Well, the national nightmare that has been gripping this comments section is over. The evil menace that threatened your experiences of this comic strip has been held at bay for now. The main character you all love and emulate (except for the therapy) has returned.
razorback: “The main character you all love and emulate (except for the therapy) has returned.”
Yes, Mona’s bitchy, neurotic, sarcastic, cynical outlook is what attracted us to the strip in the first place, and what drives the humor. Anyone who dislikes Mona being Mona probably wouldn’t have stuck around for long as a reader.
Yes, Mona’s bitchy, neurotic, sarcastic, cynical outlook is what attracted us to the strip in the first place, and what drives the humor. Anyone who dislikes Mona being Mona probably wouldn’t have stuck around for long as a reader.
The supporting cast provides the humor; Mona moves the story along. The strip is about her, after all. Mona’s the straight man; the only time Mona has to be funny is when she fails at something due to her attitude working against her and when she has to react to another character (Donna, Smokey, Lucas, Pierre, creepy stalker guy, etc.).
If “Mona being Mona” is the ONLY reason you guys (Fritzoid) stick around, you are selling this comic strip short.
If all you see Mona as is the straight (wo)man, I’d say YOU’RE selling the strip short, as well.
On “30 Rock”, Liz Lemon is comparatively normal, considering her surroundings, but her neuroses and idiosyncrasies are comic in their own right. Jerry was comparatively normal on “Seinfeld”, but he was hardly Rob Petrie or Andy Travis.
“Softening” Mona in any lasting way would rip the core out of this strip, and once it’s done there’s no going back.
Why do YOU think it’s funny when “she fails at something due to her attitude working against her”? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t a change of her attitude, such that it’s NO LONGER working against her, likewise remove much of the humor from the strip? And DOES her attitude always work against her? Mona’s acerbity and her cynicism are not only comically exaggerated, they are her strength. She can put people in their places in ways that we, the readers, wish we could get away with in real life.
Mona’s therapy and anger management treatments were successful to the extent that (perhaps) she’ll not again put Lucas in the hospital. That’s funny. If her therapy were successful to the extent that she really becomes a “well-adjusted” person, contented with 2.5 kids, a house in the suburbs, and a middle-class income, that’s the death of the strip.
I haven’t read ALL the archives yet, but I’ve read some of them. From the earliest days of the strip, it seems clear that if Ms. Babcock HAS an all-encompassing “character arc” for Mona in mind, it is to get her to recognize that LUCAS is “who she’s meant to be with.” Tiffany and Ryan and anybody else who may drop in an out of either of their lives (or beds) isn’t likely to be anything other than a pit-stop on the way. Maybe YOU, razorback, would like to see “C’est la Vie” as Mona’s journey to “normalcy”, but does it seem at all like that’s what Ms. Babcock is interested in providing?
Oh, you’re still thinking I want Mona to turn into a Stepford wife. That’s not the case anymore; I’m over the whole Hawaii Mona deal, though I still wonder why show what Mona could be when she’s not there yet and, according to the audience’s response, may never get there? I know Jen’s done it before, but that was a daydream showing what would Mona be like if her early life didn’t turn out the way it did. Anyway, I think Mona knows she can’t be what she was (which is probably where you want her to be), but she can pull it off only when needed. Otherwise, she acts like the typical straight man.
I also sense a lot of hostility in your post. Mona’s your pet character, isn’t she? I’ve never seen someone defend one character so adamantly. And yet, what did Mona accomplish by having that attitude? Well, she got rid of that stalker–no, he found somebody else to fawn over. She got Donna to stop acting like a Valley–no. She broke two psychologists with her–no, she broke one, and she was a rookie. The other one wouldn’t put up with her bleeep and confronted Mona when she tried to do so. I think Mona got sent to an insane asylum during that time. That was funny. Well, I got nothing. You try coming up with something, but I’m pretty sure it’s a small victory at best.
