December
2007
5 December 2007
Hello Tim,
In light of Ms.
Hautpanz's departure, I hereby offer my intern-related
services. E.g., I could sort through
your fan/hate mail. I am good at looking at icons
and clicking buttons.
As a native Texan, I understand
the importance of having a hot chick working for
you. Ergo, I will
provide you with a random pornographic picture to
simulate that experience.
Please do not let your personal
tragedies lead you to retirement. Just remember you
have many fans,
most of them insane. That means plenty of character
witnesses if the secret police finally get you.
As
always, I am loving your cartoons.
2 things to cheer
you up:
1. Bible illustrated with
Legos: www.thebricktestament.com
2. The explanation for most of our problems:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:vlX_V9SqScUJ:www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf+incompetent+and+unaware&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Cheer
up,
Alyosha Karamazov
Dear Mr. Karamazov,
Please accept
my apologies for the nearly three months it's
taken me to reply to your letter of December
5th. As you can see, I am sorely
in need of a new intern. Since Ms. C.-H.'s
departure I have failed
to keep on top of administrative
duties around here. It's only because I am
laid low with the
flu and heavily medicated that
I've turned my attention at last to the long-neglected
mail.
Thanks very much for your offer. However
I am sure I do not have to tell you that pornographic
pictures
are no substitute for
an authentic hot female intern
breathing in your workspace.
Seems like wiith a screen
name like "boyzrule" you
ought to be a hot boy-crazy
chick yourself. What's with
that?
If to do retire it will
not
be because of personal tragedies,
but because of professional
ones.
Thanks for the links
you sent. The study you referred
me to
illuminates much in the
realm of politics and
elsewhere. To quote (or
paraphrase) Kurt Vonnegut: "The
trouble with stupid people
is, they don't believe
there is such a thing as being
smart." A
thought that troubles me
is: how do we know we are
not stupid?
Regards,
Tim
7 December
2007
Subject heading: “more
robots”
seriously, more robots.
You draw wicked good robots. That muslim death robot
you drew a couple
of weeks
ago was awesome, he should be a villain in his own
comic. The robot this week was wicked good, too.
more robots, please
Carlo
Carlo,
Thanks sincerely for
your compliments on my robot-drawing skills.
I enjoy drawing robots and regret that
there have been few occasions
for the depiction of robots in the months since.
But
why do I need
an excuse? Robots are always
cool. I hope to cast aside my artistic inhibitions
and
begin drawing
nothing but robots, monsters,
space battles and asses in the near future.
Regards,
Tim Kreider
9 December 2007
Hi,
just wanted to point
out that you left out "with" in
your statement "I've had it Mohammed and all
the violence and misery he's brought into this world"
Plus, I think your statement is very effective, except
perhaps where you say "I've had it with the
fuckin' Muslims" it comes off more racist than
you intend. If you replace Muslims with Islam it
would be referring more to the ideology than the
people, which from following comments I think is
what you mean...?
regards,
Mark
Mark,
Your typographical correction
and broader concern both noted, albeit
belatedly. I got a couple of very long, serious,
well-intentioned letters taking me
to task over
that let's say somewhat reductive screed on Islam.
Apparently I sounded like some kind of
dickhead that
week,
which we all know is not what I am
really like at all.
Tim
10 December
2007
I found this week's comment
struck very accurate sentiment amongst me and several
associates and friends
and bizarrely it has driven me to voice such support.
However, I was a little confused that while Mr. Kreider
chose to mock those who berate the people who named
the teddy bear mohammed he didn't point out that
they still see fit to name their children with such
a name, surely he sees this as humerous and ironic
too?
Recent comics have been very entertaining, keep it
up.
cheers,
Josh
Josh,
I had not considered your teddy bear/child conundrum
before and am at a loss to account
for it. Perhaps a child, which carries the divine
breath of life,
is a vessel worthy to bear the
sacred name of the Prophet but a teddy bear, which
is a
mere plush simulacrum,
and of a dumb animal at that, is
not? But I think I have foregone trying to fathom
the reasoning of
the sort of people who would demand
to have someone flogged over a stuffed toy.
Regards,
Tim
10 December 2007
Mr. Kreider,
I've long been a fan of The Pain; you have a singular
talent for discerning humor in events and predicaments
that, for most of us, lend themselves to the utmost
sobriety--"Well, well, well. . ." is one
of my favorites. I respect this talent tremendously.
Given that respect, I was
disturbed by your most recent artist's statement
(12/05). I am nowhere near
an expert in theology, sociology, postcolonial theory,
or much of anything. Nevertheless, I must wonder:
are you really under the impression that religious
people "suffer no such spiritual malaise," that "they
are flush with clear-eyed certitude?" This does
not seem in keeping with much of the Bible, or the
writings of various Christian saints; it is far from
the fear and trembling of which Kierkegaard wrote,
far from Rilke's excruciatingly beautiful musings;
do you so blithely dismiss Thomas Merton and Thich
Nhat Hanh? I realize that you specifically target "idiot
fanatics," allowing a certain degree of respect
for the virtuous, unphotogenic sub-species of the
faithful. I would suggest that this distinction be
reconsidered, as it cleaves to a self-serving variety
of Western thought in which fundamentalism (and I
am thinking, here, of Islamic fundamentalism, as
emphasized in your statement) is seen as totally
divorced from the structures of modernity--it is
posed as something external to modernity, an irrational
and destructive alien intrusion. This imaginary rupture
serves to perpetuate the very conditions that produce
violent fundamentalism (see Enemy in the Mirror by
Roxanne L. Euben, which I have not studied closely
but which is, as I understand it, an excellent resource
on this topic).
You write that "We in the west
are performing the experiment, for the first time
in human history,
of living without faith." Again, this statement
appears to assume a basic disjunction between the
ideal western lifestyle and that of "idiot fanatics," as
though the style and conditions of western life exist
in an isolated system, rather than being engaged
in a macrocosmic power dynamic of extreme complexity.
