[HN Gopher] Garfield Minus Garfield
___________________________________________________________________
Garfield Minus Garfield
Author : mike1o1
Score : 734 points
Date : 2025-04-10 17:21 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (garfieldminusgarfield.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (garfieldminusgarfield.net)
| jsheard wrote:
| Garfield Minus Garfield is good, but Lasagna Cat is on another
| level.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAh9oLs67Cw
| bitwize wrote:
| I'm sorry Jon
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N8RDNd92sK0
| fullshark wrote:
| Can't believe those first videos are 17 years old...I remember
| them...man
| jsheard wrote:
| They posted the original series all at once 17 years ago, and
| the second series all at once 8 years ago. Maybe they're due
| to come back...
| distances wrote:
| And in the second series there's a video of Garfield and
| Odie making a home video. They created YouTube channels for
| the in-video characters with actual character relevant
| content, including that home video, 5 years before the
| second series was posted. Absolutely amazing work, hats
| off!
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3NLa4ebX4E
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Guy's monologue after the initial opener reminds me of the Log
| Lady from Twin Peaks. The content and delivery, both.
| darepublic wrote:
| I regularly have this on in the background while working. The
| music is good and I can tune in and out of it without losing
| focus
| z0r wrote:
| I'm not the only one sometimes does this... Now where could
| my pipe be?
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| Also Garfield Gameboy'd
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDqUDt3K5Mk
| Wololooo wrote:
| May I present you Garfeld, the musical?
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=x4-lNQHxSfI
|
| It is surprisingly good.
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| There's a great YouTube documentary that ties all the Garfield
| subculture together, and it's absolutely worth your time: What
| The Internet Did To Garfield
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O2C5R3FOWdE
| noman-land wrote:
| Since I'm too lazy to do this myself, I'm putting it out there
| for the world to make for me.
|
| I want to see Rogan Minus Rogan and Lex Minus Lex podcasts where
| all the host's speaking parts are cut out and you only hear the
| guest's replies.
|
| Thanks in advance.
| fossuser wrote:
| Lex minus lex would be really great
| almosthere wrote:
| I want to see Lex replaced with Rogan and Rogan replaced with
| Lex
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Well that's easy since they talk to a lot of the same people.
| abeppu wrote:
| I think Lex also has recycled some questions / topics across
| several guests. I'd enjoy a virtual panel supercut where we see
| only all the guests' responses to the same prompt.
| randomtoast wrote:
| There was at least one podcast featuring both Rogan and Lex.
| This would result in an hours-long podcast of pure silence.
| rzzzt wrote:
| _Angry John Cage noises_
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Jamie would still pop in once in a while. I like Jamie.
| 9dev wrote:
| Now that sounds like the kind of show where both of them
| finally have something good to contribute!
| itishappy wrote:
| What about Rogan vs Lex where it's just them shooting probing
| questions back and forth and exchanging vaguely related
| anecdotes?
| makeworld wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Iyg9fznvM
| circles_for-day wrote:
| Tim Ferriss minus Tim has long been a dream of mine
|
| After discovering Dwarkesh, Lex and Rogan have struck me as
| tragic waste. At worst a laundromat for psychopathic
| distortions, and at best a lazy unguided exhibition of the
| guest's choosing.
| eej71 wrote:
| You might enjoy Charlie Rose interviews Charlie Rose.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFE2CCfAP1o
| btucker wrote:
| And then, The Charlie Rose Paradox:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqW9sexNdZg
| PyWoody wrote:
| Paul Rudd Interviews Paul Rudd
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbLcY0XeVY4
| flysand7 wrote:
| Alok Kanojia vs Kok Alonojia (aka Dr.K interviews himself)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXG2h3RWTPE&pp=ygUGI2RrYWl0
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Jordan Peterson vs Peter Jordanson
|
| Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buD2RM0xChM Part
| 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juts9IlrixQ
| codetrotter wrote:
| Rogan minus guest.
|
| "Huhuhuhuhh." "Wow." "You wrote that?" "Who?" "Where is that
| from? What show is that from?"
|
| Very interesting listening material I am sure
| mightybyte wrote:
| In this same vein, Hot Ones minus Sean might be pretty
| entertaining as well.
| archagon wrote:
| Hot Ones Minus Sauce. Sean driving a guest to madness through
| sheer conversation.
| banana_giraffe wrote:
| The timings are a bit off, but here's one attempt at it:
|
| https://qlymwesmrj.s3.amazonaws.com/temp/joe_without_joe.mp3
| rufus_foreman wrote:
| Calvin and Hobbes, minus Hobbes:
| https://calvinminushobbes.tumblr.com/
| georgeburdell wrote:
| I mean this one is just reality. I'm not sure Garfield is a
| figment of Jon's imagination
|
| Edit: if you want to ruin your day, check out this C&H fan art
| https://www.reddit.com/r/calvinandhobbes/comments/6vwll2/is_...
| arnarbi wrote:
| Garfield is certainly (meant to be) real, but I've never seen
| a strip that confirms that Jon can actually hear Garfield's
| thoughts. I think that's why Garfield minus Garfield works so
| well.
| the_af wrote:
| > _I mean this one is just reality. I'm not sure Garfield is
| a figment of Jon's imagination_
|
| It's not reality. Hobbes it's not unambiguously stated to be
| a figment of Calvin's imagination either.
|
| That's a fine interpretation but it's not canonical.
| Watterson wanted the ambiguity, as Wikipedia mentions (sorry,
| I don't have the interview with the direct quote where
| Watterson states this):
|
| > _" [Watteron] gave an example of this in discussing his
| opposition to a Hobbes plush toy: that if the essence of
| Hobbes' nature in the strip is that it remain unresolved
| whether he is a real tiger or a stuffed toy, then creating a
| real stuffed toy would only destroy the magic."_
| maxglute wrote:
| Call child protective services.
| nickvec wrote:
| > Garfield Minus Garfield is a site dedicated to removing
| Garfield from the Garfield comic strips in order to reveal the
| existential angst of a certain young Mr. Jon Arbuckle. It is a
| journey deep into the mind of an isolated young everyman as he
| fights a losing battle against loneliness and depression in a
| quiet American suburb.
|
| Did not think I would be relating to Jon on a Thursday morning.
| system2 wrote:
| I was about to bash before I read this. Now I feel depressed.
| mrexroad wrote:
| Try zsh instead!
| foobahify wrote:
| Oh my!
| s1mplicissimus wrote:
| grml!
| 0xdeadbeefbabe wrote:
| You'll feel worse if you use tcsh
| gorjusborg wrote:
| It could be worse: csh
| flysand7 wrote:
| Don't cry, I am just a fish
| erk__ wrote:
| Its also pretty interesting given that the original title for
| the comic that would become Garfield was simply "Jon"
|
| There was a small YouTube documentary about finding the old
| comics in libraries and scanning them in. I the description of
| the video there is links to scans of all the ones they were
| able to find: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxiwjaUSYJM
| gwern wrote:
| Google Docs PDF mirrored at
| https://gwern.net/doc/anime/2020-hoover-
| theevolutionofjimdav...
