An apple shaped vehicle. A bird with a worm in its mouth. A green hat. A bow tie. And …?
Related
35 Comments
It’s a Richard Scarry reference. The Lowly Worm is no longer a lucky worm.
Wow, I’m not the audience for the CIDU. I’ve vaguely heard of Richard Scarry.
OK, I’m sure I heard actual details, but none of them remain in my head.
Urban beat me to it. Richard Scarry and Lowly Worm.
I know of Richard Scarry but I’m not well-versed in his oeuvre. Even so, I figured out that the worm must have been driving the apple car. It’s possible I’ve seen an image of Lowly Worm in his car before but I have no certainty.
I was pretty ambivalent on Scarry’s books, but that TV theme song is an earworm. I was humming it the moment I saw the comic.
I spent several hours with Scarry’s books when my kids were the appropriate age, but somehow missed the worm.
As to Dahl: without the bowdlerizing, the books would otherwise likely fade away due to references that are no longer in fashion. But while his books are quirky, my daughters loved them. Would Dahl have made similar changes to the ones Scarry made (see Andréa’s link)? We can’t know for sure.
We do know that even the most revered books (e.g. the Bible) have come down to us in bowdlerized form. For example, “And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter.” (Gen 24:9, KJV) but biblical scholars consider the oath would have been more likely taken by grabbing something higher up in a more intimate location. I’m not an expert in ancient languages, so I cannot check ancient sources, but nearly all the English translations at BibleGateway use the “thigh” euphemism, so I suspect that usage got picked up earlier than English translations.
Even this is too much for some translators. That verse is “So the servant gave Abraham his word that he would do everything he had been told to do.” in the CEV (Contemporary English Version).
The exception is the translation called The Voice, which says “The trusted servant took the oath, holding in his hand Abraham’s power to give life. He swore to do what his master required.”
Here is etymonline casting a cold eye on a popular related source for testimony
testimony (n.)
c. 1400, “proof or demonstration of some fact, evidence, piece of evidence;” early 15c., “legal testimony, sworn statement of a witness,” from Old North French testimonie (Old French testimoine 11c.), from Latin testimonium “evidence, proof, witness, attestation,” from testis “a witness, one who attests” (see testament) + -monium, suffix signifying action, state, condition. Despite the common modern assertion, the sense of the word is unlikely to have anything to do with testicles (see testis).
Not sure about the more recent edits, but the earlier decision to change the pictures/descriptions of the Oompa Loompas was a good one.
The Hebrew יֶרֶךְ is really broad and vague, meaning the area from the hip to the knee, so to translate with “thigh” is not really a euphemism so much as an accurate translation of a very broad term. In some contexts, it is likely genitals, but in others it is the whole portion of the limb. See Ex. 32:27 where’s they are commanded, “Put your sword on your side (יֶרֶךְ), each of you!” I will need to do a bit more research to see if we have extra-biblical references that are more explicit about which bits are being grabbed during oath taking. It is not a subject I have given much attention to…until now.
Yes, those Oompa Loompas had to go.
@zbicyclist: it’s not necessarily been bowdlerized, they just had lots of euphemisms for things, and of course we do too. How often have you said you were going to the bathroom but it wasn’t because you needed a bath? In floor plans today, a room with a toilet and a sink is referred to as a ‘half-bath’, even though it’s really a no-bath. There are lots of other examples; in Isaiah, angels with six wings are said to be covering their faces and also their feet, but ‘feet’ was a euphemism there about what the angels were covering up. In another passage, Saul goes into a cave ‘to cover his feet’, which was a euphemism about going to the bathroom (because one lowers one’s garments around the ankles). Some Bible versions translate that as ‘to relieve himself’, replacing the Hebrew euphemism with an English one, which I actually like better because it has the same sense. A more literal translation leaves them having to put in a footnote about why he’s covering his feet.
I can’t wait to read the new edited version of Roald Dahl’s “My Uncle Oswald.”
It certainly lends new credence to the old idiom “He’s got you by the balls.” It makes me wonder if, a few thousand years ago, that was the equivalent of “swearing on the bible” — for some people, the ultimate attestation.
Reflecting on this post’s title, I would like to point out that a “red delicious” comic would in reality be unpalatable (those apples now taste mealy and horrid).
You’re right – for eating, Gala apples are good; for baking, Granny Smith and MacIntosh. Red/Yellow Delicious is really false advertising.
