This fails for me because implicit in the whole overly complex setup is that you take as given the assertion that somehow the “ultimate” allegory for the human race is a tension between being set in your ways and between not knowing better despite experience / accumulation of wisdom — how’s that the ultimate description of the human condition? The human race is a middled aged individual? I could argue the human race is an impetuous youth, quick to rush in, lacking maturity — sophomoric. If I were Mallet, I could even try to wring out a tortured allusion to the human race being a weisenheimer know-it-all 10-year-old.
But yeah, the joke is that in her statement that she likes her art to be pretty and not make her think, Caulfield can’t decide if that’s because she’s set in her ways, or because she should know better but doesn’t. Har har.
“Will Mallett ever decide whether Mrs. Olsen is a caring, qualified teacher or a Neanderthal?”
These are not mutually exclusive, and, of course, realistic characters are capable of many different traits dominating their personality depending on the circumstances. Only melodramatic characters have a single, invariant trait.
I don’t want to be seen as trashing Neanderthals, because I have to agree there were probably some very fine Neanderthals. So let me phrase this differently:
Will Mallett every decide whether Mrs. Olsen is intended to be a character we like and sympathize with, or an antagonist we enjoy seeing Frazz and Caulfield mock and abuse? THOSE, I think, are mutually exclusive.
A teacher who says “I like my art to be pretty, not make me think” is irredeemable.
As a teacher who spent 31 years with grades 5-8, I have had enough of little snits like Caulfield. (PS was my typo an “h” or an “o”?) Not to mention in the gummint.
“Will Mallett every decide whether Mrs. Olsen is intended to be a character we like and sympathize with, or an antagonist we enjoy seeing Frazz and Caulfield mock and abuse? THOSE, I think, are mutually exclusive.”
I don’t think they are.
You can create an imaginary world with imaginary characters. You can choose to give them one personality trait each… the hero is noble, the villain irredeemable. But you can also choose to give the hero flaws, and to give the villain virtues. You can even make a sympathetic villain. The villain is wrong, but the best ones have good reasons for doing their villainous deeds.
Mrs. Olsen is a good teacher. But she’s been worn down by the demands of the job.
From Caulfield’s perspective, she is the symbolic oppressor, and although he does have some wisdom beyond his years, he is still a child, so he has a child’s-eye view of Mrs. Olsen. Frazz understands this point of view, but ALSO has adult perspective… he knows about the demands of Mrs. Olsen’s job, and the pressures they place on her, and he sympathizes with her.
The strip, as a whole, sometimes offers Caulfield’s view, and sometimes Frazz’s. On VERY rare occasions, you even get Mrs. Olsen’s.
What makes Frazz popular among the kids is that he is accepting of their worldview. His job doesn’t require that he do otherwise. The other adult characters in the strip are either teachers or administrators… and have responsibilities from those roles. Frazz has more freedom, and chooses to use it to encourage the children to be individuals and to grow and learn, but he doesn’t have to MAKE them do so. If you take the view that school is there, in part, to impose regimentation and order upon the chaotic spirits of children, then Frazz is a counterproductive agent of chaos. If you take the view that school is there to help children discover the adulthood that is within them, then Frazz is a prime mover. Malett (and I) lean fairly strongly towards the latter view. I am, and my child was as well, fundamentally unwilling to accept regimentation. From my (now) adult perspective, I understand what the school and its proxies were trying to do.
I’ll take one more stab at it. Frazz has an advantage in dealing with the children… he takes on their concerns one at a time. He can be on that child’s “side”. Mrs. Olsen, on the other hand, must focus her attention on the group under her charge… if the needs of the one conflict with the needs of the many, she must side with the many. This is an aspect of her job, but may or may not be an aspect of her personality.
I agree with JP @ 5.
Many writers, especially of comics, will make a character flat
and easy to understand. This gives the readers comfort and an
easy recognition of motivations. Mallett has made his characters
more complex; many hold contradictory ideas just as do most real
people. And he shows them to us from different points of view,
which shows us even more complexity.
My problem is, Mrs. Olsen doesn’t come off as complex. Just sometimes wise and caring and supportive, and sometimes the sort of person who says “Duh, art isn’t art unless it’s pretty.” Alternating between irreconcilable extremes isn’t complexity, it’s MPD.
