Thanks to Tim Harrod for sending this in, and for his comments (below).
“Another baffler from the Hart estate. What has the Wizard done that’s transgressive, that he wouldn’t want to be connected to or blamed for? Does he think lumberjacks will be pissed that he’s slightly undoing their labor? I’m pretty sure they just want the wood.”
Boise Ed sent this one in. If Hagar and Eddie joined the onstage table, they must have thought they were at a dinner theater. But if it were a dinner theater, the audience wouldn’t be in rows of theater seats. It looks like they went to a stage play, got there late, saw the scene involving a meal, then sat there. Even those two aren’t that dumb.
It turns out the second and third artists, though unknown to me, were real and easily searchable. But I’m still unsure what their panes here are meant to say about their ideas or careers. And since they may not be commonplace names for many, this seems still a CIDU.
I understand what the chicken is saying, I just don’t understand why it is supposed to be funny:
No entiendo lo que dice la gallina, y todavía no entiendo por qué se supone que es gracioso:
Thanks to Usual John for the suggestion, and for pointing out that the Daily Cartoonist called this out as a CIDU and linked us.
Umm, what part are we looking at in the 2nd and 3rd panels? If exposed bone, then how can the patient be so wide-awake?
Also, if the parity of turns is correct, the current site is playing O, and has only losing moves. Can’t they concede, and not ship the guy off to let County, playing X, claim their victory?
And you may find yourself … wondering about this comic.
A lengthy CIDU in six laborious parts.
Last Friday’s discussion about “Cornish Lobster” prompted a comment from beckoningchasm about Kliban’s “Cornish Game Clams“. I never read the book “Two Guys Fooling Around with the Moon” and had never heard of this sequence, but I soon discovered that it was hiding in plain sight at GoComics (starting on 11-Feb-2013).
Whether or not this was worth the effort is a question that CIDU readers will have to decide: I don’t understand what is going on in these comics at all (and it may just be random surrealism). Discussion is welcome (YMMV).
I cannot decipher this “Rhymes with Orange” strip at all:
I was clever enough to look up what a “Ted Talk” is supposed to be, but that doesn’t really help much. Did she don the headset before going to bed, or did she manage to put it on while sleeping? Or, perhaps her partner put it on her head, so that she wouldn’t lose the resulting somniloquy?
The last panel doesn’t make much sense following her declaration in the third panel, under the straightforward reading I would normally give it: “Nineteen weeks ago was the last time I felt directionless and at a loss. Since then it’s been pretty good.”
But to try to save it, is there a reasonable way to construe “since” and “had no” to give an overall meaning of “Nineteen weeks ago I had the wake-up call about my directionless life. And since then, no real progress. I am still at a loss.” That might gather applause for courage / honesty / forthright confession, but still aupport her thought that the applause is paradoxical. But is it really a passable reading of the words?
As always — but it needs saying explicitly again now and then — we like to think of this as a reader-participation site, and not just for your invaluable (or anyhow amusing) comments, but for suggestions of comics to run and discuss.
Please share your specific suggestions of panels or strips, in CIDU, LOL, and OY categories, either by direct email to
(that’s “CIDU dot Submissions” at gmail dot com) or by using the handy-dandy Suggest A CIDU form page!
Comics I Don't Understand 