



Words by Curmudgeon Film Talk. Title image compliments of Green Ornstein.

is super weird.





Sigh…





I suppose I should qualify that statement, but alas…all in good time, dear readers. All in good time…





some prior familiarity. Garfield should require no introduction. The contentiously curmudgeonly cat is an icon of American comics, and I’m guessing you wouldn’t have clicked on this article if you didn’t have at leastprior familiarity.





Garfield follow a pretty standard format. Garfield is a lazy, churlish feline with an obsession with lasagne and a propensity for self-centredness, much to the chagrin of his owner, Jon. Authored by Jim Davis in the mid-1970s - 1976/1978, specifically - the adventures offollow a pretty standard format. Garfield is a lazy, churlish feline with an obsession with lasagne and a propensity for self-centredness, much to the chagrin of his owner, Jon.

The Simpsons (1989-) saw to the death of traditional “values” in popular media long ago, and it’s probably safe to say that the internet is rapidly overtaking its printed counterparts by the second. The comic strip lives on in the form of webcomics, which mostly cater towards the post-millennial audience, our bleak humour, and our crippling, crippling depression (i.e. Sarah’s Scribbles, Mr. Lovenstein, Extra Fabulous Comics, Shubbabang, I could go on but you get the point). Those traditional strips with their lazy humour and saccharine sensibilities have mostly been left behind, in a puddle of their own filth and tears… It’d be far from controversial to say that most comic strips lack longevity. After all, their family-friendly values and basic, slapstick humour doesn’t translate so well to the modern day. Cultural milestones like(1989-) saw to the death of traditional “values” in popular media long ago, and it’s probably safe to say that the internet is rapidly overtaking its printed counterparts by the second. The comic strip lives on in the form of webcomics, which mostly cater towards the post-millennial audience, our bleak humour, and our crippling, crippling depression (i.e.I could go on but you get the point). Those traditional strips with their lazy humour and saccharine sensibilities have mostly been left behind, in a puddle of their own filth and tears…





…but not Garfield.





suffered,' because it’s not so much a “Garfield rose on the third day” as it is a “Garfield’s partially rotted corpse was exhumed using forbidden magic.” Yes, you might have noticed that Garfield has suffered something of a resurgence, lately. I say ',' because it’s not so much a “Garfield rose on the third day” as it is a “Garfield’s partially rotted corpse was exhumed using forbidden magic.”



Unluckily for you, I'm bored, have nothing better to do, and have absolutely no shame. Who better to take a needlessly analytical deep-dive into the most uninviting corners of internet fandom?





So; what say you, friends? Would you like to join me as we take a trip down ͕͗ Ɠ͕͕͗͗ α ͕͕͗͗ я ͕͕͗͗ f ͕͕͗͗ ι ͕͕͗͗ є ͕͕͗͗Ɩ͕͕͗͗ɗ͕͗ avenue, into ͕͗ Ɠ͕͗ ͕͗ α ͕͕͗͗ я ͕͕͗͗ f ͕͕͗͗ ι ͕͕͗͗ є ͕͕͗͗Ɩ͕͕͗͗ɗ͕͗ lane, grab a pint of ͕͗ Ɠ͕͕͗͗ α ͕͕͗͗ я ͕͕͗͗ f ͕͕͗͗ ι ͕͕͗͗ є ͕͕͗͗Ɩ͕͕͗͗ɗ͕͗ and chase down the mutated, amorphous ͕͗ Ɠ͕͕͗͗ α ͕͕͗͗ я ͕͕͗͗ f ͕͕͗͗ ι ͕͕͗͗ є ͕͕͗͗Ɩ͕͕͗͗ɗ͗ before he lays waste to the entire town of Slough?





The Meme-ification of Garfield





LET’S TALK ABOUT MEMES (I promise it’s relevant).





memes, don’t we? They litter our Facebook feeds, we share them among our friends to propagate our own bizarre, intangible humour. Those privy to the workings of internet culture would know a meme when they saw one, but could they define it? The word “meme” is graspable yet totally elusive. I mean, we all understand, don’t we? They litter our Facebook feeds, we share them among our friends to propagate our own bizarre, intangible humour. Those privy to the workings of internet culture would know a meme when they saw one, but could they define it?





am going somewhere with this. Okay, bear with me, Igoing somewhere with this.