To put it another way: western society has established
the parameters of violence, and it is sickeningly
absurd to imply that the west would have a much easier
time learning to live with its faithlessness if not
for the insane inroads of "ignorant, bigoted,
cruel, life-hating assholes."
As you note, our project of faithlessness has prompted
us to invent "wonky, jerry-rigged or retrofitted
new religions even stupider than the old ones, all
in a desperate effort to stop feeling so empty and
afraid." This is not much of a concession, as
it maintains the implication that these neo-faiths
are imperfections of the modern condition--imperfections
that ought to be excised by the rational, the intelligent.
That a modern capitalist society can function without
recourse to the transcendent has been questioned
or refuted by myriad scholars, too many to be enumerated
here; we need look no further than Max Weber's seminal
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
for a demonstration of how the fundamental operations
of modern society are inextricably tied to religious
sensibilities. It goes without saying that this linkage
is highly nuanced and largely inexplicit, yet it
points to the illusory nature of the west's faithlessness:
we're not really trying to do away with faith; our
wonky new religions are not a regrettable patina
of evolutionary refuse smeared on the gem of Reason,
but one of modern society's most basic, inescapable
needs. So if the perpetuation of a social structure
that directs the energies of both faith and logos
toward dehumanization and widespread violence is
the main criterion for identifying "ignorant,
bigoted, cruel, life-hating assholes," it's
hard to see how the west is granted exemption, hard
to see how "we are better people than they are." Indeed,
to paint the most pathological and genocidal aspects
of western culture as a "heroic" struggle
with the burden of skepticism is so despicably self-aggrandizing,
so utterly delusional, as to be worthy of the parochial
buffoons you so deliciously deride.
Again, I do not
lay claim to expertise in these matters. I only mean
to express, in an admittedly rough manner,
why I felt such deep misgivings while reading the
artist's statement of 12/05--even though I approached
it with eager anticipation. While the vituperative
quality of your writing is often what makes me laugh,
I found it tainted, in this instance, by a dangerous
and rather virulent kind of cataracts. By my interpretation,
this week's statement is an espousal of the same
appalling values that you purport to abhor. You are
an eloquent, highly literate and persuasive man.
I urge you to be conscientious in your exercise of
those talents.
Sincerely,
Charles Hogle
Charles Hogle:
I hope you'll
excuse the time it's taken me to get around
to attempting to answer your thoughtful
email of three months ago.
I hope you didn't imagine that I felt your message
was
unworthy of a reply;
on the contrary. I think you're
being either humble or disingenuous by saying
you're no expert on theology.
I'm afraid I got daunted by
the challenge of writing a commensurately erudite
response.
I will remind you gently that I am a
cartoonist rather than a scholar, although
certainly this
is no excuse
for sloppy thinking or intellectual
dishonesty. I'm aware that the distinction
I drew between modernity
and fundamentalism was somewhat
schematic and reductive. But then caricature
is, after all, my business.
Your points about
the inextricability of religion and rationality
are well taken. As my old dance instructor,
Herr N., pointed out, the
notion of truth as a virtue,
which leads to skeptical,
scientific inquiry, was born out of the
religious impulse. (Newton
and
Kepler
were primarily interested
in proving wacko theological/astrological
doctrines.) But the scientific,
secular world, even through
it may have grown out of its opposite,
is
a genuinely new thing under
the sun, and I maintain that it is
a better world than the world
of superstition.
If you are
a longtime reader of my comics you do not need
me to tell you that I am
no unapologetic cheerleader
for
the West. I think
I've established,
if not credibility, then
at least consistency as
a critic
of U.S.
policy. We're trying to
fill the
awful void left by that
old Deus abscondus with all kinds
of trash,
from drugs to porn to useless
wasteful
merchandise. And our civilization
may well be the one that
finally does to the planet
earth what
the
Rapanui accidentally did
to Easter Island--render
it totally
uninhabitable
for human life. Besides
which the Final Solution
to the Great Leap Forward
will
look
like pretty penny-ante
crimes and blunders,
like kids shoplifting Clark
bars from the local 7-Eleven
or busting
the neighbor's lamp on
Wreck Night.
The distinction I'm drawing
is not meant to be some
simple-minded, jingoistic,
Us (modern, secular
America)
vs. Them (fanatical swarthy
persons
in the Middle East) conflict.
Obviously the scism between
the religious
and the secular doesn't
break down along geographic
or political boundaries.
I know there are lots
of moderate
Muslims,
not that their voices
get heard through Western media
much.
And our own country is
more given to fundamentalism
than most European democracies.
We've
always been a semicivilized
nation at best.
I think it's a disgrace
that
our chief executive was
educated at
the finest universities
our country has to offer
and
still thinks
like a Mediæval
warlord. There's no doubt
that he's motivated by
the same sorts of delusions
that drove the Crusaders.
(I've written else where
that I regard the Bush
administration's
War on Terror as so much "sectarian
violence," a
struggle between two
fundamentalist factions.)
But this is
just one administration,
which will soon
be peacefully replaced
by another, hopefully
more rational one. There
exists
an institutionalized
separation of church
and state in this country.
Fundamentalist
Islam, by contrast, represents
an unusually pure
strain of all that is
most
malignant and loathsome
in religion.
I don't think
we know whether religiosity
is
something
endemic to human nature.
We surely
seem to need something
of the numinous, some
source of wonder in
our lives--and,
being hierarchical
animals who get easily confused
and frightened without
a leader, we also seem
to crave
some
external authority
that'll tell us how
to behave. But this
doesn't have to mean believing
unprovable nonsense
or killing folks who think
otherwise.
Plenty of individuals
have learned to
live happy
and compassionate lives
without religion. All
kinds of evils
that used to be widespread
ways of life
have been eradicated,
at least institutionally;
mass rape
and massacres in warfare,
human sacrifice,
slavery.
We are still in the
adolescence of our civilization,
and
it remains to be seen
what we
can overcome
and
what we can't. I think
those who are trying
to learn to
live without religious
dogma represent
progress--a
blind, clumsy, groping
step forward.
