• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

I dream of Garfield

Ikelaggan

Ikelaggan

2,257
903

Garfield 016 . | Read All Comics Online

readallcomics.com readallcomics.com
In "By John Arbuckle"
John arbuckle changes the story of the comic book to where he's the main protagonist. Garfield outside the comic panel notices the story being taken over by John to where John's concept of reality has gone so far off that he's taken over Garfield's entire comic. Then Garfield changes the plot and undoes his plot manipulation, Also making Nermal no longer exist.

Tldr
John arbuckle: Plot manipulation and subjective reality
Garfield: Resistance to Plot manipulation (due to being outside of John's control over the plot), Plot manipulation, Subjective reality, and Existence erasure

Agree: @ProfectusInfinity, @TheMonkeMan, @ShionAH, @Aolphl, @HonestlyBored24,@StretchSebe
Disagree:
 
Last edited:
ShionAH said:
Wouldnt this also be Low 1-C like Looney Tunes?
Click to expand...
I guess if you wanna consider it a R>F type difference then yeah on a simple scale, but on a unrelated note to the thread you do have Garfield viewing the entire garzooka comicbook as a dream and the garzooka comicbook universe has infinite worlds and dimensions in it.

majorspoilers.com

SNEAK PEEK: Garfield: Pet Force 2014 Special — Major Spoilers — Comic Book Reviews, News, Previews, and Podcasts

Major Spoilers - Daily Comic Book Reviews, News, Previews, and Podcasts
majorspoilers.com majorspoilers.com
 
Ikelaggan said:
I guess if you wanna consider it a R>F type difference then yeah on a simple scale, but on a unrelated note to the thread you do have Garfield viewing the entire garzooka comicbook as a dream and the garzooka comicbook universe has infinite worlds and dimensions in it.

majorspoilers.com

SNEAK PEEK: Garfield: Pet Force 2014 Special — Major Spoilers — Comic Book Reviews, News, Previews, and Podcasts

Major Spoilers - Daily Comic Book Reviews, News, Previews, and Podcasts
majorspoilers.com majorspoilers.com
Click to expand...

Low 1-C seems consistent
 
Agree with powers and Low 1-C for the reasons + comics provided, and other pieces of official animated media I'm aware of in which these things are demonstrated (namely in the a few instances from the shows)
 
Mr. Babu is here again to represent my main man Gene Wilder. I love Young Frankenstein.

It's hilarious, too, because I didn't even realize you mentioned me- I just saw this shit in the activity feed lmao

Anyways, I'm on the fence here. The events of the plot are distinguished from the events of "reality", such that Garfield himself is pointing out that these events didn't actually happen- it's a story in a story, one that does not contain any of the real elements of the verse. What Garfield does in the story isn't what he's actually doing, it's just a comic that Garfield is reading. 4th Wall Awareness, sure, because he's lamenting the stupid events of this reality to us, the reader of his actual reality, but the "plot manipulation" isn't actually doing anything.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Mr. Babu is here again to represent my main man Gene Wilder. I love Young Frankenstein.

It's hilarious, too, because I didn't even realize you mentioned me- I just saw this shit in the activity feed lmao
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you'd still engage in a Garfield thread and expose yourself as the Voldemort type when your name gets mentioned once without even a tag. And it's kinda sad on both our ends that thread engagement has to start from snide remarks/ jokes like this, especially since I'll admit my weaknesses is just getting a thread ignored by staff even after politely asking in dms and posting in thread promotion for multiple months on end.
Mr._Bambu said:
Anyways, I'm on the fence here. The events of the plot are distinguished from the events of "reality", such that Garfield himself is pointing out that these events didn't actually happen- it's a story in a story, one that does not contain any of the real elements of the verse. What Garfield does in the story isn't what he's actually doing, it's just a comic that Garfield is reading. 4th Wall Awareness, sure, because he's lamenting the stupid events of this reality to us, the reader of his actual reality, but the "plot manipulation" isn't actually doing anything.
Click to expand...
This analogy would work if this story in a story was like "John of the jungle" a Tarzan parody that John actually drew once, but if the events aren't really/ have no real cause or effect outside of comic then explain to me why Garfield going to John's drawing table and writing down on paper that's not even the quote lesser real comic that Garfield's supposed to be reading actually have a effect on John where the positions of author and artist are swapped with John going from confidant and cocky to puzzled and confused with a actual cause and effect that's not just isolated. Also what's stopping Garfield from tearing up the comic if it's a not real comic book that's just paper.
 