The Selfish Gene (1976), penned by atheist darling Richard Dawkins. Dawkins states: The word itself, as you may know, originates from(1976), penned by atheist darling Richard Dawkins. Dawkins states:





Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. (The Selfish Gene, Dawkins, p.192). , Dawkins, p.192).





imitated, from individual to individual. Through imitation, there is proliferation. In other words, a meme is basically a piece of information that is repeated,, from individual to individual. Through imitation, there is proliferation.





meme-ified? But what happens when something is-ified?





I don’t think it would be fair to say that imitation and repetition results in dilution. No, no…something much more fun begins to happen.



In a basic form, a meme can serve as a cultural shorthand. Everybody familiar with meme culture knows what this means:

mean. But, sometimes, memes can take a piece of data and mutate it, transform it into something else entirely. My favourite example of this would be No Context Peep Show: various, random screencaps are extracted from the popular British comedy and isolated. Without their proper context, they’re left to metamorphose into something stranger… Slap some original text on there, and you’ve got yourself a shorthand. The monkey is guilty and embarrassed in equal measure, etc, you know what I meme...uh.... But, sometimes, memes can take a piece of data andit, transform it into something else entirely. My favourite example of this would be: various, random screencaps are extracted from the popular British comedy and isolated. Without their proper context, they’re left to metamorphose into something





S T R A N G E R…





has experienced a resurfacing as of recent, but not a legitimate one. Hell, there have been some attempts to sincerely capitalise on the conspicuous cat, but they’ve been met with hilarity; any praise they do receive is ironic. The most obvious example of this is Garfield Eats, a bizarre attempt to make a (reportedly revolting) fast-food chain out of Garfield’s name. It’s received much attention, but only on account of sheer, troubled bewilderment. If anything, this tone-deaf capitalist venture has only fuelled the fire of the online fascination with the feline, and what lurks beneath Garfield’s inexplicable internet identity… This brings us to ol’ Garf. Garfieldexperienced a resurfacing as of recent, but not aone. Hell, there have been some attempts to sincerely capitalise on the conspicuous cat, but they’ve been met with hilarity; any praise they do receive is ironic. The most obvious example of this is, a bizarre attempt to make a (reportedly revolting) fast-food chain out of Garfield’s name. It’s received much attention, but only on account of sheer, troubled bewilderment. If anything, this tone-deaf capitalist venture has only fuelled the fire of the online fascination with the feline, and what lurks beneath Garfield’s inexplicable internet identity…





Why is Garfield SO WEIRD?





kind to Garfield. In the same way that various clips of acclaimed sitcoms can be isolated and distorted from their original meaning, so too can Garfield. So…the internet hasn’t exactly beento Garfield. In the same way that various clips of acclaimed sitcoms can be isolated and distorted from their original meaning, so too can Garfield.





lasagnacat, for example – a creator who appears to use Garfield as a platform to make uncomfortable, experimental films. There are some noteworthy examples of this. The YouTube channel, for example – a creator who appears to use Garfield as a platform to make uncomfortable, experimental films.





lasagnacat is as follows: one of Davis’s original strips is reiterated in live-action, with performers dressed in fur-suits. Once the strip is acted out, it diverges into a bizarre…skit (?) I’m tentative with the word ‘skit’ because they’re less skits than they are…uh… The rhythm ofis as follows: one of Davis’s original strips is reiterated in live-action, with performers dressed in fur-suits. Once the strip is acted out, it diverges into a bizarre…skit (?) I’m tentative with the word ‘skit’ because they’re less skits than they are…uh…









Well, they defy description.

lasagnacat is simply entitled “Sex Survey Results” (viewer discretion is very much advised, but you can check it out not a post-modern mangling of a pre-existing Davis comic. Instead, we’re…um…treated (?)…to an almost five hour-long video, revealing the results of a telephone “sex survey” in the form of knock-knock jokes. This format repeats for a full four-and-a-half hours. Then, in the last eight minutes or so, it morphs into an unfathomable, experimental film, involving hyper-fast ageing, living mannequins, and a child-birth in a Polish school. My personal favourite ‘skit’ fromis simply entitled “Sex Survey Results” (viewer discretion isadvised, but you can check it out here ). In a deviation from the channel’s normal content (if you can call it ‘normal’), what proceeds isa post-modern mangling of a pre-existing Davis comic. Instead, we’re…um…(?)…to an almostvideo, revealing the results of a telephone “sex survey” in the form of. This format repeats for a full. Then, in the last eight minutes or so, it morphs into an unfathomable, experimental film, involving hyper-fast ageing, living mannequins, and a child-birth in a Polish school.