| m463 wrote:
| Now it makes me wonder what would happen if you did something
| like removing all the superheroes from a movie.
|
| or took soem movies and made all the villains super-attractive
| and the heroes ugly and dressed in black.
| minikomi wrote:
| One of my favorite additions by subtraction:
|
| https://youtu.be/jKS3MGriZcs?si=RRlSVL0jwi5sDl3f
|
| Removing the laugh track from the big bang theory
| mathgeek wrote:
| This is the first thing that came to mind for me as well.
| Have always loved how mean everyone seems without the
| canned laughter to tell us "hey, this is funny!"
| plorg wrote:
| You won't find me defending The Big Bang Theory, but it's
| worth noting a lot of actually funny television would have
| this kind of dead energy if you removed the laugh track,
| because it's both written for that environment and paced
| and acted for the audience reaction breaks.
| Agentlien wrote:
| I've never really enjoyed this show but I found myself
| liking this clean version much more.
|
| It feels slower and more natural. It also helps because I
| wouldn't have laughed at any of those spots with it without
| laugh track.
| Henchman21 wrote:
| I'm reminded of _Star Wars minus Williams_ , which removes
| John Williams amazing soundtrack from an amazing movie! The
| absurdity is top notch!
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9WVDvVd0E
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I don't think this came about by randomly deciding to take a
| character out of a strip. The creators of G-G recognized that
| Jon is a depressing character who has these one way
| discussions with Garfield. Garfield's inner monologue (that
| Jon is not aware of) provides all the humor, mostly at Jon's
| expense. Take the humor out of the comic, and you're left
| with the depression. It goes straight from a comedy to a
| tragedy.
|
| This is what's interesting about G-G. The tragedy was always
| there. We kinda knew the tragedy was always there, but we'd
| rather laugh at Jon with Garfield than commiserate with Jon.
|
| Taking superheroes out of a random movie would lead to
| silliness, yes, but nothing poignant.
| stuckinhell wrote:
| kind of spooky and sad
| jonathaneunice wrote:
| _Way_ , *way* darker than I imagined.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| I think the most surprising thing about it is that it's good.
| Not just good as a curiosity, but _actually_ good, in ways and
| to a degree that would be pretty hard to replicate if you set
| out to create it from scratch, without existing Garfield strips
| to lean on.
| rconti wrote:
| did you follow the "20 darkest" link?
| kayge wrote:
| I did! And it started to make me wonder whether the same
| shenanigans could be applied to make any interesting Calvin
| minus Hobbes strips ... but my guess is it wouldn't turn out
| quite so dark
|
| https://screenrant.com/15-dark-garfield-minus-strips-jon-
| dep...
| whartung wrote:
| Heck, after reading that thing, I'M trying not to jump.
| klaussilveira wrote:
| This is brilliant.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I love how this turns the comic into psychological horror.
|
| Super Eyepatch Wolf actually did a really interesting analysis
| about how Garfield entered the horror genera
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2C5R3FOWdE. I click on the video
| randomly out of curiosity, but I got really sucked in.
| louwrentius wrote:
| Thanks that was wild
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Maybe the Jan 27 entry, but the Nov 03 entry reads much the
| same if Garfield is present or not. What I mean is, the strips
| that focus on Jon talking to Garfield always had this element.
|
| Remember, Jon is already talking to a cat who he assumes can't
| understand him & knows can't talk back. He might as well be
| talking into the abyss. Only we can read Garfield's inner
| monologue. Jon's actions are sometimes presupposed by
| Garfield's whims. This premise is already the basis of some
| horror or otherwise unsetting fiction.
|
| If Garfield is there or not, if we focus on Jon as the main
| character of the strip, we might have to do some introspection,
| whether it's about expecting to have a conversation with cat as
| if he were your son, that our lives are as boring as his, etc.
| These are scary thoughts! Garfield's presence serves as a
| humorous distraction and allows us to forget these thoughts and
| laugh at Jon, even if briefly. In the same way, Freddy Krueger
| delivers funny one liners to break up the dread of realizing
| we're in some sort of living nightmare like people of Elm
| Street...
| tdeck wrote:
| This is a combination of entertaining and engaging.
| teach wrote:
| (2008)
| basketbla wrote:
| This is hilarious. Reminds me of this old pete holmes Garfield
| sketch (looks like the original got taken down).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ayjz18d8Kpo
| rfarley04 wrote:
| Obligatory tangent of Friends without the laugh track:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgKgXehYnnw
|
| Similarly creep and unsettling.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| MASH is available without the laugh track.
|
| Really changes the tone, though in that case it doesn't ruin
| it, just makes it different.
| chuckadams wrote:
| Alan Alda has mentioned in interviews that he prefers it that
| way.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| I feel like removing it removes some noise, but doesn't
| affect the tone. Story is, the MASH showrunners didn't want a
| laugh track, but the network insisted, so they used the
| lowest-fidelity one they could get away with.
| dingaling wrote:
| Thankfully it was broadcast in the UK without the laugh
| track.
|
| Obviously it still wasn't as darkly observant as the movie,
| but it did have a edge.
| triceratops wrote:
| They filmed in front of a live audience in a theater and those
| are real people laughing. It's unsettling because the actors
| pause between lines until the laughter stops.
|
| Reflexive dismissals of shows with laugh tracks are lazy.
| rfarley04 wrote:
| To each their own! When I watch Ross ask how to beat up a
| woman in the street with eyes bugging out of his head there's
| a pretty big difference between a laugh track and no laugh
| track. Just like Garfield comics hit very different when you
| realize that John is actually talking to himself.
|
| I don't "reflexively dismiss" all shows with a laugh track.
| Some of Friends is genuinely hilarious. But a lot of it is
| only funny, to me, when surrounded by others laughing.
| almosthere wrote:
| Is this done with a GAN or manual?
| alabastervlog wrote:
| The earliest ones are from 2008.
|
| So, at least for the vast majority of these: manual.
| itishappy wrote:
| Pretty sure it's being done the hard way. The site's been
| running since 2008, so it'd be one of the earliest examples of
| a GAN in the wild if so!
| grepLeigh wrote:
| I found this years ago, during the "Stumbleupon" era of the
| Internet (does anyone remember this time sink?). I'm so glad it's
| still alive!
| dingnuts wrote:
| yes, I wasted hours of my life using it until one day I landed
| on some site called Reddit
|
| Kagi has brought it back (kind of): https://kagi.com/smallweb
| has a random button (Next Post in the top left corner)
| tomrod wrote:
| I love small web!
