|
Remember when Doonesbury was funny?
Rose sent me an email today that said little else but the title above.
I wrote her back: "Doonesbury has changed. Now it's a saga of the character's lives. You might say that Trudeau sort of narrowed his focus, which is (I'm told) what most of us do as we get older. I don't laugh outright at For Better or Worse either, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading it. Mike Doonesbury is one of the few perpetual-loser-schlemiel characters I can tolerate encountering on a regular basis."
(That last sentence is especially relevant today, given that I'm not going to the new Stephen Frears movie with Nonelvis and Co. because I cannot stand to see one more film with a wholly unsympathetic main character trying to find love. If you want me to see a loser-makes-good story, you have to make the loser a nice guy that I want to succeed, not this character who relates better to his record collection than to any humans. Him I want to see continue to flounder in the abyss he's built for himself. See also Being John Malkovich, and contrast those two execrable John Cusack roles to his performance - also as a fairly nasty character, you'll note - in Grosse Pointe Blank, which will serve as our example of How To Do It Correctly With Style. This has been an Official Digression.)
Anyway, Rose also provided a link to one of the Doonesbury sites, and from there I wandered into the huge archive of questions from readers that Trudeau has answered. Some of these were quite interesting, and they revealed the same thing I told Rose: Trudeau is writing a soap opera these days. He still puts in political jabs (I don't think he'd be able to avoid it), and a certain amount of what the FAQ describes as "stone silliness," but for the most part, the lives of the characters are the important things.
I also learned why several of the strips I follow seem to go into reruns every so often without warning. In the words of the FAQ:
About two years ago [note that these questions are undated and span several years], Universal Press Syndicate, alarmed by an outbreak of cartoonist burn-out, wisely decided that their creators (and their families) might benefit from vacations. Any cartoonist who has been with UPS for five years or more is now entitled to four weeks of paid vacation. Newspapers are free to use the reruns or substitute some other strip.
But this was the real eye-opener:
Q: So like, did Starbucks buy you out so you wouldn't lampoon their rapacious growth? They really do seem to hone in on neighborhoods that have local small business coffee houses. Does this bother you? -- Bill K., Oakland, CA
What's with the licensing deal with Starbucks? A faceless corporation that is not only contributing to the malling of America, but is known to engage in unfair practices to hurt small local independent competitors, is hardly the partner I would expect Garry Trudeau to lend his work to. How did this happen? -- Tara G., Seattle
A: In the late '80s, when Starbucks was just starting to spread like kudzu, there were roughly 1,200 coffee shops in the U.S. There are now over 10,000, only 1,900 of which belong to Starbucks. Far from wiping out competition, they've singlehandedly created a huge new industry, of which there have been many beneficiaries. Obviously there have been some shops that have not successfully competed with Starbucks, but that would be just as true if Starbucks only had one shop instead of hundreds. A company that sells its product at three to four times the price of local deli coffee is hardly engaging in "unfair" business practices (unlike Wal-Mart, say, which uses its economies of scale to undersell everyone).
We've been working with Starbucks for almost two years, and in our experience, this is a caring, responsible company with top-down progressive values. Starbucks calls its employees "partners", a little comradesque for some tastes, but the company comes by it honestly. All employees, including part-time workers, have stock options and full health benefits. Moreover, Starbucks, unlike companies like Nike, has for several years been quietly but aggressively working to improve the lives of the foreign workers who produce their product.
All the net proceeds from the Doonesbury@Starbucks project are being donated to charity, a figure that runs from 50 to 70% of the sales price, depending on the product (different products have different margins). If you compare this to Ben & Jerry's or Newman's Own, which donate in the 5 to 7% range, you'll see that Starbucks is making a remarkable commitment.
We agreed on a series of at least four product cycles - the second cycle was launched in mid-May. The money raised will primarily support literacy programs that Starbucks is already committed to in the communities they serve. The company has a policy of encouraging employees to volunteer at local literacy organizations. Once they've familiarized themselves with the programs, and have assessed their needs, they are then invited to request grant support from the Starbucks Foundation. It is this sustained, grass roots approach to philanthropy that both UPS and GBT are proud to be associated with.
Um. Ouch.
© Columbine
|
|
