In today’s “For Better Or For Worse” as it was run in New York Newsday, April and her aspiring musician friends are practicing in the school band room, only to discover school bully Jeremy seated outside the door. When April invites him in saying, “We need an audience,” Jeremy replies, “What you need is a giant vacuum, loser…” and walks off in the fourth panel announcing, “Your music stinks.”
Not much of a knee slapper? Lynn Johnston have an off day? Well, not really. A closer look at the last word reveals that the letters between “s” and “k” have been erased, and the letters “tin” have been jammed in by a different hand with a darker pen. That’s right: The original punchline was “Your music sucks.” Which itself isn’t the height of hilarity, but at least prompts a smile, makes sense, and sounds like something a kid would say. Instead, thanks to the (and I use the word loosely) edit, Jeremy comes across like “Biff” in “Back to the Future” saying, “Why don’t you make like a tree and get outta here.”
“Zits” ran into all kinds of problems a few months ago when papers got their knickers in a twist over Jeremy exclaiming something sucked. This in turn provoked the Sunday strip wherein “sucks” was used repeatedly in all manner of utterly benign ways until the final panel that had Jeremy’s bellowing “This sucks!” obscured by black tape while his mother tsk-tsks over his language, rightly skewering the idiocy of banning this context from the comics pages. Apparently, though, it’s still a hot button issue. Or at least it’s a hot button issue when someone named “Jeremy” says it since that’s the moniker of both offending characters.
A quick check on line indicates that, indeed, the original punchline was “”Your music sucks.”
I’m not sure at what level this occurred. It’s hard to believe it transpired at syndicate level because, if Johnston had been told to change it, she could have at least rewritten Jeremy’s set-up line as well. “What you need is a giant skunk” or “a rotting body” or “air freshener” or *something* having to do with smell, so two strips could be provided in order to accommodate the faint of heart.
But in New York? We have faint of heart in New York? We’re usually the market that runs the strips everyone else in the country freaks out about. I’m just hoping this didn’t occur at the newspaper level and some schmuck in the Newsday editorial department took it upon himself to change Johnston’s dialogue. Because that would, y’know…suck. And possibly also blow.
Perhaps all the comic strip artists should get together and coordinate it so “that sucks” appears in every single comic strip. April 1, maybe. Or maybe March 15, the Ides of March. Call it “Suckfest 2004.”
PAD
• 
You’re absolutely right.
Check the link below for the original
http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/forbetter/archive/forbetter-20040203.html
It definitely wasn’t at the syndicate level — the Connecticut Post had the correct punchline…
(Hopefully I haven’t just started a litany of “me, too”s from different areas of the country.)
Hiya, PAD.
Y’know, I got sent to the principals office in 6th grade for the slang use of ‘sucks.’ And it was just as stupid then as it is now. With the amount of truly vulger words and phrases available one would think that we would be praised for use of a four-letter-word (ok, five letters. Just go with it.) as inocuous as ‘sucks.’
Sidenote:
I just finnished the latest batch of New Frontier books. It’s obious to me that Janos being a genetic experiment is an obvious commentary on the current state of political… Oh, wait. This isn’t the Shakespear thread!!
In any case I found them to be eminently enjoyable with the recurring ‘laugh out loud’ moments that encourage others to glance my way with furrowed brow.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Salutations,
Mitch
You know, I never got in trouble for saying “sucks”…for me it was always “bites”. Remember little Pete from “Pete and Pete” saying “Rules bite!”? That always got me in trouble.
Cheers!
Pisces
You know, I never got in trouble for saying “sucks”…for me it was always “bites”. Remember little Pete from “Pete and Pete” saying “Rules bite!”? That always got me in trouble.
You got in trouble for saying something “bites?” Well, THAT blows.
PAD
What about telling someone to “Eat it!” I never caught any flak for that one.
Back in the 80s, Berke Breathed, satirizing the scab NFL season, had all of the cast of Bloom County replaced with scab characters. Opus was replaced by a little penguin who would shout “Reagan sucks!” Several papers changed the line “Reagan socks!” which makes even less sense than today’s FBOFW.
This is why I read my comic strips on line these days, where you can see the uncensored version. Of course, now I have to go and check today’s Patriot News to see if Harrisburg is any more sensitive that NYC.
