I have seen other prominent comics republished without any disclaimer or notice. "Doonesbury" has done it several times this year.

The actions done by the male figure are too obscure to understand on a first reading.

Is that so? They seemed pretty clear-cut to me.

I agree; other comics are republished. But my point is that they're usually accompanied by a disclaimer. "While on vacation, we're publishing reader' favorites," or something like that. My comment about being lazy isn't directed to Ms. Lay. I'm sure she wasn't trying to get away with something. It's directed to the editors of Salon. And I thought it was funny that someone was stating her style was improving, when in fact it's from two years ago.

Maybe this is no more sinister than taking a week off? This happens all the time in other comics.

It's from 2004. That's kind of odd, especially in light of the above comments. Is it fair for Salon to try to slip this by the readers without noting that it came from the archives? Did it ever run before? There may be a good reason to revisit it, but without a disclaimer or explanation I just feel like someone is being lazy.

The quality of drawing has improved markedly in this latest cartoon.

The actions done by the male figure are too obscure to understand on a first reading.

Otherwise, a good effort.

I had forgotten she did this one a while back. Red flags, one of the classic symbols of "danger ahead", doubling as red poppies -- rememberance for the victims of violence from men. I'm unsure if Carol herself refused to color her hood red intentionally; perhaps she thought Red Riding Hood have been too much of a ham-handed metaphor? Possibly, but I don't think it would be amiss. Once again, Carol Lay proves she's adept at sending chills up our spines.

that was scary! well done. had to read it twice to 'get it' . . .