The side
I'm on is the side
of those who
are
struggling to live
without certainty--which
is to say, without
delusions--and the
side I'm
against is of those
who are clinging
fiercely and defiantly
to the most discredited
and dangerous delusions
of
all. My convictions
lie with those
who lack all conviction;
I mistrust and
oppose those others
who are full of passionate
intensity.
I am,
in other words, taking
an un-relativist
stand on the side of the
relativists
against absolutists.
But even here, I
realize, there's
plenty
of messy
ambiguity and contradiction,
overlap and exceptions:
there are, I know,
smug know-it-all
atheists who
are every bit as
dogmatic and humorless and arrogant
in their
certitude as the
dumbest southern Baptist,
and profoundly spiritual
people for whom faith
is the daily
struggle with uncertainty
and doubt. But
you understand this
is all kind of hard
to cram
into
a cartoon.
The point is, I think
there's room for
nuance and complexity
in this
argument, for recognizing
the inextricable
origins
and nature
of the religious
and the secular,
without
suspending
all judgment,
throwing up your
hands, and saying, "ahh,
it's all the same." I
don't think it's
fair to say that
although
our society is perhaps
fatally flawed
I would still rather
live in a corrupt,
morally bankrupt,
and
exploitative imperialistic
republic than in
some
totalitarian theocratic
shithole--just as
we ought to be allowed
to admit
that 9/11 was the
not-exactly-unpredictable
consequence decades
of violent and oblivious
U.S.
policy while still
condemning it, unequivocally,
as an inexcusable
act of evil.
It's
a far from perfect
world, as I'm sure you've
noticed.
I just got here,
as you did. I
did not make
the rules
and I don't like
them any
more than you
do, but here
we are.
There are apparently
sides. You
don't get to
not pick one.
That being
the case, I'm
on ours.
I guess what
I'm asking is,
Give me
a break
here, Charles.
Just
this week [26
March 2008] I
got some twerp
sending me these
interminable
plodding
emails accusing
me of calling our heroic
troops terrorists
just
because
I acknowledged
the number of civilian
casualties in Iraq,
and some other
wackjob calling
me a traitor because
I don't buy
The
Truth
About 9/11 crap.
I
don't want you
to think I'm
dismissing your
criticisms out of hand or flatly
refusing
to
consider what you
say. You know you're
doing
something right
when the twerps
and wackjobs write to
harangue
and insult you,
but when really
intelligent, literate
people write to
take you politely
to task, it's
a
sign you may have
erred, or at least
gone too
far. You’ve
given me much to
think about, and
your reading recommendations
duly
jotted down in
my little notepad.
Thanks
again for taking
the time to write
at such length,
and so thoughtfully.
Regards,
Tim Kreider
12 December 2007
Subject
heading: “religious terrorism”
Here's
what i'd
like to see: a person who truly believes that God
wants them to kill people, but who refuses
because it's wrong.
Bravo, sir. Like the story
of Isaac except with a saner moral. "What are you
talking about? I'm not doing that. That'd be a horrible
thing to do. What are you, crazy?"
13 December 2007
…
crazy good stuff two weeks in a row. I of course
figured some sort of decree would be issued.
That there wasn’t does not bode well for
the size of your readership perhaps. No connection
to level
of talent, just a crappy deal where Garfield
gets the bigger chunk of a finite dish of lasagna.
One
would hope you would have received a larger
piece when Nancy and Sluggo disappeared. So it
goes.
Tom Ragatz
13 December
2007
Ms. Phelætia Czochula-Hautpänz,
I don't often read Mr. Kreider's
artist's statements, but the December 5th issue got
me giggling more
than usual, and I ventured a peek.
Therein Mr.
Kreider made the following statement:
" Doubt is no day at
the beach, but certitude is more like a day at Dachau."
If
he would kindly provide life-affirming phrase (or
is it an idiom- no, axiom... colloquialism?)
along with an illustration (maybe a kitty dangling
by one paw) on some sort of public medium: bumper
sticker, poster, t-shirt, or other consumable
merchandise, I would happily purchase it and
proudly display
it.
Thank you.
Yours Sincerely,
Richard
Massey
P.S. As for Mr. Kreider's, "rather
reductive and reactionary screed" last week,
I'm inclined to afford him plenty of latitude in
this area. Considering the justified attention he
has consistently and artfully paid to western religious
fanatics, it was only fair to shine that light at
their Middle-eastern counterparts for the same reasons.
Merely a trifle, nothing to put him between the hammer
and the anvil over.
P.S.S. As for "making up
wonky, jerry-rigged or retrofitted new religions
even stupider than the
old ones," that barb was an obvious jab at a
religion scarier than fanatical christianity or islam
combined. I can forgive him for not wanting to arouse
their scrutiny, but I feel that most peoples' fear
of them is misplaced. I'm surprised he doesn't recognize
Scientology as the greatest piece of satire ever
constructed. Furthermore, would you please inform
Mr. Kreider that I am volunteering to be the first
acolyte/pope/martyr in his blessed flock should he
ever decide to robe-up, build a compound, and make
the pilgrimage there (such is my fanatical adoration
of his message. Truth be told, that appreciation
approaches the bourne between hobby and fetish. It
is like a drug, and the only resentment I bear towards
Mr. Kreider, as pusher, is that I have to wait an
eternity of seven days betwixt his servings of the
fix that balms.)
Richard Massey,
I appreciate your commission, but
I am hard-pressed to imagine what would be
the appropriate illustration for this little
homily.
I'm picturing,
instead, one
of those corporate inspiration
posters with the word "CERTITUDE" and
a photo of masses of marching
brownshirts or stormtroopers.
As for my screed
on Islam, hey, I felt the same way you
did about it, and yet I not
unpredictably had
to defend myself against
a couple of horribly erudite and courteous
letters criticizing
my reductionism
and cultural bias. In a way
this is even worse than getting semiliterate
hate
mail from conservatives
in that you have to take
them seriously and take time to write a thoughtful
reply. They are killing
me. Though at least they
are
not literally killing me like Muslin
fanatics.
