B.C. comic "slams" Islam? [Archive]

Bluegill

11th December 2003, 08:56 AM

I didn't see a thread started on this here, which surprised me. My apologies if it's already been discussed.

Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2184-2003Nov20&notFound=true)

The cartoon, which appeared Nov. 10 in more than 1,200 newspapers worldwide -- including The Washington Post -- shows a caveman entering an outhouse at night, and then saying, from inside, "Is it just me, or does it stink in here?"
The first public questioning of this cartoon arose in a washingtonpost.com chat Tuesday, when a reader noted that the cartoon seemed to make no sense, except metaphorically. The reader noted that the cartoon contained six crescent moons -- three in the sky, and three on the outhouse door -- and wondered if this might have been a veiled slur on the world's 1 billion practicing Muslims.
-Snip-
The Washington Post asked six well-known cartoonists -- all admirers of Johnny Hart -- to look at the strip. Most said they had no idea what the joke was supposed to be. When the religious interpretation was suggested, five of the six thought it was probably right, even given Hart's denial.
"It's highly, overwhelmingly, incontrovertibly suspicious," said Berkeley Breathed, creator of "Bloom County" and the new Sunday-only strip "Opus." "There's no explanation for that gag without Islam. It's meaningless."

Link to the cartoon (http://atheism.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/bc%2D20031110.html)

...I thought it sounded silly at first, but at second glance, the cartoon does look suspiciously like a slam against Islam. I'm pretty much in agreement with Berkeley Breathed, quoted above.

What do you think?

Mr Clingford

11th December 2003, 09:03 AM

Perhaps the joke is that he produced the stink? There was no stink until he made it?

Upchurch

11th December 2003, 09:04 AM

Well, it would certainly be consistant with Hart's religious beliefs. Of course, it could also just be that Hart is really not a very funny cartoonist at all.

dmarker

11th December 2003, 09:07 AM

Dude, you're from Kentucky and you don't know that the traditional outhouse door has a crescent moon on it?

http://www.jldr.com/ohrevist.html

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/6091/outhousesalute.html

Brown

11th December 2003, 09:10 AM

The religious interpretation might be more supportable if the crescent moon in the sky had a star near its cusps, or if Hart had a prior history of identifying the crescent with Islam.

My reaction is that the cartoon is simply lame, much like the other cartoons that Hart hacks out.

Lame outhouse jokes like this are a staple of cheap "comedies," such as "Meatballs 2" (in which an alien visiting a summer camp on Earth is compelled to sleep in an outhouse, and he comments on the smell).

phildonnia

11th December 2003, 09:10 AM

Which is more likely, that Hart cleverly devised subtle symbolic messages in his cartoon, or that he just ran out of funny ideas that day, and everything was a total accident?

To anyone who is familiar with the intellectual depth demonstrated by Hart in the last few years, the answer should be obvious.

Upchurch

11th December 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by dmarker
Dude, you're from Kentucky and you don't know that the traditional outhouse door has a crescent moon on it? Actually, if I remember correctly, there are several tradition designs for the outhouse door. the moon is just the steriotypical one.

Anyway, who knows what the man was thinking. He's denying the connection and no one can prove otherwise. Frankly, Hart's work has rarely been funny in the first place and it only gets worse when he evangelizes.

Andonyx

11th December 2003, 09:15 AM

Sorry I don't see it at all.

I'm not a huge fan of BC, but I also find it inconceivable that someone without some very difficult stretching would think of Islam after reading that strip.

Nothing, including the moon on the door of the outhouse, or the slam sound effect seem to break with standard cartoon conventions to me.

Nyarlathotep

11th December 2003, 09:23 AM

Not being psychic, I have no idea whether Mr. Hart meant it as a veiled criticism of Islam or not. However it is unquestionable that it is stupid and makes no sense. Maybe Mr. Hart was criticizing Islam, maybe he just lacked inspiration the day he drew that (which would make it no different than any other day, from what I have seen). Maybe both.

