Ron sends this in:
Dirk the Daring wonders about this one: “This makes no sense. If he is paid by the hour he’d take his time and dawdle. Maybe I’m missing something, it seems back-assward to me.”
Kedamono sends this in as an “Ewww”: “I mean, YouTube videos on potty training? Yikes! Also, isn’t he a bit too young to have his own phone?”
Mitch4 notes: “Or is it actually 4th-wall? I thought so because the art seems to show him looking out at us, but both parents are grimacing as though they heard this and are considering their responses.”
“Looks can be deceiving” seems like a phrase too old for Dennis’s purported age, so I’m going with 4th-wall.
From Boise Ed:
What arrow-related thing happened/happens at the Met Gala?
Some Googling suggests it might be a reference to this:
https://www.etonline.com/demi-moore-makes-an-unforgettable-2024-met-gala-comeback-224861
but I’m not convinced. Anyone??
(repeating this post from CIDU Bill)
billr sends this in: “Is ARLO still a category?”
Excellent question for discussion! Societal norms have changed a bit; I note the increased presence of gratuitous @#$% and $%^& ) in casual speech (with the words, not the @##$ euphemism, in a way that would have had the nuns kick me out of school until I brought my parents and begged for reinstatement. Similarly, as comic strips have depended less on newspapers and more on other outlets, implied or implicit Arlo material seems to have become much more common.
Sometime back, we awarded 9 Chickweed Lane a permanent ARLO award, which it richly deserves. But then, is Brooke McEldowney really sneaking over anything on anybody? Or has his syndicate just decided it’s a popular strip that’s making us money, so let’s let him do soft porn?
So, the ARLO category hasn’t been abolished, but I (editor zbicyclist) haven’t been tagging things as ARLO much.
In this case, Pam and Fred could have been inebriated co-workers discussing other co-workers in disparaging terms — and including the big bosses in their disparagement. But probably not.
Here’s another example from Sally Forth, a strip with began in the simpler (for comics) times of 1982.
I’d be interested on what others think.
Joshua K. and Hinches both sent this in: “This appears to be a joke about redaction or censorship, but it would seem like it would need to have *some* visible text to make sense.” and “Is this supposed to be some sort of political statement? What an I missing, besides all the dialogue??
Was this an earlier Sunday Wizard of Id at one time?
Note: your editor just doesn’t understand the joke here, and is not making a political comment. CIDU is a non-political site, so please don’t wander off into politics in your comments.
Repeating one of Bill Bickel’s Memorial Day posts.
From Irv:
He comments,
The second and third frames in the second row are what IDU. If the Wizard is cheating, shouldn’t the beam and hangers be visible there as well as in the last frame? Otherwise, maybe he is cheating and conjures the beam and hangers to “prove” he wasn’t using magic in the previous frames even though he was? All told, IDU what’s going on here.
For that matter, if there’s some magic making the beam and hangers invisible that he somehow forgets? turns off? for the last frame, how did he appear to lift it off the ground??
Tim Harrod submitted this Wizard of Id as a CIDU promptly on the day that it was published, exactly eight months ago today. As Tim put it: “Just a straight-up, no-analysis-possible I Do Not Get It“:
…
I can’t give a definite answer to Rodney’s question, either, but it probably depends on which cultural tradition the Dragon came from.
P.S. One reason that I did not like the Disney movie “Raya and the Last Dragon” is that the dragons were furry (rather than scaly).
Comics I Don't Understand 