I still have my childhood copy of Scarry’s “Cars and Trucks and Things That Go” (early 1970s ed.). I always thought his artwork was imaginative, and as an adult I can marvel that much of the drawings depicted actual recognizable vehicles. I also love his charming fruit- and vegatable-based vehicles. From what I’ve heard this book went through a few changes over the years, with the various editions.
Andréa – it’s a matter of supermarket needs. The original Red/Golden Delicious was (delicious), but it was also thin-skinned and bruised and rotted easily. They got bred very carefully to last for shipment to stores and long-term storage (plus waxing to make the skin shiny and keep them from wrinkling) and the current varieties are about as tasty as “supermarket tomatoes” (also bred for thick skins and shipability, not for flavor). Even now, a Delicious straight off the tree is quite tasty – not quite up to a Gala, but good. But they’re very hard to find that way, unless you have a tree in your yard…
@Ooten Aboot:
Thanks, but my lack of certainty derives from my own imperfect memory, not from being unable to find an image of the car online.
I suppose that is not shocking to read, but I am a little surprised as Rosa did make an effort to make both Bombie and Foola Zoola less offensive than their original depictions in Carl Barks comics (Disney also redrew Barks’ overtly offensive original artwork of these characters for reprints before Rosa ever dealt with the characters) and I believe discusses this extensively in a companion text that is often published with collections of The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. Rosa, of course, felt obligated to include them in The Life and Times series as a part of his devotion to stitching together the “Barksian facts” about Scrooge’s past that Barks originally wrote (likely without any intention of them working together).
The second of the two stories being pulled, “The Dream of a Lifetime” is noted for its similarities to the movie Inception, though it was published before the film was released. Rosa claims to have been given the idea by a French fan.
I wonder if Rosa’s other stories involving depictions of indigenous people that straddle the line between modern sensibilities and old line pulp fiction influences (and fall closer to the former, I would argue) are being looked at as well: see “Dreamtime Duck of the Never-Never” and “Cowboy Captain of the Cutty Sark” most notably.
Scrooge McDuck did a few unsavory things to become as rich as he did. I don’t think the intention was that he would be an admirable character. Unlike his Dickensian namesake he never redeemed himself.
While Scrooge McDuck did not start out as an intentionally admirable character, he certainly had become one by the time Barks’ best known stories were being printed. While he was miserly and often ill-tempered, his undying work ethic and devotion to not doing unethical things in his pursuit of wealth and adventure became regularly-referenced hallmarks of the character. He famously loved to say he made his fortune by being “smarter than the smarties and sharper than the sharpies” and that he made it all “square”.
There are, of course, anecdotes and whole stories written by Barks where this is not true, especially early on, with the most notable offender probably being the story involving Foola Zoola and Bombie that Rosa deals with in the Life and Times issues in question. In Barks’ original tale, Scrooge gleefully tells the nephews about how he hired mercenaries to drive Foola Zoola’s tribe off of their land after they refused to sell it (he wanted it so he could plant a rubber plantation). Foola Zoola is depicted as being overtly villainous for zombifying Bombie and sending him after Scrooge (Bombie winds up mistaking Donald for Scrooge, hijinks ensue).
Rosa takes this “Barksian fact” and reframes it as a watershed moment the journey from earnest and generally kind fortune-seeker to cold-hearted and greedy industrialist that he depicts in The Life and Times series (Scrooge is redeemed from this in Rosa’s eyes at the series’ end, embracing the family he once turned away and realizing he always loved his adventures more than his wealth). Scrooge’s descent into his lowest depths is all but complete as he drives Foola Zoola’s people off of their land after trying to trick Foola Zoola into agreeing to a lowball offer to sell. Foola Zoola’s use of Bombie to get revenge on Scrooge is portrayed by Rosa a justified reaction to Scrooge’s actions rather than the villain-of-the-week treatment Barks gives the characters. I thought it was a clever way to deal with the character’s flaws, especially since Rosa’s Scrooge is a gentler and more sentimental version than Barks’ Scrooge was.
While Scrooge McDuck did not start out as an intentionally admirable character, he certainly had become one by the time Barks’ best known stories were being printed. While he was miserly and often ill-tempered, his undying work ethic and devotion to not doing unethical things in his pursuit of wealth and adventure became regularly-referenced hallmarks of the character. He famously loved to say he made his fortune by being “smarter than the smarties and sharper than the sharpies” and that he made it all “square”.
