Family Guy Vs. Simpsons

OK, I've been watching a lot of Cartoon Network lately, specifically, the "Adult Swim" block of programming that is geared toward an older audience. I always loved "Futurama" and have gotten into "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" and even, to a lesser extent, "Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law". But the real surprise for me has been "Family Guy".

I watched "FG" a few times when it aired on Fox Network a few years back, but wasn't particularly impressed. At the time, it seemed like an easily criticized "Simpsons" ripoff, from the oafish, overweight, unscrupulous father to the put-upon, but more intelligent mother to the myriad pop culture references and adult sensibility. But the difference was that while the "Simpsons" creators seemed to have some sympathy for their characters (and humanity in general), the "FG" people seemed almost totally cynical and jaded about their characters and the world. As rotten as Homer often is, for instance, Groening and company always seem to insert at least a small nugget and goodness into him that allows us to identify with (or at the very least, root for) him. It's a very fine line they tread; Groening's view of modern society is hardly rose-colored, but with James L. Brooks' influence the humanity and sympathy for "Simpsons" characters always runs hand in hand with their buffoonery. Even in a character like C. Montgomery Burns, who has at various times blotted out the son and forced Homer to become romantically involved with a panda (don't ask), there' s a kind of empathy factor. He's frail, he's totally out of step with modern culture and he's totally dependent on the faithful Smithers for practically everything. He's evil, but he's still human.

Contrast that with Peter Griffin, of "Family Guy" who has at various times starved a pony to death (unintentionally, of course) and told his daughter that for the first six months of her life he thought she was the cat! Likewise, none of Bart Simpson's admittedly anarchic schemes (feeding the class hamster coffee, inciting his father's rage problem in order to exploit the issue so he can write an Internet cartoon about it) really approach the "eww" factor of Chris Griffin's glee at using a stick to poke a corpse he's found in the river, or Stewie's sheer malice with his early season attempts at matricide. Groening always seems to take you right up to the point where you would naturally be repulsed by his characters, then inserts some humanity and pulls back. McFarlane just pushes you right over that edge.

This is just one example of the noteworthy differences in the shows, but there are others. For instance, whereas Groening and Brooks seem to apply some measure of identification in all their characters no matter how bizarre or off-putting they may initially seem, McFarlane seems to house whatever humanity "FG" has in the character of Brian, the talking family dog. Brian is often seen counseling Peter and pointing out the various moral weaknesses of the family, particularly his arch-nemesis, Stewie. Of course, this could just be further proof of McFarlane's disgust with people in general, as he can only bring himself to insert true culture and morality in a character that isn't even human! And Brian pays for his stature as the show's moral center by being an alcoholic, routinely drowning his sorrows (frustration over his lack of career, his unrequited love for Lois) in the bottle. The point is that there is no ""Brian" analogue in "TS", and McFarlane's whole approach to the "sympathy for the characters" issue is totally different from Groening and Brooks'.

And you know what? That's OK. We shouldn't expect Peter Griffin to be Homer Simpson, because he isn't intended to be. Just as "Bewitched" existed alongside "I Dream of Jeannie", "The Addams Family" existed alongside "The Munsters", there is no inherent sin in appreciating both "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy" on their own merits. Surely, the latter would never have existed without the former, but again, so what? Are we to always exclude any artistic works that borrow or are influenced by previous works? If so, we are destined to have very few works that are praiseworthy; building upon works that have entertained and influenced one as an artist is a centuries old practice. I can say that if pushed for an answer, I would probably say "The Simpsons" is more entertaining, but I have to also say that "Family Guy" is often just as funny and interesting. It's a close call. But to dismiss "FG" just because of similarities to "TS" is really silly and self-limiting. "FG" isn't trying to BE "TS"; it's taking the mold of "TS" and twisting and molding that milieu into its own unique brand of misanthropy and satire.

There is so little that is truly innovative and funny on television today. Why on earth should be restrict ourselves to one show just because another seems on the surface to be similar in theme? I say, "Enjoy both". You wouldn't stop eating your grandma's casserole just because your mom took her recipe and added some of her own ingredients, nor would you reject your mom's creation because your grandma already had a recipe. You could appreciate both on their own merits, and have fun doing so.

Bon appetite, lovers of cartoon satire!