Johnny Hart, "B.C." Creator, 1931 - 2007

[GWOtaku]

Are we seriously spending more time citing a fringe organization like CAIR and hating on Hart instead of celebrating a great cartoonist? Oh no, here's one comic he did that wasn't funny--come on, seriously. If behavior here were regular practice Jim Davis would be one of the most hated people in the country (apologies to those that like Garfield).

Bottom line, he was a talented person that wrote a good strip for a very long time. Nobody can take that away from the guy, including the drive-by critics that managed to bend themselves out of shape over a few Christmas and Easter strips that had something to them besides boring, generic jokes that are way too common on the funny pages these days.

Oh well, I'll always have my Calvin & Hobbes books...

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

I thought he was wrong about some things. But I'm going to take the Christian path and forgive him, and hope he'll be remembered for his the quality of his work. Although, well, I never thought Wizard of Id was that funny. Not even the strips about torture, and especially not about the little king. B.C. isn't that great either. The caveman gag gets old after a while. If I wasn't such a completist about reading the comics page I would skip them both.

Hart just co-created Wizard of Id, too. Some people in this thread seem to be mistakenly giving him full credit for it.

 

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

He was actually quite inventive in the 60s, but when his fundamentalist ideals took over, it was all downhill from there.

I guess it's difficult to totally love a guy who lets his beliefs tip over into borderline racial intolerance, that's why he can't be remembered for what he was, one of the giants in the comic strip field.

Jim Davis may be phoning it in now (hell, maybe he doesn't even draw or write his strip anymore) but he is generally an inoffensive cartoonist who created an icon, so that's why he'll probably be remembered more fondly when he dies. (Sorry Jim, didn't mean to roll out the meat wagon prematurely there)

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

Charles Schulz is almost universally beloved, even though he was clearly Christian and didn't try to hide that in his strips. It's not just that Hart expressed challenging Christian or even fundamentalist views, it's that he did it in what many people saw as a mean-spirited way.

 

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Charles Schulz is almost universally beloved, even though he was clearly Christian and didn't try to hide that in his strips. It's not just that Hart expressed challenging Christian or even fundamentalist views, it's that he did it in what many people saw as a mean-spirited way.

True, although I would argue Schulz was a reluctant Christian. He was God-fearing, but he was always skeptical about religion in general.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

True, although I would argue Schulz was a reluctant Christian. He was God-fearing, but he was always skeptical about religion in general.

He didn't buy into all the dogma, but he definitely had religous views and ideas.

 

[Eddie G.]

He didn't buy into all the dogma, but he definitely had religous views and ideas.

Not towards the end of his life. He considered himself a Secular Humanist. He may, or may not have believed in a higher being, although some believe that he actually was an Atheist towards the end of his life. Either way he was not religous.

 

[Cortez2301]

I don't understand.I'm muslim and I didn't take any offense to that.Besides the guy is dead.Lets focus on his good deed and we'll let God worry about the rest.

 

[Ultra8]

R.I.P. Mr. Hart.

This realy sucks, B.C. and The Wizard of Id were two of my regulars when ever I read the Sunday Funnies.

 

[Peter Paltridge]

Not towards the end of his life. He considered himself a Secular Humanist. He may, or may not have believed in a higher being, although some believe that he actually was an Atheist towards the end of his life. Either way he was not religous.

Bull. "Secular Humanist" is a longer way of saying "atheist." Schulz was certainly not an atheist.

If you can show me a quote where he describes himself as a "secular humanist," then....well, don't show me that; I'd rather not know. It'll depress me if the one pure Christian example in the comics field was a fraud.

 

[Blue Priestess]

Are we seriously spending more time citing a fringe organization like CAIR and hating on Hart instead of celebrating a great cartoonist? Oh no, here's one comic he did that wasn't funny--come on, seriously. If behavior here were regular practice Jim Davis would be one of the most hated people in the country (apologies to those that like Garfield).

Bottom line, he was a talented person that wrote a good strip for a very long time. Nobody can take that away from the guy, including the drive-by critics that managed to bend themselves out of shape over a few Christmas and Easter strips that had something to them besides boring, generic jokes that are way too common on the funny pages these days.

Oh well, I'll always have my Calvin & Hobbes books...