attempt unpacking the disturbing tail-end of the video. Perhaps it defies analysis. Perhaps that’s the point, who knows. But content such as lasagnacat begs the question: why is Garfield being abstracted in this way? Frankly, I’m not intelligent enough to evenunpacking the disturbing tail-end of the video. Perhaps it defies analysis. Perhaps that’s the point, who knows. But content such asbegs the question: why is Garfield being abstracted in this way?





lasagnacat. This might have something to do with the almost fantastical treatment of Davis’s source material found in most of their videos. At its roots, though, I would say that it primarily lies in the live-action treatment of the characters, from which the rest springboards. When you think about it, however, there’s already something uncanny about Garfield. There’s an uncanny value to. This might have something to do with the almosttreatment of Davis’s source material found in most of their videos. At its roots, though, I would say that it primarily lies in the live-action treatment of the characters, from which the rest springboards. When you think about it, however, there’ssomething uncanny about Garfield.





Garfield occupies an intangible liminal space between a domesticated house-cat and an anthropomorphic being who can talk (or, at least, thinks in full sentences) and is capable of consciousness, of self-realisation. I mean, that’s weird, right? Although his canine counterpart, Odie, is occasionally caught doing something eerily human (like typing on a keyboard, etc), Odie still behaves like a dog, for the most part. Even those garbage movie adaptations with Bill Murray portrayed Odie with an actual dog, while Garfield maintained his canonically cartoony style. But Garfield…if Garfield is capable of forming full sentences in his head, has opposable thumbs, is self-aware…isn’t Garfield basically a person? Hell, Garfield even sits like a person. And yet, Garfield is still treated as though he were a pet.





Credit: https://garfield.com/

This might seem like such a simple thing to find so odd, but allow me to offer a comparison.





Adventure Time (2010-2018) for a moment. Specifically, let’s think about Jake the Dog. Let’s think about(2010-2018) for a moment. Specifically, let’s think about Jake the Dog.

treated like a person. He even sustains romantic relationships and has children. He’s got his feet planted firmly in the internal logic of the show, for sure, but how we’re supposed to feel about him is made pretty clear. He hasn’t opened up shop in the middle of the uncanny valley. Jake, like Garfield, is basically a person. He has his own life and responsibilities, and he’s independent of Finn the Human. Finn is not his owner, he’s not his guardian. Finn is his friend, and his adoptive brother. Appropriately, he’slike a person. He even sustains romantic relationships and has. He’s got his feet planted firmly in the internal logic of the show, for sure, but how we’re supposed to feel about him is made pretty clear. He hasn’t opened up shop in the middle of the uncanny valley.





screams “hardcore furry roleplay.” Sure, Garfield can’t literally talk, but he’s easily as conscious and mentally sound as Jake. Yet, he still performs the song and dance of the domestic pet. That’s weird, is it not? It just“hardcore furry roleplay.”





abstracted him into a new realm. That said, it isn’t so unimaginable that recent meme-ifications of Garfield have situated him in such an uncanny fashion. He’s already uncanny. Memes justhim into a





whole lot weirder from here, folks. Get ready for r/imsorryjon. I’d like to say “that’s that” and move on, but this is just the tip of the iceberg. It gets afrom here, folks. Get ready for





r/imsorryjon (or, the subreddit that disturbed me so much I decided to write an internet article about how weird Garfield is)





Oh Jesus…r/imsorryjon…where do I even start?





strangest Garf memes. Again, viewer discretion is very, very much advised, but you can find the subreddit Well…r/imsorryjon is a subreddit entirely structured upon theGarf memes. Again, viewer discretion ismuch advised, but you can find the subreddit here . It's honestly worth checking out, even if only for the sake of morbid curiosity. Its contributors are clearly very talented.



Its description is as follows:





Garfield has abandoned His limited form and He is beautiful. Surrender yourself to Him and be saved! Here we celebrate our favourite cosmic entity with cattitude.