Censorship isn’t nothing new in FBOFW. A few years ago, during Michael’s wedding, his future mother-in-law objected to having his gay friend Mathew as a groomsmen. For those papers that objected to the use of the word “gay,” Lynn Johnson offered up alternative panels in which the mother-in-law complained about the flower arrangement that Mathew (a profession florist) gave as a gift for the wedding.
Bloom County had the same problem way back when. Which, if I remember correctly, lead to a whole series of strips about local papers editing the comic strips.
If an editor doesn’t like, or feels a strip is appropriate, then don’t run the strip that day. Seems pretty simple to me.
Add the Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger to the list of edited versions:
“What you need is an air freshener.” “Your music stinks.”
Sloppily done with white-out, and a courier-print typewriter.
First titties are wrong now saying something sucks is wrong, too? What, exactly, is so bad about saying something sucks? Is it supposed to be some veiled reference to bløw jøbš? Who in the world makes that mental leap *right off the bat*?
I had today’s NY Daily News sitting on the kitchen table when I read this story, so of course I opened it up right away. I’m happy to say it sucks, so to speak. Should be interesting to see what the newspaper tally is as the day goes on.
Blame the morons making an uproar over the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake Superbowl Halftime Show incident.
That stirred up the “Public Decency” šhìŧhëádš…
People use words some people don’t like, but they’re part of everyday life, SO WHAT? Grow up people, the harder you rail against free speech and expression, the more we’re gonna push the envelope and your buttons. YOU WILL NOT WIN censorship-loving a-holes, learn to deal fast…
Most of the time ‘sucks’ is tame to everyone, but every so often I’ll run into a person–always about 40 or older–who seems to remember the slang word did come from reference to bløw jøbš (or at least I think it did. Maybe I should look it up). *Nobody else knows or cares, though.*
And kids have no clue about that possible interpretation until middle school (that eeevvvil age), and not always then.
Must be a bunch of old farts editing the newspapers.
* Or they think their newspapers are only bought by old people, who may object to the word.
To venture afield on “sucks” vs. “stinks”…
Some years back, I attended a performance of the play “Arsenic and Old Lace.” At the end, where Cary Grant’s Mortimer Brewster ran about in the movie yelping “I’m a son of a sea cook!”, the actor instead cried “I’m a bášŧárd!”
Now I realize that the change from “bášŧárd” to “son of a sea cook” was censorship. But “son of a sea cook” is simply _funnier_ and I’d cite that as a case where the cleaner language was better.
Seems from this end — I ain’t no writah — that the pros have to juggle the realism of using the language as real people use it (profanity, cliche and all), and using the language to the best of their ability — which ought to be better than average, given that they’re pro writers.
Getting back to the actual _point_ — Jeremy is using phrases real kids would use. But is there an equally realistic thing he would say that would be ‘clean’?
Heh heh, this reminds me of that scene in Howard Stern’s Private Parts where they do a game show skit to get all the words in that weren’t technically supposed to be said on public radio like “çøçk” for instance.
It also makes me think of Darkwing Duck for some reason… “Suck gas, evil-doers!” Imagine if it was “Stink gas, evil-doers!” Wouldn’t that add an entirely different aromatic element to the show… Although I do realise that using the word “sucks” in this manner has a COMPLETELY different and not-exactly-obscene connotation than the punchline in the comic, but… Perhaps I should just stop trying. Ahem. I wonder if he ever used methane…
Okay, shutting up for real.
What i want to know is what is so bad about the word sucks? All it means is that something is really bad. I don’t get why people are all shocked if you say it. Its not like its swear word. My moms least favorite word is sucks she doesn’t like what it implies which i have no idea whats she talking about.
My paper did indeed carry the orginal punchline and i see nothing wrong with it aside from the fact its not funny.
Welcome to the New Age of Freedom of Speech, where it’s not really free if somebody throws a hissy fit (like the head of the FCC).
Here in “The Democrat and Chronicle” in Rochester, NY “Sucks” remains unchanged.
Which is weird since they’ve been known for not printing a Doonsbury or two.
(The debate on whether or not to run this strip still continues in the Letter to the Editor…)
I can’t help but think of Milhouse’s mom on The Simpsons: “Well, Marge, the other day, Milhouse told me my meatloaf “sucks.” He must have gotten that from your little boy, because they certainly don’t say that on TV.”