I agree with JP about the facets not being exclusive, but I don’t think it has to relate to whose point of view is used to envisage Mrs. Olsen. Both she and Calvin’s “Miss Wormwood” are generally pictured as disagreeable people, but in both cases the artist has been clever enough to create a more complex personality than (for instance) Dennis the Menace’s one-sided “Mr. Wilson”. Preserving the uncertainty is a definite advantage: it makes for a more believable (and far more interesting) character.
P.S. One of Tolkien’s descriptions of the “Baggins” family was that “one always knew how a Baggins would answer any question, without actually going to the trouble of asking him“. This was implicitly equated as being “boring”, whereas the “Tooks” were the interesting types who had adventures.
The same principle applies here. If we always know how Mrs. Olsen (or Miss Wormwood) will respond to any situation, then there’s no reason to read the comic.
“I don’t think it has to relate to whose point of view is used to envisage Mrs. Olsen.”
There’s a sequence where Mallett humanized her a bit (in Caulfield’s eyes) when she hired him to help in her garden, and not being in school changed his perspective on her a tiny little bit.
Caulfield rejects regimentation. This makes Mrs. Olsen an antagonist when she tries to impose some. At other times, the antagonism is not automatic… sometimes it arises (from other circumstances), sometimes it doesn’t.
Yet… we always know how Caulfield and Frazz respond, don’t we?
@ Bill – I’m not so sure about that. In the fourth panel of this strip, their responses reflect more respect than derision.
I used to absolutely be a Caulfield, but the older I get, the more I’m on Mrs. Olsen’s side.
Well, I *am* Mrs. Olsen, and I can categorically state that I’m both. I care about my students, deeply, and I am definitely a … well, I usually say dinosaur. I don’t really see any cognitive dissonance there. But then, maybe I wouldn’t.
This has to be one of the weirdest Frazz strips ever: not only does this seem out of character for Mrs.Olsen, but her facial expression makes her look as if she’d been infected by The Joker. http://assets.amuniversal.com/29ef09108b03012eb069001dd8b71c47
I don’t actually see a lot of conflict or complex contradiction between the good and “bad” aspects of Mrs. Olsen. The main “bad” aspect, portrayed more often, is that she’s not smart like Caufield. The main good aspect is that she does usually seem to genuinely care about the kids. I don’t see a lot of conflict between these two aspects.
There’s even less conflict, if in most of the scripts where the author intends you to see a “bad” aspect, you instead see a teacher dealing with a student who’s being a jerk. Although that’s not applicable to the “badness” in this strip.
(And, yes, those of you who like Caufield, and are going to say that you were like him when you were in school, because you too were an underappreciated genius – let’s just take that as given, OK?)
Kilby @10:17 PM: Was Miss Wormwodd disagreeable? I don’t remember her being particularly unpleasant. I mean, she was regularly unhappy about having to deal with Calvin, but what teacher wouldn’t be?
I’ll point out that there is a large difference between “X is not X unless it is Y” and “I prefer my X to be Y”. A teacher could understand and teach great literature and still prefer to read cozy mysteries at home.
“A teacher who says “I like my art to be pretty, not make me think” is irredeemable.”
I’d even disagree with that.
We’ve all heard the self-righteous “Good art isn’t supposed to be pretty; it’s supposed to make you think; if art isn’t making you uncomfortable it isn’t working” tow which our middle-age self says “Been there, done that; decried the capitalism in selling me the t-shirt– don’t care. If you want to make me uncomfortable you have to say something that affects me. If you want to assumed to be better than Elvis on black velvet it’s your job to convince me you are”. And the progressing, “Literally; it doesn’t work– symbolically; it isn’t clear— and when explained; I don’t care” is a *very* valid response to bad art.
Thing is, if Caulfield is the bright student he thinks he is, then he needs to be challenged. And saying “How will you justify that others should care about your art” is … challenging.
I don’t understand why Bill’s “eraser fight” link shows up razor sharp here, but very fuzzy when he put it into its own thread.
P.S. @ WW – Perhaps “disagreeable” isn’t the right adjective. How about “grumpy”?
I’d take Mrs. Olsen in a heartbeat over “Big Nate’s” Mrs. Godfrey…..
“Was Miss Wormwodd disagreeable? I don’t remember her being particularly unpleasant.”
