The other Umbrellas are cocoons. I get that. And I am guessing that the “joke” is that it’s protecting the lady from the sun like an umbrella should.
But the movement lines Indicate that the shade is fleeting. So am I over analyzing that part (But otherwise, why put her there)? And if so, is Bill just impressed with the comparison of umbrellas and cocoons?
You raised some of the points I was about to. I *think* the artist just screwed up by putting the woman fully in the shade of the butterfly, and the joke was just umbrellas as cocoons.
I was also going to start with, “Yes, it is a CIDU.”
I dunno. I liked it. I saw the the woman being under the shade of the umbrella as an Magritte or Escher-esque optical illusion of the moment.
The joke is the umbrellas are cocoons. Which in universe, would make the secondary illusionary movement shade directly over the woman secondary. In theory that should be conflicting of overly complicated. But I think it was well-done enough so as to be complimentary.
Yeah, I think the woman being in the shade of the butterfly is irrelevant to the joke — just an artistic choice of showing the specific moment. And perhaps it was therefore an error in judgement to do it that way, since it becomes distracting.
Her presence may have been meant to indicate the size of the thing. I agree, putting her exactly under its shade is just a distraction.
On the contrary, Bill, I did literally laugh aloud.
Showing the woman sitting in the shade of the butterfly does serve to indicate its humongous size. But I found her presence to be confusing and rather distracting from the actual umbrella-as-cocoon joke. For the butterfly’s shadow to fall on her as illustrated, the sun would have to be at a lower sort of angle, behind the viewer’s head. But the shadows of the umbrellas should then be stretched out on the beach toward the woman as well, instead of straight down as if it’s high noon. Maybe the butterfly is supposed to be flying directly overhead of the woman? For me, the comic is clever but confusing.
I didn’t find the woman in the shade distracting at all. I guess I’m in the minority. Without her and the shadow of the butterfly over her, we would not have size perspective.
Yeah, I can’t view the woman and shade as incidental, much less a mistake. What is the purpose in “life” of a beach umbrella? To provide shade for people! So that is passed along to the offspring.
I’m a little less certain about another aspect where I don’t completely go along with the majority of opinions here. What movement lines do you see? Well, maybe — but I originally saw that as a tether, and might still take it that way.
I don’t think the butterfly shade is distracting. I think it is a Magritte/Escher-esque addition. It does however require the reader to have the ability to accept a fiction within a fiction… which I think the reader readily ought to be able to do without extra effort.
Comics I Don't Understand 
I’m not sure I get it.
The other Umbrellas are cocoons. I get that. And I am guessing that the “joke” is that it’s protecting the lady from the sun like an umbrella should.
But the movement lines Indicate that the shade is fleeting. So am I over analyzing that part (But otherwise, why put her there)? And if so, is Bill just impressed with the comparison of umbrellas and cocoons?
You raised some of the points I was about to. I *think* the artist just screwed up by putting the woman fully in the shade of the butterfly, and the joke was just umbrellas as cocoons.
I was also going to start with, “Yes, it is a CIDU.”
I dunno. I liked it. I saw the the woman being under the shade of the umbrella as an Magritte or Escher-esque optical illusion of the moment.
The joke is the umbrellas are cocoons. Which in universe, would make the secondary illusionary movement shade directly over the woman secondary. In theory that should be conflicting of overly complicated. But I think it was well-done enough so as to be complimentary.
Yeah, I think the woman being in the shade of the butterfly is irrelevant to the joke — just an artistic choice of showing the specific moment. And perhaps it was therefore an error in judgement to do it that way, since it becomes distracting.
Her presence may have been meant to indicate the size of the thing. I agree, putting her exactly under its shade is just a distraction.
On the contrary, Bill, I did literally laugh aloud.
Showing the woman sitting in the shade of the butterfly does serve to indicate its humongous size. But I found her presence to be confusing and rather distracting from the actual umbrella-as-cocoon joke. For the butterfly’s shadow to fall on her as illustrated, the sun would have to be at a lower sort of angle, behind the viewer’s head. But the shadows of the umbrellas should then be stretched out on the beach toward the woman as well, instead of straight down as if it’s high noon. Maybe the butterfly is supposed to be flying directly overhead of the woman? For me, the comic is clever but confusing.
I didn’t find the woman in the shade distracting at all. I guess I’m in the minority. Without her and the shadow of the butterfly over her, we would not have size perspective.
Yeah, I can’t view the woman and shade as incidental, much less a mistake. What is the purpose in “life” of a beach umbrella? To provide shade for people! So that is passed along to the offspring.
I’m a little less certain about another aspect where I don’t completely go along with the majority of opinions here. What movement lines do you see? Well, maybe — but I originally saw that as a tether, and might still take it that way.
I don’t think the butterfly shade is distracting. I think it is a Magritte/Escher-esque addition. It does however require the reader to have the ability to accept a fiction within a fiction… which I think the reader readily ought to be able to do without extra effort.