Shit. They're on to us.
Now The New Yorker is running cartoons mocking the anti-caption contest.
Well played, Mr. Mankoff.
Related: The first (and best) finalist of New Yorker contest #96, Tarzan and Jane, bears an intriguing resemblance to the winner of the anti-caption contest from that week.
Ours: "I was thinking today... Let's call it 'Boy' if it's a boy, and drown it if it's a girl."
Theirs: “Fine. If it's a boy, we'll call him Boy. But if it's a girl I want to call her McKenzie.”
I happen to think ours (by Trout Almondine) is funnier, but theirs (by someone named Fairleigh Brooks, who's either got a decent sense of irony or a serious set of blinders) correctly applies the first rule of humor: punchline at the end of the joke. I'd thought before that Trout's caption would have been perfect if only he'd written, "...and if it's a girl, drown it." Unless the less-than-perfect wording was part of the anti-humor. Damn you, anti-caption ambiguous guidelines!
Comments
Pretty lame! There's nothing like the aboriginal.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 6, 2007 11:41 AM
"So you're mocking them for bad captions? Isn't that like the pot calling the kettle a nappy-headed ho (or something)?"
Posted by: Tootie | May 6, 2007 2:53 PM
Tootie - I think you missed the point. This isn't a bad caption. It's an anti-caption. And, I'll even disagree with Anonymous and say it's a pretty good one.
Unless I missed your point and you were addressing The New Yorker editors. Or you were submitting a caption. So confusing.
Posted by: radosh | May 6, 2007 3:01 PM
The vowels here are of steam.
Posted by: J | May 6, 2007 5:07 PM
We have a winner.
Posted by: radosh | May 6, 2007 5:13 PM
Is that supposed to be an odd sort of kitchen range or just a countertop with two gas burner things siting on top of it? Or maybe a dresser in a bedroom? This is so confusing.
I think this cartoon ought never have to passed Quality Assurance.
Posted by: RichM | May 6, 2007 5:34 PM
You forgot to mention that the cap on the kettle is open, so it shouldn't even be whistling.
Or, you know, talking.
Posted by: radosh | May 6, 2007 5:48 PM
I think that in the same way cartoons do not show people's lips actually moving, it is okay that the teapot is depicted with its lid open -- it is merely caught in the midst of speaking and whistling.
Posted by: abe | May 6, 2007 6:27 PM
Whistle while you perk...
Posted by: Amy | May 6, 2007 6:50 PM
Actually, in the original cartoon it wasn't a kettle, it was a newborn baby. Mankoff, in his infinite wisdom, requested a second draft.
Posted by: Zack | May 7, 2007 2:04 AM
Zack:
Holy shit, that was funny. Or maybe the Vicodin...
Posted by: abe | May 7, 2007 3:55 AM
J
"The vowels here are of steam"
awesome reference.
With the "water boiling in my stomach" line, though, you might have gone with
"The bowels here..."
Posted by: JohnnyB | May 7, 2007 7:56 AM
The cartoonist is Zachary Kanin, known for working on the caption contest.
And note that this week's Caption Contest winner is close to last week's Anti-Caption Contest winner.
Posted by: David F | May 7, 2007 10:21 AM
Note that it's already so noted.
I guess Kanin's brain is fried from that task, which is why he was able to write a good anti-caption.
Posted by: radosh | May 7, 2007 11:03 AM
I thought the exact same thing about the "drown it" placement. I think the obvious solution here is to give us all access to edit everybody else's captions at will.
Posted by: Vance | May 7, 2007 11:03 AM
Trout's caption is well written in that the construction is parallel in both clauses ("..do 'X' if 'Y'.." - where the New Yorker winner is also parallel construction but is "If 'Y', then do 'X'"). If Trout's second clause is better as "if it's a girl, drown it." then the first clause must be switched to "If it's a boy, we'll call it 'Boy'". Now see my essay on how to kill a joke.
Posted by: JohnnyB | May 7, 2007 1:38 PM