Now that I am writing after work, not on lunch with my broken "v" and "b" keys having to cut-and-paste them in to make any sense, keyboard periperhal plugged-in... it's like in the Scott McCloud book, right? "Understanding Comics". Everyone even slightly nerdish has read that, right?
You simplify to draw people into identifying with your characters, "oh I went to art school like him, I was totally pregnant once like here" and you edge toward photorealism to underline the specificity of the character's experience "wow, this is totally this one person's life and I am getting to look in on that, that's rad". Either approach could totally work with the whole "slice of life" approach that your kin is going with.
But the whole "super-charicature of super-specific people" thing, which don't get me wrong, I like in a vacuum outside of the context of the strip's concept, sort of manages to fall in a valley between those two approaches and ends up with few of the expressive advantages of either and many of both of their flaws. Total bizarro-venn-diagram of what I think he's going for with the story and characters.
Womblet is full-on that this style... exaggerated, shaggy, bulbous and jaded... would totally work for a strip where people scream at each other about popular culture. Which isn't a bad thing, either, those few times it is done well. It would also work for a story about characters who are totally surrounded with wonder but ignore it all because of their petty self-obsesssions. This would also be a great style for a strip about, like, a dude working at the last Barnes and Nobles after the Rapture, having to kill mutants and wizards with a zap gun as a matter of daily course but only seeing value in his quest to climb to assistant manager at the bookstore.
But for such an essentially gentle story about a dude trying to get a simple life earned more or less the right way... I just feels lke it begs a siimple universality or a fairly strict trueness-to-life.