Cartoon Desk

Killing a Frog
By Robert Mankoff
March 21, 2012

Save

I got an e-mail from the good folks at Vanity Fair saying that they didn’t
“get” a Michael Crawford cartoon that appeared last week in The New Yorker.
Would I be kind enough to explain it?
I have agreed, but with some trepidation, knowing all too well E. B. White’s
admonition that “Humor can be dissected, as a frog can, but the thing dies in
the process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scienti!c
mind.”

I know any explanation of this cartoon will involve the sacri!ce of its humor.
There is also a danger that the analysis will destroy for you not only the
humor in this particular joke, but all humor, in any form that you will
subsequently come across. So bail out now if you want.

Additionally, it goes without saying—although I’m legally liable to say it—

that the analysis may cause dizziness, nausea, incontinence, and irritability—
especially irritability.

Most humor is based on some sort of incongruity, some deviation from the
normal. Just the juxtaposition of the large and the small, in and of itself, will
usually be perceived as somewhat amusing.

But it’s more amusing still if the incongruity involves men and women. And
if it involves that staple of humor that’s been around since humor’s been
around—sex—so much the better.

Here’s an image we used for our caption contest a while back:

Sex was a theme of many of the submitted captions. A typical example:

“I know what you’re wondering. How’s the sex? Well, let me tell you what the
little guy can do…”

Which brings us back to our little guy in the Crawford cartoon. What has he
done? Quite a lot, to satisfy his large bedmate in the face of what might seem
insuperable handicaps. But now he’s all tuckered out, and, to my mind,
proud.

Anyway, that’s my interpretation of the cartoon. I can see how there could be
other interpretations, because there’s something inherently ambiguous about
the situation that Crawford set up. Look, I’m all for being able to “get” most
cartoons right away, but not all of them. Sometimes incongruity, ambiguity,
and a dash of sex are quite enough.
By the way, I asked Michael for his take on the cartoon and he had this to
say: “My ‘take’ is the cartoon stands on its own. I drew it, but I ain’t an
analyst.”

Somewhere, E. B. White is smiling.

Bob Mankoff was the cartoon editor of The New Yorker from 1997 to 2017.

More: Michael Crawford

Daily Humor
The Daily Cartoon, Shouts, and other funny stuff from our Dept. of Hoopla.

E-mail address

E-mail address

Sign up

By signing up, you agree to our User Agreement and Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement. This site
is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Read More

A Reporter at Large

Iphigenia in Forest Hills

Anatomy of a murder trial.
By Janet Malcolm

Annals of History

The Transition
Lyndon Johnson and the events in Dallas.
By Robert A. Caro

Annals of Crime

Blood Ties
Two brilliant college lovers were convicted of a brutal slaying. All these years
later, why has the case become a cause?
By Nathan Heller

Letter from Poland

A Postmodern Murder Mystery

A postmodern murder mystery.
By David Grann

Cookies Settings