Also, I see that you would like the comic strip better if only those pesky supporting characters weren’t around to muck things up. As you keep saying, MONA IS THE BACKBONE OF THIS ENTIRE COMIC STRIP! IF YOU RIP OUT WHAT MONA MEANS TO ME, THEN THE ENTIRE STRIP DIES! Of course I know Mona’s the backbone; she is the lead character. But still, over the years, even if it is gradual and/or minimal, you have to expect a shift in personality of any character (I know, I know, comic strips). Mona now isn’t nearly as much of a shrew as she was in the beginning. She’s growing as a person right before your eyes. She’s not angry (well, not as angry) anymore. I think it’s great.
What, did you really think I hated Mona? Did you also think I hated the strip?
I’ll cop to hostility, but I’ll plead that I read hostility in your post at the top of this page. If I misread the tone of that, I apologize.
I’ll admit that I’m most fond of Mona “at her worst”; I think she LOOKS more interesting dressed in black, with spiky hair and pale skin, than she did when she was tanned and giggly in Hawaii. I’ve enjoyed the Ryan plot, but yes I am glad to see it end. I don’t agree with those who’ve called Ryan a “male Donna”; I actually think he’s a nice guy, but I think he was absolutely WRONG for Mona, and Mona was wrong for him, and even if they part tearfully I’m glad that they’re parting.
The fact that Mona is not as shrewish as she was in the first days/months(/years?) of the strip I’ve largely chalked up to Ms. Babcock finding out for herself more who Mona is. If Mona 2010 possesses more dimensions than Mona 2003, that wouldn’t be an uncommon development in ANY fictional creation; what was originally caricature is now character. That happens, and is welcome, whether characters age as in “For Better or for Worse”, or they stay chronologically arrested as in “Peanuts”.
margueritem over 14 years ago
You’re such a pal, Donna….
razorback2824 over 14 years ago
See, even Donna knows their roles in this strip.
Well, the national nightmare that has been gripping this comments section is over. The evil menace that threatened your experiences of this comic strip has been held at bay for now. The main character you all love and emulate (except for the therapy) has returned.
Sisyphos over 14 years ago
Donna, just say, “Until you’re yourself again?”
ladywolf17 over 14 years ago
Make it memorable then, Mona.
jay_dallas over 14 years ago
Mona needs to be getting up close and personal with those abs! Times running short….
The missing M. Smokey over 14 years ago
The drama is killing me… not.
Kosher71 over 14 years ago
Uh-oh , puppy dog eyes .
arsmall over 14 years ago
Love the puppy dog eyes, Jen!
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
razorback: “The main character you all love and emulate (except for the therapy) has returned.”
Yes, Mona’s bitchy, neurotic, sarcastic, cynical outlook is what attracted us to the strip in the first place, and what drives the humor. Anyone who dislikes Mona being Mona probably wouldn’t have stuck around for long as a reader.
mancocapac over 14 years ago
So 16 hours will be stretched out to five days?
Skylark over 14 years ago
OK Mona………back to character and make it quick! Enough of this stuff is enough and too much is sufficient! time to GET REAL once again!
POPPA1956 over 14 years ago
“until you’re ** again?” Did I mis something? When did she stop?
razorback2824 over 14 years ago
EasterFritz AKA Fritzoid said, about 3 hours ago
Yes, Mona’s bitchy, neurotic, sarcastic, cynical outlook is what attracted us to the strip in the first place, and what drives the humor. Anyone who dislikes Mona being Mona probably wouldn’t have stuck around for long as a reader.
The supporting cast provides the humor; Mona moves the story along. The strip is about her, after all. Mona’s the straight man; the only time Mona has to be funny is when she fails at something due to her attitude working against her and when she has to react to another character (Donna, Smokey, Lucas, Pierre, creepy stalker guy, etc.).
If “Mona being Mona” is the ONLY reason you guys (Fritzoid) stick around, you are selling this comic strip short.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
If all you see Mona as is the straight (wo)man, I’d say YOU’RE selling the strip short, as well.
On “30 Rock”, Liz Lemon is comparatively normal, considering her surroundings, but her neuroses and idiosyncrasies are comic in their own right. Jerry was comparatively normal on “Seinfeld”, but he was hardly Rob Petrie or Andy Travis.
“Softening” Mona in any lasting way would rip the core out of this strip, and once it’s done there’s no going back.