There are, of course, anecdotes and whole stories written by Barks where this is not true, especially early on, with the most notable offender probably being the story involving Foola Zoola and Bombie that Rosa deals with in the Life and Times issues in question. In Barks’ original tale, Scrooge gleefully tells the nephews about how he hired mercenaries to drive Foola Zoola’s tribe off of their land after they refused to sell it (he wanted it so he could plant a rubber plantation). Foola Zoola is depicted as being overtly villainous for zombifying Bombie and sending him after Scrooge (Bombie winds up mistaking Donald for Scrooge, hijinks ensue).
Rosa takes this “Barksian fact” and reframes it as a watershed moment the journey from earnest and generally kind fortune-seeker to cold-hearted and greedy industrialist that he depicts in The Life and Times series (Scrooge is redeemed from this in Rosa’s eyes at the series’ end, embracing the family he once turned away and realizing he always loved his adventures more than his wealth). Scrooge’s descent into his lowest depths is all but complete as he drives Foola Zoola’s people off of their land after trying to trick Foola Zoola into agreeing to a lowball offer to sell. Foola Zoola’s use of Bombie to get revenge on Scrooge is portrayed by Rosa a justified reaction to Scrooge’s actions rather than the villain-of-the-week treatment Barks gives the characters. I thought it was a clever way to deal with the character’s flaws, especially since Rosa’s Scrooge is a gentler and more sentimental version than Barks’ Scrooge was…
When I read the Uncle Scrooge stories as a kid, I noticed that he was extremely miserly about small amounts of money and even got bent out of shape when one of the pennies in his swimming pool got bent out of shape. But he did not mind spending billions of dollars on some harebrained scheme that led nowhere.
Comics I Don't Understand 
It’s a Richard Scarry reference. The Lowly Worm is no longer a lucky worm.
Wow, I’m not the audience for the CIDU. I’ve vaguely heard of Richard Scarry.
OK, I’m sure I heard actual details, but none of them remain in my head.
Urban beat me to it. Richard Scarry and Lowly Worm.
I know of Richard Scarry but I’m not well-versed in his oeuvre. Even so, I figured out that the worm must have been driving the apple car. It’s possible I’ve seen an image of Lowly Worm in his car before but I have no certainty.
Be certain Powers:
https://www.target.com/p/yottoy-lowly-worm-soft-toy-7-5-with-applecar-6/-/A-82619329
UV got it
LOOOOOOW-LLYYYYYYYYY! NOOOOOOOO!
One could say that “The
EscalatedElevated Bird Gets The Lowly Worm“.P.S. I know that he’s a classic children’s author, but I never cared for any of his books.
Hubby was, for several years, an elementary librarian; that’s the only reason I know of (and dislike) his books.
This is spooky – I WAS going to add Roald Dahl to my mention above of not liking Scarry’s books – I don’t care for Dahl’s, either. Then I immediately went over to Comic Strip of the Day/The Daily Cartoonist, and this is the first article . . .
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2023/02/21/csotd-the-ministry-of-arts-comes-for-dahl
Cue the Twilight Zone theme . . .
@ Andréa – I was amused to read that Scarry did some retroactive political correctness editing four decades before the current discussion about similar changes in Roald Dahl’s books.
I was pretty ambivalent on Scarry’s books, but that TV theme song is an earworm. I was humming it the moment I saw the comic.
I spent several hours with Scarry’s books when my kids were the appropriate age, but somehow missed the worm.
As to Dahl: without the bowdlerizing, the books would otherwise likely fade away due to references that are no longer in fashion. But while his books are quirky, my daughters loved them. Would Dahl have made similar changes to the ones Scarry made (see Andréa’s link)? We can’t know for sure.
We do know that even the most revered books (e.g. the Bible) have come down to us in bowdlerized form. For example, “And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham his master, and sware to him concerning that matter.” (Gen 24:9, KJV) but biblical scholars consider the oath would have been more likely taken by grabbing something higher up in a more intimate location. I’m not an expert in ancient languages, so I cannot check ancient sources, but nearly all the English translations at BibleGateway use the “thigh” euphemism, so I suspect that usage got picked up earlier than English translations.
Even this is too much for some translators. That verse is “So the servant gave Abraham his word that he would do everything he had been told to do.” in the CEV (Contemporary English Version).
The exception is the translation called The Voice, which says “The trusted servant took the oath, holding in his hand Abraham’s power to give life. He swore to do what his master required.”
Here is etymonline casting a cold eye on a popular related source for testimony
testimony (n.)
c. 1400, “proof or demonstration of some fact, evidence, piece of evidence;” early 15c., “legal testimony, sworn statement of a witness,” from Old North French testimonie (Old French testimoine 11c.), from Latin testimonium “evidence, proof, witness, attestation,” from testis “a witness, one who attests” (see testament) + -monium, suffix signifying action, state, condition. Despite the common modern assertion, the sense of the word is unlikely to have anything to do with testicles (see testis).
