It’s not bafflingly unfunny. It’s a metaphorical attack on Islam. The only way this cartoon makes sense is if you interpret it metaphorically.
This isn’t the first time Hart has used his comic strip to have digs at other religions. A couple of years back he got completely on the wrong side of the not to be fucked with Jewish Defence League with this strip.
Hart also allegedly told the Washington Post that “Jews and Muslims who don’t accept Jesus will burn in hell,” “Homosexuality is the handiwork of Satan,” and, “The end of the world is approaching, maybe by the year 2010.”. I’ve not been able to trace the comments back to the original Washington Post article but there are sites like this one which attribute the quotes to him.
Given this past history (although I will grant you doubts about the quote. When I find the Washington Post article I’ll post a link) I certainly wouldn’t put it pasty Hart to attack Islam behind the veil of metaphor and allegory.
The article then goes on to argue convincingly that Hart does indeed write on “that cryptic a level” and is actually rather good at it.
Maybe for some other cartoonist seeing this as a fundamentalist Christian taking a scatological dig at another religion would be stretching it, but considering Hart’s rap sheet for this sort of thing, he is, at the very least, a two-time loser. The cartoon was an attack on Islam, no two ways about it. He’s a bigot. Fuck him.
So are we gonna bust Gary Larson for his jellyfish outhouse comic strip, where he has two outhouses with crescent moons on them and says “Only they know the difference”? I mean, he did it over 10 years ago, but we all know what a genius he is, so maybe he had remarkable foresight and was insulting Muslims even back then. He clearly made a statement that all Muslims are andrgynous. Can’t you people see that? :rolleyes:
The crescent moon is now and has been the archetypal symbol on outhouses since before anyone can remember. It’s only because it’s Johnny Hart that anyone’s making a big deal over it. He’s done fundie cartoons in the past, so he MUST be taking shots at Muslims. Is that the deal? Well, if so, that earns a great big :rolleyes: from me.
If this is the extent of the evidence the accusers have, they can go fuck themselves.
Airman, would you take a crack at explaining what the strip was all about, then? I’d be happy to agree with you if there is any other rational explanation.
I’m no fan of Johnny Hart, having kicked the not-funny-thinly-veiled-religious-B.C. habit years ago, but I think the allegations are way off base.
The problem stems from the assumption that the strip is supposed to be funny and/or makes sense, neither of which is a safe assumption with Hart’s work.
I think it’s possible that it was just a rather watered-down joke. The “Is it just me or does it stink in here” line is remotely funny. I’ve seen weaker (or just as weak) jokes presented in the funny papers and I didn’t struggle to find an alternative “cryptic” meaning behind it. I just thought it was a weak joke. They are not at all uncommon, unfortunately.
We’re all seeing this strip with the explanation that it is a SLAM on Islam. How many of us would ever see it that way if someone hadn’t pointed it out to us? I never would have come to that conclusion on my own, not in a million years.
But after reading the persuasive “interpretations” written by others, making the case that it is anti-Muslim, of course it makes me wonder. I don’t think it’s beyond possibility that he did mean it as a slam against the Muslims—but then again—the only reason I think it’s a remote possibility in the first place is because I’ve read so many carefully worded and convincing “interpretations” claiming that it is.
This reminds me of an old friend who wrote one of the “Classic” episodes of Star Trek. This writer gets weird phone calls from “fans” claiming that the episode meant this, or it means that—when in reality the writer meant NONE of those things. But if you get some people with an agenda and too much free time on their hands, you’ll find that they can come up with some very convincing “interpretations” of someone else’s creative work. And who gives a damn what the author or artist really meant? All that matters is that these people see it in the work, so that must mean that it is there.
That explanation almost makes sense; the only question is, if that’s what Hart meant, why didn’t he say so? The only explanation offered in the article is that he said it was a “silly bathroom joke”. I mean, I understand that BC is an incredibly unfunny comic strip, but I still can’t imagine that anyone, even Johnny Hart, with a functional I.Q. above the 2nd grade, could possibly think that the fact that shit stinks is in any way even remotely funny just by itself. If the gag was that it was the caveman who actually stunk, I can think of any number of ways he could have communicated that. Why not just draw stink lines coming off the guy as he’s walking towards the outhouse? Hart has been a cartoonist for a long time; he’s gotta know about stink lines.
And that’s not the only think that doesn’t make sense. I understand why the crescent moon would be on the outhouse, but why is there also a crescent moon in the sky? I’m not seeing any instrinsic reason for the strip taking place at night. His default way of drawing the strip is that it takes place during the day; people don’t just make it nighttime for no reason. And the prominence given to the word “SLAM” seems odd, too.
