UPDATED (again): DILBERT - Too Hot for Print?
by Nate Voss, (3 comments)
Compromise. It makes everyone unhappy. The above comic strips, by DILBERT author Scott Adams, appeared today both online (top) and in the Omaha World Herald (bottom). You may note a slight discrepancy in the final artwork for panel three.
Censorship or compromise, only Scott Adams and his editor know for sure. In Gary Larson's book The Prehistory of the Far Side, he offers a few choice examples of where the editors of a newspaper have taken it upon themselves to alter "offensive" artwork—in this case a live porpoise sticking out of a man's anus and the accompanying text.
On the other hand I can see the the internet version being authored as the "uncensored" original, and the creators of the strip sending out a more tasteful version to the papers. The problem with that theory is that the OWH version is blatantly less funny; and if there's one thing Scott Adams doesn't know a lot about, it's "being less funny."
So first question: What did your local newspaper's DILBERT look like? Second question: Censorship, or compromise?
UPDATED 9-07-2005
From Comics.com, online publisher of Dilbert:
"Thank you for your email. It was indeed a compromise wherein we ran the original on the web with the artist's permission, but sent out an alternate to the papers as the original was deemed potentially inappropriate by editorial."
Compromise it is. I still think the original is funnier.
UPDATED 9-08-2005
From Scott Adams, creator of DILBERT, himself:
"Sometimes I create alternate versions of comics that I know are too edgy for every market. The local editors decide which one to run. I have no way of knowing which paper runs which version."
I think that is a good way to ensure that your product, in this case a comic strip, gets out unharmed. Newspapers have been known on occasion to alter the content of strips, and this method of choice gives the creators an amount of control over having that happen to them. Special thanks to Scott Adams and Comics.com for clearing the issue up for us.
Comments (3)
drs18 said:
I think the newspaper version is better. It’s more obvious that the lawyer (shark) was attacked by the porpoise. In the Web version, that looks like a shark sticking out of the lawyer’s butt. Or is that a shark with legs? It can’t be a porpoise, the tail goes the wrong way…
Posted on September 7, 2005
Bill Kerr said:
Well… that IS a porpoise in his ass, after all. lol
Omaha World Herald… what gives???
Posted on September 8, 2005
drs18 said:
This is fascinating to me. Adams is obviously brilliant. As sure as I was that the subtler cartoon was “better” it’s now obvious that I was right: that version is better TO ME. And as sure as Bill Kerr and Nate Voss were that the old “porpoise in the ass gag” was a killer, they were right, too. That version is clearly better TO THEM. For Adams to develop different, equally funny slants to make his strip available for different markets is nothing short of genius.
We all need to know who our audience is to design effective communication. Adams has easily slipped into that advanced domain where different products can be placed virtually in a scene based on local demographics. And with a comic strip. I wonder if there are others? A ‘Nancy’ who’s aunt has men spend the night; a Hi and Lois on the brink of divorce? Or a strip with brand name products? Now that would be a strip in need of censorship…
Posted on September 9, 2005