Not sure about the more recent edits, but the earlier decision to change the pictures/descriptions of the Oompa Loompas was a good one.
original image
The Hebrew יֶרֶךְ is really broad and vague, meaning the area from the hip to the knee, so to translate with “thigh” is not really a euphemism so much as an accurate translation of a very broad term. In some contexts, it is likely genitals, but in others it is the whole portion of the limb. See Ex. 32:27 where’s they are commanded, “Put your sword on your side (יֶרֶךְ), each of you!” I will need to do a bit more research to see if we have extra-biblical references that are more explicit about which bits are being grabbed during oath taking. It is not a subject I have given much attention to…until now.
Yes, those Oompa Loompas had to go.
@zbicyclist: it’s not necessarily been bowdlerized, they just had lots of euphemisms for things, and of course we do too. How often have you said you were going to the bathroom but it wasn’t because you needed a bath? In floor plans today, a room with a toilet and a sink is referred to as a ‘half-bath’, even though it’s really a no-bath. There are lots of other examples; in Isaiah, angels with six wings are said to be covering their faces and also their feet, but ‘feet’ was a euphemism there about what the angels were covering up. In another passage, Saul goes into a cave ‘to cover his feet’, which was a euphemism about going to the bathroom (because one lowers one’s garments around the ankles). Some Bible versions translate that as ‘to relieve himself’, replacing the Hebrew euphemism with an English one, which I actually like better because it has the same sense. A more literal translation leaves them having to put in a footnote about why he’s covering his feet.
I can’t wait to read the new edited version of Roald Dahl’s “My Uncle Oswald.”
It certainly lends new credence to the old idiom “He’s got you by the balls.” It makes me wonder if, a few thousand years ago, that was the equivalent of “swearing on the bible” — for some people, the ultimate attestation.
Reflecting on this post’s title, I would like to point out that a “red delicious” comic would in reality be unpalatable (those apples now taste mealy and horrid).
You’re right – for eating, Gala apples are good; for baking, Granny Smith and MacIntosh. Red/Yellow Delicious is really false advertising.
I still have my childhood copy of Scarry’s “Cars and Trucks and Things That Go” (early 1970s ed.). I always thought his artwork was imaginative, and as an adult I can marvel that much of the drawings depicted actual recognizable vehicles. I also love his charming fruit- and vegatable-based vehicles. From what I’ve heard this book went through a few changes over the years, with the various editions.
Though this is a different book of his, you can see Mr. Worm’s car in action.
https://www.christianbook.com/richard-scarrys-busy-cars-and-trucks/richard-scarry/9781984850065/pd/850063
Andréa – it’s a matter of supermarket needs. The original Red/Golden Delicious was (delicious), but it was also thin-skinned and bruised and rotted easily. They got bred very carefully to last for shipment to stores and long-term storage (plus waxing to make the skin shiny and keep them from wrinkling) and the current varieties are about as tasty as “supermarket tomatoes” (also bred for thick skins and shipability, not for flavor). Even now, a Delicious straight off the tree is quite tasty – not quite up to a Gala, but good. But they’re very hard to find that way, unless you have a tree in your yard…
@Ooten Aboot:
Thanks, but my lack of certainty derives from my own imperfect memory, not from being unable to find an image of the car online.
Now they’re ‘going after’ the life of Scrooge McDuck . . .
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2023/02/21/the-expurgated-life-of-scrooge-mcduck/
@Andréa
I suppose that is not shocking to read, but I am a little surprised as Rosa did make an effort to make both Bombie and Foola Zoola less offensive than their original depictions in Carl Barks comics (Disney also redrew Barks’ overtly offensive original artwork of these characters for reprints before Rosa ever dealt with the characters) and I believe discusses this extensively in a companion text that is often published with collections of The Life and Times of Scrooge McDuck. Rosa, of course, felt obligated to include them in The Life and Times series as a part of his devotion to stitching together the “Barksian facts” about Scrooge’s past that Barks originally wrote (likely without any intention of them working together).
The second of the two stories being pulled, “The Dream of a Lifetime” is noted for its similarities to the movie Inception, though it was published before the film was released. Rosa claims to have been given the idea by a French fan.
