Behind the Scenes: At the Anti-Caption Contest
Last week there was a fair amount of discussion about how the finalists in the anti-caption contest are chosen. Some people even suggested that the judges might not always pick the best worst most worthy entries.
Strangely, no one was able to name a specific instance in which a worthy anti-caption was passed over for a less worthy one. But I suspect many of the people who leveled these charges were closely watching that week's contest (couple imprisoned in terrible drawing) so that if such a snub happened again, they'd be able to call me on it.
In anticipation of this, allow me to desmystify the selection process by walking you through how I chose last week's finalists. If you still have complaints after that (and I just know you will) I'm all ears. Honestly, this is so important to me.
First off, here's what I liked about the entries I chose as finalists.
"Look at him staring at us through the bars of his crib. I wonder what he's thinking?"
Completely misinterprets the picture, in an almost entirely plausible way (if you overlook the bars on the door in the background) that eliminates any possibility of attaching a joke to it.
"Marriage is like prison."
This caption does the exact opposite, to equally anti-comic effect. It takes what is very likely the subtext of the cartoonist's hacky intended joke and states it flatly, thereby rendering it dramatically unfunny. Also: It's true!
"If I were a contestant on Deal or No Deal, I'd tell Howie that I was going to select the models in order from the skinniest to the fattest. Then I'd watch all the pretty girls cry."
This is a very unusual finalist. Normally I don't even consider anti-captions that make little or no reference to the cartoon. I made an exception because 1) I thought this was a really fucking funny idea and 2) I read the lack of reference to the picture as an implicit protest of the poor quality of the picture. The subtext of this anti-caption seems to be, "this drawing is so godawful that I can't even be bothered to figure out what's going on in it."
OK, now the the anti-captions that made my first cut and why I eventually eliminated them. To begin with, I'd like to mention three that only narrowly missed being chosen. Any of these could easily have been finalists:
"You know my hockey coach used to say I couldn't score in a women's prison...boy was he wrong."
"I can't watch the movie with you tomorrow in the rec room. They're transferring me to the AIDS ward first thing in the morning. Also, this might be a good time to mention, I have AIDS."
"Omigod, Frank, I think I figured out the visual conundrum we're imprisoned in! I leaned over and looked through those bars on the door, and you know what I saw in there? A tiny couple with a post-coital cigarette in a tilted-up bed!"
That last one was my favorite one of several on a common theme. Here are the others on that theme that I seriously considered, all of which were rejected simply because I only wanted one of this type:
"So, I know this is lame pillow talk, especially considering we're incarcerated, but have you noticed how the artists for the New Yorker caption contest aren't even trying anymore?"
"We're in prison for breaking the laws of physics and gravity. And smoking indoors."
"This is the worst relationship/prison/drawing/physical condition I've ever been in."
"I never thought I'd say this, but... being locked up here gives me new respect for P.C. Vey's mastery of perspective."
"When the Red Cross gets here, I'm going to complain that this woman lying in my bed smoking offends my strict Muslim beliefs, and that my cell is totally out of perspective."
"Please tell our idiot partners they need to be face DOWN in our crotches to be effective."
Here are the rest of the semi-finalists and why they didn't quite make the cut, even though they're all quite funny.
"I think we should start anal-raping other people." Too good. Well constructed, classic joke format. The vulgarity makes it a nice parody of a real New Yorker cartoon, but not a great anti-caption.
"Somewhere there are smug sophisticates laughing at our predicament." Too meta. Could be used for virtually any New Yorker cartoon. Also, the same person also submitted the following caption, which I liked better (and I have a one finalist per person rule).
"Years from now, when you talk about this, and you will, don't lisp." Funny reference, but not terribly germane to the cartoon.
"I just realized, this is the first year we won't be there to see our kids open up their presents Christmas morning." Great entry, but not quite as good as the AIDS anti-joke, above, from the same person.
"So, in retrospect, this role-playing wasn't that sexy. Sorry for making you spend so much money renovating the apartment." Same type of joke as the crib fiinalist, and I try to choose only one of each genre.
The remainder had no particular faults, they simply weren't as funny to me as the ones I eventually chose.
"You call THAT a Lethal Injection?"
"Next time I sign up for one of these grad school psych experiments, I think I'd rather be one of the guards who gets to slowly disintegrate into fascist dementia and sadism. How about you?"
"I'm feeling rather presidential today -- getting screwed with no exit strategy."
Comments
And I voted for "Then I'd watch all the pretty girls cry." because it is simply a hilariously cruel concept.
Love this contest. Most of the entries are worth reading. When a certain caption pops and truly makes me LOL, it is a bonus. And there is a minimum of one every week that fits that criteria.
Anyone willing to run it gets my vote. If it went away there would be a void in my lack-luster life of quiet desperation.
Posted by: Amy | December 10, 2006 6:32 PM
The PC Vey joke was my favorite. Not likely to win in a 3-way bet though.
Posted by: mypalmike | December 10, 2006 11:35 PM
The more people start caring about who "wins" the more boring the anti-caption contest gets. The beauty of this contest is that we can all read everyone's twisted, sick takes on the (often) incredibly lame drawings. You're a victim of your own success, Radosh. The more seriously you, and everyone else, takes this little exercise, the more boring and conventional the entries.
Posted by: anonymous | December 11, 2006 10:29 AM
Jeez, now I feel bad about leaving that one offhand comment.
But now that I have to defend it as a policy position, I'll note that the "anal-raping other people" one was, in fact, easily one of the three best: It mocked the relationship/prison "gag" at the same time as it did the New Yorker caption format, embracing the hackneyed mainstream while thoroughly disqualifying itself from it - all in less than ten words.
That it was not chosen as one we could vote on illustrates everything that's wrong wrong wrong about the Anti-Caption contest.