| shikshake wrote:
| Setting it to the new tab page is a neat idea, I will follow
| your lead
| kreddor wrote:
| You should check out Marginalia Search as well!
| https://marginalia-search.com/
| echelon wrote:
| Slashdot, StumbleUpon, Everything2, del.icio.us, Digg
| natebc wrote:
| FWIW Digg is in the process of reinventing itself which ...
| is hopeful? We'll see!
|
| https://reboot.digg.com/
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I'm ready to be hurt again. I gave my email address. It
| would have to be better than the current version of Reddit.
| natebc wrote:
| I signed up a while back and got an invite today so
| things are happening. It'll be interesting to see what a
| Digg looks like on today's internet. Things are much less
| innocent these days.
| Mistletoe wrote:
| I was unaware this had happened so I'm kind of hopeful it
| could be something good.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2025/03/05/kevin-rose-and-alexis-
| ohan...
| natebc wrote:
| I think that being posted a few weeks ago on HN was what
| lead me to go chuck in my email. Exciting to see where it
| goes!
| rectang wrote:
| When Garfield Minus Garfield was being published regularly, I
| was a regular. I couldn't get enough of its dark, sardonic
| undermining of the comic aesthetic.
| accrual wrote:
| I loved Stumbleupon. It was a fun way to just explore the
| internet and truly find many gems I otherwise would have never
| noticed.
|
| Pretty interesting timeline of events in their Wikipedia
| article:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StumbleUpon
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I think (worry?) that stumbleupon rearranged my brain much like
| drugs or alcohol rearrange the brain of an addict. Once you've
| been there, you can't go back to being able to have "just one"
| beer or, in my case, "just one click" on a link aggregator. I
| think the novelty-seeking part of my brain was always there,
| but SU helped pathologize it. I found some cool stuff, but I
| kind of wish it had never existed.
|
| HN has a gentle enough design that I can enjoy it without it
| sucking me in, but I make a conscious choice to avoid Reddit,
| twitter, et al.
| grepLeigh wrote:
| Eh, if you hadn't found Stumbleupon then you would have
| experienced the same effect from one of the zillion other
| competitors in the attention economy.
|
| You're right that this kind of novelty-seeking content has a
| profound impact on the brain. It's really interesting to see
| finally see longitudinal research, plus research on
| screens/novelty on child development (search for $thing +
| "psychosocial development").
|
| One of the most encouraging thing I've taken away is that
| neutral pathways are still quite plastic well into adulthood.
|
| For example, here's an experiment to try if you wake up and
| scroll in bed. After you do your morning routine, jot down a
| mood score (-1 feeling crummy, 0 meh neutral, +1 feeling
| good). You can do this for a week or two if you want to
| collect control data. Then, force yourself to get out of bed
| without looking at your phone (buy an alarm if you have too).
| You should see changes in your mood log within a week. Sleep
| regulates/replenishes dopamine levels, and scrolling through
| a dopamine wonderland first thing in the AM can result in
| dopamine dysregulation for the rest of the day. Try it!
| dcsan wrote:
| I so fondly remember StumbleUpin, but I'm trying to recall what
| was so amazing about it. Was it just something of a novelty at
| the time or the autocuration of the decentralized web would
| still be relevant?
|
| it seems like a few social media sites took over from the
| random delight of finding someone's little weblog or side
| project.
|
| I hear they're trying to buy it back and restart with their
| uber gains
| Izkata wrote:
| It wasn't completely random or completely (in the current
| social media sense) algorithmic: There was a settings page
| where you could pick among dozens of broad topics you were
| actually interested in and it would only give you results
| people categorized under it.
| chneu wrote:
| There's a site called cloudhiker that kinda does the same
| thing. The idea is the same but there was something special
| about early days Stumbleupon. Idk if we'll ever recapture that.
| sanderjd wrote:
| Loved stumbleupon! I think when I realized that I was no longer
| stumbling upon anything interesting was the leading indicator
| of the long downhill trend of interesting content on the web.
| dfabulich wrote:
| It's so strange that StumbleUpon died but TikTok thrives today.
|
| TikTok's algorithm is based entirely on when you click the Like
| button and when you linger on a video, exactly like
| StumbleUpon's algorithm. StumbleUpon even had a video product,
| StumbleVideo, that was basically just TikTok.
|
| But, in 2018, when StumbleUpon shut down and sold their assets
| to Mix, the prevailing wisdom was that people didn't want to
| use StumbleUpon because they wanted to use Reddit and Facebook,
| to follow curated feeds of links, instead of random links that
| other people like.
|
| If that wisdom were true, TikTok should have failed too,
| because TikTok just gives you "random stuff that similar people
| like," just like StumbleUpon.
|
| I guess it just goes to show that there's no accounting for the
| rise and fall of social media apps/networks.
| dylan604 wrote:
| TikTok was mobile device centric, and the people that glommed
| onto it quickest were young mobile users. StumbleUpon was
| just a website that the "olds" used. Maybe I'm wrong, but did
| SU have a mobile app? If so, they did a very bad job of
| getting it into the hands of those that TikTok did.
| dfabulich wrote:
| StumbleVideo was exactly like TikTok, including focusing on
| mobile. The only material difference is that StumbleVideo's
| videos were landscape instead of portrait, and they had a
| "Stumble" button instead of swiping.
|
| (Maybe it's the swiping gesture? Maybe the gesture is more
| comfortable in portrait?? But it's hard to see why _that_
| would make or break a video app like this...)
| wyre wrote:
| I used SumbleUpon but not their video service, but some
| differentiating factors is TikTok specializes
| specifically short form video content in an environment
| where creators are rewarded and incentivized to make
| addictive content.
| avs733 wrote:
| Same, and I had completely forgotten it existed. It feels even
| more prescient now than a decade+ ago
| junek wrote:
| Garfield Minus Garfield has the same bleak sense of desolation as
| Goya's "The Dog". Just wonderful.
| nizarmah wrote:
| I am always fascinated how people get ideas as creative as this.
|
| I didn't know I needed this, but now that you shared it--I NEEDED
| IT!
| gnfedhjmm2 wrote:
| I wonder how such a rare article was discovered.
| checker wrote:
| I wonder why this is on HN and not Reddit.
| jf wrote:
| Something that I find delightful about this project is that Jim
| Davis approves of it!
|
| From Wikipedia: "Jim Davis, the creator of Garfield, approved of
| the project, and an official Garfield book (also called Garfield
| Minus Garfield) was published by his company. It was mainly
| edited comics by Walsh, with some comics contributed by Davis."
| omoikane wrote:
| See also "What Jim Davis thinks of G-G" (linked from the bottom
| of the page):
|
| https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/private/61669516/fSymsOGXO...
| jf wrote:
| This is the link that I had in mind when I was writing my
| comment, thanks so much for posting it here!