It’s particularly curious how Garfield’s pronouns have been capitalised, as though he were some kind of ancient, unknowable deity.





this batch of bizarre shitposts re-imagines Garfield as a cosmic horror the likes of which even Cronenberg or Lovecraft would dread. They mostly capture Jon’s sublime emasculation in the presence of a creature beyond his comprehension, or our own, for that matter. As the description suggests,batch of bizarre shitposts re-imagines Garfield as a cosmic horror the likes of which even Cronenberg or Lovecraft would dread. They mostly capture Jon’s sublime emasculation in the presence of a creature beyond his comprehension, or our own, for that matter.





no idea who started it – and frankly, it’s irrelevant - but clearly a large enough portion of Reddit’s user base latched onto the idea to make it a thing. The subreddit is currently 777,000 users in size, which isn’t anywhere near the largest subreddits on the website, but it’s enough to demonstrate the clear, mimetic proliferation of its content. The imitative power of the internet community at its finest, ladies and gentlemen. I havewho started it – and frankly, it’s irrelevant - but clearly a large enough portion of Reddit’s user base latched onto the idea to make it a. The subreddit is currently 777,000 users in size, which isn’t anywhere near the largest subreddits on the website, but it’s enough to demonstrate the clear, mimetic proliferation of its content.





Let’s have a look, shall we?





Credit: https://www.instagram.com/fallen_guardian_draws/



especially weird, you could point out the phallic nature of the flashlight and its ineptness in the presence of The Garf. Regardless of Freudian psychoanalysis, there’s this weird sense that Jon is neutered, sterilised like the domesticated house pet. Their roles have reversed, you could say. The Garf towers menacingly over Jon like the otherworldly entity that he is. Jon is dwarfed by the looming monstrosity before him. His inability to conceive of such an astronomical horror is captured in his failure to illuminate the creature with his measly flashlight. If you’re feelingweird, you could point out the phallic nature of the flashlight and its ineptness in the presence of The Garf. Regardless of Freudian psychoanalysis, there’s this weird sense that Jon is neutered, sterilised like the domesticated house pet. Their roles have reversed, you could say.





In the insane reality of r/imsorryjon, it’s made pretty clear that Jon does not own Garfield. No…Garfield owns Jon…





Credit: https://www.instagram.com/rabid_sloth_attack/



spirit in Garfield – the moodiness, the laziness, the independence, the uncontrollability. It’s possible, however, that Davis inadvertently illustrated a weirder element to Jon’s relationship with his pet. In this sense, the nightmarish concoctions of r/imsorryjon are actually less nonsensical than you might think. I would argue that they are – like lasagnacat - a hyperreal distortion of traces already present in Davis’s comparatively tame source material. But does Jon truly own Garfield in Davis’s original comics, either? Hear me out for a second. It’s pretty obvious that Davis was trying to capture something of the cat-likein Garfield – the moodiness, the laziness, the independence, the uncontrollability. It’s possible, however, that Davis inadvertently illustrated a weirder element to Jon’s relationship with his pet. In this sense, the nightmarish concoctions of r/imsorryjon are actually less nonsensical than you might think. I would argue that they are – like- a hyperreal distortion of tracesin Davis’s comparatively tame source material.





I think that, in his attempt to encapsulate and humanise the free-spirited moodiness of a cat – the creature that cannot be owned – Davis ended up weaving a relationship of emasculation into the narrative. For example:





Credit: https://garfield.com/

That creepy little shit just showed Jon up .





much worse. The above image, whereby Garfield keeps Jon captive in a hole in the ground, is just an abstraction of the relationship already present in Davis’s text. Garfield owns Jon. Why not take it a bit further? Jokes aside, there’s a bizarre kind of…cuckoldry, for lack of a better term, present in their dynamic. The cat’s sassy dismissiveness is manifested in Garfield in such a way that evokes the stereotypical, American wise-guy routine. But Garfield’s perpetual belittling of Jon provides the faint blueprints for somethingworse. The above image, whereby Garfield keeps Jon captive in a hole in the ground, is just anof the relationship already present in Davis’s text. Garfield owns Jon. Why not take it a bit further?





insane as the internet has made him. All I’m saying is meme culture has made a monster out of characteristics that were already there. It is these characteristics which have afforded Garfield, as a comic, the longevity it wouldn’t have achieved otherwise. After all, what of American Splendour (1976-2008), Marmaduke (1954-2015), all the other once-popular comic strips which have yet to see the same, horrendous treatment? None of this is to say that Garfield is as downrightas the internet has made him. All I’m saying is meme culture has made a monster out of characteristics that were. It is these characteristics which have afforded, as a comic, the longevity it wouldn’t have achieved otherwise. After all, what of(1976-2008),(1954-2015), all the other once-popular comic strips which have yet to see the same, horrendous treatment?



