Brain Rot: Charles Darwin on Pro Wrestling

• [Cynical]

  I was similarly bemused until I asked an otherwise reasonable friend why he was so into pro-wrestling. His response?
  “I know it’s all fake but it’s like Eastenders, only enhanced with comedy violence.”

  Fair point, I thought.

  • [Guest]

    I’ve always said it was a Soap Opera featuring Acrobats. 

• [skyhawk1]

  Still trying to figure out what wrestling has to do with the SyFy channel. Eureka gets canned while that crap is still on.  

  • [Positive Attitude]

    Rasslin’ has nothing to do with science fiction. SyFy just likes the ratings. When it first debuted, the network asked WWE/ECW to add a sci-fi element to the show which resulted in the one and only appearance of “The Zombie”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkEwz4DCnLM

  • [Justin Bishop]

    A pretty simple answer: Smackdown is the highest rated show on the channel. Eureka… wasn’t.

• [SedanChair]

  So it’s 40+ years since R. Crumb got his start…I guess I would have expected something beyond a total rip-off.

• [Todd S.]

  Hmm.. Darwin didn’t actually say “survival of the fittest” and he had nothing to do with “social Darwinism”, which is what this comic seems to be about.

  • [dculberson]

    Perhaps you missed the “my homeboy, herb” part, before the ‘survival of the fittest?’  (Herbert Spencer DID coin the phrase.)

    I do like the idea of using “excellent health indicators” as a euphemism!

    • [Todd S.]

      Admittedly I did miss that. Perhaps the comic should have used Spencer instead of Darwin since it seems to be much more about the former’s thought than the latter’s.

      • [Guest]

        perhaps you might draw your own version and share that with the crowd?

        • [Todd S.]

          Obviously pointing out historical misrepresentations in a comic means that I am myself a comic artist.

        • [Guest]

          admittedly, great comeback. Since your skills as a historian are lacking I was hoping you had the latter skillset. That way I know you’re not just some self-apponted expert critic. We all love them. Don’t we?

        • [invictus]

          Why, mdhatter, I do believe you’ve just publicly given up the right to ever complain about anything you are not personally proficient in. Here’s to hoping you never dislike your dinner!

        • [Todd S.]

          Odd that the comment I got in my email doesn’t match what is written here, but ok. So, you think Darwin was actually the originator of social Darwinism? And you think that criticizing a historical misrepresentation is the same as criticizing the artwork or dialog? If it had been a cartoon about Karl Marx founding the Soviet Union, would I still have to be a cartoonist to point out that it didn’t happen that way?

        • [Guest]

          i rethought my overhasty reply. yay disqus. 

        • [Guest]

          Friend, i was just pointing out that the historical thing you called the cartoonist out on was something you then were called out on. I’m glad you saw your mistake there, very big. Rare talent on the internet.

          I was hoping, though, since you remain critical of the work, that you had some of your own to compare and contrast, Maybe your skill lies in art?

          Since your first critiques fell flat, and the second attempt to knock the piece down was so much hot air, I though you’d appreciate some comments about what you’re doing which mirrored what your comments are to the originator of this fine piece of work – about which you have had only criticisms.

          Everyone just loves a critic, don’t they? Don’t you?

      • [dculberson]

        True enough, though discussing evolutionary sciences does nothing for my health indicator.

• [Nadreck]

  Pro-wrestling is just Opera – only with less singing.  The plots are pretty much the same.

• [L_Mariachi]

  I have to say I’ve seen more incisive analyses/takedowns (no pun intended) of pro wrestling than this. To wit, Roland Barthes. Somebody illustrate that.

  • [L L]

    Indeed. “So that in actual fact a fair fight is nothing but an exaggeratedly polite one: the contestants confront each other with zeal, not rage; they can remain in control of their
    passions, they do not punish their beaten opponent relentlessly, they stop fighting as soon as they are ordered to do so…”  Amazingly incisive…perhaps even too incisive. This, as well, gave me chills: “But what wrestling is above all meant to portray is a purely moral concept: that of justice. The idea of ‘paying’ is essential to wrestling, and the crowd’s ‘Give it to him’ means above all else ‘Make him pay’.” Now I understand. Now I finally understand…

• [-M]

  So, was there a broader brush that could have been used or was that an attempt at restraint?

• [emic]

  Roland Barthes on wrestling:
  http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ikalmar/illustex/Barthes-wrestling.htm

• [Mister44]

  Hmm – Darwin’s upper arm should have a humorous bone in it – but it appears he has an ulna and radius.

• [hazz]

  As porn is to sex, MMA is to violence.  As Days of Our Lives is to love, pro-wrestling is to anger.

• [Gareth Rees]

  In The Descent of Man Darwin quotes Félix de Azara on the Guaná of South America: ”It has ever been the custom among these people for the men to wrestle for any woman to whom they are attached; and, of course, the strongest party always carries off the prize. A weak man, unless he be a good hunter, and well-beloved, is seldom permitted to keep a wife that a stronger man thinks worth his notice.  This custom prevails throughout all the tribes, and causes a great spirit of emulation among their youth, who are upon all occasions, from their childhood, trying their strength and skill in wrestling.”

• [Donald Petersen]

  Neato.  Now do NASCAR.

• [Kimmo]

  Looking at the penultimate panel, I never realised Charles Darwin had so much in common with Robert Crumb.

• [Todd S.]

  Will you give it a rest already? You’ve already proven multiple times you understand neither the gist of the critique nor the difference between content and presentation.  And you need to go back and fact-check your history if you think I was “called out”. Friend.

  • [L L]

    You were called out–or at least corrected. Your original critique of this was, “Darwin didn’t actually say ‘survival of the fittest”. Mdhatter then pointed out that nowhere in this comic does it suggest Darwin said this–that in fact the comic makes the (correct) point that Herbert (called “Herb” in the comic) Spencer did.  You ask, “So, you think Darwin was actually the originator of social Darwinism?” but am not sure how you glean this from any of mhatter’s responses. 
    And as far as you criticizing this comic about its “historical misrepresentation,” am not entirely sure this strip is making absolute claims to historical accuracy. I refer you to text that opens this comic (“Charles Robert Darwin was struck in the head by a massive Dove-Tailed Meerlusk…”)

• [Daniel]

  I love the old-school newsprint look.  And while it does have a very vague, superficial resemblance to the artwork of R. Crumb, this guy certainly has his own distinctive style — no doubt influenced by Crumb, but then again, who isn’t?  (In other words, not remotely a ripoff.)

• [charonme]

  nobody believes celebrity deathmatch  was real (it’s claymation) and who didn’t enjoy it?