1.) Has anyone cited fringe organizations directly and not via a pre-existing news article that was citing them? I haven't seen this.

2.) Lots of people hate Jim Davis. Read the Internets some more and you'll see.

3.) Talent that is wasted is taken away by the individual, and that's certainly what happened with Hart. He started out great, but instead of continuing in that same vein, he decided to beat his drum in a really obnoxious way. To many of us, Hart the cartoonist was already long gone.

4.) Have you ever read some of his Sunday strips? The lovely "Jews killed Jesus, so Hanukkah doesn't matter" one? The many, many ones recently with the ant school decrying separation of church & state? I suggest you do, and maybe you'll understand why some of us "drive-by critics" are being 'disrespectful' (read: not gushing half-hearted false praise and instead saying how we feel).

If anything, arguments like this alleviate what little guilt I had about saying less than kind things about the man. At least when I do, I've actually read his stuff.

 

[Ed Liu]

Not towards the end of his life. He considered himself a Secular Humanist. He may, or may not have believed in a higher being, although some believe that he actually was an Atheist towards the end of his life. Either way he was not religous.

I'm sorry, but that's completely untrue. As far as I know, Charles Schulz was a Christian all his life and there is a lot more about his faith than any supposed late-in-life conversion. If nothing else, his insistence on the inclusion of a Biblical reading in A Charlie Brown Christmas (and every account I've ever seen says that he was the one who insisted on including Linus' reading, in the face of requests to take it out from his producers and network executives) would disprove your statement that he was not religious. You also don't have to look very far to find Christian themes and morals informing Peanuts (this book would tend to disagree with you as well).

This article does a pretty good job of exploring Schulz's faith and, more germane to this topic, comparing it to Hart's in addressing why Schulz was never criticized for religious themes in his works while Hart drew fire consistently.

-- Ed

 

[wonderfly]

The lovely "Jews killed Jesus, so Hanukkah doesn't matter" one?

If you're referring to the infamous "menorah transforming into a cross" strip, I don't believe anywhere in there he comes out and says, "Jews killed Jesus!" Everyone can read their own interpretation, but most devout Christians do believe that Christianity replaced Judaism. Many Christians also don't take that to mean we should run out into the streets and kill a bunch of Jews.

The many, many ones recently with the ant school decrying separation of church & state?

And that's a bad thing how? The author is giving his opinion. Is it only okay when a cartoonist gives an opinion you agree with?

 

[Zebi]

Bull. "Secular Humanist" is a longer way of saying "atheist." Schulz was certainly not an atheist.

If you read Wikipedia's article on secular humanism, you'll see that not all secular humanists are athiests or agnostics. According to the article, secular humanism also has appeal to freethinkers, empiricists, objectivists, rationalists, skeptics and materialists, as well as to some Buddhists, Hindus and Confucians.

I'm sorry, but that's completely untrue. As far as I know, Charles Schulz was a Christian all his life and there is a lot more about his faith than any supposed late-in-life conversion.

There is an article from 1999, where Schulz does describe himself as a secular humanist:

Though his philosophical views evolved over the years -- "The term that best describes me now is 'secular humanist,'" he explained -- his characters continued to quote biblical passages, occasionally musing about the darker inconsistencies of religion. These thoughtful reflections were never heavy-handed; rather, Schulz had become the reigning master of the lighter-than-air, spiritually resonant comic-strip koan.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

Not towards the end of his life. He considered himself a Secular Humanist. He may, or may not have believed in a higher being, although some believe that he actually was an Atheist towards the end of his life. Either way he was not religous.

The point is the main body of his work was made when he was Christian, definitely comes from a Christian viewpoint, and was readily accepted by the people because Schulz was tactful where Hart was blunt. An end of life conversion is irrelevant to the discussion.

The only reference I could find to his secular humanism, which also talks about he continued to use religous themes in his work at the same time:

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/12.30.99/schulz2-9952.html

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

Bull. "Secular Humanist" is a longer way of saying "atheist." Schulz was certainly not an atheist.

If you can show me a quote where he describes himself as a "secular humanist," then....well, don't show me that; I'd rather not know. It'll depress me if the one pure Christian example in the comics field was a fraud.

Why would you say this? Bil Keane may not be that funny, but he's sure Christian.

