Naturally, Tired Leads to Sleepy.
Calamities of Nature, by Tony Piro, is probably the most uninspiring comic I’ve reviewed for the fencers yet. So, for me, this’ll be a short review.
Four loserly funny animals with one-word personalities live in…I guess modern America. And go on statically-drawn wacky adventures, which generally involve…one character being dumb and the other one being sensible to no avail. The, uh, adventures tend to be things we’ve all seen before. Repeatedly.
It’s like current Garfield, only stretched out over nine panels and lacking a punchline. Seriously, most of these comics have no punchline. They don’t even try. When the characters aren’t standing around not being funny, they’re standing around not being socially aware. Hint: if you’re trying to push social awareness, try saying something that not everyone in the media is already saying. The most exciting thing about the comic is it’s anti-Christian sentiment, and even that is just parroted from other general anti-Christian sentiments (and only exciting because supposedly, as a Christian, I should feel mocked), complete with lack of realistic example…or punchline. Has this guy ever had an original idea in his life? I mean, he makes an entire story arc based off of a guest strip. Wait…this one might come close… The mad scientist stereotype isn’t completely clueless! Haha, get it? No?
Oh, there’s art, isn’t there? Pretty flat and colorless for being in color with 2-tone shading. Again, nothing Garfield hasn’t already done. It’s not bad, it’s just not good either.
I have no idea why this comic is called “Calamities of Nature.” But do I think all the characters should be parrots. Then there’d be self irony. Intentional, rather than unintentional. The evolution of the horse exhibit? Are you serious? Even hardcore evolutionary scientists admit that that chart is propagandist bunk and intentionally misleading. Notice how it shows ONLY the forleg canon and hoof for each species, a tooth, and an artist rendition? Yeah, there’s a reason for that. It’s called “the rest of the skeleton.”
Uhm, I give it a star for being a comic on the web? But that means I need to give a star to the grass I’m watching grow… Fine, I’ll give it two stars because he actually drew it himself and the site’s decent.
Rating: 
“Calamities of Nature”
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/
By Tony Piro
review by Sly Eagle
(5 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading …
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
September 26th, 2008 at 6:23 am
First Delos, El Santo and I agreed on a comic and now Sly and I agree!
Surely this be a sign of the end times, my friends…
Good review, Sly - well said and right to the point.
And sorry - this was added as a tag on, after the fact - I also agree about the anti-Christian thing in humor. I have heard it said that that particular bias is the only acceptable bigotry in America and I believe it. Tiresome and trite, in my humble opinion.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:21 am
“he actually drew it himself and the site’s decent” sums up the review I wasn’t able to do very neatly indeed. I hated it!
September 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Wow - 3 for 3! Still waiting for our esteemed moderator to weigh in with his decision ….
September 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Heh. Five in agreement?!?
Someone write that down so when I’m in my retirement home I’ll be able to look back and say “Yes it happened. Really. Everyone else agreed with me - but just one time. Those were the days…”
September 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
You didn’t agree you shyster! Your review practically glowed with how great the comic itself was and had some little tidbit at the end of “Oh…well, it wasn’t ALL funny…”
September 26th, 2008 at 11:02 am
You’re not fooling me, mister! I’m on to your tricky and nefarious ways.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I didn’t hate it. There wasn’t enough to merit the attention of hatred. I would’ve given it no stars, except that I use the star system to give a more objective rating since my reviews are singularly subjective. So, two stars for being a decent example of its type. Even if the world would be a better place if its type vanished from the earth already.
Yeah, geez. What’s up with agreeing with me, guys? I felt okay being harsh because I figured someone out of the four of you would like it and say glowy, positive-y things. Oh, okay, Delos did.
The typical anti-Christian bigotry tends to confound me, mostly because the only argument is “you’re an idiot because you believe in God.” Now, as I understand it, don’t Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, and any manner of all the religions you don’t make fun of, ever, also believe in God or Gods? So, what’s the argument? You’re an idiot if you’re white and believe in God? What’s that supposed to mean?
For the record, whenever I go to more melting-pot regions, the Christian churches tend to have more “color” than not. Statistically, there tend to be more women Christians than men, and they tend to pretty evenly come from caucasian, african, asian, and hispanic backgrounds. But the Christian is almost always represented by a white man in a tie - oh hey, the only racial “group” it’s acceptable to make fun of. Huhn.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It’s a backlash, I think, against the stereotype that’s perpetuated of “the Christian;” narrow minded, bigoted, and completely against anything scientific. A lot of that is our own fault - when all this stuff started, a lot of believers didn’t stand up and say “Hey! Wait a sec” and try and stop it. Also, a lot of believers DO act that way or have in the past - unfortunately, people see that as a trait of Christianity, rather than a lack of confidence in the Christian/group themselves.
As far as the points regarding other religions; I believe they call that a double standard. It goes hand in hand with the new, self-defeating definition of “tolerance.” Tolerance applies to everyone EXCEPT the Christian who doesn’t water down their beliefs until they mean basically nothing. It’s ok for other groups to be exclusive, though.
(sigh)
September 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Honestly, it’s not my intention to start a religious debate but, a possible reason that Christians tend to get bad reputation in the modern tolerance game could be because some other religions tend to be more tolerant. I’m not going to profess to be a religious scholar, but I think it’s much more common for non-christian religions to include a concept like “We’re all striving for the same basic ideal, but we take different roads to get there…” Christianity on the other hand seems to come off like “Our way or the highway.” Believe = Get into heaven and the good graces of god/ don’t believe = go to hell.
September 26th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Oh I dont think you’ll start a debate
Classically, Christians put forth their beliefs (and still do,unfortunately, in many cases, in that manner) so your observation is a valid one.
I think Sly’s point (and mine as well) was that the Christian bashing “humor” can come off as trite simply because no one would dare do that to other beliefs for fear of being crucified (you’ll pardon the term) for being intolerant. It’s ok to do it to Christians, though, which is a double standard.
Good points all around, Shawn!
September 27th, 2008 at 12:13 am
You and I both harped on the lack of originality aspect of the strip. So I wasn’t just imagining it or being grumpy last night ….
September 27th, 2008 at 7:48 am
I mentioned much the same as well, so no you definitely weren’t being grumpy or imagining things. Remember, as so many posters here seem to forget when they read them, that your review is basically opinion, and if I’m using the correct word, also subjective. You’re allowed to like or dislike things without having to feel backed into a corner or like you did something wrong/missed something because you didn’t like a comic.
That is, after all, what makes us individuals, right?
September 27th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Subjective is definitely the right word, Doctor!
September 28th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Subjective doesn’t mean wrong, though. It means it’s your opinion and quite honestly, people don’t have to agree with it.
It also doesn’t obligate any of us to try and “convince” them that we’re right or answer their remarks if they go somewhere else and act in a juvenile manner.