Text Version

 

Why are there two versions of the same cartoon here, Theo in street clothes in one and a robe in the other? When I set out to draw the Theophyle cartoons, I put him in a robe simply because, to my thoroughly amateur drawing hand, the robe was easier than street clothes to draw. That said, I really like the message of this cartoon, so when I decided to try drawing regular clothing, I chose to do it here. Why have I not done more of the Theo cartoons in street clothing? I have become an old man.
     Some while ago, a TZF visitor, commenting on Theo’s robe and the fact Nancy and I consider ourselves to be monks, asked if Nancy and I dress in a monk’s robe. Fair question to which the answer is, no. Why? I suppose because we perceive our sense of ourselves as relevant only to ourselves (and, yes, of course, God), and not needing a visible announcement. FYI A monk's robe is more properly referred to as a habit or, when it includes a hood, a cowl. Aslo, for the record, it is my understanding that the label monk, while it has evolved to be male-related — nun being the female equivalent — originally was not about gender. And speaking for myself, as I perceive it and live it, rightly so: being a monk has nothing, not a thing, to do with being male or female. Monk transcends labels.

For copyright information,
please click here