Help me find a laugh in this New Yorker cartoon
August 29, 2010 7:49 PM Subscribe
I don't get this New Yorker cartoon!
Normally I relish New Yorker cartoon humor. Hive mind members, explain this one to me! Thanks.
Normally I relish New Yorker cartoon humor. Hive mind members, explain this one to me! Thanks.
Best answer: The only thing I can figure is that when you have an office romance, you start to wear off on each other and everyone figures it out. Which is true. But not at all funny.
I think this is pertinent.
(Unless someone with a mind of steel and a heart of gold comes along and clears it right up.)
posted by nosila at 7:53 PM on August 29, 2010
I think this is pertinent.
(Unless someone with a mind of steel and a heart of gold comes along and clears it right up.)
posted by nosila at 7:53 PM on August 29, 2010
If you still don't get it: the giraffe has the zebra's stripes, and the zebra has the giraffe's spots.
posted by ocherdraco at 7:54 PM on August 29, 2010
posted by ocherdraco at 7:54 PM on August 29, 2010
The animals accidentally traded patterns like illicit lovers accidentally trade clothes.
I think the cliche of illicit lovers accidentally trading clothes must come from whatever kind of movies New Yorker readers watch, because it only shows up in their cartoons.
posted by miyabo at 7:59 PM on August 29, 2010 [11 favorites]
I think the cliche of illicit lovers accidentally trading clothes must come from whatever kind of movies New Yorker readers watch, because it only shows up in their cartoons.
posted by miyabo at 7:59 PM on August 29, 2010 [11 favorites]
Yes, they've rubbed off on each other, like people who spend too much time together adopt mannerisms and stuff.
Oh, and fuck all the anti-NY-cartoon assholes and their tedious formulaic hatin'.
posted by fleacircus at 8:30 PM on August 29, 2010 [12 favorites]
Oh, and fuck all the anti-NY-cartoon assholes and their tedious formulaic hatin'.
posted by fleacircus at 8:30 PM on August 29, 2010 [12 favorites]
Response by poster: Thanks, everyone. I guess I was being too literal---I saw the zebra as a kind of merry-go-round spotted pony with a braided mane. I'm a kinesthetic perceiver/learner, not a visual one, it seems.
Beg to differ with you, phunniemee, I have encountered very few NY cartoons that do not make sense and are not funny. Most of them leave me weak from laughing. My husband, however, is on your side.
posted by ragtimepiano at 8:32 PM on August 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Beg to differ with you, phunniemee, I have encountered very few NY cartoons that do not make sense and are not funny. Most of them leave me weak from laughing. My husband, however, is on your side.
posted by ragtimepiano at 8:32 PM on August 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
I saw it as the politicians that identify themselves with a certain party, but act and vote as the other.
posted by JujuB at 8:42 PM on August 29, 2010
posted by JujuB at 8:42 PM on August 29, 2010
Response by poster: Oh, very subtle take, JujuB, with perhaps some implications from recent national news stories...
posted by ragtimepiano at 8:46 PM on August 29, 2010
posted by ragtimepiano at 8:46 PM on August 29, 2010
When you cheat you get caught because you get lipstick on your collar or a strange perfume on your clothes. I think that's all.
posted by MasonDixon at 8:58 PM on August 29, 2010
posted by MasonDixon at 8:58 PM on August 29, 2010
This joke might actually work if there was a baby giraffe with stripes in the frame instead.
posted by Menthol at 9:55 PM on August 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by Menthol at 9:55 PM on August 29, 2010 [3 favorites]
It's a complex pun centered around signified/signifiers. We associate things that are blindingly obvious with patterns or marks that are definitive of the things they mark, i.e. stripes on a zebra, spots on a giraffe/cat/dalmation, etc. This is done as a secondary point to support some main idea (the thing that is blindingly obvious). For example, "Betsy and Joe having an affair is as plain as stripes on a zebra."
