On Tuesday, October 10, The Cavalier Daily ran an editorial cartoon entitled "Early Halloween Haunts," depicting a masked gunman robbing two people, and saying "No trick! Give me your treats." The editorial cartoon is, of course, referring to the recent robbery of two students who were walking on Shamrock Road early on Saturday, October 7.
On Thursday, The Cavalier Daily ran a letter to the editor from an alumna criticizing the cartoon as "tasteless and ridiculously offensive." In addition, there was an e-mail sent to the Ombudsman account essentially expressing the view that the cartoon was in poor taste and failed to adequately consider the trauma these two students endured.
Insensitivity to the victims of crimes is a criticism to which I am generally pretty cognizant. As a former Assistant District Attorney for the 15A Prosecutorial District of North Carolina, the frequency with which the criminal justice system treats victims of crimes as if they were pieces of evidence, rather than people, appalls me. In my brief time as a prosecutor, it was clear to me that our office, under the direction of the elected District Attorney, made a serious attempt to be sensitive to the trauma the victims had suffered.
Yet, upon viewing the October 10 cartoon, I felt nothing similar to the opinion expressed in the letter to the editor. I had no sense of the cartoon as "mocking" the fear the two students felt, but instead interpreted the cartoon as a warning to the University community. I read it as a commentary which basically read "although Halloween is approaching, and you're probably thinking mainly about your costume, remember, the world's not all fun and games, it's dangerous, and there is an armed robber on the loose."
Could reasonable minds differ on the cartoon's appropriateness? Of course. Are there multiple possible and plausible interpretations? Again, yes. Part of the ambiguity in meaning is inherent in the form itself. The strong image and relatively minimal text of the editorial cartoon format does not lend itself to nuanced and elaborate discourse, even though the subject matter is almost exclusively some complex social or political issue. Being misunderstood is part of the territory.
It occurs to me that some of the objections in this case may be based in a common misunderstanding or misperception people have regarding editorial cartoons. It is the belief that since the word "cartoon" is used, the artist must be trying to be funny.
It was the use of the word "mock" in the letter to the editor that triggered my thoughts on this matter. No matter how hard I looked, I could not see an element that "mocked" the two victims' fear or the "seriousness of what happened to them." The only way I could arrive at such an interpretation was if I assumed the panel was somehow a gag, a joke "mocking" the entire situation.
This is not an uncommon assumption that people make about editorial cartooning and cartooning in general, yet it is highly inaccurate. Editorial cartoons have long taken on serious subjects, and sought to make somber, not humorous, commentary. Historically, people often expected their editorial cartoons to provide savage, acid takes on important issues.
It seems to me that the idea of "cartooning equals joking" is a more modern concept, undoubtedly in part as a result of the dominance of "comic books" and "comic strips" in the graphic art world since the 1950's. More recently, there seems to be a concerted effort by cartoonists to return to their more serious roots.
A watershed moment for this contemporary refocusing of cartooning as serious commentary had to be Art Spiegelman's publication of "Maus," a cartoon book about his father's concentration camp experiences during the Holocaust. The book received substantial critical and public acclaim, and was highly successful in terms of sales. In addition, "Maus"'s publication seems to have invigorated many cartoonists to take on subjects which before may have been considered "too serious."
In closing, I would just like to note that editorial cartoons in the past few years have addressed the Columbine School shooting, the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, and the Oklahoma City bombing. All three of these events were tragic and highly publicized, and most people seemed to understand that the cartoonists were aiming for serious commentary.
Now some may still say that editorial cartoonists should stick to gags, that their form simply doesn't allow for appropriate and sensitive commentary on serious subjects. Yet, the power of the image to provoke emotion and thought can be as great as any well-crafted prose.
It is a tough task that faces editorial cartoonists, and sometimes they will miss. When an editorial cartoon hits just right, however, it can sear itself into your eye, and into your memory. The Challenger explosion occurred when I was in high school, and it was quite shocking.
In the days that followed, one of the things I still remember was an editorial cartoon with an image of the now-recognizable explosion cloud in a starry sky. A heavenly hand is extended, and seven small space-suited figures are walking up its index finger towards the broad, extended palm. There was no gag, only sorrow, but it was a powerful, perfect comment.
(Brent Garland can be reached at ombud@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 17 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