Comics I Don't Understand 
This fails for me because implicit in the whole overly complex setup is that you take as given the assertion that somehow the “ultimate” allegory for the human race is a tension between being set in your ways and between not knowing better despite experience / accumulation of wisdom — how’s that the ultimate description of the human condition? The human race is a middled aged individual? I could argue the human race is an impetuous youth, quick to rush in, lacking maturity — sophomoric. If I were Mallet, I could even try to wring out a tortured allusion to the human race being a weisenheimer know-it-all 10-year-old.
But yeah, the joke is that in her statement that she likes her art to be pretty and not make her think, Caulfield can’t decide if that’s because she’s set in her ways, or because she should know better but doesn’t. Har har.
“Will Mallett ever decide whether Mrs. Olsen is a caring, qualified teacher or a Neanderthal?”
These are not mutually exclusive, and, of course, realistic characters are capable of many different traits dominating their personality depending on the circumstances. Only melodramatic characters have a single, invariant trait.
I don’t want to be seen as trashing Neanderthals, because I have to agree there were probably some very fine Neanderthals. So let me phrase this differently:
Will Mallett every decide whether Mrs. Olsen is intended to be a character we like and sympathize with, or an antagonist we enjoy seeing Frazz and Caulfield mock and abuse? THOSE, I think, are mutually exclusive.
A teacher who says “I like my art to be pretty, not make me think” is irredeemable.
As a teacher who spent 31 years with grades 5-8, I have had enough of little snits like Caulfield. (PS was my typo an “h” or an “o”?) Not to mention in the gummint.
“Will Mallett every decide whether Mrs. Olsen is intended to be a character we like and sympathize with, or an antagonist we enjoy seeing Frazz and Caulfield mock and abuse? THOSE, I think, are mutually exclusive.”
I don’t think they are.
You can create an imaginary world with imaginary characters. You can choose to give them one personality trait each… the hero is noble, the villain irredeemable. But you can also choose to give the hero flaws, and to give the villain virtues. You can even make a sympathetic villain. The villain is wrong, but the best ones have good reasons for doing their villainous deeds.
Mrs. Olsen is a good teacher. But she’s been worn down by the demands of the job.
From Caulfield’s perspective, she is the symbolic oppressor, and although he does have some wisdom beyond his years, he is still a child, so he has a child’s-eye view of Mrs. Olsen. Frazz understands this point of view, but ALSO has adult perspective… he knows about the demands of Mrs. Olsen’s job, and the pressures they place on her, and he sympathizes with her.
The strip, as a whole, sometimes offers Caulfield’s view, and sometimes Frazz’s. On VERY rare occasions, you even get Mrs. Olsen’s.
What makes Frazz popular among the kids is that he is accepting of their worldview. His job doesn’t require that he do otherwise. The other adult characters in the strip are either teachers or administrators… and have responsibilities from those roles. Frazz has more freedom, and chooses to use it to encourage the children to be individuals and to grow and learn, but he doesn’t have to MAKE them do so. If you take the view that school is there, in part, to impose regimentation and order upon the chaotic spirits of children, then Frazz is a counterproductive agent of chaos. If you take the view that school is there to help children discover the adulthood that is within them, then Frazz is a prime mover. Malett (and I) lean fairly strongly towards the latter view. I am, and my child was as well, fundamentally unwilling to accept regimentation. From my (now) adult perspective, I understand what the school and its proxies were trying to do.
I’ll take one more stab at it. Frazz has an advantage in dealing with the children… he takes on their concerns one at a time. He can be on that child’s “side”. Mrs. Olsen, on the other hand, must focus her attention on the group under her charge… if the needs of the one conflict with the needs of the many, she must side with the many. This is an aspect of her job, but may or may not be an aspect of her personality.
I agree with JP @ 5.
Many writers, especially of comics, will make a character flat
and easy to understand. This gives the readers comfort and an
easy recognition of motivations. Mallett has made his characters
more complex; many hold contradictory ideas just as do most real
people. And he shows them to us from different points of view,
which shows us even more complexity.
My problem is, Mrs. Olsen doesn’t come off as complex. Just sometimes wise and caring and supportive, and sometimes the sort of person who says “Duh, art isn’t art unless it’s pretty.” Alternating between irreconcilable extremes isn’t complexity, it’s MPD.