I believe people still think the comics pages are only for folks 10 or under, and anything vaguely controversial or adult. Given that many comic strips are written for adults (how many kids understand the deadening corporate world in Dilbert?) and deal with controversy (Doonesbury and For Better or Worse often do), there can be a knee-jerk reaction to clean it up as much as possible. To borrow another Simpsons cry, won’t somebody please think of the children?
Blah. Kids can handle it, it *is* censorship (and it made the whole vacuum lead a no sequitir), and it’s pathetic for a paper to do. I’d advise anyone who thinks this, well, sucks to email Newsday at letters@newsday.com (be sure to include your name, address, and phone # if there’s any chance it’ll be printed) and let them know exactly how you feel.
James:
Editing the strip isn’t censorship. I’ve been edited (and have edited) all the time. Editors make decisions based on what they find offensive or not offensive. It’s part of the job.
The problem with “sucks” is that it technically refers to a sexual act. However, over the years, it’s become about as removed from its origin as “jerk.”
I would have let it pass for that reason. Although, at the Web site where I work, I don’t allow “suck” (I think it’s a lazy, uncreative word and I’m paying them to be creative).
This isn’t censorship. I’m the editor. I set the standards.
Just don’t suck the breast that was shown the other night! You’ll rip your lips open from that big ol’ piercing.
Yes, SER, but the issue here goes beyond that word, because of its role as the punchline to the “vacuum cleaner” setup line. I agree that this isn’t censorship. I insist, however, that it’s sloppy editing, because it damages the narrative. I’ve been a reporter/editor for nearly 20 years, and “do no harm” is the prime directive of any editor. That wasn’t followed here.
SER, it is CENSORSHIP PURE AND SIMPLE!
You “edited” a word “YOU” didn’t like. That is CENSORSHIP, and it’s WRONG and EVIL.
END OF DISCUSSION
Chuck: “What i want to know is what is so bad about the word sucks?”
Me: I’ve always understood it to be shorthand for “sucks [insert slang word for pëņìš].” So it’s technically a vulgarity, for people who care about that sort of thing.
As a kid, I quickly learned to edit my expletives for the benefit of any impressionable adults who might be around. And I *still* got heat for “nuts” and “Shatner.”
Good thing there’s not a “Moby Ðìçk” comic strip (the title alone could be censored). The phrase “thar she blows” certainly wouldn’t make it.
Bladestar,
You don’t know what censorship is, evidently. Papers choosing what and what not to run is not censorship. It’s distretion. Now if the local government had come in and told the paper they had to change it, then it would be censorhip.
Nice for you to have passion, but you are wrong. Papers regularly edit out words they do not wish to run, whether it is in an article, a comic, or a synicated collumn. It’s not evil for them to do so. It may be a mistake, and misguided, but also their rights. We as readers can let them know (although we can’t boycott them, because that’s wrong, correct?).
And just out of curiosity, even if it was censorship, how is it EVIL as you say? Because you disagree with it? Mighty presumptious of you.
Grow up.
If we accept that “sucks” comes from its sexual connotation, then I don’t understand it as a pejorative.
I know that back in my free-wheelin’ single days, if someone told me that a girl “sucked”… well, that would certainly not dissuade me from asking her out!
Eegore: I agree. It was sloppy editing, given that it damaged the narrative (though, I would probably have found it funnier in the “Biff Tannen malapropism” way than the straightforward groaner).
Bladestar: I edit words all the time that I don’t like. That’s my job.
No, it’s EVIL because you aren’t giving the author the respect of running his/her creation as intended and you are taking away the end reader’s RIGHT to see the author’s creation.
Just because the Constitution short sightedly didn’t forsee
You need to grow up, not me, you corporate A-holes coming to power doesn’t mean the founding father intended that the wealthy and powerful be allowed to squelch the free speech of the people.
The Supreme Court f-ed up BIG TIME when it ruled that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to newspapers and/or businesses.
And no JMW, it is EVIL for a newspaper, a so-called “Bastion of Free Speech and the press” to Censor ANYTHING. PERIOD
END OF STORY
still belief the crap your masters spew…
Of course if you look at Newsday.com, they have the original strip from the syndicate linked to their page.
Whatta bunch of maroons…
Bladestar. Decaf. Now.
Sorry, Bladestar — I’ve often agreed with you over on other threads, but not this time.
Censorship is when a government moves to suppress something from being said (or published, or disseminated, etc.) A newspaper editing a strip it finds offensive isn’t blocking the strip from being published elsewhere with equally wide distribution; thus, it’s not censorship.