I wonder if Rosa’s other stories involving depictions of indigenous people that straddle the line between modern sensibilities and old line pulp fiction influences (and fall closer to the former, I would argue) are being looked at as well: see “Dreamtime Duck of the Never-Never” and “Cowboy Captain of the Cutty Sark” most notably.
Scrooge McDuck did a few unsavory things to become as rich as he did. I don’t think the intention was that he would be an admirable character. Unlike his Dickensian namesake he never redeemed himself.
While Scrooge McDuck did not start out as an intentionally admirable character, he certainly had become one by the time Barks’ best known stories were being printed. While he was miserly and often ill-tempered, his undying work ethic and devotion to not doing unethical things in his pursuit of wealth and adventure became regularly-referenced hallmarks of the character. He famously loved to say he made his fortune by being “smarter than the smarties and sharper than the sharpies” and that he made it all “square”.
There are, of course, anecdotes and whole stories written by Barks where this is not true, especially early on, with the most notable offender probably being the story involving Foola Zoola and Bombie that Rosa deals with in the Life and Times issues in question. In Barks’ original tale, Scrooge gleefully tells the nephews about how he hired mercenaries to drive Foola Zoola’s tribe off of their land after they refused to sell it (he wanted it so he could plant a rubber plantation). Foola Zoola is depicted as being overtly villainous for zombifying Bombie and sending him after Scrooge (Bombie winds up mistaking Donald for Scrooge, hijinks ensue).
Rosa takes this “Barksian fact” and reframes it as a watershed moment the journey from earnest and generally kind fortune-seeker to cold-hearted and greedy industrialist that he depicts in The Life and Times series (Scrooge is redeemed from this in Rosa’s eyes at the series’ end, embracing the family he once turned away and realizing he always loved his adventures more than his wealth). Scrooge’s descent into his lowest depths is all but complete as he drives Foola Zoola’s people off of their land after trying to trick Foola Zoola into agreeing to a lowball offer to sell. Foola Zoola’s use of Bombie to get revenge on Scrooge is portrayed by Rosa a justified reaction to Scrooge’s actions rather than the villain-of-the-week treatment Barks gives the characters. I thought it was a clever way to deal with the character’s flaws, especially since Rosa’s Scrooge is a gentler and more sentimental version than Barks’ Scrooge was.
While Scrooge McDuck did not start out as an intentionally admirable character, he certainly had become one by the time Barks’ best known stories were being printed. While he was miserly and often ill-tempered, his undying work ethic and devotion to not doing unethical things in his pursuit of wealth and adventure became regularly-referenced hallmarks of the character. He famously loved to say he made his fortune by being “smarter than the smarties and sharper than the sharpies” and that he made it all “square”.
There are, of course, anecdotes and whole stories written by Barks where this is not true, especially early on, with the most notable offender probably being the story involving Foola Zoola and Bombie that Rosa deals with in the Life and Times issues in question. In Barks’ original tale, Scrooge gleefully tells the nephews about how he hired mercenaries to drive Foola Zoola’s tribe off of their land after they refused to sell it (he wanted it so he could plant a rubber plantation). Foola Zoola is depicted as being overtly villainous for zombifying Bombie and sending him after Scrooge (Bombie winds up mistaking Donald for Scrooge, hijinks ensue).
Rosa takes this “Barksian fact” and reframes it as a watershed moment the journey from earnest and generally kind fortune-seeker to cold-hearted and greedy industrialist that he depicts in The Life and Times series (Scrooge is redeemed from this in Rosa’s eyes at the series’ end, embracing the family he once turned away and realizing he always loved his adventures more than his wealth). Scrooge’s descent into his lowest depths is all but complete as he drives Foola Zoola’s people off of their land after trying to trick Foola Zoola into agreeing to a lowball offer to sell. Foola Zoola’s use of Bombie to get revenge on Scrooge is portrayed by Rosa a justified reaction to Scrooge’s actions rather than the villain-of-the-week treatment Barks gives the characters. I thought it was a clever way to deal with the character’s flaws, especially since Rosa’s Scrooge is a gentler and more sentimental version than Barks’ Scrooge was…
When I read the Uncle Scrooge stories as a kid, I noticed that he was extremely miserly about small amounts of money and even got bent out of shape when one of the pennies in his swimming pool got bent out of shape. But he did not mind spending billions of dollars on some harebrained scheme that led nowhere.
Some more commentary on Dahl . . .
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2023/02/24/csotd-weekend-update-2/
@ Andréa – I thought I landed in the wrong CSotD article, but I kept scrolling down and found the comments about Dahl near the end.
Sorry ’bout that – I should’ve added ‘SCROLL DOWN’.