Today's AbqJournal comics page (Thursday, June 26th, 2008) has the oddest editorial comment e-v-e-r. In black border under the comic, 9 Chickweed Lane, it sez: Above comic subbed for content. Strip available at tomorrow.

Wha??? The comics are being expurgated?

Here's the not-fit-for-print comic:

Views: 237

Tags: 9, chickweed, comics, edited, lane

Comment by ze barefoot pirate on June 26, 2008 at 10:48pm
I read it online, and when I saw today's strip, I thought -- whoa! Those artists in NY must be looser and freer, cuz that's some pretty blatant positioning there. (Of course, it helps to know the backstory. )

It begs the question 'what would you do with a woman on your lap with her legs draped over your shoulders?' although I think it was meant to show Janice's enthusiasm for Mark.
Comment by nmmtnmama on June 26, 2008 at 11:49pm
Yes, it does help to know the backstory, but in regards to the positioning I've seen more licentious behavior just by walking past the duck pond on a spring day. Characters in that strip regularly wrap themselves around each other, so why was this panel found to be so objectionable that it wasn't printed? It's not as though they actually aim the comics at kids these days.
Comment by Kelly on June 27, 2008 at 8:35am
Hey! They did it again today (6/27). Read the current (and past) strip here.
Comment by once banned twice shy on June 27, 2008 at 9:20am
I don't think it's the girl kissing the guy--I think it's the fact that Mark is gay. The Journal is obviously hedging its bets against all the fundamentalists who will work up a lather about homosexuals appearing on the comics page. The horror!
Comment by M&M on June 27, 2008 at 10:27am
I was going to blog about this so glad someone beat me to the punch. If this is what the Journal's morals police are going to consider offensive, they must have hired some of the Taliban to edit their comics page. How is this any worse than what appears on TV or movie screens nowadays? I'm not sure I agree that the gay angle is to blame, because it is perfectly obvious from past strips that Marc and Seth are gay, but you'd think the editors would have some familiarity with the strip. The Journal tried to get rid of Chickweed Lane last year, and failed after an outcry, so I think they are building it up for removal again through their silly "Comics Shootout" which recently pitted Get Fuzzy against Hi and Lois.
Comment by nmmtnmama on June 27, 2008 at 10:39am
It's not as though Mark and Seth have been closeted. C'est la vie! What is it about the current storyline that makes the paper more nervous than usual? Or do they want to create controversy and curiosity to drive people to their website? Am I being protected against my will and/or manipulated? Censorship offends me more than anything they could print!
Comment by A Saucy Lass on June 27, 2008 at 11:00am
I wondered the exact same thing myself yesterday when I read the comics and saw that "subbed for content" remark. Of course, I immediately hied myself over to the comic's webpage to see what all the fuss was about. I was so underwhelmed. Today's, too, is really unremarkable. I don't really get what the problem is. Her position on his body? Really? They are obviously dressed, and obviously not engaging in anything sexual other than a kiss, and I seriously doubt the children of the world would be irrevocably scarred by that particular visual. I guess the Journal was trying to protect itself from the outraged cries of "The children! Won't someone think of the children! How dare you expose my child's tender eyes to this filth!".

But then, I'm a kid who grew up reading B. Kliban's books ("Never Eat Anything Bigger Than Your Head", "Whack Your Porcupine"), so... :-)
Comment by once banned twice shy on June 27, 2008 at 11:03am
Hmmm, well, in that case, I don't know. All I can guess is that Mark explicitly states in today's strip that he prefers the boys to the girls and maybe The Journal editors perhaps thought that was too obvious for the fundies. Did Mark and Seth ever kiss or hold hands in previous strips?

The Journal's comics page sucks, however. Talk about bland. They do at least have "Bizarro"--but why do they hide Dilbert and Pearls Before Swine? One more reason to mourn the Tribune's demise.
Comment by mombat on June 27, 2008 at 11:05am
As a parent of 3 kids, I am not at all offended by this comic. I find it funny and I think it deals with the sexuality of the characters in a good way. However, I also grew up with Kliban, Bloom County and the New Yorker.
Comment by Phil_0 on June 27, 2008 at 11:37am
I occasionally read the Journal on the bus, and the gay identities of those two characters are frequently discussed. It's gotta be the legs-over-the-shoulders the Journal objected to. Maybe they figured they'd offend the sizable majority of their readers who can no longer bend that much?


You need to be a member of Duke City Fix to add comments!

Join Duke City Fix

Connect with Us!


Regular Features

• "Sunday Poetry" with The Ditch Rider Johnny_Mango

• Daily Photo by Dee

• "Morning Fix" with Phil_0, SophieAdelitaKitson

© 2014   Created by Duke City Fix.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service