Post Content

Well, this blog’s varied and intelligent readership has met the challenge of last week’s baffling Ziggy cartoon. Josh “The Sedermeister” W. has this to say: “You presume that information cannot be extracted from the eyes/eyebrows of the characters. Well, my friend, I do believe you presume too much. Forget about Ziggy for a moment. The parrot’s eyes are quite telling. He has the half-closed eyes often associated with an evil or mischievous thought crossing a cartoon character’s mind. The eyes of a schemer. Case in point: ‘The Family Guy’s’ Peter Griffin, after seeing ‘free Tibet’ signs at a rally, informing China from a payphone that he has acquired Tibet and will trade it for ‘that’s right, ALL the tea.’ But I digress. Next take a look at the dog’s eyes. He has wide open (albeit small) eyes — the eyes of an innocent. So what you have here is less naive character corrupting his pure-of-mind companion by explaining a painful ‘truth’ to him — Lassie is a ho’. Imagine an older brother saying to his younger sibling, ‘You know, mommy and daddy tried to put you up for adoption but no one would take you — even when they offered a large sum of money to sweeten the deal.’ In this context Ziggy’s expression makes total sense. He’s the parent walking in on that conversation, disappointed in the lack of maturity being displayed by his progeny … while wearing no pants.”

The delightful and talented Laura continues with the no-pants tack: “Does the fact that Ziggy is naked from the waist down, and possibly pulling up his shirt to expose even more of himself, enhance the meaning of the strip in any way?” (That all depends on what you mean by “enhance,” Laura.) “Maybe the dog and parrot have something against nudists, and Ziggy’s annoyed that they’re mocking him and his dangly bits.”

By the way, I have already railed in this space against the evils of coloring in daily strips; in this case, it highlights the fact that the Ziggy’s artist is too lazy to draw Ziggy’s pants (which is still a lesser crime than being too lazy to put on pants, believe you me). A quick glance at the Sunday comics reveals that I don’t get Ziggy in the Sunday comics, so anyone who can add information on his pants-wearing in that context should chime on in.

Meanwhile, Willy n’ Ethel has proven a tougher nut to crack. One reader who chooses to go nameless says, “‘Will there be anything else Master?’ is a clear allusion to I Dream of Jeannie. And the bandage refers to the episode where Tony gets amnesia and forgets who he is. If you think of it that way, it all seems kind of obvious.” That “it seems kind of obvious” bit worked on me in my Apartment 3-G quandary, but it doesn’t quite convince here. I’m still holding out for a more logical explanation.

This is as good a time to any to offer a linkback to Subdivided We Stand, who makes an amusing reference to “Wilbur the Combover King.”

Post Content

Eager readers simply will not let the question of Apartment 3-G‘s swapped panels die. Alert reader Dalton has swapped the art, but not the text, of the second and third panels of Thursday’s Apartment 3-G to reproduce the original author’s intended effect. It’s like the special edition of the original Star Wars trilogy, only significantly less crappy.

“Behold my l33t p40t0s40p ski11z,” says Dalton.

Post Content

Boy, do I have prompt and responsive readers! For those of you who have been on tenterhooks about the career paths of the Apartment 3-G girls, but too lazy to read the comments, my plea to the public has been answered. A reader who goes only by the gender-ambiguous name of “Robin” says: “Tommie is a nurse. Margo is in PR or marketing or something like that. I *think* Lu Ann is a teacher.” That all sounds right to me (as Robin says, “Isn’t that all just painfully obvious, when you think about it?”), and if I had even the vaguest desire to do fact checking, I wouldn’t have posted the question to begin with, so I’m declaring Robin the winner, with the prize of getting his/her name published in the blog. You go, Robin!

Robin also points out that Lu Ann and Margo’s facial expressions would make much more sense if the art (but not the dialog) for the second and third panel were switched. If you look at the strip with this in mind, it’s so striking that I have to believe that somehow the panels got swapped during production. It’s just more proof that comics ought to be drawn, written, and composited in unionized facilities right here in the good old U.S. of A., rather than in poorly-ventilated third-world comics sweatshops.

There were also alternative suggestions as to what’s in Lu Ann’s cereal box, but they’re far too vile to report here. Have you people no decency?