| m463 wrote:
| Also makes me wonder if people talk to their cats...
| nunez wrote:
| I 100% talk to mine!
| saghm wrote:
| Not only do I really l talk to my cats, but they talk to me
| too! We're about equal in our abilities to understand each
| other; sometimes one of my cats might just run around for a
| bit yell-meowing and it's not clear why, but I'm sure they
| feel the same way when I occasionally get upset at things.
| Other times, like when one of them starts whine-meowing
| when I'm putting their wet food into a bowl, I know
| _exactly_ what's she's saying even if it doesn't actually
| cause me to get it done any faster.
| Cyphase wrote:
| Quiet... Chilling... Quiet... _I make certain noises as I
| retrieve the wet food container_ Meeoooooooooowwwww!
| _races ahead to where the dish is_
| saghm wrote:
| Not only that, but the meows get more frantic _as I 'm
| walking towards the spot where the dish goes_. She needs
| to be absolutely certain that there's no chance I'll
| change my mind two steps before getting there!
| keeganpoppen wrote:
| yes to all of this. i actually think my cat thinks i am
| dumb, because she often mimes out the thing that she
| wants me to do in increasingly unsubtle ways as she gets
| more and more frustrated as i don't get it-- like she is
| playing charades and i'm the useless teammate that isn't
| getting it (which i find absolutely hilarious every time,
| even if it is often something that is objectively
| annoying were i to forget that she is a cat and not a
| human). she also has an astonishing "vocabulary" of very
| different meow... tambres?... that it is very hard for me
| to think don't have _some_ purpose-- if they didn't, why
| wouldn't she just make the same or similar noises every
| time?
| kerkeslager wrote:
| Wait, is there anyone who _doesn 't_ talk to cats? I had no
| idea.
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| Frankly, people not talking to their cat(s) should be
| registered as certified sociopath
| krige wrote:
| IME while clear two-way communication might be impossible
| [1], talking to your pet, cat or dog or any other mammal
| [2] does deepen the mutual bond and provides some
| communication framework - not saying that your cat will
| definitely understand what does it mean when you say
| "Garfield, fetch me that yellow slipper", let alone
| actually obey, but it will, over time, learn to recognize
| tone, sounds, and even context, and will also try to
| vocalize back, which may turn into patterns you start to
| recognize. So yes, it pays to talk directly to your pet.
|
| Though that's not as strange as talking to your plants that
| seems to help the plants somehow.
|
| [1] let's call it super rare because one in a trillion
| trillion is still not zero
|
| [2] smarter birds too, can't say much about reptiles beyond
| a pond turtle really bonded with my brother
| mapt wrote:
| There are a million cat & dog owners out there using
| Talking Buttons, borrowed from nonverbal human assistive
| communications. Mostly to make funny Tiktok videos, to be
| fair. It's rarely clear what is random, what is Clever
| Hans training, and what is direct operant conditioning.
| nunez wrote:
| Careful; the Dan walsh hyperlink goes straight to porn!
| trashburger wrote:
| Pathological case for link rot.
| wileydragonfly wrote:
| Sweet, thanks for letting me know!
| mock-possum wrote:
| Worse, it's not even interesting porn, just banal straight
| Asian stuff
| blitzar wrote:
| Ah, I See You're a Man of Culture As Well
| zombot wrote:
| Did you have to mention that? Now my trousers are messed
| up.
| sirbranedamuj wrote:
| Welp wish I had read that before clicking on it.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Jim created Garfield for money[1]. It's not surprising that he
| likes anything that can make him more money, he isn't
| personally tied to the character.
|
| [1] Garfield was originally created by Davis with the intention
| to come up with a 'good, marketable character'
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield
| KerrAvon wrote:
| It's still notable that Jim Davis has that level of chill
| about it. Someone with a mercenary capitalist attitude toward
| their work can be just as much a control freak as Bill
| Watterson. (Not being judgmental; Watterson's position is
| completely valid too.)
| cogman10 wrote:
| It honestly seems a little silly to worry about the purity
| of the intent of an artist.
|
| That Davis did it for the money is just "meh". Most people
| work for money.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| we at hacker news work for first principles instead
| standyro wrote:
| I wish there was a hacker news minus hacker news
| wlonkly wrote:
| I can give you hacker news minus hackers?
| nunez wrote:
| reddit.com/r/technology
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| http://n-gate.com/hackernews/ , but it sleeps
| the_af wrote:
| I don't think the concern is that Davis "did it for the
| money", and that's not a fair representation of why some
| of us mock Jim Davis.
|
| I don't think anybody is arguing comic authors shouldn't
| make money out of their work.
|
| The concern is that Garfield is the product of conscious
| market research and not whatever we imagine a comic
| artist goes through when creating their comics. You can
| dismiss this as some ridiculous search for "purity", but
| wouldn't you say most people imagine Watterson, Schultz,
| etc. went through a process more or less "I liked these
| other cartoons, and wouldn't it be cool to make something
| about <idea>/<childhood memories>/<something that
| inspired me>/<something that worries me>" vs "hey, let's
| make money, what kind of character would make me the most
| money?".
|
| Davis is not the only one, of course.
| weard_beard wrote:
| Art without money is madness. Money without art dies on
| the vine in obscurity or pays its dues in criticism
| through time.
|
| 99% of everything commercially produced is somewhere
| between these and, if made by a person, part of a cannon,
| a body of work that grows and changes as the person does.
|
| Just because an artist invites us into their mind does
| not mean we don't owe them the respect we'd give a
| stranger. At least that's how I look at it.
| the_af wrote:
| We don't owe Jim Davis any kind of respect as an artist.
| He must earn it.
|
| In the scale you're describing, he leans heavily towards
| making money and away from the art part. It's OK to feel
| scorn for this. It's also OK to respect it, but that's
| not me.
|
| > _Art without money is madness_
|
| This isn't what my comment was about, but I cannot
| refrain from answering: art can exist perfectly well
| without money. I'd say the vast majority of art humanity
| produces is not related to money at all. It is definitely
| not madness without money.
|
| > _Money without art dies on the vine in obscurity or
| pays its dues in criticism through time._
|
| Sadly, I don't think the former is true, and I don't
| think the latter matters enough.
| weard_beard wrote:
| Different pen strokes for different folks.
|
| I used to binge read those meaningless colorful flip
| books to put myself to sleep.
|
| Benadryl without the side effects.
|
| Is it art? It felt like the smear of endless days I
| couldn't escape and it was comforting. It didn't
| challenge me, but I treasure it.
|
| Like a child's fairy tale that never ends and every day
| was just... ever after
| jjulius wrote:
| >Art without money is madness.