In this case, it’s an amazingly dumb idea and a bad editing choice — but it’s not censorship, and it’s not “evil”. Misguided and stupid, perhaps. Evil, no.
By your logic, not hiring Editorial Cartoonist X denotes censorship. Sorry, not buying.
TWL
Disagree TWL, not hiring them isn’t censorship, editing the content of a “contracted” (whatever the proper term is in the print industry) after you’ve “hired” them IS.
Don’t need decaf, too dámņ many sheep in this country accepting whatever the government and big business (slowly becoming one in the same) tell them meekly and calmly, like drugged mental paitients…
Bladestar,
I also disagree with you. The editor is hired by the newspaper to determine the content of what is printed in the same newpaper. His changing of the text in that comic strip is no more censorship than when you chose to write “F-ed up” instead explicitly writing out the vulger word that we all know that stands for. You edited the content of your post. The newspaper edits that content of what they publish. The only difference is that the process of going from original draft to final published version goes through several people instead of just one guy.
However, this is simply a case of the newpaper determine for itself what it wishes to publish. That’s editing. It is not censorship which is someone else telling them what they can and can’t publish. If they had made some effort to keep someone else from publishing the strip in its original form, then they would be attempting the censorship of Johnston’s work. They didn’t do that. All other papers are free to publish FBOW as they see fit, and Ms.(?) Johnston could publish it herself if she wished to.
That said, I don’t think the editing was needed. Perhaps this wouldn’t have happenned if the strip was not scheduled to be published two days after the Super-Bowl.
Reading my comment above, I realized that there was another point that I wished to make.
Bladestar, you saying that newspaper must print a certain thing in a certain was closer to censorship than the newpaper determining for itself what is wishes to publish and how. I believe that it’s actually worse, as forcing someone to say (or print) something they don’t wish to is worse than preventing them from saying (or printing) that they do with to. That’s my opinion, in any case.
Just thought I’d weigh in from what is commonly called The Bible Belt. Here in Jacksonville Florida we got Jeremy saying “sucks.”
Times they are a changin’.
So editors should always run their reporters copy “as written”
other wise it’s censorship? Then why do we need “editors”, which the name in itself tells you what they do?
Personally, I think that Pad’s suggestion about having a giant “Suckfest” among comic artist/writers is just the flip side of the Superbowl audience getting miffed at being flashed at halftime.
I don’t have a problem with seeing Janet naked, during the Superbowl or otherwise, but on the otherhand, I don’t think it was the appropriate time and place.
As for the cartoon, I don’t have a problem with editors doing what they consider to be their job, editing.
“Sucks” ran in my paper (the Oregonian out of Portland, Oregon).
I concur both that the editing choices made by the “stinks” papers are questionable at best, and that they’re not “censorship” in the strict sense of the word (as JMW notes above, true censorship must arise from a government source).
That said, I’m mildly astonished that nobody’s yet jumped on the most interesting issue in the whole situation — namely, whether the various individual newspapers who edited the panel had the right to do so under their syndication contracts.
We know from past history that newspapers can and will sometimes decline to run individual strips of a comic that fall afoul of their editorial standards — and obviously, when the creator and syndicate offer alternate versions of a strip, as in the “gay groomsman” case, a paper can cnoose whichever version of the strip it prefers.
But here we have individual papers going in and tinkering with a comic strip — a work submitted in graphic form, not as text. What’s more, they’re doing it badly; as described, readers can easily tell that they’re viewing an altered strip. That’s not just inept, it reflects badly on Lynn Johnston’s artistic skills.
I foresee some interesting discussions between the lawyers for the distribution syndicate and the lawyers of the “stinks” newspapers over the next week or so….
It did occur to me to wonder if the newspapers in question had the legal right to alter the strip under the contact they had with Lynn Johnston or United Media or whoever. Since I don’t know the relevant copyright law and am not privy to the content of the contracts, I reframed from commenting and simply assumed that they either had the right to alter the strip instead of simply not running it…or they’d be in danger of ending up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Time will tell.
Interestingly enough, on the papers website, the line is unchanged…
David Hunt:
The newspaper protects itself with the standard, wishy-washy corporate “The views expressed by the writer are not those of “
EClark:
Editors can still look for typos and grammatical errors, plus look out for libel, but absolutely NO changes should be made without the consent of the writer.