That said, this contest's "wrongs" are still preferable to most people's, um, "rights." So rock on, and don't take it too seriously - at least until the inevitable book deal is signed.
Posted by: Vance | December 11, 2006 11:03 AM
So a related question. Should I drop the voting aspect and go back to the original format? It's easier for me.
Posted by: radosh | December 11, 2006 11:19 AM
Yes, I vote to drop the voting. Drop the winning too - or have winners in categories like "sickest" or most "missed the whole freakin' point". Gosh, I miss the perverted, surreal free-for-all of the early anti- caption days...(same anonymous as above)
Posted by: anonymous | December 11, 2006 11:26 AM
Thank you for allowing the public a glimpse into your intricate caption judging process, Mr. Radosh. While intelligent analysis is fine, in such an enterprise one should never underestimate the value of the imperious wave of the hand (or click of the mouse), whether guided by divine intuition or savage instinct. Comedy beyond the hack level cannot be formulaic and really must defy all rules. (Anyway I once heard an impoverished parapelegic alcoholic say all that and I laughed my arse off which means it must be true). So I says, I says, never change -- fuck'em if they can't take a joke. Oh, and thanks for considering two of my entries this time out. It is an honor just to be nominated, right? No really. Btw, since this is the only place such airy persiflage is remotely on-topic, I will now take the liberty of sharing my favorite cartoon caption of all time: "I am blind and my dog is dead." The caption describes literally what's depicted in the drawing, with the blind man wearing rags and selling pencils from a cup. The caption is painted on a placard hanging around his neck. It's by Sam Gross, C.G. (certified genius), and it appeared in an early issue of National Lampoon where he was cartoon editor for a while. This cartoon is meta-meta in my view, it's certainly anti-, and it's painfully funny -- darkly, Chekovian funny. Sam's numerous New Yorker cartoons in subsequent decades while hilarious have been less edgy, as might be expected.
Posted by: J.D. | December 11, 2006 11:29 AM
The voting on three finalist thing really isn't so interesting, but this summary of your judging process is fascinating. Would you have time to do it every week?
Posted by: J.D. | December 11, 2006 11:51 AM
Now you're just fucking with me, right?
Posted by: radosh | December 11, 2006 11:52 AM
Bitterness defies analysis...that's the whole point of this anti-caption thing. A principle which you have now flouted or forgotten. Were we not bitter when we began entering anti-captions? After entering the regular caption contest, did we not say to ourselves week after week - "why not me?! If these are the winning entries, hideous as they are, then what were the rejects??" This twisted, almost pathological bitterness led to the nastiest, most twisted, most vacuously empty of meaning anti-caption entries that anyone could imagine. Why attempt an analysis of this? Radosh, have you forgotten? After all is said and done this is the freaking internet!
Posted by: anonymous | December 11, 2006 12:19 PM
Bitterness defies analysis...that's the whole point of this anti-caption thing. A principle which you have now flouted or forgotten. Were we not bitter when we began entering anti-captions? After entering the regular caption contest, did we not say to ourselves week after week - "why not me?! If these are the winning entries, hideous as they are, then what were the rejects??" This twisted, almost pathological bitterness led to the nastiest, most twisted, most vacuously empty of meaning anti-caption entries that anyone could imagine. Why attempt an analysis of this? Radosh, have you forgotten? After all is said and done this is the freaking internet!
Posted by: anonymous | December 11, 2006 12:19 PM
I'm certainly not fucking with you. Jamais! Never more sincere in my life. Of course I live in a very special hall of sarcastic mirrors.
Posted by: J.D. | December 11, 2006 12:31 PM
Oh yeah, anonymous? Well I think this blog was only funny before the anti-caption contest even started, back when it was all about Arnold Schwarzenegger's cock. Frankly, I stopped reading it after it went pop, sometime around the second Huckapoo post.
Posted by: radosh | December 11, 2006 12:36 PM
Yes, please let us go back to talking about Arnold Schwarzenegger's cock.
Posted by: anonymous | December 11, 2006 12:42 PM
I am both impressed and horrified you put so much thought and effort into this, Mr. Radosh. Clearly we have found our man! You may continue to oversee the Anti-Caption Contest... after a small pay-cut has been factored in, of course.
(Arguing over what's-funnier-than-what has brought the end of many a civilization. As anyone who's seen Apocalypto can attest.)
Posted by: J | December 11, 2006 1:18 PM
Richard Brautigan once wrote, "He would sell a rat's asshole to a blind man as a wedding ring." God, I wish I could write like that!
Posted by: David | December 11, 2006 4:42 PM
I enjoyed the analysis, voting is fine but I wouldn't miss is hugely (I do like seeing whether other people agree with me), do please keep picking a winner one way or another (winning is fun!). Categories like "sickest" would be, I think, a terrible idea, but I would like to see regular call-outs to captions that were rejected because they were too funny (such as the aforementioned anal-rape caption).
(BTW, I want to put it on record that Francis' non-winning "Crap, they've got mimes too!" is the funniest entry I've yet read.)
Posted by: Rubrick | December 11, 2006 6:42 PM
One rule The New Yorker has that I think would be appropriate here: 25 WORDS OR LESS!
Posted by: David | December 12, 2006 8:09 AM
25 WORDS OR LESS!
Never.
Posted by: radosh | December 12, 2006 9:12 AM
Obviously, I wouldn't miss the voting much (since there's rarely one I want to vote for), while the Radosh-declared "winner" in whatever form seems like a good, essential component, if only to give everyone something to strive for. FWIW.
Posted by: Vance | December 12, 2006 10:26 AM
Okay, 25 words or less is a bit extreme. How about shorter than War and Peace?
Posted by: David | December 12, 2006 8:50 PM