|
| ... _wha?_
|
| ... _huh?_
|
| I've created so much art in my spare time, for the sheer
| love and joy of it. It's done for me, but I've shared it
| with friends and family and they've also greatly
| appreciated it, and sometimes participated in it with me
| with splendid results. Money has never entered the
| equation.
|
| Am I missing something, or am I correct in my reading of
| that statement? If I'm correct, I don't mean to be
| judgemental, but that's a horribly disappointing view of
| art, whatever the medium, and I'm sorry that you feel
| that way.
| weard_beard wrote:
| Would you go and dig rocks out of a mountain and refine
| them into pure ore just because?
|
| We are social animals. Art is storytelling. It has many
| utilities, but it is primarily education and
| entertainment.
|
| A modern version of the cave painting is to distill
| complex and uncomfortable truths about the world for
| those who wish to thrive in a society built on lies.
|
| If you want to go dig shiny rocks from the mountain at
| great personal risk to your mental and physical health
| for no benefit to society you are probably sick. If it
| heals you, that's its utility.
|
| But if you find you're good at it and you want to use
| this skill for its intended purpose, you aught to be
| getting paid for it.
|
| *Your mileage may vary. Just my take.
| jjulius wrote:
| As someone who is into producing visual and musical art
| for no monetary benefit, _and_ happens to do a lot of
| backpacking and is very into the geology of the areas I
| backpack in, yes. I would absolutely find great value in
| something akin to trekking into remote, hard to reach
| areas just to see some rocks shaped by ancient glaciers.
|
| If that all makes me "sick", then fuck yeah, proud to be
| mentally ill. It's truly sad that doing something for
| pleasure, education, love, fascination and reverence
| (like being fascinated about how our planet shaped
| itself, or learning to play the guitar because you love
| music and think it's fun) is viewed as "mad" or "sick" if
| there isn't some kind of monetary return. YMMV indeed,
| but money is not everything.
|
| What's sick, in my eyes, is only being able to view
| things through the lens of monetary value.
| weard_beard wrote:
| Money is just a proxy for the value your skill brings to
| society.
|
| I appreciate your perspective, but I hope you appreciate
| that mine is just aligned with a more social view of the
| world.
| jjulius wrote:
| Social impacts don't need to be tied to money.
|
| Getting together with your friends and playing/creating
| music together, with/for yourselves, and for no financial
| gain is of tremendous value, for instance.
| the_af wrote:
| I'm similarly appalled by weard_beard's replies as you
| are.
|
| I find lots of joy in life without money entering
| directly into the equation (other than "without money I
| wouldn't be able to live").
|
| When I start doing something I enjoy -- a hobby, an
| activity, a craft -- the first thought into my mind is
| definitely NOT "how can I monetize this?".
| the_af wrote:
| > _Money is just a proxy for the value your skill brings
| to society._
|
| It _can_ be, but it 's not the only one.
|
| > _mine is just aligned with a more social view of the
| world_
|
| I wouldn't say this, no. It's just a money-oriented
| worldview, not a more social one.
| vintermann wrote:
| > The concern is that Garfield is the product of
| conscious market research and not whatever we imagine a
| comic artist goes through when creating their comics.
|
| Jim Davis has consistently said this, but really, take a
| look at strip #1. It's not funny, it's not cute. It's a
| cruel joke at his own expense - I don't think it's
| overanalyzing it to say that the cartoonist loser Jon is
| a stand-in for Jim. If this was a product of market
| research, it was the worst market research ever!
| the_af wrote:
| It's possible Davis overstated his claim for effect.
| There are definitely elements of Jon as an author stand-
| in.
|
| As an aside, over here (Argentina) we have an extremely
| marketing-oriented and bad comics author, Nik, who
| "invented" a cartoon cat vaguely similar to Garfield
| called "Gaturro", which started as a copy of Garfield
| with a slightly more political bent. It's as bad and
| bland as Garfield, without any trace of originality.
|
| As Fight Club would have it, "a copy of a copy of a
| copy...".
|
| I'm sure some of my vitriol against Garfield is
| influenced by my dislike of Nik and his Gaturro.
| biztos wrote:
| Doesn't that impugn a whole lot of classics?
|
| Dudes sitting in a smoky room: "Yeah, so the pig's a big
| fat pig with mobility issues and get this, he _stutters_
| hahahaha gonna sell like moonshine, go tell the artists."
| the_af wrote:
| > _Doesn't that impugn a whole lot of classics?_
|
| I'm sure it impugns many of the classics (and later), not
| only Garfield! In my mind, it does impugn He-Man, G.I.
| Joe, etc. YMMV, of course.
|
| > _Dudes sitting in a smoky room: "Yeah, so the pig's a
| big fat pig with mobility issues and get this, he
| stutters hahahaha gonna sell like moonshine, go tell the
| artists."_
|
| There was a lot of artistry in the Looney Toons, the
| artists were both doing it for the money (of course) but
| also out of love for cartoons and they had ideas about
| them. It wasn't pure cold hearted market research. They
| didn't go "what would sell more stuffed toys, a pig or a
| rabbit?".
|
| There must have been _some_ of this too, of course, but
| have you read memories or articles about Tex Avery and
| other people involved? They truly cared about their
| craft. They had _ideas_ about what they wanted to
| achieve, and it wasn 't just "make money".
| npteljes wrote:
| The conclusion doesn't follow the premise. In fact, precisely
| the opposite arises from it. People who make things for money
| tend to be controlling about their thing, as it's the thing
| that makes them money. Others controlling the thing is a
| potential threat against the money-making capability of the
| thing, so they usually try to quell it. To not just let a
| remix be, but actively endorse it, is a notable and unusual
| event.
| forgotoldacc wrote:
| Is "man works for money" something that should surprise
| anyone?
|
| Newspaper comic artists aren't working for free. They all
| want money. That's why they work.
| acomjean wrote:
| It doesn't really surprise me, but I'm not sure it changes
| how I feel about it.
|
| My family were huge Garfield fans growing up and had a
| bunch of the books (one in German). The side characters
| were fun Odie, Lyman, the overly adorable kitten (Nermal),
| some relatives that came from a farm or something.
|
| The "worst" thing was at some point it did seem like Davis
| was cranking them out for the newspaper without some of the
| care (though it might be I overdosed and became kind of
| sick of them). The other characters disappeared or became
| infrequent.
|
| I don't begrudge him though.
| lazide wrote:
| Garfield always struck me as having exhausted all
| available novelty almost immediately. Simpsons at least
| was able to do 5-10 seasons (depending on your taste),
| but there is only so much one can do with 3 panels and a
| handful of characters eh?
|
| I think he kept his slot more out of nostalgia and risk
| adversion from the papers than anything else.
| vintermann wrote:
| He always cheerfully said this whenever someone suggests he
| had any kind of artistic vision.
|
| I'd say there are things which suggest he's not entirely
| sincere about that.
