November 13, 2008

An anti-caption apology gift

Since I think I've beaten my record for late posting of the anti-caption contest results — click here, as they say, to see if it was worth the wait — I'll try to make up for it with a super awesome prize for next week's contest (#171): a signed copy of Shut Up, I'm Talking by Gregory Levey.

I read this book over the summer and enjoyed it immensely, certainly far more than anyone ought to enjoy a memoir about the inner-workings of the Israeli diplomatic corps. It's a book that will open your eyes, drop your jaw, and, uh, laugh your mouth. No really, it's ridiculously funny. Well-written too. Order your copy today — just in case I never get around to judging next week's contest.

Posted by Daniel Radosh


Next week's? Dammit, I should never have used up all my best anti-captions on #170!

Tell me about it.

Like alot of people, I think, I came here for the anti-caption contest but stayed for the criticism of mainstream media BS. In one day I read a hundred anti- captions (I especially love #77: Remember Bobby, all women are monsters.)
Two or so years hence, I have all but forgotten about the contest, largely because I suck at it and therefore rarely try, despite one honorable mention (that monkey looked exactly like Gore Vidal), because the cartoons haven't been great lately, but most of all for the reason J.D. points out in his honorable mention in #168, the quality of the captions has suffered because the drive-by commenters miss the point. So Daniel, please explain again why #77 and #162 are the best captions of all time.

Pretty candid for an "Anonymous." [Hi, Dad!]

What drive-by commenters do you mean, other Anonymous? Zounds! ..I have 'N.O' idea who the 'Sam' Hil'L' you could mean .. unless its yet another 'Anon'ymous! ..'Captioners Anonymous' indeed, wouldn't you say! ..?

Here's what I want Daniel to explain: How come the New Yorker caption contest is only up to cartoon #169, but you're up to #170?

@Anonymous: Nobody follows the rules as written because the rules as written cannot be followed; this is also why the rules are not followed in the judging. Not every quality has a superlative. There's no most prime number, and there's no least funny caption. There are only very big prime numbers and very long unfunny captions.

Also, why are prime numbers funnier than composite numbers? There's no such thing as 42-Man Squamish. Discuss.

A few comments: It's not the LEAST funny entry, as there is no least funny entry. It should be funny, else what's the friggin point. Here's the rules as I sees them:
1. Can't be something that could actually be published in the NY Cartoon Contest. There's another forum for that. It's the NY CARTOON CONTEST!
2. Offensive is good- race, sex, religion. But if you're going to be offensive, be sure to bring the funny.
3. If not offensive, then something that relates to some absurd aspect of the cartoon itself. (Well explained in the original rules.)
4. Finally, captions should be limited to the same number of words as the original contest itself. We've proven verbosity isn't funny- let's give brevity a try!

Post a comment

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2