I'm surprised you'd still engage in a Garfield thread and expose yourself as the Voldemort type when your name gets mentioned once without even a tag. And it's kinda sad on both our ends that thread engagement has to start from snide remarks/ jokes like this, especially since I'll admit my weaknesses is just getting a thread ignored by staff even after politely asking in dms and posting in thread promotion for multiple months on end.
Click to expand...
Me when I make baseless disparaging remarks and get caught: oh well actually it's just as bad for you, really, because you replied!

I just gave an eval, man, I don't know what you want from me lol. I'd have given one if you asked, but really, I just saw you posting this in the activity feed and decided to see if it had any merit, and I don't believe it does.

This analogy would work if this story in a story was like "John of the jungle" a Tarzan parody that John actually drew once, but if the events aren't really/ have no real cause or effect outside of comic then explain to me why Garfield going to John's drawing table and writing down on paper that's not even the quote lesser real comic that Garfield's supposed to be reading actually have a effect on John where the positions of author and artist are swapped with John going from confidant and cocky to puzzled and confused with a actual cause and effect that's not just isolated. Also what's stopping Garfield from tearing up the comic if it's a not real comic book that's just paper.
Click to expand...
It isn't an analogy, and it works very well for this too, actually. Jon wrote a fanfic in which he was very well liked and popular and so on. He (real Jon) came in to see Garfield at his writing table, and confused (because he is not the Jon he wrote himself to be) looked over what Garfield was writing, until he decided it was stupid and went to cook dinner. I don't know why Garfield, having had a negative reaction to a thing, didn't decide to rip up said thing- I suppose it's the same reason why I haven't deleted my forum account after all these years. Spite, maybe. It doesn't really matter.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
It isn't an analogy, and it works very well for this too, actually. Jon wrote a fanfic in which he was very well liked and popular and so on. He (real Jon) came in to see Garfield at his writing table, and confused (because he is not the Jon he wrote himself to be) looked over what Garfield was writing, until he decided it was stupid and went to cook dinner. I don't know why Garfield, having had a negative reaction to a thing, didn't decide to rip up said thing- I suppose it's the same reason why I haven't deleted my forum account after all these years. Spite, maybe. It doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...
Ok, then why does Garfield even bother to write anything down the change the story if he knows it's not real then why change something that's not real. Which he does change the story in the last two pages where everybody loves him and helps him now, which if that doesn't dispove this analogy of Garfield looking at this Jon fanfic then why does he wind up back into the comic panel before and after he's done writing on Jon's desk.
 
Ikelaggan said:
Ok, then why does Garfield even bother to write anything down the change the story if he knows it's not real then why change something that's not real. Which he does change the story in the last two pages where everybody loves him and helps him now, which if that doesn't dispove this analogy of Garfield looking at this Jon fanfic then why does he wind up back into the comic panel before and after he's done writing on Jon's desk.
Click to expand...
Because he's a petty narcissistic to the same extent that Jon Arbuckle is lol? People assume they're more than they are all the time, the only difference here is that the fictional lasagna cat decided to write his own image of greatness in retaliation with Jon's.

Like... you legitimately have no argument, because I'm right- the comic shows a distinction between what is actually happening and what is fiction, with the characters in reality distinguished against their fake counterparts. You're grasping at "well WHY would they do that-" have you read a SINGLE Garfield comic outside of what the VSBW mind virus compels you to read? Are you aware of the characters you're discussing? Then it should be self evident.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Because he's a petty narcissistic to the same extent that Jon Arbuckle is lol? People assume they're more than they are all the time, the only difference here is that the fictional lasagna cat decided to write his own image of greatness in retaliation with Jon's.
Click to expand...
Him being narcissistic and changing Jon's story while also being inside this supposed not real story that he changed doesn't help your argument.
Mr._Bambu said:
Like... you legitimately have no argument, because I'm right- the comic shows a distinction between what is actually happening and what is fiction, with the characters in reality distinguished against their fake counterparts. You're grasping at "well WHY would they do that-" have you read a SINGLE Garfield comic outside of what the VSBW mind virus compels you to read? Are you aware of the characters you're discussing? Then it should be self evident.
Click to expand...
Please keep the ad hominem to a minimum Mr. Super Moderator Sir it looks very unprofessional in my opinion, also you by yourself saying "I'm right, your wrong" doesn't axiomatically make you in the right.
 