| OnionBlender wrote:
| How does Jim Davis feel about the Garfield Lovecraft stuff?
| vintermann wrote:
| I don't think he's said, but he has written some shockingly
| creepy stories himself, like the Halloween special which
| suggests Jon died or moved out ages ago and Garfield is just
| hallucinating due to starvation and despair. He claimed he
| wrote it after a _market survey_ indicating that loneliness
| is what people fear the most (this is a pattern with Davis -
| he always cheerfully claims he 's just in it for the money
| whenever someone suggests he has any kind of artistic
| vision).
|
| Or the one in "Garfield: his 9 lives" where a different
| incarnation of Garfield goes suddenly feral and kills the
| elderly woman owning him. Jim Davis didn't draw it, but he
| did script it!
| selcuka wrote:
| For the curious:
|
| https://screenrant.com/garfield-his-9-lives-primal-self-
| horr...
| lanna wrote:
| The concept would be more interesting and realistic if they
| removed only Garfield's thought bubbles (after all, Jon can't
| hear Garfield's thoughts anyway) but still left Garfield in the
| comic.
| losvedir wrote:
| I agree! I've always wanted this, since seeing Garfield minus
| Garfield back in the day.
| rikthevik wrote:
| That was a thing! Boingboing had an article about it, but it
| looks like the original tumblr is no longer around.
|
| https://boingboing.net/2014/03/09/garfield-without-garfields...
| seeEllArr wrote:
| The somethingawful forums started this with garfield in the
| comic before "Garfield minus Garfield" was a thing. I agree
| that the original gag is much better.
| mcmoor wrote:
| Yeah I never liked this one. There's that one other that
| replaces Garfield with a slightly realistic cat (without
| thought bubble of course) and I prefer that.
| robotnixon wrote:
| That sounds like Realfield
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/7zfbr3/realfield/
| WorldPeas wrote:
| [obligatory "garfield where is my pipe" joke here]
| throwme0827349 wrote:
| Love GMG, glad to see it at number one here. It's really quite
| amazing how much funnier and yet more profound it is without
| Garfield. If you like this, you might also enjoy Nietzsche Family
| Circus: https://www.nietzschefamilycircus.com/
|
| I used to have one stuck to the door of my doom room. No one
| laughed. :(
| rikthevik wrote:
| I'd like to submit Time is a Flat Circus as well
|
| https://www.tumblr.com/timeisaflatcircus
| wholinator2 wrote:
| This is amazing. One of the better dark-naive mashups I've ever
| seen. It seems to hit 3/4 for me. I Definitely would've laughed
| mcbuilder wrote:
| Funny I was just thinking about this yesterday! Now it's on the
| top of HN.
| astura wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield_Minus_Garfield
| trhway wrote:
| They should have removed the human instead. Garfield only
| Garfield.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| This is better than the original.
| brailsafe wrote:
| Clicking on the image on this post leads to a wild NSFW 404 page.
| Not sure I was expecting to get an extremely sus, probably
| illegal, asian porn site. Wth
|
| https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/post/19400379301/i-made-a-...
| acureau wrote:
| Just did the same thing at the office. Nice!
| Levitating wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/garfieldminusgarfield/
| checker wrote:
| This is where this belongs.
| fideloper wrote:
| May I recommend a follow up fun Garfield themed thing:
| /r/imsorryjon (research its history, it's kinda fun)
|
| And if you like "garfield minus garfield" then perhaps I can also
| introduce you to Chief O'Brien at Work
| https://chiefobrienatwork.com/
| chuckadams wrote:
| I used to have a small bookmark collection of "anti-comics", and
| this was on the list. Others included Dinosaur Comics, Partially
| Clips, and Pokey the Penguin.
| roland35 wrote:
| If you want another Garfield related internet horror binge, I'm
| sorry Jon on Reddit has some great comics
| https://www.reddit.com/r/imsorryjon/
| tmountain wrote:
| Came here to say this. Excellent content there if it's your
| sort of thing.
| snissn wrote:
| I'm impressed with how easy it is to recreate this effect using
| AI tools. I made this on my iPhone in the photos app by circling
| Garfield a few times: https://i.imgur.com/YVOZlj8.jpeg based on
| https://www.gocomics.com/garfield/2025/04/10
| Delk wrote:
| The physical act of removing the Garfield figure from the
| frames is the least interesting part.
|
| (It probably also isn't particularly difficult in many cases,
| considering the monochrome backgrounds.)
| dimal wrote:
| Remember when the internet was all goofy shit like this instead
| of algorithmically optimized social media angst?
| lanfeust6 wrote:
| All the big social media platforms were around when this
| started. The dominance wasn't in full swing yet but it only
| took a few years for vbulletin and everything else to dwindle.
| eestrada wrote:
| I miss the old internet. I'm pretty sure anyone old enough to
| have experienced it misses it.
| Loughla wrote:
| And the people who were there before the old Internet missed
| that too. Something something eternal September.
| mhink wrote:
| Absolutely. I remember being about 14 or 15 years old,
| reading old .txt files about, like- how to build blue boxes
| and experiment with the phone system, C programming
| tutorials for MUDs that had peaked in the late 90s, IRC
| archives (even though IRC was still around, I had no way of
| finding my way to good channels), and getting this distinct
| sense that I had _just_ missed something really cool, and
| was stuck with an Internet that had already passed its
| prime.
| nunez wrote:
| I was there. Nope.
|
| Waiting ages for basic serif pages to load over your 56k (or
| 128k connection if you were rich and had ISDN)? Nope.
|
| Downloading tracks from KaZaa/WinMX/Limewire/Napster for a
| million hours only for them to be some warped shit that the
| studios planted? Nope.
|
| Getting malware just for existing? Early software firewalls
| that burned CPU cycles/crashed your PC? That were the only
| option because hardware firewalls were stupid expensive and
| not at all practical for residential use? Nope.
|
| Norton Antivirus? ABSOLUTELY NOPE.
|
| Blue screens when you looked at IE or Navigator the wrong
| way? Nope.
|
| Flash? Lol, nope.
|
| WAP? The 2004 kind? Lol, hell nope.
|
| "This page is best viewed on Internet Explorer", i.e. IE4/5/6
| or it's basically unusable? Nope.
|
| Having to actually go seven or eight o's into the
| Gooooooooooooooooooooooogle footer to find what you were
| looking for? Def nope.
|
| Almost everything about using the Internet is better today
| IMO. Faster, prettier, more secure and more cross-platform.
|
| You have to work hard to get hit with a virus these days,
| especially on iOS/macOS or Linux, though it's much harder on
| Android these days too. Also, I loved wasting my life on /.,
| but Reddit is so much better, even after the API-pocalyse.
|
| I definitely miss open messaging platforms though. AIM for
| life.