Skeptical Greg

11th December 2003, 09:35 AM

I wonder what the religious persuasion of the initial speculator is?

I have my suspicions...

neutrino_cannon

11th December 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by phildonnia
Which is more likely, that Hart cleverly devised subtle symbolic messages in his cartoon, or that he just ran out of funny ideas that day, and everything was a total accident?

To anyone who is familiar with the intellectual depth demonstrated by Hart in the last few years, the answer should be obvious.

Here here.

c4ts

11th December 2003, 09:42 AM

There's no star by the crescent moon, either in the sky or the outhouse door. It's just an unfunny joke, as usual with B.C.

T'ai Chi

11th December 2003, 10:40 AM

I saw no religious slam in that cartoon.

Nyarlathotep

11th December 2003, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I saw no religious slam in that cartoon.

I did, but I will freely admit that I have no idea whether I would have seen it had no one mentioned it. Whether it was truly intended that way or whether it is like seeing faces in clouds is hard to say.

pgwenthold

11th December 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by phildonnia
Which is more likely, that Hart cleverly devised subtle symbolic messages in his cartoon, or that he just ran out of funny ideas that day, and everything was a total accident?

This is the hard part of the whole thing. Is there really enough evidence to suggest that it really was an intentional religious dig as opposed to the default position, which is that it was just a really dumb strip by Hart? Because we know very well that Hart has established himself as one of the absolute worsts. It's not like we are talking Berkeley Breathed here.

BTW, it is somewhat disingenious to suggest that "he just ran out of funny ideas that day..." I don't think he's had a funny idea in years, so why should Nov 10 be any different?

Hexxenhammer

11th December 2003, 11:15 AM

In analyzing this cartoon, semiotician Blonsky cautions against succumbing to the Intentional Fallacy: In criticism, he says, it is a mistake to give much weight at all to the artist's stated intention. For one thing, it discounts the strength and influence of the unconscious mind, he said. All that matters in artistic criticism, he said, is the effect of the art on its viewers: the way people interpret it. In other words, even if Hart intended no offense, the offense is there. Why doesn't it suprise me that they got semiotician to look at the cartoon? Reminds me of a headline from the Onion: English Grad Student Can't Stop Analyzing Mexican Menu.

hgc

11th December 2003, 11:21 AM

I'm going to go against the grain here: It is kind of funny. Sort of a take off on the old expression, "Is it me or..." but that instead of "Is it me" meaning am I imagining it, it means do I stink. Oh, nevermind, if you have to explain a joke...

As for the Islam thing, who the f*ck has so much time on their hands that they can think up an insult here?!?!?!? And excuse me, but the cresent moon on the outhouse door is well established cultural iconography. Islam doesn't have a monopoly on cresent moons.

hgc

11th December 2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer In analyzing this cartoon, semiotician Blonsky cautions against succumbing to the Intentional Fallacy: In criticism, he says, it is a mistake to give much weight at all to the artist's stated intention. For one thing, it discounts the strength and influence of the unconscious mind, he said. All that matters in artistic criticism, he said, is the effect of the art on its viewers: the way people interpret it. In other words, even if Hart intended no offense, the offense is there.
Why doesn't it suprise me that they got semiotician to look at the cartoon? Reminds me of a headline from the Onion: English Grad Student Can't Stop Analyzing Mexican Menu. Astounding. This has nothing to do with artistic criticism. It has to do with public speech, and as such, Hart is in no way responsible for how his audience chooses to react. He is responsible for what he says. This particular academic is too smart by half.

Bluegill

11th December 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by dmarker
Dude, you're from Kentucky and you don't know that the traditional outhouse door has a crescent moon on it?

http://www.jldr.com/ohrevist.html

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/6091/outhousesalute.html

The outhouse door that I grew up with had an elaborate cut-out of the face of Jesus, so that we'd have our Saviour on our minds no matter what we were doing. Also, Pappy had the nicest jigsaw on Walton's Mountain.