Thanks
for your adoration. You will be the first to
know
if I found a church. I'll have
to ask my
friend Aaron, who does
my taxes for me, about the advisability
of this from a fiscal perspective.
Tim
17 December 2007
Dear Mr.
Krieider,
i was curious, after reading
your artist statement attached to the "fatwa" cartoon,
as to what were the comments made by the other emailer?
i suppose the fact that you bothered to read
a critical
email is what prompted me to write to you myself.
should
i start with the obvious--arabs and muslims are human
beings, and those terrorists and fundamentalist
no more represent the vast majority of people
in the middle east than do pat robertson and
gearge
bush represent the majority of Westerners (christians,
americans, europeans, etc.)? i'm sure you've
heard that a million times, and i'm sure you've
thought
about it.
so i won't dwell on it,
and i'll take a different approach.
are you aware
that from the 1840's up to the first few decades
of the 20th century, Blackface
Minstrelsy
(white people who smeared burnt cork on their
face and did musical/comedy variety shows acting
like
niggers) was the most popular form of entertainment
in America? far eclipsing any other form of entertainment
during that time period, in terms of number of
people who paid to see it, as well as ripple
effects into
other forms of media (like print media and literature).
a few years ago, i examined some of the literature
that was connected to it, including "Uncle
Tom's Cabin" and some of the works of Mark
Twain ("Huckleberry
Finn" and "Pudd'nhead Wilson").
In those works was a very nuanced portrayal of
the complexity
of post-slavery mixed society. Pudd'nhead Wilson,
one of Twain's last works, is particularly dark
and satirical--the story follows two boys, one
white
and one 1/32 part black (therefore black), who
are switched at birth by the nanny of the white
boy who
is also the mother (1/16th black) of the black
one.
Stowe's novel, of course,
deals with the pre-civil war situation, and tries
to show the
human side
of the slaves, as a justification for freeing
them. it shows the human cost of separating families,
etc.
the thing is, both of these
authors had their characters appropriated and used
on the Minstrel
stage; one
character from "Uncle Tom's Cabin," a
little wild girl named Topsy, who had been orphaned,
and
who, over the course of the novel, is gradually
habilitated into civilized society--and who therefore
is held
up as a model of how blacks can become humanized
and civilized with love and care--was extremely
popular on the minstrel stage. not as a complex
character,
of course, but as the caricature of the wild
nigger child, who dances around and sings with
crazy antics.
Twain's Nigger Jim, a very
human character, was also put on the minstrel stage,
without any of
the subtlety
that twain actually wrote for him--just as the
comedic foil for huck.
my argument boiled down
to this: in a world where there is a saturation of
images (and i was talking
about late 19th century america, not now) of
a certain kind, it is the sheer number of images--not
their
complexity or nuance--that contributes to and
shapes
political and social discussion. thus minstrelsy,
and literature, contributed to the establishment
of Jim Crow laws toward the end of the 19th century,
and gave added justification to the beginnings
of scientific racism, that twisted development
from
darwin's work, which led, among other things,
to the Eugenics movement and its first legal
success:
the 1907 Sterilization Law of Indiana, which
allowed for the arrest on petty charges of female
members
of The Tribe of Ishmael (a mixed-race nomadic
group who had Indianapolis as one of their stopping
points),
and sterilization while in prison--as a strategy
for wiping out the group (it succeeded).
White
people were so used to seeing caricatures of black
people, created not by blacks but by
other whites, that they began to believe that
all blacks
were as they were portrayed to be in the minstrel
shows. Ironically, toward the end of the 19th
century, black performers joined the minstrel
shows and
put
on **extra blackface** (to make them even darker),
and acted the roles created for them by decades
of white performers.
the problem is that blacks
never got a voice of their own, to address the mainstream.
well,
that's the state of affairs for arabs and muslims,
nowadays, in the american media. and
we are exponentially
more saturated with negative images of them,
then 19th century folk were of images of ridiculous,
lazy, conniving niggers. when our media doesn't
give voice
to the millions of reasonable muslims and arabs
out there--who are as horrified by honor killings,
reactionary
fatwas, riots over cartoons, and terrorist bombings
as are white americans and christians--it is
so
easy to represent them by a glut of caricatured
images.
everything out there is
true, a race of people has every shade of belief
and action--but
what
others
believe about them is the small part that is
selected from that larger truth, and presented
in soundbites
or cartoons.
so, like it or not, when
you make cartoons about fatwas, and reactionary muslims,
you
are aiding
george bush and the reactionary neocons and fundamentalist
christian nuts here in the states. like all demagogues,
you are calling out to the worst of the other,
in
order to bring out the worst in us. even if in
other cartoons, you mock george bush and the
neocons and
the fundamentalist christians, you are really
part of their project. the project of keeping
sturdy
that wall between us and them so that we can
justify anything
we do against them.
i realize that comedy must
make use of stereotypes & reductions.
i love comedy. most people do. most muslims and
arabs do, too. one of the most sensitive (and
hilarious)
comedians of recent years was dave chapelle,
and ethnic types like me mourn the fact that
he isn't
still on comedy central--because he was one of
the only people to speak for us in a nuanced
way. he
had a way of using stereotypes to turn them on
themselves and make us realize that there was
a deeper unity
among us. he did that in a million ways, all
while using the blunt instruments of the comedian--and
making us all laugh.
so don't argue to me, anybody
else, or even yourself, that it is the stereotyping
tools available to
comedy that limits you to the kind of portrayals
you have
made. you limit yourself, because your vision
is limited.
why don't you go make some
muslim or arab friends? and on top of that, you could
familiarize
yourself
with the real voices coming out of arab culture.
do you know that there is a group of arab/muslim-american
comedians who are trying to make a name for themselves,
who had a special on comedy central earlier this
year (the "Axis of Evil Comedy tour"),
and who have an internet series on comedy central's
website? here it is:
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/watch_list/index.jhtml
they're
following in chapelle's footsteps, of course.
