Hey, gotta cartoon is in today’s WSJ! Enjoy!
(Hat tip to Lynchy McLynch!)
OK, now the flip side. Here’s one that’s an oldie and a baddie:
The gag here is that the men are all outside, and so none of them get the inside joke.
Let’s look at the art:
As is usually the case with a really bad cartoon, I spent a fair amount of time on the art. There was a lot of scenery to do, four characters in different poses and nowhere to hide any bodies, and a decent amount of shading to get the night effect right.
Also, you’ll notice that I used a white airbrush in Photoshop around the border to crop a crappy composition.
Add to it that the guy talking takes a minute to find, and it’s a train wreck from start to finish.
On to the joke:
Actually, I sort of like the gag, but I’m not sure there’s a way to do the art successfully enough to really get it across quickly. And, OK, the joke is weak.
Also, it kinda gets you thinking “is the joke here that there is no joke? Is that the ‘inside joke?'” Which is just a mess.
And the sale:
Nada. Nothing. No one ever bought this, liked it, or understood it. And I really can’t blame them.
So there’s a big fat failure, and not the last. More to come soon…
I’ve been playing with this idea for a new semi-regular feature for a while where I take a cartoon that I’ve done and explain why it works or doesn’t. The problem is I don’t want to come off sounding like “hey, look at me! I’m so cool! I know everything about cartooning! Blah blah blah!”
So, before I start, lemme get this out there â€“ I have no art training whatsoever. I don’t know a thing about color, composition, etc… It’s also been a good while since I read any Gerberg, Richter & Bakker or even any McCloud, and I’m no cartoon historian, so, long paragraph short, this is going to be pretty much my largely uninformed theories and not much more. Enjoy!
Let’s look at this cartoon:
A little background first: this one has sold to Teacher magazine, has been used in a number of presentations/newsletters, and has been saved as a favorite at Andertoons most often. So I think we can agree that it’s probably a pretty good cartoon.
OK, let’s look at the art:
I’ve kept the scene relatively simple, but there’s enough there to get the idea of a schoolroom setting across. The blackboard would probably have been enough, but the alphabet on top felt right.
I used a blackboard instead of a more modern whiteboard for two reasons: 1) It’s nice to have a large dark area to help the “The big dog run.” pop a little, and 2) I think it helps get the classroom idea across more quickly.
The cartoon reads from left to right pretty well I think. First you see the teacher and blackboard, then the “The big dog run.”, then the boy speaking, and then the caption. You fill in the necessary ingredients of the joke in the right order with (I hope) no ambiguity or confusion.
Now the joke:
The cartoons I like most have art and captions that wouldn’t work without the other, and I think this mostly fits in that category.
It’s basically taking two cliche phrases, “agree to disagree” and to a lesser degree “subject/verb agreement”, and mashing them together. Add the kid trying to get away with obviously incorrect grammar, and it works pretty nicely.
As I remember I started with “agree to disagree” and let my mind wander on “agree” for a while.
Honestly, it took me a little bit to get the right wording for the chalkboard sentence, and I ran it past the first-grade-teacher/Mrs. just to be sure.
I knew when I wrote this that it would most likely be a good fit for a women’s magazine, or possibly a more general cartoon market. After those were exhausted I put together a pak of teacher cartoons and sent them to Teacher after my wife noticed they were using cartoons. (BTW, it was fun for my wife to be able to show me off a little in the teacher’s lounge!)