Janice wonders, “Are we keeping up the tradition of guessing Caulfield’s costume?”
Why not? Put your guesses in the comments. I’ll try to remember to update this post with the next clue each day; if not, feel free to add that in the comments.
Tuesday:
Wednesday:
Thursday. And the answer is:
The day after Halloween, the explanation. But we don’t find out what Caulfield’s actual costume was, at least not yet.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Maybe Avis from the One Big Happy strip posted as a CIDU earlier today?
“Home Alone” is a movie, not literature, and I doubt that Mallett is referring to a candidate who appeared in one of the Home Alone movies.
Is he trying to take off his head, for Sleepy Hollow?
I really don’t know how a facial expression can refer to literature. When you read it you are on your own as to what the characters look like and how their expressions look, unless it’s been illustrated by someone like John Tenniel who defined the look for all time.
Could it be something illustrated by Arthur Rackham?
Oh, yes, one more thing. Try putting your hands in that exact position on your own head. Can you do it?
I’d guess his book is Project 2025: Remaking American Governance.
Best guess I’ve seen so far over at GoComics is Allen Ginsberg’s “Howl.”
I wanted to go with “I Have No Thumbs and I Must Scream” but wouldn’t you know it’s the one comic strip artist who draws them. :P
Boise Ed has the best guess! But it seems Caulfield specifically disavows it…
Call of the Wild?
Caulfield’s expression reminds me of Linus’s reaction to “Great Pumpkin Spice”, but I don’t think Peanuts qualifies as “literature”, even if it could be described as “great”.
I also thought of Ichabod Crane, like Mark in Boston.
After thinking about the headless horseman for a day, I’m still wondering: Was it Brom Bones or maybe Katrina’s dad Baltus? That story has always fascinated me.
I have to say that now this has gone from a guessing contest to a CIDU, as I don’t get the Oct 31 comic. I even looked up the book. The kid is naked in a lot of it but doesn’t have a “scream” face; is the nudity why the teacher reacts with a scream?
@chemgal: Thanks. I didn’t remember that from the book, and our copy got given away years ago.
@chemgal: The book is highly controversial in the US, not just because the boy is naked some of the time and there are times you can see everything, but also because some think there is stuff that is sexually suggestive. As such, it’s frequently challenged/it’s removal from libraries demanded.
While Mrs. Olsen probably isn’t the sort to be shocked or offended by the book, Caulfield mentions coming to school (un)dressed as the character, hence her reaction. It would certainly be inappropriate.
Even though I had to look it up to be sure, I‘m disappointed that Caulfield called him “the kid”, rather than identifying him by his proper name, “Mickey”.
P.S. People who invent bogus sexual interpretations for “In the Night Kitchen” are the same kind of perverts who think that less than a second’s worth of Super Bowl nipple exposure is worth a $500,000.00 fine.
Kilby @14: back when Susanne Berner Rotraut’s Wimmelbuch came out, I bought a bunch for a bunch of friends who had recently had kids. I was dismayed to read some of the one star reviews, the panty-in-a-twist brigade bemoaning the full nude in the art gallery (!) or the fact that she dared illustrate some people smoking (!!). These reviews sound like caricatures, but also, they appear to be genuine…
http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/081186474X/ref=acr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar
How young does a parent have to be to not know that Shel Silverstein did more than the kids’ books? For that matter, how young does a parent have to be to not know that Roald Dahl did more than the kids’ books?