(It turns out this strip is one from a series that do cross-reference and play off one another somewhat. Probably you’d agree that the context doesn’t help that much; but those who disagree are welcome to pump the other steps in the series into the comments here.)
.. as the speech bubble says (in Spanish). Which in this case raises the question, Yeah really, what does it look like?
Maybe this should be held until the next time we assemble an Oopsies list post. But even if the wording owes something to bad translation or the author not being a native speaker of English, it’s still hard to guess how anything even somewhat plausibly translatable this way could fuel a story or joke to go with the drawing. Hey, is that even un patito at all?
The artist’s title for this was “Cat and Girl versus Nostalgic Realism”. That doesn’t help much either.
Sent by Dirk the Daring, who asks “Is this about Twitter? Or about nothing? Damned if I know.”
Yeah, you GOTTA suppose it is somehow about Twitter — even though the repeated “twit” never becomes “Twitter” or “tweet”, and that bird is not the blue Twitter icon bird.
A fish inspection?
Thanks to Brian in STL for this puzzling case of “either you know it or you don’t” from Heart of the City. Brian and your editors all were in the don’t-know bucket, but the bit was illuminated by comments in the GoComics site.
Please refrain from posting spoiler answers before, shall we say noon? Though you can get your licks in by just saying you got it.
What does Renoir have to do with it? Is the hiker a city guy seeing a city scene (deli with hanging salamis) in a painting that isn’t really that? Or that actually <i>is</i> the painting, rather than the pastoral landscape we expect?
It’s a sad day when you can’t tell whether something is a clue or just an oddity of a cartoonist’s drawing style.
Thanks to waltmorris for the contribution!
Comics I Don't Understand 