I agree with JP about the facets not being exclusive, but I don’t think it has to relate to whose point of view is used to envisage Mrs. Olsen. Both she and Calvin’s “Miss Wormwood” are generally pictured as disagreeable people, but in both cases the artist has been clever enough to create a more complex personality than (for instance) Dennis the Menace’s one-sided “Mr. Wilson”. Preserving the uncertainty is a definite advantage: it makes for a more believable (and far more interesting) character.
P.S. One of Tolkien’s descriptions of the “Baggins” family was that “one always knew how a Baggins would answer any question, without actually going to the trouble of asking him“. This was implicitly equated as being “boring”, whereas the “Tooks” were the interesting types who had adventures.
The same principle applies here. If we always know how Mrs. Olsen (or Miss Wormwood) will respond to any situation, then there’s no reason to read the comic.
“I don’t think it has to relate to whose point of view is used to envisage Mrs. Olsen.”
There’s a sequence where Mallett humanized her a bit (in Caulfield’s eyes) when she hired him to help in her garden, and not being in school changed his perspective on her a tiny little bit.
Caulfield rejects regimentation. This makes Mrs. Olsen an antagonist when she tries to impose some. At other times, the antagonism is not automatic… sometimes it arises (from other circumstances), sometimes it doesn’t.
Yet… we always know how Caulfield and Frazz respond, don’t we?
@ Bill – I’m not so sure about that. In the fourth panel of this strip, their responses reflect more respect than derision.
I used to absolutely be a Caulfield, but the older I get, the more I’m on Mrs. Olsen’s side.
Well, I *am* Mrs. Olsen, and I can categorically state that I’m both. I care about my students, deeply, and I am definitely a … well, I usually say dinosaur. I don’t really see any cognitive dissonance there. But then, maybe I wouldn’t.
This has to be one of the weirdest Frazz strips ever: not only does this seem out of character for Mrs.Olsen, but her facial expression makes her look as if she’d been infected by The Joker.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/29ef09108b03012eb069001dd8b71c47
I don’t actually see a lot of conflict or complex contradiction between the good and “bad” aspects of Mrs. Olsen. The main “bad” aspect, portrayed more often, is that she’s not smart like Caufield. The main good aspect is that she does usually seem to genuinely care about the kids. I don’t see a lot of conflict between these two aspects.
There’s even less conflict, if in most of the scripts where the author intends you to see a “bad” aspect, you instead see a teacher dealing with a student who’s being a jerk. Although that’s not applicable to the “badness” in this strip.
(And, yes, those of you who like Caufield, and are going to say that you were like him when you were in school, because you too were an underappreciated genius – let’s just take that as given, OK?)
Kilby @10:17 PM: Was Miss Wormwodd disagreeable? I don’t remember her being particularly unpleasant. I mean, she was regularly unhappy about having to deal with Calvin, but what teacher wouldn’t be?
I’ll point out that there is a large difference between “X is not X unless it is Y” and “I prefer my X to be Y”. A teacher could understand and teach great literature and still prefer to read cozy mysteries at home.
“A teacher who says “I like my art to be pretty, not make me think” is irredeemable.”
I’d even disagree with that.
We’ve all heard the self-righteous “Good art isn’t supposed to be pretty; it’s supposed to make you think; if art isn’t making you uncomfortable it isn’t working” tow which our middle-age self says “Been there, done that; decried the capitalism in selling me the t-shirt– don’t care. If you want to make me uncomfortable you have to say something that affects me. If you want to assumed to be better than Elvis on black velvet it’s your job to convince me you are”. And the progressing, “Literally; it doesn’t work– symbolically; it isn’t clear— and when explained; I don’t care” is a *very* valid response to bad art.
Thing is, if Caulfield is the bright student he thinks he is, then he needs to be challenged. And saying “How will you justify that others should care about your art” is … challenging.
I don’t understand why Bill’s “eraser fight” link shows up razor sharp here, but very fuzzy when he put it into its own thread.
P.S. @ WW – Perhaps “disagreeable” isn’t the right adjective. How about “grumpy”?
I’d take Mrs. Olsen in a heartbeat over “Big Nate’s” Mrs. Godfrey…..
“Was Miss Wormwodd disagreeable? I don’t remember her being particularly unpleasant.”
Not unpleasant? She’s a hideous space monster!
jajizi: Well played, sir. Well played.