny Hart's philosophy," is an even bigger bummer. Everyone knows where Aaron Magruder stands too, but that doesn't stop "Boondocks" from being held every few weeks. Two years ago Hart slammed Muslims in a strip (the "does it stink in here?" I SLAM outhouse) and then pulled a golly-gee-whiz-what-a-coincidence number. This time around he's calling Charles Darwin "stupid" in the two-panel prologue, not to mention lecturing the nation's 13-year-old comic page readers (and yes, adults) about the "theory" (his quotes) of evolution and the folly of one who "allowed his Christianity to slip." Will any newspapers out there ever question this guy? Johnny Hart is being watched 5/3/2005 3:44:08 PM From R. CORT KIRKWOOD: Subject: Hart letter. "Why won't papers question Hart?" They do, Mr. Mendelsohn, they do. I don't know how many papers held Johnny Hart's amusing take on St. Charles Darwin (Mr. Mendelsohn was looking for "just one"), but about five minutes of searching would find more than one occasion when newspapers have yanked this virtuoso's cartoons. As an article in Time magazine reported, "The [Washington Post] says that it and other newspapers have spiked Hart's strongest Christian statements." One report had it that newspapers might drop the strip because of a cartoon for Easter, 2001. Don't worry, Mr. Mendelsohn, Johnny Hart is being watched.
|
|
So Ebert is reviewing cartoons now? Figures.
Darwin was Church of England (Episcopalian here across the pond). Not much Christianity in that now-a-days.
And why doesn't that heartless bigot retitle his strip "B.C.E."?
Thanks for posting this.
Ping.
I suppose Hart will be slamming next that a$$hole Thomas Edison for cramming light bulbs down our throats against the will of a God who wouldn't have made it dark at night if he didn't have a good reason to do so.
Why would Ebert read the comics and BC no less? There isn't any gratuitous sex for Roger.
It's interesting that Ebert thinks that calling Darwin "stupid" is "political."
On what basis, I wonder? Afterall, I thought both political parties were equally religious... That's what the Dems keep telling us anyway.
I guess I can see why someone might question it. It does seem a bit different from other strips of his in the past.
They're conflating "Christianity" with "creationism" again...
BTTT
Looks like Johnny Hart's science education is lacking.
I question "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls."
Ebert is as crazy as a loon, and then is an example of Darwinism in reverse.
Ebert isn't a free speech supporter? That's interesting.
Poor analogy.
You're letting your bias trump your reasoning.
My alltime fave "BC"..was about 20 years ago..a two panel toon..First panel shows a guy hacking away at a talet..the balloon syas "New Years Resolution" The tablet is inscibed..I WILL NOT BE AFRAID OF WATER..Next panel, we see another guy in the distance yelling..TIDAL WAVE...
Why should they? Darwin's dead. God isn't. Why should anyone be offended that someone calls Darwin stupid?
Oh yeah, most Christians think God wasn't smart enough to design the world. It all happened on accident and God just took the credit. /sarcasm
Oh, geesh.
You think Ebert and co. wouldn't be such little wussies.
Get over it ... it's a comic strip, for cryin' out loud.
So Christianity did not come out of Judaism?
PING
(Actually, I'm one of those crazy guys who sees no contradictions between God and science. God and science can coexist!)
I met Ebert once briefly at the Univ of Chicago. What a f-cking a--hole. Just proved to me that Gene Siskel was the classy one.
Also - notice how Ebert fawns over any piece of sh-t Julia Roberts' movie. For pete's sake, he gave 'Knotting Hill' like 4 stars. That movie was horrible.
Idiot.
Roger Ebert is a lyin' ahole since HIS editors NEVER spike Doonesbury. His newspaper is the Chicago SUN-TIMES while Doonsebury runs in the Chicago TRIBUNE.
Now he wouldn't deliberately LIE to make it appear as though the commie crap from Trudeau was being suppressed now would he?
Lol, I always loved Johnny Hart's stuff. I had no idea he was political.
That's not what I said and you know it. Or maybe you don't, not having the intellectual capacity to actually comprehend what you read.
What was so negative about your encounter with him? I've met him and he was a very nice guy.
So the mean old comic strip made you cry, too?
His biography is on target, Darwin and Wallace came up with the same theory. But Darwin lent his authority to anti-religious ends and Wallace did not. The Descent of Man is the case in point. Darwin was a CINO who was too chicken to admit that he had lost his faith, in part because his wife was a believer.
If you saw him or his wife you would know the answer to that question. brrrrrr.
So Ebert "isn't saying Hart should be censored", but if he isn't, Ebert thinks it would be an injustice. Right?
:D
Huh?
Well, there's no doubt that's the stupidest comic I've ever seen.
Very smug and arrogant. It was only a ten minute encounter several years ago, but he was a tool during it.
Not really. Mostly just sigh in exasperation.
It's a personal statement. So?
He hasn't been at his best in over ten years but when he was I think he was an outstanding critic and writer. He was sort of a less pompous Pauline Kael.
Considering how unreliable Ebert's reviews are (payola?) and his delusional hysterics over "Gods and Generals," it is no wonder he has switched to reviewing comics.
Darwin as a young boy developed an interest in natural history but started his advanced schooling at Edinburgh in medicine, a subject he soon learned to detest. Later at Cambridge, where he went to prepare for a career in the clergy, he showed no interest in his theological studies, but became acquainted with a botany professor, the Rev. John Henslow, who was destined to become his mentor and to have a profound effect on his life.
It was Henslow who encouraged Darwin, following his graduation from Cambridge, to take an extended sea voyage and exploration of the world outside of England. Darwin took advantage of the opportunity -- without pay - and became expedition naturalist and gentlemen's companion to Capt Robert FitzRoy, on the HMS Beagle. The intended 3-year voyage stretched to 5 years, and Darwin had wonderful experiences as he circumnavigated the world, spending over 3 years of the 5 exploring the coastline, flora and fauna of southern South America.
It reminds me of the unbelievable reaction to Laura Bush's comedy routine. People need to lighten up and stop taking themselves so seriously.
Looks like it has little bit of something for everyone.
If Rog stops after the first two panels, I'm sure he would be happy.
Even the ending can be taken to have more than one meaning.
Pretend that he is subtle, even an atheist can read a satisfactory meaning into it.
I don't have the perspective to make that call.
It strikes me because I just watched Jules et Jim again this weekend, and as I usually do after seeing a well-made movie, I check imdb and other sites for reviews and compare my reaction to others'.
Ebert's review was so simplistic and facile - drawing ridiculous comparisons to crap like Thelma and Louise and embarrassingly misquoting one of the key pieces of dialogue in the film - that I couldn't believe this guy gets paid to put on airs.
My favorite one:
First frame; three large boulders on high cliff
Second frame; character struggles and pushes one off
Third frame; character and friend at the bottom of cliff
next to boulder. friend asks 'why did you do that?'
first character replies,'in one million years they will try to figure how we got the other two to the top'
I always liked BC. Good job Mr. Hart! If the liberals can attack our Lord. We shall attack theirs, Charles Darwin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.