Even a group of other cartoonists weren't sure what the joke in the strip was supposed to be, although personally I have to say that I've never found B.C. either (a) particularly funny or (b) particularly clear. The cartoon does seem incomprehensible without this type of interpretation, though: otherwise, there's no point.
That said, I remain troubled by this observation about literary or artistic criticism:
In analyzing this cartoon, semiotician Blonsky cautions against succumbing to the Intentional Fallacy: In criticism, he says, it is a mistake to give much weight at all to the artist's stated intention. For one thing, it discounts the strength and influence of the unconscious mind, he said. All that matters in artistic criticism, he said, is the effect of the art on its viewers: the way people interpret it. In other words, even if Hart intended no offense, the offense is there.
I disagree to an extent. Sure, I think it's fine to utilize literary criticism to find a variety of meanings in something. For example, when I read a guy who contended that Frodo's encounter with Shelob in The Two Towers was somehow a representation of some sort of sexual encounter, that was never an interpretation I'd found in the scene. But if he sees that there, I can understand that. I might find different meanings in the same scene. In school, they'll tell you that a play like Shakespeare's MacBeth can often be utilized to illustrate a whole host of points, some of which may even be contradictory.
But it's a far cry from finding different meanings, or utilizing literature or art to support different interpretations, to ascribing that meaning to the creator. At the moment you say "This is what the creator meant," as opposed to "I find this interpretation in here," I think you've crossed a different line than merely artistic or literary interpretation.
To put it differently than what Blonsky said: Just because the offense is there, it doesn't mean that Hart meant to offend. Without a doubt, the important thing is how art effects its viewers, but I'm not so certain an artist should be held responsible for every interpretation discovered in their work. Back when George Lucas released The Phantom Menace, there was a fair amount of discussion of Jar Jar Binks as a racial stereotype. Lots of folks found that meaning there: it doesn't mean that Lucas put it there, intentionally or otherwise. When I was in high school and we read Edgar Allen Poe's the Masque of the Red Death, the teacher identified several hundred different "meanings" for various images in the story. Did Poe "mean" everything that's been "found" represented in his story? I say no. Okay, that doesn't mean we (as the audience) can't find that meaning there, but then isn't that our meaning, not the artist's? And if that's true, how can we legitimately hold the artist responsible for "our" meaning?
Article comments
1 - Al Barger
BC is defaming Islam? Islam has been doing a fine job of defaming itself. The fruits of Islam have been pretty stinky in modern history, regardless of the intentions behind some silly American cartoon.
2 - Eric Olsen
If Hart really did intend this, he is brilliant. I would never, ever have gathered the anti-Islam meaning if I hadn't been told. I think it's a real stretch, but I have no problem with the message: Islam is in a horrendous state of disrepair, it is rotting from within, corrupted by fascist terrorists and their fellow travelers. It reeks to the highest heavens in there, and will do so until it is cleaned up from within. I had no idea Hart had it in him.
3 - Bill Wallo
I keep going back and forth on it, to be honest. I think: what else COULD it mean? But then again, I'm very leery of super-sensitive overinterpretation, which I hate. Besides which, even if that was his opinion, it's just a cartoon.
So I guess I look at it like this: if that's what he meant, he should say so. If not, then he probably shouldn't be tarred and feathered over it.
4 - Al Barger
GO HERE to see the cartoon that has apparently defamed the poopie religion.
5 - Bill Wallo
Ooh, note the subtle use of the gutter between the first panel and the second to create the "I" for the "SLAM"? Either way, it points out the interesting things you can do with comics. :)
6 - Mac Diva
Bill, I become skeptical when people have to reach that hard to find a meaning in something. Whenever one of those 'Christ's face in a taco,' stories turn up I am annoyed for the same reason.
7 - JR
If Johnny Hart's subconscious is that much cleverer than his conscious, he probably ought to take up drinking or drugs.
8 - Eric Olsen
or drinking drugs
9 - Michael Croft
I think the problem with Hart is that he hasn't been funny in years and hasn't be regularly funny in decades.
While the vast majority of Hart's work is tedious, cliche-ridden crap ("the fat broad is touchy about her weight!"), sometimes it's not even clear what the so-called joke is supposed to be. People expect meaning and often (in a 'Deus ex TacoBell' way) find patterns where none were intended.
While Hart is no stranger to religious controversy (it was about 2.5 years ago that he was accused of being insensitive to Jews for his Easter transformation of a menorah into a cross), I don't think he meant to be offensive.
Given that the two competing explanations are that Hart used his strip to make a cryptic attack on Islam or that Hart published another unfunny, meaningless strip, I find the latter to be much more likely.
What annoys me about Hart is not that he's insulting to any particular religion, but that he's insulting to everyone's intelligence. That the comics pages have been shrinking so that we can keep the crap on them is a shame.
10 - Mark Saleski
no kidding, i'll take Zippy The Pinhead any 'old day.
11 - Hazy Dave
For some reason, their archive doesn't go there anymore. Put this in your browser's URL box to see the strip in question:
http://www.creators.com/1109/bc/bc1110g.
gif
12 - Hazy Dave
Oops, the "gif" needs to be on the same line, of course:
http://www.creators.com/1109/bc/bc1110g.gif
Clicking here might even work...
I'd try the "img src=" thing, but they might remove it or block it if they see direct links from the outside world...
13 - Eric Olsen
it appears to be gone - the evidence has been eaten.
14 - Hazy Dave
Okay, here it is!
15 - Eric Olsen
thanks Dave!
16 - JR
Okay, I gotta go with the cryptic attack on Islam. Good for him.
17 - Douglas Mays
Regarding MC's comment #9 it is a crack up about Hart insulting everyone's intelligence. MC, you are just making a joke of your own intelligence by taking such a 'moron snob' attitude. The joke is on you. Hart is smarter than you think. Ha-Ha...
Moving on to Islamic insults. Talk about out-thinking the question! Sounds like a typical Islam terrorist, looking for any cheap reason to kill.
Yeah, threaten Hart like Salman Rushdie.
peaceloveguidance