---

Anyway, maybe Berke Breathed should have said, "There's no explanation for that gag (period) It's meaningless." --omitting the phrase "without Islam."

I still think it's a little likely that it's an intentional Islam reference, but ... dunno.

c4ts

11th December 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Bluegill

The outhouse door that I grew up with had an elaborate cut-out of the face of Jesus, so that we'd have our Saviour on our minds no matter what we were doing. Also, Pappy had the nicest jigsaw on Walton's Mountain.

Now if the Jesus face were on the door it would have made an interesting cartoon.

SFB

11th December 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by hgc
...Islam doesn't have a monopoly on cresent moons.

I agree.

From
http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa060401a.htm you can read the following:

"What is the history behind the crescent moon symbol? What does it symbolize or mean? How and when did it become associated with the faith of Islam? Is it a valid symbol for the faith?

The crescent moon and star symbol actually pre-dates Islam by several thousand years. Information on the origins of the symbol are difficult to ascertain, but most sources agree that these ancient celestial symbols were in use by the peoples of Central Asia and Siberia in their worship of sun, moon, and sky gods. There are also reports that the crescent moon and star were used to represent the Carthaginian goddess Tanit or the Greek goddess Diana.

The city of Byzantium (later known as Constantinople and Istanbul) adopted the crescent moon symbol. According to some reports, they chose it in honor of the goddess Diana. Others indicate that it dates back to a battle in which the Romans defeated the Goths on the first day of a lunar month. In any event, the crescent moon was featured on the city's flag even before the birth of Christ."

cosmic

11th December 2003, 11:58 AM

When I was a kid I used to like BC, now it mostly makes me cringe when I read it.

I do find his evangelism annoying. What surprises me is that papers still carry his strip when it is loaded with misogyny. The only two female humans are "Fat Broad" and "Cute Chick". What does that say about the strip?

Although it must be a favorite for the YEC's with dino's and humans living side by side.

Also: what's up with the "Fat Broad" (sure sounds vulgar don't it? ) always mercilessly clubbing the snake? Is this Hart's reaction to the snake's roll in the fall?

Perhaps this strip is just so established that most editors look past these ugly aspects (or perhaps I'm being too PC), but I just wish this strip would go away.

hgc

11th December 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by cosmic
...

Also: what's up with the "Fat Broad" (sure sounds vulgar don't it? ) always mercilessly clubbing the snake? Is this Hart's reaction to the snake's roll in the fall?

...I think Fat Broad clubbing the snake represents lesbians and their man-hating ways.

darling

11th December 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Bluegill
...I thought it sounded silly at first, but at second glance, the cartoon does look suspiciously like a slam against Islam. I don't think I would have noticed it if it hadn't been pointed out. Given the cartoonist's history, and the strangely placed (I)SLAM then it wouldn't surprise me.

The ironic thing is that it doesn't work either way...

TruthSeeker

11th December 2003, 12:33 PM

I think people are attributing a level of subtlety to Hart that he has never demonstrated otherwise.

Unless of course the snake is really a penis....now, that's symbolism!

hgc

11th December 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by budddyh
I don't think I would have noticed it if it hadn't been pointed out. Given the cartoonist's history, and the strangely placed (I)SLAM then it wouldn't surprise me.

The ironic thing is that it doesn't work either way... This is getting quite absurd. The reference, if it's valid, is so obscure, that there would have to be a tremendously lucky confluence of a) Hart's intention to make the slur, but to make it so subtle as to escape the gaze of all but the most intent on getting it, and b) a segment of the audience so attuned to Hart's fundementalist leanings and on the lookout for veiled insults as to construe it this way (not to mention disregard for Occam). I'd have to say that only (b) applies.

darling

11th December 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by hgc
This is getting quite absurd. The reference, if it's valid, is so obscure... Which was my point - it doesn't work as a joke, nor as a poke at Islam.

hgc

11th December 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by budddyh
Which was my point - it doesn't work as a joke, nor as a poke at Islam. Which was not the point in your post that I dispute. It's the Given the cartoonist's history, and the strangely placed (I)SLAM then it wouldn't surprise me. part that I have a problem with. It would greatly surprise me, even given the cartoonist's history, if he intended this slur. There's no there there.

