Radosh.net

In all fairness, I have to admit that when I saw House's caption win, I had a passing thought of, "Huh, that one didn't totally suck."

I guess if I had a question it would be: In what way are captions that simply restate or describe the visual set-up worthwhile, much less "funny"? There have been milder examples, but "I'm haunted by the faces of my victims" is the sine qua non of unmitigated caption suckiness. Why would this be nominated as a finalist, even if we assume the final online vote was rigged? Look at the cartoon with that caption and imagine it appearing in the regular pages of the New Yorker. Wouldn't happen. The caption adds absolutely nothing to the basic visual gag.

(By the way, I'm not the only anti-captioner who seems to have noticed how awful that one was... and I have to say, Galoux was robbed in not getting even an honorable mention for that one.)

Are the hours there obscene?

"Christ, What an Asshole" or "Go Fuck Yourself?"

like, cartoon editor Bob Mankoff, he's a fan of the anti-caption contest

Groovy, man, but I think this would make more sense without the first comma.

In what way are captions that simply restate or describe the visual set-up worthwhile, much less "funny"?

Because the whole point of the contest is a dumping ground for funny drawings that the cartoonist couldn't find a good caption for, and the most obvious line is the one that most validates the cartoonist and/or staff.

Big Big Question:

Do anti-cap entries have any influence on the NYer contest? (i.e. "We can't pick this as a finalist, it was already used in that silly little web site contest. You know the anti-caption thingie run by that guy in Brooklyn, what's-his-name.")

"Because the whole point of the contest is a dumping ground for funny drawings that the cartoonist couldn't find a good caption for"

Actually the caption contest cartoon is just chosen from the cartoons submitted for magazine and then it has its caption stripped.

Actually the caption contest cartoon is just chosen from the cartoons submitted for magazine and then it has its caption stripped.

In the ten thousand monkeys vein, do you know what the cartoonist's caption was and, if so, is it often submitted to the contest? And if it was, would that weigh in its favor or against it in your choice for finalists?

Umm, Im the anon from above, but I dont work for the New Yorker, I just heard about the contest on NPR. From what I heard, the original caption is often submitted in some form and I'd guess Farley does not know the original caption since it is a higher level editor that buys the cartoons. Maybe Radosh can find the radio program im thinking of based on telepathy, it is mostly about a book of cartoons that did not make the mag, including an eager toilet thinking to himself in the morning, "I can feel it, today is going to be different!"

Radosh loves evil captions, and that's the best way to win this one. "The black one," for instance. Is the New Yorker ever tempted to go for something really funny, but, uh, dark?

Man, if the original caption for the fisherman-on-couch one was the same as the one that won, I despair for the future of New Yorker cartoonists. And while I'm at it, bring back John Jonik, who's funnier than 9/10 of the guys that are in there now.

I'll show you the "theory of the mind"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOSKzYfAgE

Q: Farley, what were you doing at a party attended by Radosh? What were you thinking?

Does the New Yorker merely dumb down their cartoons, or are they attempting to educate people on what is really funny? (The latter is the feeling I always get...)

are they attempting to educate people on what is really funny?

Or, if you can reveal it, what is the secret code hidden in the cartoons? What does it have to do with the D-Day invasion?

Hey, when do we get our answers? Or at least the answers to the top two you posted?

I sent off my questions and am waiting for a reply.