Better fix for all this would be to limit teh FCC to enforcing the old guidelines that should be brought back AND beefed up, namely,:
No Person/Company/Corporate Entity (and or it’s sub-entities) should be permitted to own more than One Newspaper, Television Station, OR (not and) Radio Station in a given market.
That would be a great start. The government (like say, the FCC, an UNELECTED group) should have no say what-so-ever regarding content.
If FOX wants to air “When Consenting Adults do it doggie style!” in Prime Time, more power to ’em.
With REAL competition in place, the marketplace will truly be able to sort out what it finds acceptable and unacceptable.
Where I differ from most of you if if I see/hear something I don’t like/that offends me, I, ME, I get to make the choice of changing the channel or not looking at it, not some bunch of bible-humping dirtbags in Wash DC or some loser editor with his own agenda.
I merely advocate freedom, while you advocate coroprate censorship and controlling what others see/hear.
I’ll take freedom over “benign dictatorship” anyday…
Comments:
a) my local paper carried the “sucks” version.
b) while “sucks” is really quite a tame word these days, certain other words — completely benign in most cases — can really get people’s panties in a bunch. For instance, if you say something “Bucking Flows” people really tend to turn their heads. I wonder if that would get edited?
(They don’t call me “Spooon” for only just becasue I like “The Tick” 🙂 )
c) There is a fine line between editing and censorship. Substance versus content and the like. Editing is tpyically done to improve a piece without altering content or intent. Censorship is a deliberate attempt to castrate or defang something to make it less objectionable or to make some thing fit within someone own personal view of what is acceptable. Changing the word “sucks” to stinks is certainly censorship to a degree. That doesn’t necessarily make it a wrong decision. (or a right one) In some cases apparently, the spirit of teh joke was maintained by altering the preceding line as well. But I tend to agree that no change shoudl have beenmade without the artists consent. By I also agree that the paper has every right to not publish a strip that it feels is not suitable for its audience. The first ammendment only says the *governmetn* can establish no law about free speech. Private groups like the newspaper can make their own “laws” (as it were) as to how they will operate
Jim “Spooon” Henry
Somebody brought it up before, but what do you expect? We live in a country where people are losing their dámņ minds because they saw a nipple. (Bet none of the Canadian papers made that edit…)
So the first thing I would do under the reign of Emperor Bladestar would be to try to run a clandestine radio station AND an underground newspaper…and listen, always listen, for the sound of the steel toed jackboots at the door.
Sounds sort of fun, actually.
There’s a great deal more opportunity to enjoy a wide variety of opinions and views than there was during the good old days of tight FCC control.
I think I’ve got to check in on the censorship side of this one. While I agree that editors have a right, even a responsibility to make certain alterations, when you soften a punch line by changing a word that actually destroys the punch line itself, that’s going a bit too far. I remember writing a movie review some years ago, only to discover to my horror when it saw print that the editor had actually inserted one word which completely changed the entire slant of the review from positive to negative. Was the editor within his right to add that word? Probably. Was it ethical? Probably not. Needless to say, I haven’t written for that magazine again.
Well, it sucks in Chicago.
Um, maybe I should clarify: The Chicago Tribune ran the dialog as written, with the word “sucks” included.
On the other hand, we still haven’t seen the friendly side of freezing in what seems like weeks.
On the gripping hand (sorry, that book sucked too), if “sucked” refers to oral sex… why would it be used to describe a bad thing?
Today’s Houston Chronicle ran the original.
Which is surprising, considering how much in the past they have censored–, I mean edited comic strips to the point that they even ran an article about it back in January when they had to censor–, I mean edit that day’s B.C. by Johnny Hart.
Maybe the syndicates could start providing an alternate strip for the day/week in question like Walt Kelly did with his bunny rabbits during the heyday of Pogo.
And before anybody asks, it got to the point during the height of Kelly’s run on Pogo, that so many people were objecting about things that Kelly started providing his syndicate with alternate weeks worth of strips featuring a group of bunny rabbits just standing around telling jokes.
Remember: “We have met the enemy, and they is us.”
My opinion? When it’s reporting, it’s editing for clarity and truth. When it’s art, it’s censorship to change it without the collusion of the artist – sadly, I can’t find anything on FBOFW.comM to indicate exacly what happened, so I’m reserving judgement on the editors involved.
Joseph