This works for us, the human who has associated 'blindingly obvious' with 'this pattern' = 'that animal'. But for these two characters in the comic strip, the idea of 'blindingly obvious' has to be remapped onto something that makes sense for the giraffe and zebra, from their perspective (but at the same time having to make sense to us). What has to happen is that both narrative viewpoints need to be held up at the same time...it's confusing to convey that, and it clearly fails to deliver.
Put another way: You've got two narrative viewpoints going on, ours and zebra/giraffe world. Within each of these you have the following propositions: An affair, A metonymy whereby a pattern marks a thing and creates a metaphor of 'OBVIOUSNESS IS A MARKED THING', and an Observer (the people at the office or us, depending on which narrative viewpoint or 'frame' you're currently in) to see the obviousness. Where the humor contrast lies is in the idea of all of these propositions holding no matter which viewpoint you're in, but the mappings (or markings) having to be necessarily swapped so that obviousness can still hold...Nothing would be obvious to the Observer in the zebra/giraffe world viewpoint if the zebra kept its stripes and the giraffe kept its spots. What's funny is that the very thing that marks obviousness is also the very thing that marks the affair. So you have a signifier (stripes) that signifies itself (stripedness = obviousness) and is also the signifier for the thing that the whole, broader proposition is supposed to be stating (that the affair is obvious to everyone).
Rephrased another way, basically, from the zebra and giraffe's viewpoint, something that would be labeled as 'blindingly obvious' would be the opposite of the human viewpoint of the same thing. That is to say, the markings are the same, but the mappings are swapped. For a giraffe (or zebra), in their world, to have something be obvious, they wouldn't use the metaphor/metonymy of 'plain as stripes on a zebra' because that's not very remarkable (sorry, puns everywhere). That'd be like us saying "it's as obvious as skin on a human." Also, we wouldn't get the joke if the caption was the same and the zebra had stripes and the giraffe had spots...nothing would be obviously amiss. There would be no contrast. So the markings must mark things that are markedly (noticeably) inappropriate for them to mark. Which also tips us off (and the zebra and giraffe) to the inappropriateness of their indiscretions.
I think somebody went to go see Inception instead of working on their comic.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:02 PM on August 29, 2010 [6 favorites]
This works for us, the human who has associated 'blindingly obvious' with 'this pattern' = 'that animal'. But for these two characters in the comic strip, the idea of 'blindingly obvious' has to be remapped onto something that makes sense for the giraffe and zebra, from their perspective (but at the same time having to make sense to us). What has to happen is that both narrative viewpoints need to be held up at the same time...it's confusing to convey that, and it clearly fails to deliver.
Put another way: You've got two narrative viewpoints going on, ours and zebra/giraffe world. Within each of these you have the following propositions: An affair, A metonymy whereby a pattern marks a thing and creates a metaphor of 'OBVIOUSNESS IS A MARKED THING', and an Observer (the people at the office or us, depending on which narrative viewpoint or 'frame' you're currently in) to see the obviousness. Where the humor contrast lies is in the idea of all of these propositions holding no matter which viewpoint you're in, but the mappings (or markings) having to be necessarily swapped so that obviousness can still hold...Nothing would be obvious to the Observer in the zebra/giraffe world viewpoint if the zebra kept its stripes and the giraffe kept its spots. What's funny is that the very thing that marks obviousness is also the very thing that marks the affair. So you have a signifier (stripes) that signifies itself (stripedness = obviousness) and is also the signifier for the thing that the whole, broader proposition is supposed to be stating (that the affair is obvious to everyone).
Rephrased another way, basically, from the zebra and giraffe's viewpoint, something that would be labeled as 'blindingly obvious' would be the opposite of the human viewpoint of the same thing. That is to say, the markings are the same, but the mappings are swapped. For a giraffe (or zebra), in their world, to have something be obvious, they wouldn't use the metaphor/metonymy of 'plain as stripes on a zebra' because that's not very remarkable (sorry, puns everywhere). That'd be like us saying "it's as obvious as skin on a human." Also, we wouldn't get the joke if the caption was the same and the zebra had stripes and the giraffe had spots...nothing would be obviously amiss. There would be no contrast. So the markings must mark things that are markedly (noticeably) inappropriate for them to mark. Which also tips us off (and the zebra and giraffe) to the inappropriateness of their indiscretions.
