If that's what you meant then I did misunderstand your tone and I apologize for flying off the handle, the way it was worded made it sound like you were essentially saying "My son doesn't enjoy these episodes, they're no better than student films, the show runners have lost their way" which I took offense to. The creator is my friend and I've known the main writers for years, they're doing what they want to and have always wanted to do with the show. I'm not one to ever say someone can't like something, of course those weird episodes won't be everyone's cup of tea, I just didn't take to the language used towards the writers. It's fine to not like something but you [not YOU, the general 'you'] don't need to be rude to the people who worked hard to make it, budding or seasoned.
But text doesn't convey tone very well at all so I clearly read your meaning wrong. Which you coincidentally did with my suggestion of Clarence - I didn't mean "this show has no running plot, you'll like it" I just meant it as this: Finn grows and ages with each season of Adventure Time. He's what, 14, 15 now at least? He was 11 in the pilot IIRC and it's on Season 6, so. The show's core audience has grown with him but because of its continuity there's not really any "going back" to the way it was in earlier seasons. Finn is older now and his interests have clearly changed. This is a danger for the show of course because it could eventually outgrow its own audience. But of course a bomb could go off next week and reset everything so who really knows? My exact words were "no over-arcing story or mythology to bog it down" meaning Clarence isn't caught all up in its own shit like Adventure Time is now. It's just fun, imaginative, kids being kids and no villains or hormones or plots about existential whatever that Adventure Time has turned in to. I suggested it more for your son, not for you, but it's a really wonderful show so you'd probably like it as well.