Him being narcissistic and changing Jon's story while also being inside this supposed not real story that he changed doesn't help your argument.
Click to expand...
Me: It is evident that this is not actually changing the plot of the story, because the characters are clearly not affected by what the other has written. Garfield and Jon are both shown to not be affected, and they're not contained within the story: it's just what they wrote.

You: Oh, well why would they write something if not for the purposes of plot manipulation?

Me: Narcissism, probably. It doesn't really matter.

You: That doesn't help your argument! Hah!

Please keep the ad hominem to a minimum Mr. Super Moderator Sir it looks very unprofessional in my opinion, also you by yourself saying "I'm right, your wrong" doesn't axiomatically make you in the right.
Click to expand...
You don't know what ad hominem means (and if you did, you'd see the irony of you continuing to engage in it while asking for it to cease), and need I remind you that you were the one insulting me, up above. I am right, you are wrong, you are now wagering your integrity on something that doesn't have a leg to stand on, and wasting my time as though you had an actual argument. You don't, you haven't provided even a lick of evidence to support your interpretation, whereas I have provided evidence to support mine.

What I am doing is questioning whether you've bothered to think about what it is you're debating about. It's very easy to get swept away by VSBW thought processes and not really give an earnest thought to what the words are actually saying. So often people see, for example, the word "concept" and think nothing else of it- 'clearly they mean it like VSBW means it!'- when this is rarely the case. The same is happening here. You see a character changing the plot to a story and presume it must be Plot Manipulation, because what else could it be? But upon closer inspection, there is no evidence to support this- there is, in fact, direct counterevidence to this notion. And so, here we are.
 
Mr._Bambu said:
Me: It is evident that this is not actually changing the plot of the story, because the characters are clearly not affected by what the other has written. Garfield and Jon are both shown to not be affected, and they're not contained within the story: it's just what they wrote.

You: Oh, well why would they write something if not for the purposes of plot manipulation?

Me: Narcissism, probably. It doesn't really matter.

You: That doesn't help your argument! Hah!
Click to expand...
That's a strawman, the reason it doesn't help your argument cause it doesn't answer the real question of why is Garfield in "Jon's fanfic" if he questions "what's going on with the story", "how could they let him do a story for my comic book" that's clearly not a fanfic or something that clearly doesn't exist in reality if Garfield also quoting "Jon's Concept of reality is so far off".
Mr._Bambu said:
You don't know what ad hominem means (and if you did, you'd see the irony of you continuing to engage in it while asking for it to cease), and need I remind you that you were the one insulting me, up above. I am right, you are wrong, you are now wagering your integrity on something that doesn't have a leg to stand on, and wasting my time as though you had an actual argument. You don't, you haven't provided even a lick of evidence to support your interpretation, whereas I have provided evidence to support mine.
Click to expand...
You took two quotes "this never happened" and "This will never happen" yet still has contrditions.
Also me making a slide joke and then getting insulted back doesn't make a good guy, but it doesn't give you the right to stoop down to my level that'd make you a hypocrite.
Mr._Bambu said:
What I am doing is questioning whether you've bothered to think about what it is you're debating about. It's very easy to get swept away by VSBW thought processes and not really give an earnest thought to what the words are actually saying. So often people see, for example, the word "concept" and think nothing else of it- 'clearly they mean it like VSBW means it!'- when this is rarely the case. The same is happening here. You see a character changing the plot to a story and presume it must be Plot Manipulation, because what else could it be? But upon closer inspection, there is no evidence to support this- there is, in fact, direct counterevidence to this notion. And so, here we are.
Click to expand...
At this point your very much stonewalling the thread with a one sided claim that no one's agreed with you on and if this thread is such a waste of your time I can ask several other thread mods their take on this thread before it just turns into derailment.
 
That's a strawman, the reason it doesn't help your argument cause it doesn't answer the real question of why is Garfield in "Jon's fanfic" if he questions "what's going on with the story", "how could they let him do a story for my comic book" that's clearly not a fanfic or something that clearly doesn't exist in reality if Garfield also quoting "Jon's Concept of reality is so far off".
Click to expand...
Again, you're just saying words with no respect to their meaning. If anything, you're strawmanning by attacking an argument that is irrelevant. Why Garfield would write about how great he is, is irrelevant, and yet you've inexplicably tried to make the conversation about that, rather than your own lack of evidence for your position.