I guess we should give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and I’m not generally one to believe in theories of hidden meanings, but just taken on its face, the strip goes beyond just being mind-blowingly unfunny; it actually makes no sense whatsoever. In constrast, I remember Gary Larson being criticized for supposedly non-PC content of some of his Far Side cartoons, but he was always able to explain exactly what his intent was when he drew them, and you could look at the cartoon and think “Yeah, it’s not funny, but I can see what he was going for.” But with Hart, there’s no clue as to what he was going for, if not the cryptic meaning. I won’t go so far as to say I’m sure that he intended this other meaning, but it wouldn’t surprise me if he had.
So if you want to send a veiled message that Islam is full of shit what better symbol to use than an outhouse? You’re not exactly contradicting anybody here.
Well if he isn’t taking shots at Muslims what exactly is he doing? Those who have taken offence have done so on the basis of an interpretation which, according to nearly half a dozen professional cartoonists is the only sensible one. What’s your interpretation? That Hart is devoting an entire strip to sharing with the world the stunningly original revelation that outhouses smell bad? Please :rolleyes:
Thank you, rjung and yosemitebabe, for saying what I was thinking much better than I could have said it.
I think there are two elements here, both touched on:
First of all, it’s not funny. A toilet joke. Yuk yuk yuk. So people look for something that IS funny, and not finding anything they make something up to try to explain it.
Second, this alleged bias was exposed by a group who has an interest in exposing bias. That’s what these groups exist for. The only time I ever hear of “racial” or “religious” interest groups are when they’re offended. So they gave a good look to a cartoon by a known Christian proselytizer when pointed to it by someone with too much time on their hands, find a tortured interpretation that makes sense to people only when it is suggested to them, and claim it’s proof of bias.
The difference there is that, while I agree that Family Circus is the most banal comic strip ever conceived, I never have a problem undertanding what the author was trying to convey. It always makes sense. It’s lame, but it makes sense. And I don’t think Zippy is the comparison you want to make, because that strip quite frequently does contain veiled or allegorical meanings. If you’re trying to prove that BC doesn’t contain a hidden meaning by comparing it to Zippy, you’re barking up the wrong tree.
It’s just not funny, either because sufficiently famous cartoonists can get away with getting paid for that, or because writing funny cartoons is hit-or-miss and you don’t always get lucky.
It’s clever in a way I don’t get.
Based on his previous work, which is most likely? A few comments people have made strongly suggest 2, but I haven’t read any of his myself - anyone?
Oh, by the way, is this a slam at Islam? No. It’s evidence that people will find something to bitch about no matter what it is if they have an interest in doing so.
Ironically enough, Coke has been accused at different times of being anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic at different times in history, proof positive that you can accuse anyone of anything if you have a bone to pick.
Some people have a bone to pick with Johnny Hart, and this is the result, IMHO.
It’s not that the “innocent” explanation is unfunny, it’s that you have to jump through a whole set of hoops to justify it. A simple slash of Ockhams Razor alone leads me to believe that Hart was knocking Islam using a thinly veiled and obvious metaphor. Your visceral hatred of the “PC Police” is clouding your judgement. Love 'em or loathe 'em, their interpretation of the cartoon makes sense of every aspect of it and results in a funnier punchline (if you’re a bigot). Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Corroborating the interpretation you object to are the opinions of five professional cartoonists and one professor of semiotics (and if there’s any such thing as an authority on cartoons and the symbols used therein he’s it), who, when confronted with that same objection unanimously agreed that there was no other interpretation.
Call me a bleeding heart card carrying member of the offenderati but I’m gonna side with the experts on this one. I would expect anyone looking at this objectively to do likewise.
Why are you so vehement in your defence of Johny Hart anyway? Is he a blood relation or something? Why do you find it so hard to accept the possibility, no, scratch that, the probability that this cartoon had a deeper, nastier meaning? You’re being foolish in the extreme.
Or do I have to be a famous cartoonist to do that? Do I have to be a member of the elite to think that Johnny Hart didn’t draw a strip slamming Muslims?
Still, that’s just freedom in action. Let’s say he did mean it, what should be done? Do we implement Sharia and stone him? I’ve heard enough criticism of religion on these boards to wonder why this would anger people particularly. Moreover, given how political religion is these days, it seems an appropriate topic – albeit a tasteless and simpleminded treatment of it.
I think the real question here is “why does anyone give a crap WHAT harts opinion is? his only claim to fame as a cartoonist is that he still gets paid to draw one of the lamest cartoons in existance”
really get over it. if you are going to be offended by what some one else does or thinks at least make it a person with some amount of respectability in the world, hart is a joke in the world of Comic strips. what does that tell you?
You’re comparing a comic strip where a man walks into an outhouse that, according to a professor of semiology clearly represents Islam in the context of the cartoon, and asks if it stinks with a coca cola logo which when flipped and rotated beyond recognition vaguely resembles an anti Islamic sentiment that doesn’t even make much sense even in itself?