In the discussion following my recent post on the Cartoon Wars I mentioned my belief that 90 percent of editorial cartoonists are unforgivable hacks. Rare indeed is the editorial cartoon that makes me laugh, much less Think. Maybe it's the form. Any joke that requires big labels to explain itself is pretty much doomed from the start. It's become de rigeur when either attacking the Danish cartoons or defending them in principle to add that as cartoons they are insipid, unfunny, and thuddingly obvious. Well, what editorial cartoons aren't?
Daryl Cagle has a 20-page collection of editorial cartoonists' response to the cartoon wars. I found two (reprinted here) that I liked. One (from Mexico) is incisive in its simplicity, the other funny for daring, as none of the others do, to actually risk a little blasphemy. Very little, to be sure, but remember, we're living through a moment in which the ombudsman for the Chicago Tribune can defend the paper's decision not to run the Muhammad cartoons by saying that it also wouldn't quote somebody saying Jesus Christ as an interjection. The other hundred or so cartoons tread the familiar A-B emotional and satirical terrain of all editorial cartoons, and only a small handful actually risk a depiction of Muhammad. As with any topic, certain ideas are repeated over and over again. Fucking hacks. (OK, maybe there are more good ones that I missed. I didn't force myself to look at all 20 pages. I'll take some risks for my blogging, but I do have a family to think of).
I don't know how many of these will run in US papers. But if any do, it will be that much harder for the media to use quality as one of its excuses not to reprint the Danish cartoons.