Let me further elaborate...

The SLAM (I'll refrain from adding the I) is meant to show that the door was opened, and then closed. It's standard comic strip technique to show the same scene from panel to panel with changes in character movement and word balloons to convey action. In this case, the consistent scene is the outhouse with the door shut. It's especially important in that the crescent moon on the door helps to identify the building as an outhouse. The SLAM is added between panels to convey that the door had been opened and shut, thus establishing that the character seen in the first panel had entered and shut the door.

Islam does not have a monopoly on the word "slam."

Zep

11th December 2003, 01:39 PM

The only thing that stinks is the cartoon itself. BC used to be funny. Now it's just lame.

chance

11th December 2003, 01:53 PM

I seem to remember that Hart has done this sort of thing before. a strip depicting the crucifixion, and one of those Jewish candle stick holders.

Yahweh

11th December 2003, 01:55 PM

I think the joke is "ha ha ha, outhouses are stinky, stinky is funny, ha ha ha". There is nothing to "get".

Its just a terrible joke (it really doesnt deserve such a high title like "joke") . I dont think there was any religious significance that exists in this comic without being paranoia.

Bluegill

11th December 2003, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by hgc
This is getting quite absurd. The reference, if it's valid, is so obscure, that there would have to be a tremendously lucky confluence of a) Hart's intention to make the slur, but to make it so subtle as to escape the gaze of all but the most intent on getting it, and b) a segment of the audience so attuned to Hart's fundementalist leanings and on the lookout for veiled insults as to construe it this way (not to mention disregard for Occam). I'd have to say that only (b) applies.

OK, I admit that the anti-Islam interpretation might not be the most likely, but I think that there is more than the slim chance that you accord it.

1) Hart frequently uses religious symbolism and themes

2) I don't think it's all that subtle. I don't know that I would have thought of it if I had not seen a news article on it, but I don't normally look at any comic strips for hidden meaning. Hart could have hidden it inside the other (non-) joke so that he could play innocent.

3) the moon on the outhouse identifies the structure, but the moon in the sky is unnecessary.

4) The "SLAM" could have been replaced a picture of the character walking through the door.

I know the arguments aren't compelling. But I don't think the arguments against this interpretation are, either.

Nyarlathotep

11th December 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Zep
The only thing that stinks is the cartoon itself. BC used to be funny. Now it's just lame.

When?

I don't recall it ever being funny.

cosmic

11th December 2003, 03:11 PM

taking the conspiracy one step further...

I just saw the strip and the panel before the "SLAM" is very dark (again why is the scene at night?), the character is in silhouette, yet his eye is white and stands out like a sore thumb.

get it: eye=I

yep-- it's a stretch, but...

spejic

11th December 2003, 06:32 PM

After looking at the cartoon, I think it is clearly anti-Christian. See, the outhouse is actually an arrow pointing up at the night sky where heaven and God are located. Thus, the outhouse represents the way to heaven, or Christianity itself. When the man says the arrow stinks, he is saying that Christianity stinks once you get inside it and see what it is like.

Don't mind me. I'm just trying to get to 50 posts so I can get an avatar.

c4ts

11th December 2003, 06:41 PM

I thought the outhouse was a metaphor for church.

HarryKeogh

11th December 2003, 07:06 PM

i don't think it "slams" islam.

but allow me to do so, islam blows.

c4ts

11th December 2003, 10:13 PM

I don't know. "Slam" really is "Islam" without the "i."

hgc

12th December 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Bluegill

OK, I admit that the anti-Islam interpretation might not be the most likely, but I think that there is more than the slim chance that you accord it.