Also me making a slide joke and then getting insulted back doesn't make a good guy, but it doesn't give you the right to stoop down to my level that'd make you a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
I haven't stooped down to your level, I've never once made a Garfield thread.

At this point your very much stonewalling the thread with a one sided claim that no one's agreed with you on and if this thread is such a waste of your time I can ask several other thread mods their take on this thread before it just turns into derailment.
Click to expand...
No I'm not lmao. I gave my evaluation, you want to go against it, so you need to give actual evidence. The thread is a waste of my time that I am obligated to take as a staff member of this forum- I volunteer here and am thus compelled to waste my time explaining why some things are not so to people that, in my estimation, really probably do know that what they're doing is a waste of time.
 
... Anyways the story seems a fair bit more mundane than the OP proposes. The presentation doesn't really make 100% sense with any one assumption but given that Jon makes this story by quite literally drawing it as if it were a comic, I think it's less likely that this is some abstract meta superpower and more just an in-verse comic that we eventually see Garfield notice and edit according to his whim- it works just fine that way, given that if it were him editing reality like a comic book, he would be able to do just about anything to it that a normal person could do to... a normal comic book.

A few things in particular strike me as weird with the assumption that this is reality- the mouse saying "does he know there's nine of us in his house" in response to Jon claiming there's none doesn't really make sense if this is Jon editing the reality in which those mice exist- even if he isn't retconning them out of existence thanks to them sharing Garfield's alleged plot resistance, they would still not exist in that new version of reality, which would make his claim completely logical. Meanwhile if this is just a comic in a comic, then the mouse poking fun of Jon being unaware of their presence makes total sense. Garfield calls the superhero bit a "fantasy", which has similar issues. Then there's Jon saying "I'm going to start dinner" at the end- clearly he means he will do so in his own reality, but if the claim is that he is no longer capable of superseding what Garfield has imposed upon their reality then that wouldn't really be possible (or make sense- why would you need to cook dinner if you can just write it in?)

There is also the fact that the mouse guy casually shows up by Garfield's side- is he also Low 1-C? Besides I generally feel like it'd be pretty silly to say Garfield is some god-being unbound by the baseline reality of his world when he is shown to be quite... bound, by that reality, most of the time. Finally, being a cartoonist is literally Jon's job- making a comic would be perfectly within the norm for him. Claiming the fact that Jon is unable to undo Garfield's changes to the plot is also quite silly- he really just saw Garfield's edits to the comic and was a bit baffled. I have to admit that Jon providing commentary on him being at the table is a bit weird but as I said the story doesn't really 100% work with either interpretation, and this one can be excused as being part of the gag, while contextually the ones opposing the plothax interpretation just don't really make sense without leading to any punchline if you go with it- and in fact ruining a few of them. Even if neither interpretation really triumphed over the other, I would still go with the more conservative one, which is that this isn't a showing of any kind of P&A (besides 4WA).
 
Last edited:
Armorchompy said:
... Anyways the story seems a fair bit more mundane than the OP proposes. The presentation doesn't really make 100% sense with any one assumption but given that Jon makes this story by quite literally drawing it as if it were a comic, I think it's less likely that this is some abstract meta superpower and more just an in-verse comic that we eventually see Garfield notice and edit according to his whim- it works just fine that way, given that if it were him editing reality like a comic book, he would be able to do just about anything to it that a normal person could do to... a normal comic book.
Click to expand...
That's fair.
Armorchompy said:
A few things in particular strike me as weird with the assumption that this is reality- the mouse saying "does he know there's nine of us in his house" in response to Jon claiming there's none doesn't really make sense if this is Jon editing the reality in which those mice exist- even if he isn't retconning them out of existence thanks to them sharing Garfield's alleged plot resistance, they would still not exist in that new version of reality, which would make his claim completely logical. Meanwhile if this is just a comic in a comic, then the mouse poking fun of Jon being unaware of their presence makes total sense. Garfield calls the superhero bit a "fantasy", which has similar issues. Then there's Jon saying "I'm going to start dinner" at the end- clearly he means he will do so in his own reality, but if the claim is that he is no longer capable of superseding what Garfield has imposed upon their reality then that wouldn't really be possible (or make sense- why would you need to cook dinner if you can just write it in?)