I'm
not asking you to give up comedy or stereotyping.
i'm just asking you to stop being one of the
yes-men/lackeys in bush's war on terror. you may
not have realized
you were portraying yourself in that "NEW
Structure of Our Government" cartoon you
drew 12/15/04--inside the box, not outside of
it--but you were.
Yours,
Sami
Alas, now that my beloved
and indispensable intern Ms. C.-H, has gone, I have
no choice but to read
my own e-mails, complimentary and otherwise.
Sorry it's taken me this long to respond to your
message. I've had a lot going on lately, and
am unused to answering all my own correspondence.
Plus your
note seemed deserving of a commensurately long
and thoughtful response, and I needed a nice
free
Sunday
morning to compose one.
I'd begin by gently reminding
you that I am a cartoonist, not a serious political
commentator,
though I agree
that is no excuse for intellectual dishonesty
or sloppy thinking. And I want you to know your
message
has given me pause. The last thing I want is
to make anybody feel bad about themselves or
any less
at
home in this country than they already do, or
to align myself, even coincidentally, with the
forces
of Assholism. I believe it is the historical
and moral mission of the humorist to be always
on the
side of the underdog, the Little Guy, to take
up the flag of the nerds against the jocks, the
Marx
Brothers against Margaret Dumont.
You raise and
put aside the point that Islamic radicals and terrorists
don't by any means represent
the majority
of Arabs, any more than evangelical wackjobs
and neocons represent all Westerners. But let's
hold
on just a second and think this over. As you
say, I am smart and fair-minded enough to understand
this. But so does that mean I have to stop mocking
the
Creationists and fag-bashers and abstinence-only
crowd out of respect for decent, intelligent
Christians
like my mother or my friends John and Boyd? Okay
I realize this is not quite a fair comparison,
since white Christians are the dominant culture
in this
country and Arabs and Muslims are marginal and
mistrusted. So let's ask instead whether, for
example, I'm allowed
to say that women's magazines and romance novels
are for very stupid people without sounding like
a misogynist? To get into a touchier subject,
am I allowed to admit that I think rap and hip-hop
is musically on par with car alarms without being
labeled
an elitist Eurocentric philistine or just plain
racist? What's off-limits for me to say as a
straight
rich
white guy? Who gets to decide?
I can't quite tell
whether you're arguing that,
as nuanced as Mark Twain's black characters may
have
been, he was nevertheless as
guilty of contributing
to cruel and unfair cultural
caricatures as his minstrel-show imitators just
because he was adding
more fodder
to the bigoted public conception
of African Americans. If you are, I would have
to make whatever the
official NFL-referee gesture
is for Bullshit. Mark Twain
gets to do whatever Mark Twain
wants, and it isn't Mark
Twain's fault if people fail
to appreciate the complexity of his work or appropriate
and distort
it, any more
than it’s fair to blame
Nietzsche for Naziism or poor
Bill Watterson for all those
tacky peeing-Calvin
decals on people's pickup truck
windows.
I guess
what it comes down to is what context you see
my work as existing in, what audience
you think
I'm drawing and writing for. I suppose if you
look at my work in the broadest context of mainstream
American culture, sure, it's just more xenophobic
stereotyping, depicting Arabs as fanatics and
terrorists
and abetting The Man in his demonization of our
alleged global enemies. But the thing is, I'm
not in the
mainstream media. I'm not on TV or in daily papers.
I'm printed in one alternative weekly and appear
on the prestigious Internet. I think my readership
is pretty self-selecting, composed almost exclusively
of urban, college-educated liberal types. (The
few SUV/shopping mall Americans who stumble across
my
site invariably scold me for being sick and unpatriotic
and then vanish in a snit.) It is expected among
this audience that I should castigate my own
country's government, pillory the Republicans,
and call George
Bush a criminal and a fool. Tom Tomorrow has
done this for the last 810,397 weeks running
and his
readers eat it up. But preaching to the choir
gets boring,
for both the artist and, I would think, for the
audience.
But this audience also
has a (generally benign and decent)
conditioned inhibition
against
being--or
at least looking--ignorant
or judgmental of other cultures, lest they be
mistaken for jingoistic
yahoos
or racists. I dislike feeling
constrained by this politically correct sheepishness
(even though
I
am also deeply mistrustful
of most humorists who rail
about the censorious constraints
of "political
correctness," since what they mostly seem
to want is to return to the good old days of
telling
darkie jokes and smacking broads on the ass without
some uptight biddy making a federal case out
of it). So in the context of that smaller, more
rarefied
subculture it is somewhat subversive and nervy
to point out that, no, actually I think that
other culture
sucks. Anybody, humorists included, has more
integrity and credibility if they express their
own honest,
idiosyncratic views instead of predictably parroting
some party line. This is why when some dim-bulb
apparatchik like William Kristol supports the
invasion of Iraq
you just roll your eyes and make the jerk-off
gesture, but when Christopher Hitchens does it
you have to
do a double-take and furrow your brow over what
he has to say, if for no other reason than to
pinpoint
where this formerly smart, sane person went completely
wacky. As a colleague of mine put it, "It's
Kreider's job to call bulllshit wherever he sees
it." And here's where I see
it:
I truly think
that Islamic fundamentalism, like Christian fundamentalism,
is abhorrent. Fundamentalism
is a
refuge for desperate, angry, ignorant people,
too dumb to handle any complexity, frightened
of ambiguity,
hostile to reality. If I were a more compassionate
person I would feel some generosity of heart
for their confusion and fear, but I'm not, I'm
a crank,
so I wish them ill. Fundamentalists hate the
things I love: art, fun, girls. And Islam is
currently
more dangerous than Christianity, since most
Christians lack the deep gut conviction necessary
to kill
people
over their dingbat beliefs, or at least are safely
confined to countries with an institutionalized
separation of church and state. The fact that
there are still
functioning theocracies in the world is an embarrassment
to the species.