| jltsiren wrote:
| The old internet had something today's internet lacks: a
| justified belief that the future would be better. Things
| were new and exciting, and you saw opportunities and rapid
| improvements everywhere. Today it's just governments and
| megacorporations, and bureaucracy upon endless bureaucracy.
| rvba wrote:
| Flash brought a lot of good stuff...
| agiacalone wrote:
| I was there too.
|
| Napster was good because it was new. And the music was
| yours when you got it.
|
| Never used NAV. Never cared to. Linux didn't need it.
|
| Hated Flash too, and never used it. Internet was still
| great without it.
|
| WAP was new, too. But Ethernet existed, and we wired our
| house.
|
| Used Firefox/Netscape Navigator. Avoided IE pages like the
| plague.
|
| I do malware research. You're grossly underestimating how
| common malware is today. Ever hear of ransomware?
|
| Not everything on the Internet is better today. Some things
| are, but many are not.
|
| And don't even get me started on the cesspool that Reddit
| is.
| itsboring wrote:
| Hmm, when I think "old Internet" I don't think Napster, IE,
| WAP... I think usenet, gopher, telnet MUDs, IRC netsplits
| and FTP warez.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Old internet was something different socially for
| subcultures, especially DIY subcultures and communities.
|
| You just don't connect with people the same way on giant
| message boards or platforms like Reddit where you're one
| user out of a billion.
|
| It was just... Smaller and personal, I guess?
|
| It feels like everything today is optimized for
| monetization, ads, tracking, etc.
|
| I guess I could summarize it as saying the internet went
| mainstream and changed its audience and charm.
| thowawatp302 wrote:
| > Waiting ages for basic serif pages to load over your 56k
| (or 128k connection if you were rich and had ISDN)? Nope.
|
| > Downloading tracks from KaZaa/WinMX/Limewire/Napster for
| a million hours only for them to be some warped shit that
| the studios planted? Nope.
|
| I was there too, and realized that these sort of reductions
| in speed made one far more mindful of what one was doing
|
| > Almost everything about using the Internet is better
| today IMO. Faster, prettier, more secure and more cross-
| platform
|
| This too is particularly debatable. Applications are thin
| wrappers around web browsers, there are constant annoyances
| (want to receive notifications for this webpage? Not now?
| We'll ask you later.) I bet if I pulled someone from 2005
| they'd look at a lot of things on a current website and see
| malware. And is it really more cross platform when we've
| achieved that by having less platforms?
| blitzar wrote:
| All of that was terrible. It was still better than tiktoks
| and facebooks.
|
| smash like and subscribe, code blitz50 for 0.5% off sea of
| legends
| itsoktocry wrote:
| I'm not sure anything on your list is even about "the
| internet", as opposed to other tech around it. Do you know
| what people mean when they say "the internet?".
| standyro wrote:
| there was still angst then, it just was more targeted in single
| directions, not like now where the angst is aimlessly directed
| at society, sponsored by squarespace
| weard_beard wrote:
| Sounds like a cologne.
|
| Angst, by Squarespace
| npteljes wrote:
| The internet was never all goofy shit like this. The launch
| date of G-G is "February 13, 2008", and we already had the
| creepy Facebook, deplorable shit like jailbait was in full
| swing, gore was not just popular, it was old news. Internet
| advertising was already very toxic for many years, and its
| surveillance capabilities were also ever-increasing. Not to
| mention, the Eternal September lasted for 15 years now.
|
| My point is, it changed, yes, but "The Internet" was always
| shit, and you can also always find good fun, as always. You can
| turn off the doom, and enjoy a good never-ending scroll of a
| myriad of fantastic hobbies and people sharing their human
| experience. It takes effort, just like it did back then.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| > It takes effort, just like it did back then.
|
| I think this is a sentiment missing from lots of the rose
| glasses back watching. It took effort to find all these fun
| things, it still takes effort to find fun things. The only
| difference is that now the effort floor is in the icy pits of
| hell and its so easy to slide all the way down there. Things
| were different but you still had to work for it. Sites were
| smaller and there were less people, those things still exist,
| probably more so, there's just an ocean now. We have to learn
| how to swim maybe but we can still cross.
| npteljes wrote:
| And also, very different things exist. So yes, it's hard to
| find the "same" things or "similar" things, but if one
| adapts a bit to more up to date trends, the horizon
| broadens a lot. For example, there is much less life on
| traditional forums now, but much more life on YouTube.
| asddubs wrote:
| we had facebook, but things weren't centralized to only 5
| websites yet. You are right though, there's a lot about the
| old internet that was better, but there was also stuff that
| was worse. It was more untamed perhaps. I certainly don't
| miss rotten.com or goatse or the absolute cesspit reddit was
| at the time (as you mention). We tend to forget about this
| and just think about the good, like individual weird blogs
| hosted on their own quirky websites actually being able to
| find an audience (which still exist to some extent but not to
| the same degree at all). Still, I think "the internet was
| always shit" is too cynical of a take. Some parts of the
| internet were always shit. Some of it changed for the better,
| some for the worse.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _the absolute cesspit reddit was at the time (as you
| mention)_
|
| You prefer the corporate, censored, ad-ridden site that
| reddit is now? That is bizarre.
|
| The internet of old _was_ better, in my opinion. It took
| work to be there; now it takes work to _not_ be there.
| asddubs wrote:
| in the case of reddit I do. We don't need to return to
| the quasi-CP and complaining about SJWs era. I'll take a
| censored ad-ridden site with a somewhat less toxic
| userbase, though of course as always it would be best to
| have the best of both worlds. Old reddit was just way too
| unwilling to take out the trash and instead let it
| fester.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| Garfield Minus Garfield is an iteration of a trend on SA and
| FYAD of editing Garfield comics by re-ordering panels,
| removing panels, removing characters/dialogue/etc, and
| shuffling panels from other Garfield strips to make humorous
| and/or unsettling mashups.
|
| That is to say the trend predates the 2008 launch of the
| site.
| berkes wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| We had "Altavista" and for a very short time it was OK, but
| then quickly decended into a ad-ridden "portal" This was 1997
| or so.
|
| The web was full of popups, and then popunders. It was not
| uncommon to close your browser in the computer-room, then
| have to close 20 popups that kept coming back. Some of which
| showing straight out porn. At least scams like viagra, "buy
| gold online" or "download more memory" malware.
|
| Before Google, it was merely undoable to find anything useful
| between all the banners, gifs, "only readable in netscape"
| search-engines.
|
| Before Mozilla/Firefox, popups made it almost impossible to
| browse the web for longer than half an hour before the
| browser crashed or the computer locked up.
|
| Chat was insecure, scammers, groomers, malware injection,
| mitm was everywhere. There was no privacy.
|
| Forums, BBSes and NNTP were full of "trolls" before this term
| was even known. Flamewars, flamebait, and again, scammers,
| groomers and malware everywhere.