Why do YOU think it’s funny when “she fails at something due to her attitude working against her”? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t a change of her attitude, such that it’s NO LONGER working against her, likewise remove much of the humor from the strip? And DOES her attitude always work against her? Mona’s acerbity and her cynicism are not only comically exaggerated, they are her strength. She can put people in their places in ways that we, the readers, wish we could get away with in real life.
Mona’s therapy and anger management treatments were successful to the extent that (perhaps) she’ll not again put Lucas in the hospital. That’s funny. If her therapy were successful to the extent that she really becomes a “well-adjusted” person, contented with 2.5 kids, a house in the suburbs, and a middle-class income, that’s the death of the strip.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
I haven’t read ALL the archives yet, but I’ve read some of them. From the earliest days of the strip, it seems clear that if Ms. Babcock HAS an all-encompassing “character arc” for Mona in mind, it is to get her to recognize that LUCAS is “who she’s meant to be with.” Tiffany and Ryan and anybody else who may drop in an out of either of their lives (or beds) isn’t likely to be anything other than a pit-stop on the way. Maybe YOU, razorback, would like to see “C’est la Vie” as Mona’s journey to “normalcy”, but does it seem at all like that’s what Ms. Babcock is interested in providing?
RonBerg13 Premium Member over 14 years ago
D@mnit!
razorback2824 over 14 years ago
Oh, you’re still thinking I want Mona to turn into a Stepford wife. That’s not the case anymore; I’m over the whole Hawaii Mona deal, though I still wonder why show what Mona could be when she’s not there yet and, according to the audience’s response, may never get there? I know Jen’s done it before, but that was a daydream showing what would Mona be like if her early life didn’t turn out the way it did. Anyway, I think Mona knows she can’t be what she was (which is probably where you want her to be), but she can pull it off only when needed. Otherwise, she acts like the typical straight man.
I also sense a lot of hostility in your post. Mona’s your pet character, isn’t she? I’ve never seen someone defend one character so adamantly. And yet, what did Mona accomplish by having that attitude? Well, she got rid of that stalker–no, he found somebody else to fawn over. She got Donna to stop acting like a Valley–no. She broke two psychologists with her–no, she broke one, and she was a rookie. The other one wouldn’t put up with her bleeep and confronted Mona when she tried to do so. I think Mona got sent to an insane asylum during that time. That was funny. Well, I got nothing. You try coming up with something, but I’m pretty sure it’s a small victory at best.
Also, I see that you would like the comic strip better if only those pesky supporting characters weren’t around to muck things up. As you keep saying, MONA IS THE BACKBONE OF THIS ENTIRE COMIC STRIP! IF YOU RIP OUT WHAT MONA MEANS TO ME, THEN THE ENTIRE STRIP DIES! Of course I know Mona’s the backbone; she is the lead character. But still, over the years, even if it is gradual and/or minimal, you have to expect a shift in personality of any character (I know, I know, comic strips). Mona now isn’t nearly as much of a shrew as she was in the beginning. She’s growing as a person right before your eyes. She’s not angry (well, not as angry) anymore. I think it’s great.
What, did you really think I hated Mona? Did you also think I hated the strip?
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
I’ll cop to hostility, but I’ll plead that I read hostility in your post at the top of this page. If I misread the tone of that, I apologize.
I’ll admit that I’m most fond of Mona “at her worst”; I think she LOOKS more interesting dressed in black, with spiky hair and pale skin, than she did when she was tanned and giggly in Hawaii. I’ve enjoyed the Ryan plot, but yes I am glad to see it end. I don’t agree with those who’ve called Ryan a “male Donna”; I actually think he’s a nice guy, but I think he was absolutely WRONG for Mona, and Mona was wrong for him, and even if they part tearfully I’m glad that they’re parting.
The fact that Mona is not as shrewish as she was in the first days/months(/years?) of the strip I’ve largely chalked up to Ms. Babcock finding out for herself more who Mona is. If Mona 2010 possesses more dimensions than Mona 2003, that wouldn’t be an uncommon development in ANY fictional creation; what was originally caricature is now character. That happens, and is welcome, whether characters age as in “For Better or for Worse”, or they stay chronologically arrested as in “Peanuts”.