Which is not to say,
by the way, that I believe that
the War on Terror is
a "clash
of civilizations," or
that it's the major issue of
our time. I feel confident that
we'll all drown under rising sea
levels
or shoot
each other over $1000-a-gallon
gasoline before the first turbaned
invader hits the Coney Island
beachhead. "Islamofascism" is
not going to take over the
world. Adolf Hitler couldn't even
take over Europe, and he had the
most terrible
war machine the planet had
ever seen at his command.
My own unofficial policy on
Islamic theocracies is, let them
have their shithole paradise. Like,
enjoy
the eleventh century, guys.
Drop us a line when
you invent movable type. Totalitarian
societies just
tend to be too brittle to last--the
Soviet Union only held it together
for seventy-odd years,
and by the end their empire
was revealed as a hollow,
rotten shell. Most people don't
want to live under a dictatorship
of clerics. They want to
buy tacky
useless crap and watch bad
TV and listen to shitty pop music
like we do.
What I do worry about
is that in the long run rationalism
might lose out to superstition.
Human
beings are
not primarily rational creatures.
The number of people who
actually understand and trust the
methods
of
science can probably be counted
in the low thousands. Civilizations
do collapse, and Dark Ages
ensue.
If we regard the present
situation as a struggle between
rationalism and superstition,
modernity and Mediævalism,
from my point of view bin Laden
and George Bush are on the
same side, and the War on Terror
is
what the
media likes to call "a
sectarian conflict." A
pox on both their houses, says
I. I am an enemy of fanatics
and assholes whatever side
they claim
to
be on. So I get called an America-hater
by semiliterate patriots for
mocking the assholes on our
side
and a racist and Tool of The
Man for mocking the assholes
on the other side. I make fun
of the assholes
on our side about twenty times
more often than the ones
on theirs, since this is my
side and it's my job to mock
it and there are already plenty
of
Morning
Guys riling up public sentiment
against the towelheads. But
once in a while the Taliban
dynamites a Buddha
or the Saudis stone a rape
victim or the Sundanese threaten
to flog someone over a stuffed
animal,
and it gets under my skin.
And I reserve the right to
draw outraged, impotent little
cartoons about these things.
Further, I claim the right
to be
silly and
stupid about very serious,
emotionally volatile issues
to no noble or instructive
purpose whatsoever.
I
am currently toying with a
little notion called "Captain
Pakistan" and nobody's
sensitivities are about to
dissuade me from pursuing it.
Understand,
I'm not comfortably dismissing your argument
or heedlessly thumbing my nose at you
here. I would
say your letter has helpfully complicated my
thinking, and will likely modulate my tone on
this subject
in the future. But I hope you understand I can't
afford to let it shut me up. I thank you for
taking the time to write at such length and with
such
serious and thoughtful intent. I hope we understand
each
other better and can amicably agree to disagree
on those points where we can't find accord. You
are
welcome to write back with your thoughts, but
I'm about exhausted on this subject for now,
so you
shouldn't expect a response inside another month
or two.
p.s. I am aware that
I'm pretty sheltered in terms of
my friendships and exposure to different
cultures,
and that this is a liability
in an artist who purports to comment on current
events, but I
also think
it would be pretty artificial
and patronizing for me
to go out of my way to cultivate
friendships based on ethnicity. Would I want someone
to try
to make
me their token white friend?
And although I've heard nothing but wild praise
for the Dave Chapelle
show
and have seen some very funny
routines by Arab comedians, I've never had any
success pursuing
interests out
of a sense of obligation. If
I could bring myself to do that I would've finished The
Brothers Karamazov by now.
Right now I'm just trying to
cultivate new friendships with
men, having lost a lot most
of my
old Baltimore crew, and am heavily
into reading everything by Cormac
McCarthy and trying to understand the
higher-dimensional implications
of string theory. So I've kind
of got a full plate. Nonetheless
I
will check out the Arab comedians
you recommended.
Dear
Tim,
My deep appreciation for
such a long and thoughtful response! i just wanted
to let you know that
i certainly didn't intend to shut you up with my
letter--i understand
that you "can't afford to let it shut you
up," as
you put it. i appreciate, and actually agree
with, most of your points. especially, as an
artist myself,
i understand that one must be free to express
the truth that one believes.
i take issue with you not
so much as an artist as as an american; your artistic
integrity is clearly in place (as evidenced to
me before i
wrote to
you
by your thoughtful artist statement)--yet
you betray the background assumptions of someone
brought up
in the racist, moral high-horse-riding,
self-entitled
american culture. here's the only
point i'll take issue with in your response, and
then i'll
let
it go: I agree 100% that Islamic
fundamentalism, like Christian fundamentalism, is
abhorrent. Fundamentalism
is a refuge for
desperate, angry, ignorant people,
too dumb to handle any
complexity, frightened of ambiguity,
hostile to reality. If I
were a more compassionate person
I would feel some generosity of
heart for their confusion
and fear,
but I'm not, I'm a crank, so I
wish them ill. Fundamentalists
hate the things I love: art,
fun, girls.
but this is where your
thought gets muddled and dangerous--reflecting
your american bias (as
a fish would reflect its origins
in water): And Islam is currently
more dangerous than Christianity, since most Christians
lack the deep gut conviction
necessary to kill people over their
dingbat beliefs, or at least are
safely confined to countries
with an institutionalized separation
of church and state.
