20 Comments

  1. @Targuman – For whatever reason, my browser presented the two images separate and side-by-side for a minute before resolving into the slider gimmick. While they were separate I couldn’t spot the difference either. It was like those frustrating “spot six differences” kids’ puzzle comics. But when the slider kicked in, it was easy — just keep on flipping and see what seems to move.

  2. Sorry, even with the comparator gizmo, I still cannot find the difference. I would probably have made a lousy astronomer.

  3. @deety I just didn’t know where to look, once you do, the difference is easy to spot. (And for those who do not want to go to the blog, look at the base of the tower relative to the frame.)

  4. Without having looked at Wayno’s blog yet, I can feel the pain he may have felt if he really did make such a huge mistake for what I think is a really good layout of a gag.

  5. “for what I think is” -> “in what I think is” (Will I ever remember to proof read after every edit?)

  6. Weird I couldn’t see any difference even though I consciously did think the image has to be so that the tower is tilting relative to the ground but the picture is tilted so the ground will need to be appear at a slope to us. But even thinking that, and looking straight at the ground, I didn’t see that.

    Only when I read the blog and Wayno said exactly what I thought did I notice the difference.

    Deety: “And the drawing difference deets are not important in the least.”

    Whoa! Of course the are! In one it’s a painting of a perfectly straight tower placed in the frame crooked and the hung crooked to compensate the crooked framing of the painting. The other it is a painting of the leaning tower of Pisa, painted and framed in proper perspective but hung at an angle to correct the tilting of the actual tower. ENTIRELY different!

  7. If I come upon a particularly interesting old building on a hilly street, I will photograph it so the street is level, making the building appear to lean. 🙂

  8. Ed, Wayno is a cartoonist, who has become Dan Piraro’s junior partner in producing Bizarro. Wayno seems now to be the author of most of the Monday to Saturday Bizarros, and did the one in this post. He also issues a weekly blog entry, and that is where he presented the alternate version of this panel and explained it.

    He also commented in this thread! I think that is what Dana is remarking on. I don’t know why they wrote “Thee” but it could be a way of showing an emphatic the as when you ask “Is that the Diana Rigg?”

    And the bit about blue check mark we discussed earlier in the week – I don’t know if Dana is alluding to that Twitter practice of marking verified accounts, or they are referencing it indirectly , via the previous CIDU discussion.

  9. And please, nobody say “I thought we didn’t want cartoonists commenting here”. If you take a glance at the recent revised FAQ write-up, yes, we would discourage seeking “horse’s mouth” type answers to puzzles we are working out together on our own. But it also specifically warns against putting that reluctance in any way that would make someone feel unwelcome.

  10. Mitch, there is a rapper — who apparently also does some music — calling herself “Megan Thee Stallion.” Perhaps “Thee Wayno” was inspired by that?

    And yes, I used to be a huge Bizarro fan, until Dan Piraro semi-retired to live in Mexico and do only Sunday strips. Wayno is occasionally funny, but only that, IMHO. I haven’t read the Wayno blog.

    And somehow, I totally missed Wayno’s post here, and for that I apologize.

Add a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s