Okay, it’s the Wizard of Id, so I don’t expect sophisticated intellectual comedy. I don’t even expect it to be funny most of the time. But I do expect to get the joke, or at the very least recognize that there is a joke in there somewhere. This strip just makes no sense at all. I was baffled the day it appeared in the paper and I haven’t been able to let it go.
What the heck am I missing?
My guess is that the spider hasn’t “decorated” its web, it has instead somehow “caught” stars and candy canes, which it plans on consuming later for more fiber.
Another possibility is that the “output” of candy and stars may indicate some serious digestive issues?
Those aren’t decorations; they are clumps of web diarrhea that happen to look like decorations. Don’t ask me to explain comic strip logic.
Another thing is that when I first saw the strip it was not colored in. My impression was that the spider had spun the designs into the web. The color version seems to imply that they are actual objects stuck in the web. It doesn’t really help it make sense.
That’s my vote. Instead of passing smooth silk, there are large hard-to-pass clumps that look like candy canes, stars, and holly.
At this point, it’s proper to borrow from the Comics Curmudgeon and note that Charles Schulz made arguably the greatest comic strip of all time for 50 years without ever resorting to scatalogical humor.
Sadly, that was my read as well.
Same here, though I can’t imagine it’s what was intended.
I thought it was a bit on the corny side.
So the concensus seems to be that the spider has poops that just happen to look like candy canes, stars, and holly because s/he doesn’t eat enough fiber. That actually did occur to me early on, and I must have over-thought it because I rejected that explanation on the grounds that it doesn’t make any fricking sense!! …Even for a comic strip.
I thought she was trying to attract victims with the decorations.
I can see it in two ways:
As previously mentioned, the spider has a bad case of arachnid diarrhea, and his web has much more volume because of that; or
The spider is constipated and wants to catch more bugs and debris to increase his fiber intake.
To OP: aim your sights lower, LOL.
~VOW
I thought maybe the leaves in the web were for bulk fiber instead of for holiday decorations?
It is a weird strip.
That’s what I was thinking. The leaves and berries are caught (or stored, anyway) in the web for the spider to eat, rather than for show. Obviously the stars and candy cane aren’t for fiber, but that could just be normal holiday adornment as opposed to the “really getting into it” level of decoration. I’ll grant it’s a bit of a reach, but I think it’s a HUGE stretch to interpret it as a spider poop joke…ETA:…and one does not get fiber from eating normal spider fare (bugs, etc.), one gets it from vegetation.
No argument there.
You are almost certainly correct. The Johnny Hart studios link shows an uncolorized web, indicating the correct interpretation that the spider wove outlines of the decorations rather than placing or catching real objects.
Wait a tick, IIRC many old fashion comics are still made in Black and White, the modern custom of making them in color is a decision that is usually made by the publishers and many times, when the strip was not originally made in color, the publishers get a second hand to do the coloring (easier to do nowadays with computers than in the past).
The choice of colors then could be a result of the creator and the publisher’s colorist not communicating with each other, of course it does not help explain the joke completely but there is no need to assume that they are real decorations.
That was a really nutty joke.
I think when the joke was conceived, the artist probably only imagined the mistletoe - but then as he was drawing it, it didn’t register enough like “decoration,” so he added the stars and candy canes, effectively breaking the joke.
One problem with the digestive hypothesis…spiders don’t shit their silk.
Yeah, I’m great fun at parties, too.
Also, much of the decor would have been way too large to pass through its digestive tract. So no, I don’t buy the scatological explanation.