Talk:B.C. (comic strip)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
???	This article has no rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and provide comments here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Even before the strip becoming so overtly sociopolitical, there were all sorts of anachronisms, such as hunting a turkey for Thanksgiving and baseball games, so the anachronisms did not begin in the 1990s. Rlquall 18:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we put something about this strip being nonsensical and not funny any more?--Theloniouszen 05:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

That's POV. Somebody must find it funny. Right? ccwaters 10:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been wondering for some time why it is called BC when there are so many references to Christmas and Easter etc. I am a Christian so it does not bother me. It just does not work with the premise of the strip. Dennis R. 12/01/05

• Keep in mind that one of the characters is named B.C. So, in theory, it could just be a coincidence. Not likely. But keep in mind the cartoon was started in like 1959, and was strictly prehistoric at the time. Maybe it's a little late to change it. :) Wahkeenah 23:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It did not become overtly Christian until the last decade or so, as Hart himself changed. For the first couple of decades, it was strictly humor (and very good humor, too). - DavidWBrooks 00:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Once Johnny Hart "found it", did he also "lose it" (i.e. his sense of humour)? Wahkeenah 00:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also good to keep in mind that the B.C. comic, like many comics, takes place in an artificial setting in order to sharpen the satire. This is not a new concept. The Flintstones did the same thing. And going a little farther back, Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado was plainly about the English, only disguised as Japan. Wahkeenah 00:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It's important to realize that even now the strip is only "religious" 10 or 20% of the time. But (secular) anachronisms occur probably 80% of the time. Wasted Time R 21:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know just what it was that got him "banned" for a week. Wahkeenah 23:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I just read the link. He's a zealot, and if Doonesbury deserves to be banned from time to time, B.C. certainly does. By contrast, Peanuts characters (notably Linus) often discussed religion, but not in the patronizing way that Hart evidently does. Wahkeenah 23:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate explanation

Has anyone else here encountered the idea that BC in fact takes place in a post-nuclear-apocolyptic world? It would explain pretty much all of the anachronisms (maybe the dinosaurs are mutated lizards or something, etc.), and what group of people wouldn't be extremely interested in religion if, in a sense, Armageddeon had already happened? I'm still not sure the theory is worth posting on the main article, though. Any thoughts? User:Lenoxus 16:35, 15 April 2006 Lenoxus (UTC)

I've been reading BC for four decades, and that's the first time I've encountered that idea - so, no, I don't think this belongs in the article. - DavidWBrooks 17:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No more so than The Flintstones, which also celebrated Christmas, etc. Keep in mind that both of those were/are simply literary vehicles for satirizing modern American cutlure. Much in the way that The Mikado was set in Japan, and Hamlet was set in Denmark, and Gulliver's Travels were set in exotic lands, but all of those were really about British culture. Wahkeenah 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-apocalyptic?

Gimme a break. B.C. is, and always has been, a satire about modern humans... just like the Flintstones was... or Bugs Bunny, for that matter. Wahkeenah 17:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, satire, but it most definitely post-apocolyptic. A few years ago, Clumsy clearly states he's reading a magazine from "back in 2004." http://bcblastedcavemen.blogspot.com/2006/11/bc-prehistoric-or-postapocalyptic.html This should be incorporated into the article.

Remember that Christian doctrine states that Christ will be back... so maybe Hart is thinking "BC" in the sense of the post-apocalptic "second fall of man" - before the second coming. If yall think this is worth including, feel free -BC

To Wahkeena: I certainly wasn't being serious enough for any break to have be given (in other words, everyone who read my comment was given a break to begin with) — that's why I raised the possibility here instead of direct editing. The more I see it, it seems clear that even the points raised by the two (or possibly one) user(s) above are very much in the obsessive-consistency mode of thinking, although I have to admit chuckling at the "second coming" idea. I very much doubt any of the inconsistencies actually trouble Hart, and of course it's a satire on humans. Just wondering if there was anything to back up the possible interpretation, but I'd say the simple, obvious answer is no. Thank for responding, guys (and sorry to be so late in getting back here about it — I just figured out a good system for following the conversations I start). --Lenoxus 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)