In the Washington Post, Cul de Sac now appears on page C-2 next to Doonesbury. This is a-UPDATE- I asked for longer answers mostly because I was of two minds about the move. On the one hand I liked being on the comics page among all the strips I've read for so long. On the other hand, C-2 is a fine place to be, Doonesbury is a good neighbor to have and no strips were dropped from the Post lineup. From what I've heard, there was a good bit of editorial thinking on this by a whole stack of editors at the Post, and that was good to hear. So often editors are, often justly, accused of only looking at the comics out of the corner of their eyes, glancingly, to make sure they're still there and no funny business is going on. In this case decisions were made and for good reasons. So I'm fine with the move and as always it's just nice to see my strip on actual newsprint, every day.
And thanks for all your answers in essay form!
11 comments:
an outrage. It should be on Page 1 above the newspaper logo!
an effort to satisfy two of the paper's most vocal groups of fans: those of Richard Thompson, and those of Gene Weingarten.
Don't know if it's better or worse for your visibility, but I hope it's better for it.
a part of the greater plot to destroy newspaper comics by shrinking them to oblivion and hiding any good ones in obscure places.
and a travesty.
lie. It's really on page D-6 next to "Classic Marmaduke".
I think John Platt is almost correct...I think it should be the logo!
As long as it's anchored, and in a logical position where readers will consistently be looking (ie, NOT in the classified section next to the dress pattern filler), it doesn't have to be on a comics page.
I'm a fan of scattering comics throughout the paper, with, for instance, Tank McNamara in the sports section and Dilbert on the biz page. Next to Doonesbury isn't a bad position, especially in the hometown paper.
Hey, Rich. The link at the bottom of the post by 'renew' is somewhat NSFW...
Fight the move, RT! Not everybody reads every section, nor should they be required to. For instance, I know "Cul de Sac" isn't aimed at children, but certainly there's no reason to consider it inappropriate for kids. When I was a kid I read a lot of comic strips that were over my head, but as I grew into them they were right there on the funny pages where they should be. Anything they might have put in some other section would have remained totally unknown to me for years.
The reasons for putting "Doonesbury" somewhere other than the comics page don't apply to "Cul de Sac". Yours is a good old-fashioned FUNNY strip, and deserves the widest possible exposure.
Frazz is (inappropriately) on the Kids Page, and lost to us two days a week. Doonesbury and Cul de Sac are on the Gossip Page (and why there?) Seems to me that it would make sense to go back to having three pages of legible-size comics and sacrifice the dubious benefits of color for the exiles.
You say the Post can't spare the space? Dump the horoscope, which is an embarrassment anyway. Given the trend on the editorial and op-ed pages, and the canning of most of the business news, there's damn little value in the paper except for the funnies.
I agree w/ Mike (good name too). I was just clipping some Chicago Tribune strips from 1969 to send to MSU's comic collection, and they put strips in all sections of the paper. Lots of them. 3 sports ones on sports pages, 'women's strip' on the women's pages, etc, etc. Recolonize the paper! Out of the ghetto!
I think they ought to gradually move all the comics to the Doonsbury page, until there's nothing left in the actual Comics section but Dennis the Menace and Family Circus.
Post a Comment