There is also the fact that the mouse guy casually shows up by Garfield's side- is he also Low 1-C? Besides I generally feel like it'd be pretty silly to say Garfield is some god-being unbound by the baseline reality of his world when he is shown to be quite... bound, by that reality, most of the time.
Click to expand...
The mouse being equally unbound by the reality of plot is a fair point, even if Garfield is also viewing the "Garfield" in John's comic. which is weird to arguing the mouse being low 1-C just for showing up outside the comic book and not manipulating the plot of the baseline reality. I tried explaining the consistency of the baseline reality being 5D with the Garzooka comicbook and Garfield petforce being the R>F difference, which I'll admit I should of added that into the start of thread instead of the latter.
 
Armorchompy said:
... Anyways the story seems a fair bit more mundane than the OP proposes. The presentation doesn't really make 100% sense with any one assumption but given that Jon makes this story by quite literally drawing it as if it were a comic, I think it's less likely that this is some abstract meta superpower and more just an in-verse comic that we eventually see Garfield notice and edit according to his whim- it works just fine that way, given that if it were him editing reality like a comic book, he would be able to do just about anything to it that a normal person could do to... a normal comic book.

A few things in particular strike me as weird with the assumption that this is reality- the mouse saying "does he know there's nine of us in his house" in response to Jon claiming there's none doesn't really make sense if this is Jon editing the reality in which those mice exist- even if he isn't retconning them out of existence thanks to them sharing Garfield's alleged plot resistance, they would still not exist in that new version of reality, which would make his claim completely logical. Meanwhile if this is just a comic in a comic, then the mouse poking fun of Jon being unaware of their presence makes total sense. Garfield calls the superhero bit a "fantasy", which has similar issues. Then there's Jon saying "I'm going to start dinner" at the end- clearly he means he will do so in his own reality, but if the claim is that he is no longer capable of superseding what Garfield has imposed upon their reality then that wouldn't really be possible (or make sense- why would you need to cook dinner if you can just write it in?)

There is also the fact that the mouse guy casually shows up by Garfield's side- is he also Low 1-C? Besides I generally feel like it'd be pretty silly to say Garfield is some god-being unbound by the baseline reality of his world when he is shown to be quite... bound, by that reality, most of the time. Finally, being a cartoonist is literally Jon's job- making a comic would be perfectly within the norm for him. Claiming the fact that Jon is unable to undo Garfield's changes to the plot is also quite silly- he really just saw Garfield's edits to the comic and was a bit baffled. I have to admit that Jon providing commentary on him being at the table is a bit weird but as I said the story doesn't really 100% work with either interpretation, and this one can be excused as being part of the gag, while contextually the ones opposing the other interpretation just don't really make sense without leading to any punchline- and in fact ruining a few of them. Even if neither interpretation really triumphed over the other, I would still go with the more conservative one, which is that this isn't a showing of any kind of P&A (besides 4WA).
Click to expand...
People always like to pretend that just because I snarked once, I'm not chill. It's called wit and someday people will appreciate it rather than sensing hostility.
 
Ikelaggan said:
The mouse being equally unbound by the reality of plot is a fair point, even if Garfield is also viewing the "Garfield" in John's comic. which is weird to arguing the mouse being low 1-C just for showing up outside the comic book and not manipulating the plot of the baseline reality. I tried explaining the consistency of the baseline reality being 5D with the Garzooka comicbook and Garfield petforce being the R>F difference, which I'll admit I should of added that into the start of thread instead of the latter.
Click to expand...
Even if they are legitimate universes within their own storyline, which I don't doubt, reality would be equalized to where the series usually takes place- which is the Garfield world.
 
First of all, it's against the rules to link to websites containing pirated media; this includes pirated comic reading websites. It's preferable if all the images were sent to an Imgur or Gyazo album.

Anyway, I have more or less the same thoughts as Mr Bambu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
Garfield vs Tom (Tom and Jerry)
Replies
19
Views
1K
Robo432343
Robo432343
Aolphl
  • Locked
Some Black Hat Downgrades (Villainous)
2
Replies
70
Views
4K
Aolphl
Aolphl
Psychomaster35
Battle for Dream Island: Well-Deserved Rest After Upgrades
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
IdiosyncraticLawyer
DC Comics: Reviewing Exotic Haxes
3 4 5
Replies
172
Views
9K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Phsccarvalho
  • Locked
Woody Woodpecker: Low 2-C, more Plot Manipulation and more Hax
2 3
Replies
93
Views
4K
Phsccarvalho
Phsccarvalho
Back
Top