|
| I do have fond memories of this time. But also know these
| memories are distorted. It was a dark forest already.
|
| The main difference, I believe, was that the majority of
| internet users back then were smart - mostly western -
| educated or young people. I.e. the "tech literate" folks.
| Those who know how to deal with malware, scams, groomers,
| privacy, hackers. Those who know how to navigate around
| popup-bombs, redirect-loops, illegal-content and criminals.
| But the bad stuff was there from the early days. Today, the
| "bad stuff" has shifted, from criminals into monopolized big-
| tech tapping our attention and data, but it has always been
| there, this dark side.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| What you described in your first paragraph is still the old
| internet and it was way better than the post-truth/bot/AI
| hellscape of today. I'll take "creepy" stuff over a complete
| separation from reality any day.
| dimal wrote:
| Ok, maybe a more accurate statement would be that the ratio
| of goofy shit to angst-generating bullshit was much higher in
| 2008. Maybe it was 70/30 in favor of goofy shit and now it's
| 1/99 in favor of bullshit. We had Facebook and Twitter back
| then, but neither had been weaponized against us yet. Both
| had a very different flavor than they have today.
| nunez wrote:
| It still is; it's just different
| prawn wrote:
| The gore sites are a prevailing memory from early days. (I was
| first online in the mid-90s.)
| gorlilla wrote:
| Rotten rings a bell there.
| _sys49152 wrote:
| www.mnftiu.cc legendary
| heavyset_go wrote:
| God I miss ye olde FYAD
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| If you had to encapsulate the vibe, it would be "people just
| post shit to see if other people are as weird as they are."
|
| It was a whole era, folks. And I don't mean "does anyone else"
| Reddit crap that is absurdly naive. This was way more before
| and way more naive than that. You didn't have any expectation
| that you were normal (even if you were weird). You just did it
| to gauge how fucking weird you were.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >Remember when the internet was all goofy shit like this
| instead of algorithmically optimized social media angst?
|
| I first accessed the internet in 1998 through school. I still
| like it more how it was in those days. Most people didn't care
| about the Internet so the people lurking the Internet had a
| particular interest in it or were technically inclined.
|
| Once some guys discovered they can make tons of money through
| the Internet, those good times are over.
|
| It's like you travel to a beautiful place which is not popular.
| Once it starts becoming a major tourist attraction, it will be
| ruined for good in 20 years.
| nimish wrote:
| excellent blast from the past
| HeliumHydride wrote:
| Also check out the square root of minus Garfield:
| https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/
| nvader wrote:
| I definitely recommend this one, it has greater longevity due
| to the wider number of schticks the author is able to engage in
| over the different comics.
|
| E.g. here's a quirky image effect:
| https://www.mezzacotta.net/garfield/?comic=13
| russellbeattie wrote:
| My favorite type of humor is the absurd non-sequitur. The more
| incongruous the better. Like when out of no where someone asks,
| "If you could trade your shadow for a parrot, would you do it?"
| Or, "What's your opinion on invisible bicycles?"
|
| So to me, G-G is absolute gold.
| lqstuart wrote:
| This is really old
| b3lvedere wrote:
| I liked Gramfel more : https://www.boredpanda.com/garfield-
| comics-gramfel-cycle-nel...
| AdmiralAsshat wrote:
| What's missed from the popular take on GMG is that it's not
| always depressing. Sometimes Jon finds joy in mundane things that
| Garfield isn't there to damper.
|
| https://garfieldminusgarfield.net/post/27763465
| windowshopping wrote:
| I find the dating on this website confusing. It says Jan 27 AND
| Nov 03, and when I click previous comic, in order it goes: Feb 04
| / Jun 14, May 31, Oct 13, Aug 02, Jan 08.....I'm so confused.
|
| A. Why are there 2 comics per day? B. Why are the dates seemingly
| random?
| gwern wrote:
| Could it be date of the original / date the edited version was
| posted?
| qingcharles wrote:
| Also good:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/GarfieldMinusJon/
|
| And if you want to get weird:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AlzheimersGroup/top/?t=year
|
| Full list:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/garfieldminusgarfield/comments/gxl2...
| analog31 wrote:
| A similar take on "Peanuts" where the last frame of each strip is
| removed.
|
| https://3eanuts.com/
| msarnoff wrote:
| I always liked Realfield better.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/7zfbr3/realfield/
| dailydetour123 wrote:
| This is great to see on the front page! I include it as part of
| the newsletter I run on the best/nostalgic side of the internet
| so it's cool to see it resonating with people here for that
| reason.
| schlauerfox wrote:
| There's also a bot account on mastodon replacing garfield word
| bubbles with song lyrics. sometimes it's pretty substantial.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| Now where could my pipe be?
| npteljes wrote:
| The derivative I also like, and don't see it here is the markov
| chain garfield - from back when markov chains were the bee's
| knees in text generation. The generator is fed by existing
| garfield comic text, and the generated text is superimposed to a
| template of existing comics. It might take a few refreshes, but I
| always manage to amuse myself with the absurdity that it spits
| out.
|
| https://joshmillard.com/garkov/
| classichasclass wrote:
| I laughed until I cried. Thank you.
| stonogo wrote:
| I'll join your derivatives thread with the garfield
| randomizers. here's one: https://www.bgreco.net/garfield/
|
| and an example I just made with the 'hold' feature:
| https://www.bgreco.net/garfield/?panel0=1984840901&panel1=19...
| nunez wrote:
| I love Garfield. This is incredible. Thanks for posting this!
| keepamovin wrote:
| This is great, seriously. This is hilarious. Super dark. The
| theme music changes hugely when Garfield is not there. Getting
| wind swept Scottish Hebrides vibes and Hans Zimmer soundscapes
| lol.
| norswap wrote:
| Am I the only one wishing I could see the original afterwards,
| for comparison?
| ipcress_file wrote:
| Where has this been all my life?
|
| This is a special kind of sad, poetic Zen.
| irrational wrote:
| This makes me contemplate how different people's experiences will
| alter their perception of this project. Having never read
| Garfield, the man in these comics comes off as unhinged. But, I
| imagine, if I was familiar with the source material, I might
| mentally insert the missing parts and compare this with that in
| my head.
| tastysandwich wrote:
| Massive Garfield fan growing up.
|
| Garfield minus Garfield is still just as eerie and depressing
| despite knowing the "source material". I love it.
| Agentlien wrote:
| As someone who has casually read Garfield from time to time,
| I'd describe Jon (the man in the comic) as a lovable loser. A
| lot of the jokes in the comics are at his expense.
| slowhadoken wrote:
| Old but gold.
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| Browsing through those has shown me how terrible that comic is
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| This is clever. Now can we stop the whole USA without the
| constitution exercise?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-11 23:02 UTC)