Fair game in obituary cartoons

[Mike Peterson]

Before too many Ted Kennedy cartoons hit the 'net, what do you think the goal ought to be? What are the rules for producing a good editorial cartoon this time around?

A good cartoonist should do more than show "Teddy at the Pearly Gates," but we have that discussion every time someone famous dies and let's assume there could be some aspect of that this time around and that there may some way to raise that take -- or a "weeper cartoon" -- above complete cliche dreck.

In this case, Kennedy is similar to Strom Thurmond in that he produced strong negatives among (differing) national pundits and bloviators, but was intensely popular within his own district. Where I think they differ is that Thurmond's views on race were central to his political identity, so that commenting on them was perfectly within the bounds of intelligent commentary -- including perhaps a shot at his having had a sexual liaison with an African-American woman, since it is personal conduct in opposition to public policy.

In Kennedy's case, he was incredibly irresponsible in his personal life, and Chappaquiddick was horrific. But Kennedy had not been elected on a promise to enact strict drunk-driving laws, to make adultery a felony or even on the basis of high-faluting speeches about the sanctity of marriage. There was no real disconnect between his personal life and the policies he espoused, though, as in many other celebrity cases, it didn't hurt to be able to afford a good lawyer.

So what are the rules about using a 40-year-old personal scandal in regards to a man with a half-century of unrelated public service? Ignore it? Make it central? Somewhere in the middle?

And "don't do a cartoon about him at all" is a possible answer, but if you just did one last week about his sister, you'd have to explain a little more ...

[Wiley Miller]

"What are the rules for producing a good editorial cartoon this time around?"

The same as any editorial cartoon. It doesn't matter what the subject is, the cartoon should have a point, hence the term, editorial. Ok, he died. Hardly a surprise. Making note of his passing is a waste of space as there is no shortage of that being made known in every form of media. So if one is going to produce an editorial cartoon about his passing, it should express something other than sadness and dig deeper into what impact his passing will have on the country.

The one thing we all have in common, regardless of race, creed, gender or social/economic standing is that we are going to die. A celebrities passing is no more "sad" than that of anyone else, so just having a well known figure at the Pearly Gates isn't just trite, it's an embarrassment to the entire profession. Unfortunately, editors think those cartoons are sheer genius.

[Darrin Bell]

Along that line: As far as I'm concerned, if a cartoonist can define Kennedy by a 40 year-old scandal but still make an interesting point about today's world, I've got no problem with it. Of course, I'd have a hard time believing that that cartoonist had even bothered to Google "Ted Kennedy" before dashing off the cartoon if they had to look that far back for a metaphor or critique.

[Joshua Skurtu]

"if they had to look that far back for a metaphor or critique."

Mike, I love that you are asking for advice on how to critique the dead, but in a sensitive way. :-)

I would also love to know how to rob a grave, but in a way that respects the corpse.

Or, how about this? How do I desecrate a church, but in a way that shows I am just kidding? Do you only smear feces on the religious iconography on the left side of the altar? :)

No matter how you do it, you are still trying to critique the dead. And to me, it sounds like the critique will fall on dead ears. Just do it. Some people demonize the entire left, so they will love it no matter how harsh it is. You just have to know your audience.

[Mike Peterson]

So you're saying that, once a person is dead, their entire life's work becomes off-limits.

Since I assume this isn't what you mean, what DO you mean???

[Joshua Skurtu]

I never said their life's work is off limits. The only thing I pointed out (with sarcasm? It's what I do...) was that you never thought about making a comic ABOUT his life's work until he had died, much in the way that wayward children come floating around after a death to get a piece of the inheritance. Not to be harsh, but I guess I was.

My comments are more of a critique on comic strip artists that try to cash in on the death of a celebrity (not you personally), which could actually be a valid commentary FOR a comic.

But really, I think Wiley's response of "the cartoon should have a point," probably sums it up best. Make a commentary / editorial cartoon if you have something to say and don't worry about stepping on any toes. Some people have very big toes and will never like what you say. :-D

[Wiley Miller]

An editorial cartoon doesn't have to be critical of the person who died. The point of the cartoon can be directed elsewhere, such as his detractors who seemed to only be able to say Chappaquiddick in response to anything Ted Kennedy ever proposed.