November 9, 2001

5:07 PM

Plop.Scott Adams has a new comic. His words: "...it 's an engineered comic strip devoid of any artistic integrity whatsoever." It's a Dilvert spinoff set in Elbonia that he started over the summer. Now he's shelving it due to the resemblance between Elbonians and a certain nation we're at war with right now.
posted by badstone (18 comments total)

Dilvert
Doh! I think you can figure out what I meant...
posted by badstone at 5:08 PM on November 9, 2001

Is it actually a good thing when a concept like this succeeds? It SUCKS. Totally unfunny. If it were a ripoff and still good, it might could be called satire. This is more like the output a bored teenager in fourth-period algebra. All the references are too obvious, and yes, I'm aware he did say "blatantly borrowed", but still.
posted by Su at 5:17 PM on November 9, 2001

Did you mean to write this instead?
Now he's shelving it due to the fact that it's not funny at all.
Damn typos.
posted by starduck at 5:19 PM on November 9, 2001

"...it 's an engineered comic strip devoid of any artistic integrity whatsoever."

Oh, you mean Dilbert?
posted by solistrato at 5:30 PM on November 9, 2001

In other Scott Adams news, he recently discussed his adventures in e-book land. [via kindall]
posted by tamim at 5:39 PM on November 9, 2001

wow... is it immediately-post-things-we-find-on-memepool day already?
posted by phalkin at 5:42 PM on November 9, 2001

Dilbert doesn't work because of "artistic integrity", Dilbert works because it shows the silliness of familiar situations. I'm not sure if the premise here is absurdist or what, but simply not being funny pretty much kills this idea.
posted by swell at 6:09 PM on November 9, 2001

Dilbert is a cut and paste comic. I'd be impressed if Scott could deliver something with artistic integrity.
posted by skallas at 6:19 PM on November 9, 2001

Sweet mother of god.
I didn't think I'd find a comic that was more pointless or dull than "Pavlov" or "Family Circus", but this would be it.
Not even close to cracking a smile on this one.
posted by Grum at 7:13 PM on November 9, 2001

It's like a huge inside joke, but Adams is the only one inside the joke. I read all 20 panels hoping it would, maybe, get better.

I sure was disappointed.
posted by jazon at 7:44 PM on November 9, 2001

posted by quonsar at 8:05 PM on November 9, 2001

Why is Dilbert no longer posted on the NYTimes web site?
posted by rschram at 8:32 PM on November 9, 2001

The only smile that came to me was triggered by the "playing with your food" strip.
posted by fpatrick at 8:50 PM on November 9, 2001

I'd be impressed if Scott could deliver something with artistic integrity.

boy, i'd be impressed if i could find ANY syndicated comic strip with "artistic integrity"

but then i suppose it would no longer be a comic strip.
posted by fishfucker at 11:03 PM on November 9, 2001

In the early 70's I used to read the original Plop! The magazine of weird humor that was much funnier than this.
posted by scottfree at 11:04 PM on November 9, 2001

And he could have picked a better title. Plop! is one of the best comic books from the '70s. Plop!
posted by gluechunk at 11:06 PM on November 9, 2001

d'oh. scottfree is faster!
posted by gluechunk at 11:08 PM on November 9, 2001

Now that I've finally followed the Read about the comic link and understand where all the background is coming from...

...I didn't think it was that different to Dilbert. The jokes and general attitude seemed the same. It seems I'm odd in not finding Dilbert funnier because I identify with the situations. Must be because the person who collects my rubbish isn't that smart.

The "engineered" aspect struck me as a bit of a cop-out - it sounds awfully like an escape route/safety net (with the fallback position being "OK, it wasn't funny, but that's because it wasn't me being original").

Finally, what's the deal with not publishing it because of the "current times"? If it is racially offensive, surely the time when that's most acceptable is when you're bombing the shit out of the people you're offending anyway. Or is it that he doesn't want to give a human face to the Taliban (surely not, given the way they're portrayed)?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:02 AM on November 10, 2001