Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I do agree that, something like 40 years ago, it was read like you explained.
Also, reading again my question, i realize that i was confusing the author for the character (so I was confusing Jim Davis for Jon …). … if it was autobiographic, i don’t know to what extent it would have been.
so it’s not autobiographical, but it’s a fictional version. Interestingly, the same article says:
Davis eventually decided to replace Jon with Garfield as the main character, with the renamed Garfield strip achieving national syndication in 1978.[17] The Jon comics were published without copyright notices, making them and the prototypical Jon and Garfield characters public domain under pre-1977 copyright law.
Thanks for these searches. Based on this, i feel right to say that both the author and the character could be today somewhat described as incels … still i enjoy reading those cartoons.
I think Jon was being presented as a lovable but clueless dork. Though his harassment (and forced kissing) of the vet has aged poorly.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I do agree that, something like 40 years ago, it was read like you explained.
Also, reading again my question, i realize that i was confusing the author for the character (so I was confusing Jim Davis for Jon …). … if it was autobiographic, i don’t know to what extent it would have been.
according to wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Arbuckle
so it’s not autobiographical, but it’s a fictional version. Interestingly, the same article says:
Thanks for these searches. Based on this, i feel right to say that both the author and the character could be today somewhat described as incels … still i enjoy reading those cartoons.