Saturday, April 18, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Pluggers: To a plugger, tennis shoes never were 'tennis' shoes.
Family Circus: I hope I'm as pretty as you when I'm realy old like you, Mommy.
Mark Trail: Guns...that's not good...we'd better get out of here!
Who is Rusty talking to? The dog? Given the humorous expression of surprise on her face in the last panel, the dog can apparently recognize what guns are, so maybe she can understand vast quantities of human language, too. In which case, Rusty really ought to think about entering her in some sort of talent contest.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Ziggy: *See next year's diary!
I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out any way in which this cartoon could possibly be construed as hilarious. But I give up.
There is literally nothing hilarious about this cartoon.
Except maybe the amount of effort that must have gone into coloring it. Which, for the record, is exactly as much effort as the cartoon deserved. Possibly a little more, even.
There is literally nothing hilarious about this cartoon.
Except maybe the amount of effort that must have gone into coloring it. Which, for the record, is exactly as much effort as the cartoon deserved. Possibly a little more, even.
Shoe: You mean you're making profits again.
Nobody talks like this.
Now, I don't expect a great deal of naturalism in the comics section. There is something of a conceit embedded within the whole construction of the set-up and punchline joke. But I do think that the dialogue should make a little bit of sense. And it really doesn't here.
If someone were tell you that their business was back in the black, you would not reply with a flatly declarative statement of definition. A normal human being would probably congratulate them. But for the sake of this joke, Cosmo could have said something like, "So you're making money again, huh?" Or, even better, he shouldn't have to said anything. But instead we get the dictionary definition, as though the cartoonist just couldn't trust his audience to understand what "back in the black" usually means without him explaining it for us very clearly.
The difference between "So you're making money now, huh?" and "You mean you're making profits again" might seem small. But it's not, really, and it mostly has to do with the question mark, which softens the inflection of the line, but also with the way the construction of the line is turned around and made less formal. It's the difference between a reasonable approximation of naturalism and a line pulled straight from a dictionary.
Now, I don't expect a great deal of naturalism in the comics section. There is something of a conceit embedded within the whole construction of the set-up and punchline joke. But I do think that the dialogue should make a little bit of sense. And it really doesn't here.
If someone were tell you that their business was back in the black, you would not reply with a flatly declarative statement of definition. A normal human being would probably congratulate them. But for the sake of this joke, Cosmo could have said something like, "So you're making money again, huh?" Or, even better, he shouldn't have to said anything. But instead we get the dictionary definition, as though the cartoonist just couldn't trust his audience to understand what "back in the black" usually means without him explaining it for us very clearly.
The difference between "So you're making money now, huh?" and "You mean you're making profits again" might seem small. But it's not, really, and it mostly has to do with the question mark, which softens the inflection of the line, but also with the way the construction of the line is turned around and made less formal. It's the difference between a reasonable approximation of naturalism and a line pulled straight from a dictionary.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Garfield: I'm not lazy.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Momma: I'd love a newspaper job!
Hi and Lois: What you need is Tax-Lax.
Mark Trail: That's the man who took my camera!
Has anyone else noticed that Rusty bears a striking resemblance to Gollum? And does anyone else find him terrifying because of this?
Ziggy: Crossing the Street for Dummies
Monday, April 13, 2009
Brewster Rockit: And why don't we just do our laundry by banging it with rocks?
I have to believe that in the future we'll be able to change the channel on our televisions using nothing but the power of our brains. And the little chip we'll all have in our brains.
That said, I quite like Brewster Rockit, especially when it takes all its epic sci-fi trappings and focuses on little slice-of-life banalities. This particular strip just doesn't quite use its setting as imaginatively as it could.
That said, I quite like Brewster Rockit, especially when it takes all its epic sci-fi trappings and focuses on little slice-of-life banalities. This particular strip just doesn't quite use its setting as imaginatively as it could.
Blondie, Cathy and Adam@Home: It was either write this post or work on my taxes.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Get Fuzzy and Doonesbury: Boogie shark.
Most great comic strips are built on great characters. And having great characters lets artists do things they ordinarily couldn't do.
Neither of these strips has a traditional joke. The pun in Get Fuzzy is buried in the middle panels and never explicitly commented on, while the construction of the joke in Doonesbury is so fractured that it doesn't really play as one. Both artists even go so far as to make little meta-jokes about the subtlety of the jokes that would normally be the centerpiece of a comic by having characters not get them.
But both strips are funny anyway, entirely because of the character interaction. Comics with lesser characters can't get away with this particular kind of subversion and still be funny.
Neither of these strips has a traditional joke. The pun in Get Fuzzy is buried in the middle panels and never explicitly commented on, while the construction of the joke in Doonesbury is so fractured that it doesn't really play as one. Both artists even go so far as to make little meta-jokes about the subtlety of the jokes that would normally be the centerpiece of a comic by having characters not get them.
But both strips are funny anyway, entirely because of the character interaction. Comics with lesser characters can't get away with this particular kind of subversion and still be funny.
Labels:
Characterization,
Construction,
Doonesbury,
Get Fuzzy,
Puns,
Subtlety
Foxrot: You look ill...too much candy?
Shoe: Well...these are the funny pages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)