The fact that there are functioning
theocracies in the world is an
embarrassment to the species.
if you count the death toll on
both sides (or the number of nuclear
weapons in both stockpiles),
i think you'll have to concede
that christian fundamentalism
is currently about 100 times more
dangerous than islamic fundamentalism.
most christians lack
the deep conviction necessary to
kill people over their
beliefs just as much as **MOST
MUSLIMS ALSO LACK THAT CONVICTION**--but
they (american christians)
are happy to support others killing
on behalf of their beliefs (which
is what muslims do as
well),
like the powerful american military.
they are happy to vote for people
who will use that military,
happy
to keep spending 50% or more of
their tax dollars on the military
budget, etc. etc. happy to support
with billions of dollars racist
and murdering
states
like formerly south africa and
currently israel, who do their
dirty work for them. but you know
all this! you agree with this,
i know! considered
outside
the american perspective (i dare
you to poll the average european
or latin american), christian
fundamentalism--and beyond that
what we might call "american
fundamentalism" (the
belief that america is the good
guys, fighting for truth and democracy,
etc. etc.--the global extension
of "manifest destiny")
poses a much greater danger to
world peace and security than
does islamic
fundamentalism.
and we here in america are
only a minor step removed from being
a theocracy, in fact if not
in name.
when political candidates can
freely express atheism, don't feel compelled
to trumpet their
deeply held
religious convictions (whether
sincerely held or not) in order
to get elected, don't make
religious issues like abortion and gay
rights and flag
burning
(a religious issue in the church
of america) political issues,
then i'll believe we're not
a theocracy.
certainly our stated principles
are anti-theocratic, but we
are the worst, most dangerous kind
of
theocracy, the one that doesn't
know or is in denial that
it's
a theocracy. in the only two
actual theocracies in the middle east,
Iran and Saudi Arabia, it
is much
easier for the majority, who
actually oppose the theocracies there (true
in both countries),
to
be against it, since the theocracy
is the instrument of an obvious
dictatorship, imposed on the
people from above. it is clearly something
that, on
a personal
or socio-cultural level, one
can disassociate oneself from. but
in america, the theocracy permeates
every
aspect of our culture, and
any public statement
that is remotely anti-religious
or anti-christian results
in the speaker being made a pariah.
and
yes, it is an embarrassment to
the species (both varieties).
when i said, above, that your
thought
was "muddled and dangerous," that's
because i think it is very dangerous
to assume that one form
of fundamentalism is worse than
another, or one is more harmless.
that assumption is what allows
us
to continue killing and oppression,
continue dividing the world up
into us and them. i like your point
about bush and bin laden being
on the same basic
side, having a sectarian squabble.
so don't be mentally trapped (by
your american bias) into conceding
that
bin laden is worse. the average
muslim in the middle east, is actually
ON YOUR SIDE--against the bushes
and bin ladens of the world. the
problem is that
that muslim thinks bush is worse
than bin laden, and you & the
average american think bin laden
is worse than bush, and both bush
and bin laden are counting on that
minor difference in your and their
assessments in order to use you
and them against
each other. that's what's called
demagoguery. because the muslim
thinks bush is worse than bin laden,
bush & the
media are able to spin that into
making you think that the muslim
is actually against **you**;
and vice-versa.
so i want to make
perfectly clear that i'm with
you: down with fundamentalism,
and long live
art, fun,
and girls!
yours,
sami
18 December 2007
Hello Tim--
Have looked at the "When The Fatwa
Comes" cartoon
a bunch of times now, and it is inspiring
as well friggin' funnier than anything I've seen
in a long
time. Great job!
I especially liked
how each panel/quadrant/element is a self-contained
sight gag. I'm
partial to the "Lie
Low" bit--I chuckle every time
I look--but the Kreider-as-cat-petting-fatwa-meister
and Kreider-as-repentant-Cat-Stevens
are each excellent too. Of course the
ray gun bit
at the end is great too. It reminded
me of your piece a couple of weeks
ago with the giant Islamic robot.
Not sure why the juxtaposition of sci-fi
cliches and Islamic extremist assholes
is funny, but I like
it and it works well in both cases.
I
look forward to your strip every week--it's
a great inspiration for
my own stuff.
Take it easy and be careful
out there,
Steve / Frank
Frank/Steve,
Thanks for your
effusive compliments on my cartoon that week.
I felt like my drawing of myself in
Afro-American disguise was
heavily indebted to Gene Wilder in "Silver
Streak." It's
possible that, following the
advice of many readers, as well as my inner
dweeb, I should
just ditch
politics and draw fucked-up
gleaming Kirbyesque gadgetry every week.
Good
luck with your book projects.
Tim
18 December 2007
I really like your scowl in the
counter-fatwa panel.
Don't forget that I was serious circa
a year ago when I offered you my back-cottage
gratis on the CANADIAN side of Lake Erie. I've got
a system worked
out where I "LIVE" in a bought and paid
for home in Buffalo, yet have actually never spent
a night there. I am friends with our state senator
who lives across the street and three judges (1 local,
1state, and 1 fed) whom all live on "my" block.
The neighborhood is called "Judge's Row".
Consequently, our streets are plowed
first in the 6 months of winter that
we get here. They like me
b/c I'm smart polite, charismatic,
and they think I represent optimism
for the future. FOOLS! Bwahahahaha...etc.
Anyway, back to havens here in my Canadian
world, you can still buy codiene OTC
and Absinthe (WITH
the Thujens hallucinogen that the pussy
US still doesn't allow). I extract
the codiene, mix 1:1 with
absinthe, burn a teaspoon of absinthe
soaked sugar in my actual 1799 sterling
silver carmelizing spoon
(made just for this purpose). Extinguish
flame (IMPORTANT STEP). Stir, and enjoy.
It tastes like ass, but PBR
makes a good chaser, and frankly after
about four of them, you stop caring.
I call it the "Strangelove" or
when I'm with more TV oriented friends, the "Sleestack".
Big downside to this place though,
is that most of the women in the area
are old, Tai-Chi, lesbians.
I'm not against any one of those things,
but when you put 'em together, it makes
for a special kind
of tedium. That's when a "Strangelove" or
three comes in handy.
But, the local youth have my back b/c
I let them fish and snowmobile on my
beach. I also sell them
class "B" fireworks which
aren't legal in the US or Canada, so
they unerringly give me a
heads-up when the mounties are in the
area. Say what you will about the apathetic
dumb-ass youth, they
know how to evade the law.
I'm a data-analyst for the US gov't,
so I can roll out of bed when I feel
like it, write a report, cash
my check and be basically beningnly
decadent. I life-style choice I think
you can appreciate. If you can make
their deadline, fuck everything else,
order more
food, pop in another movie, and have
a drink.
Anyway, I offer sanctuary or a free
vacation setting (I recommend
summer) bring friends, except maybe
that crazy half-breed.