I think somebody went to go see Inception instead of working on their comic.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:02 PM on August 29, 2010 [6 favorites]
Um, I assumed that the patterns on both animals spread to the other because they turn out to be signs of a sexually transmitted disease. Made me laugh, too.
posted by davejay at 10:40 PM on August 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by davejay at 10:40 PM on August 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that was an odd one. I got the same thing from it as most people here, but I felt it was a bit flat (and normally I love the cartoons too.)
To piggyback: I have absolutly no idea what they're going for in this one other than some sort of easy "California is great, NJ sucks" thing, which seems like a lazy joke lazily executed.
posted by paisley henosis at 11:35 PM on August 29, 2010
To piggyback: I have absolutly no idea what they're going for in this one other than some sort of easy "California is great, NJ sucks" thing, which seems like a lazy joke lazily executed.
posted by paisley henosis at 11:35 PM on August 29, 2010
Response by poster: Paisley, I think you're right---it's a lazy visual joke, contrasting the upbeat expression of the California guy with the hangdog expression of the Jersey one. It probably has something to do with the way some New Yorkers view New Jersey, like all the lame jokes on SNL with NY governor Patterson. It IS lazily executed, as you commented, and may intend to make fun both of the blandly happy Californian (Ronald Reagan type) and the cynical, complaining Jersey guy.
posted by ragtimepiano at 12:01 AM on August 30, 2010
posted by ragtimepiano at 12:01 AM on August 30, 2010
I'm going with the "accidentally put on each others' clothes" explanation. Which is lousy - how stretchy are these skins? What do skinless animals having sex look like? God, the fridge logic here is even more horrifying than the end of Death Becomes Her! - but I think slightly less lousy than the alternatives.
I take this as more evidence, if any were needed, in support of Tim Kreider's repeated observation that all New Yorker cartoons can be improved - not necessarily made GOOD, but at least improved - by replacing the caption with "Fuck you."
posted by dansdata at 12:03 AM on August 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
I take this as more evidence, if any were needed, in support of Tim Kreider's repeated observation that all New Yorker cartoons can be improved - not necessarily made GOOD, but at least improved - by replacing the caption with "Fuck you."
posted by dansdata at 12:03 AM on August 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Is it really a trope that lovers accidentally trade clothes?
I'm familiar with the girl-wearing-her-guy's t-shirt the next morning trope. And I will often wear my boyfriend's clothes (cos we are both guys and the same size) when I don't have any at his place.
But how is it a cliche for lovers to swap their shag's clothes by accident? It's not something that easily slips your mind, is it - especially mixed gender pairs - wouldn't the guy notice he's wearing a pantsuit and kitten heels?
posted by dontjumplarry at 6:54 AM on August 30, 2010
I'm familiar with the girl-wearing-her-guy's t-shirt the next morning trope. And I will often wear my boyfriend's clothes (cos we are both guys and the same size) when I don't have any at his place.
But how is it a cliche for lovers to swap their shag's clothes by accident? It's not something that easily slips your mind, is it - especially mixed gender pairs - wouldn't the guy notice he's wearing a pantsuit and kitten heels?
posted by dontjumplarry at 6:54 AM on August 30, 2010
... For which reason I figured davejay's STD explanation was a better fit. Sort of. It's painfully bad either way.
posted by dontjumplarry at 6:59 AM on August 30, 2010
posted by dontjumplarry at 6:59 AM on August 30, 2010
Same as dontjumplarry- if you have a partner with the same size, gender and general taste it can happen remarkably often. Not much of a joke though- polite /golfclap for the New Yorker.
posted by malusmoriendumest at 7:32 AM on August 30, 2010
posted by malusmoriendumest at 7:32 AM on August 30, 2010
The original caption is clearly stupid, and an alternative can be found here that should improve the cartoon considerably.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:02 PM on August 30, 2010
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:02 PM on August 30, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
It neither makes sense nor is funny. Welcome to the New Yorker.
posted by phunniemee at 7:53 PM on August 29, 2010 [19 favorites]