1) Hart frequently uses religious symbolism and themes

2) I don't think it's all that subtle. I don't know that I would have thought of it if I had not seen a news article on it, but I don't normally look at any comic strips for hidden meaning. Hart could have hidden it inside the other (non-) joke so that he could play innocent.

3) the moon on the outhouse identifies the structure, but the moon in the sky is unnecessary.

4) The "SLAM" could have been replaced a picture of the character walking through the door.

I know the arguments aren't compelling. But I don't think the arguments against this interpretation are, either. I don't want to seem to quibble of trivialities, but this is getting me crazy.

1) This does not constitute evidence of any weight toward the accusation.

2) He possibly could have hidden this message, but before we go assigning any kind of probability, let's look at what was actually drawn.

3) The moon in the sky is used to indicate night. I think of using the outhouse at night as just a well established meme, and it's probably connected to the tradition of the crescent moon on the door. I'll repeat what I said above: Islam doesn't have a monopoly on crescent moons. Jeez, next someone will accuse the French of stealing the idea of the croissant from Algeria.

4) I've already explained about the SLAM. Many comic strip artists, and particularly Hart, use the same overall image for all of the panels in the strip, in this case the outhouse with the door shut. I assume this is for the convenience of not having to draw much to produce a new strip. But whatever the reason, he will use other techniques to convey action, such as "action" text between panels. This is the easiest way for him to convey that the character seen in the first panel has entered the outhouse. Why do you burden Hart with the responsibility of doing the strip a different way, just so the audience can't cook up an imagined insult, in a way he probably couldn't have thought of in advance?

So to your opening statement, I still see zero reason to believe that Hart is guilty. That's a lot less chance than "not the most likely."

Stereolab

12th December 2003, 03:05 PM

Why would anyone slam an outhouse door?!

phildonnia

12th December 2003, 04:47 PM

To everyone disappointed by the cartoon's lack of cleverness and hidden meaning, here's an actual funny outhouse cartoon:

http://xmas_cheer.tripod.com/images/schmidthouse.gif

Note the crescent moon.

EDITED TO ADD:
Oops, they don't let you link from another site. Go here first:

http://xmas_cheer.tripod.com/sightgags.htm

Bluegill

13th December 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I don't want to seem to quibble of trivialities, but this is getting me crazy.

1) This does not constitute evidence of any weight toward the accusation.

2) He possibly could have hidden this message, but before we go assigning any kind of probability, let's look at what was actually drawn.

3) The moon in the sky is used to indicate night. I think of using the outhouse at night as just a well established meme, and it's probably connected to the tradition of the crescent moon on the door. I'll repeat what I said above: Islam doesn't have a monopoly on crescent moons. Jeez, next someone will accuse the French of stealing the idea of the croissant from Algeria.

4) I've already explained about the SLAM. Many comic strip artists, and particularly Hart, use the same overall image for all of the panels in the strip, in this case the outhouse with the door shut. I assume this is for the convenience of not having to draw much to produce a new strip. But whatever the reason, he will use other techniques to convey action, such as "action" text between panels. This is the easiest way for him to convey that the character seen in the first panel has entered the outhouse. Why do you burden Hart with the responsibility of doing the strip a different way, just so the audience can't cook up an imagined insult, in a way he probably couldn't have thought of in advance?

So to your opening statement, I still see zero reason to believe that Hart is guilty. That's a lot less chance than "not the most likely."

:) I suppose we'll just have to disagree. I've admitted that odds are, you are right. But I still think there's a good chance that it was a slap at Islam. Hart has a propensity to use religious symbolism and messages to express opinions; I draw my conclusions, I think, by looking at what was actually drawn; I think the moon in the sky is useless otherwise, since I don't associate outhouse use with the night-time; similarly with the use of 'slam.' However, I understand your disagreement. I don't understand why you feel so strongly about it, but I understand it.

By the way-- wasn't the invention of the croissant actually a slap against Islam? Invented by the Viennese to celebrate the defeat of the Turks?