I'm not some kook, fanatic, or security risk. [PASSAGE
REDACTED DUE TO SECURITY
CONCERNS]
I still
love the "Micshka,
the Russian Space-Bear",
atop a garbage can full
of TNT). You're
dead-on about
that one.
Ed
Ed,
Thanks for the gracious
invitation. I may yet take you up on it, as
homelessness in New York City
seems imminent. It sounds like
an ideal setup for a safe house, what with
Strangeloves and the protection
of the local good-for-nought
teens. Your lifestyle sounds much like my own,
except
that you have a
source of income. Can I also
do data analysis for the government?
Funny you should've mentioned "Sleestaks" in
your letter--some friends of mine and I passed my
birthday last year watching "Land of the Lost" on
DVD on painkillers. It's a terrible
show.
19 December 2007
Mr. Kreider,
More years ago than I care to think
about, National Lampoon ran several
pages of Christmas song themed parody
by the Great Gahan Wilson.
Dashing
up the tree
To decorate the top
The ladder tilts,
A sickening pause,
A fatal ten-foot drop!
Bah! Humbug!
Joel Carson
Joel Carson,
Good old Gahan.
I met him at a comics convention a couple years
ago. He was
just as you'd hope
he would be.
Tim
21 December 2007
I almost did a spit take when I
saw the last panel of this week’s
comic. Great work!
Your Dallas Fan,
T.S. McBride
Glad you liked it. See, with the head-hole,
when you did a spit take there'd be like a whale
spout
as well, only adding to the
hilarity.
22 December 2007
Hi,
I came across your cartoon while randomly browsing
webcomics on the internet. I don't
usually contact people in the same media
as myself because I am both
socially anxious and a misanthropic
shut in and find even the most remote forms of
human contact
to be painfully unimportant.
All of this gibberish aside,
I would just like to say that your
cartoon made my day and I have listed you on the
links page
of my own cartoon: asliceoflifecartoon.com.
Thanks much for
the work you do.
-Noel Graham
Noel Graham:
Just checked out your website and
was pleasantly
surprised to laugh at the first cartoon I saw.
The "Your Mom sounds like she
really likes to party" therapist,
graven monster-God with the "inflexible
virgin policy," and
the Gorgon cartoons
are all solid hits,
and those are just
from the
most recent batch.
I like how it's
always the same
generic loser guy,
a kind of (just
barely)
cooler Ziggy. (Unsolicited
but minor gripe:
I wish you'd either
a.) hand-letter
the word balloons
or, maybe better,
b.) turn them into
New Yorker/Far
Side captions at
the bottom of the
panel.)
Thanks very much for your compliments
on my own work. They
mean that much more to me knowing your
aversion to your
colleagues' work. I hardly ever look at
anyone else's cartoons,
either, since they'll only either be worse than
mine, in which case
why bother, or better, which will
fill me with envy
and despair. I was glad to see yours.
Tim
24 December 2007
To Mr. Kreider,
I stumbled across your website recently
and all I have to say
is that I love your work, and feel
I share a lot in common
with you (currently a lonely art
student without any
career plans who is atheistic, depressed, and
loves his cat too much).
I
find a lot of your cartoons enjoyable
and find it nice
to know there's
someone out there
who feels the same way
I do about a
lot of things and
is still trucking along
somehow. It gives
me some kind
of foolish hope,
I suppose.
So, all I wanted
to say was thanks, and
I'll be rooting for
you.
Cameron
Cameron,
Thanks for writing.
Getting
home from Christmas is always a bummer,
and
your letter was the one
reward
for scrolling through and deleting
104
messages with subject headings like "Your
Health," "Exquisite Handcrafted
Timepieces," and "Fill
Her
Twat
to
the
Limits."
The
thought
that
it
is
me
who
gives
anyone
hope
fills
me
with
the
kind
of
despair
best
encapsulated
by
the
joke
whose
punchline
is, "But,
doctor--I
am
Pagliacci." Still,
glad
to
hear
I'm
helping
somehow.
I wish
I could
help
more.
Atheistic,
depressed,
and
without
career
prospects
is
a tough
row
to
hoe.
But
a cat
is
a good
thing
to
have,
not
to
be
dismissed.
My
own
cat
has
been
turned
into
a yowling
tea-head
by
the
cat-sitter
I hired
over
Christmas,
who
apparently
indulged
her
in
her
ungovernable
lust
for
catnip.
It'd
be
nice
to
leave
you
with
something
uplifting
but
I
got
nothin'
for
ya.
Sorry.
It's
a
shitty
time
of
year
and
I'm
just
barely
hanging
in
there
myself.
I
guess
the
cartoons
are
the
best
I
can
do
for
you.
Which
reminds
me,
I'm
supposed
to
be
working
one
right
now.
Time
to
shut
up
and draw funny pictures.
Tim
P.S. Cameron is a gender-neutral
name but I suppose you are probably a
pathetic lonely dude like myself
rather than a cute young potential groupie,
yes? Just asking.
Mr. Kreider,
I'm glad that I was
able to help you, as well, in some small
way. Honestly,
I expected
a best case scenario of a form letter
from someone too important and inundated
with
similar letters (or their antithesis) to
write back to anyone specific,
so your return letter came as a pleasant
surprise. I do love
my cat, but fear for the inevitable
day
that she
must pass on, for she
is 14 years of
age and growing
old. Also, I'd rather prefer
the honest "sorry, I'm
in the same shithole myself" than a blatantly
fake "believe
in rainbows
and butterflies
and your
own self-worth
and you'll
be a happy
man!"
I'd
actually rather
listen to
someone commiserate
than some
successful ecstatic
man screaming "You just need to BELIEVE
in yourself and you'll do it, too! Just look
at how successful *I* am!" Which
has never
really helped.
But,
I digress. I'm sorry to hear about
Ms. C.H.'s departure,
and I hope you find some
happiness somewhere.
We all need it, us bitter artists more
than most.
And,
yes, your presumption
was correct. Lonely
dude.
Cameron
|