 

[Ed Liu]

There is an article from 1999, where Schulz does describe himself as a secular humanist:

Well, whaddya know? I stand corrected, then. Given statements he made throughout his life and the article you just cited, I still think Schulz believed in God, but didn't want to rely solely in Him for an ethical belief system. I don't think those two positions are incompatible. I certainly wouldn't put Schulz in the same brand of aggressively atheistic secular humanists as Richard Dawkins, for example.

I think it's easy to forget how much Schulz's faith informed Peanuts because it's a lot more subtle and less clear-cut, and nobody seems to have raised much of a fuss over religious content in the strip (other than some religious fundamentalists, who apparently felt there wasn't enough of it). As a result, it's easy to forget that it's even there. Meanwhile, Hart's faith was bold as brass and sharply defined, and his brand of faith is the one that gets public attention and is argued over as a result. If Schulz talks with me about faith through Peanuts, Hart talks at me through B.C. One of these approaches has been far more successful at getting me to listen.

Also, it's worth remembering that religion is a touchy subject and one that tends to inflame passions, so if you find yourself typing in anger, you should probably step away from the keyboard for a while.

-- Ed

 

[Eddie G.]

Well, whaddya know? I stand corrected, then. Given statements he made throughout his life and the article you just cited, I still think Schulz believed in God, but didn't want to rely solely in Him for an ethical belief system. I don't think those two positions are incompatible. I certainly wouldn't put Schulz in the same brand of aggressively atheistic secular humanists as Richard Dawkins, for example.

Of course not. The statement is obviously very vague and some believe that he was an Atheist, or at least an Agnostic towards the end of his life, not me, just some. If you look at Peanuts though it reflects more of the moral ideas of Christ and tradition than God.

The point is the main body of his work was made when he was Christian, definitely comes from a Christian viewpoint, and was readily accepted by the people because Schulz was tactful where Hart was blunt. An end of life conversion is irrelevant to the discussion.

That's honestly really hard to say since we only know that he was very involved in the Lutheran church when he was young and that he was more secular when he was older, we don't know the in-betweens, or when he transitioned.

With Hart though, his faith has nothing to do with his more hateful strips, so it's really beyond the point. The guy also said we shouldn't by Japanese cars because of Pearl Harbor. He was a little looney and a bit of a bigot no matter who he was attacking. It has nothing to do with being a Christian, or Conservative.

He had some cute designs though.

If you can show me a quote where he describes himself as a "secular humanist," then....well, don't show me that; I'd rather not know. It'll depress me if the one pure Christian example in the comics field was a fraud.

Peanuts reflected more the ideas of being humble, having some sort of tradition in society, and fun stuff like that. It reflected morals that exist in the teachings of Jesus but also from other philosophies and faiths. Even if Chuck wasn't that too into the Church, or even God, that doesn't mean he wasn't sincere about the morals he was presenting.

 

[Shawn Hopkins]

I'm sorry, but Peanuts characters often quoted the Bible. "The rain falls on the just and the unjust," and stuff like that. Regardless of how religious Schulz was in the later part of his life, the moral issues he dealt with in Peanuts came directly from Christianity. They weren't just morals that were coincidentally the same.

I also disagree that it was all "fun stuff." Peanuts could be very dark at times. Charlie Brown has more than his share of moments of hopelessness, Linus deals with issues of faith and Lucy represents elements of human sin.

It's weird to find myself on this side of an argument, being an atheist myself. But I don't feel the need to "claim" an important person for "my side."

 

[Eddie G.]

I'm sorry, but Peanuts characters often quoted the Bible. "The rain falls on the just and the unjust," and stuff like that. Regardless of how religious Schulz was in the later part of his life, the moral issues he dealt with in Peanuts came directly from Christianity. They weren't just morals that were coincidentally the same.

The idea that both good people and bad people suffer in life is an universal idea that is not exclusively Christian. I'm just saying that even if Chuck was no longer a Christian that doesn't mean he didn't shared share the basic ideals being expressed through those quotes.

It's weird to find myself on this side of an argument, being an atheist myself. But I don't feel the need to "claim" an important person for "my side."

Hey, I'm not trying to claim anybody, he probably did believe in a creator God, maybe he didn't. Secular Humanist is a really, really vague term and we can't say anything either way.