Saturday Morning Oys – November 14th, 2020

A Tomversation sent in by RobS:

This Strange Brew sent in by several contributors–RobS, Andréa, kedamono –in different categories, but we’re going with Oy:

Again RobS and Andréa spotted the same panel comic. Has “crisis actor” become a normalized term in contemporary discourse?

Yay! For once Teresa gives us a funny straightforward pun , without a totally mysterious drawing or collage:

(Wait, was that a touch of Ewww?)

Contributed by Andréa:

A That-is-Priceless double-take pun from Anon:

64 Comments

  1. Mark M, I hope you don’t mean the Blazek — that is just an extra, as a toss-in.

    For the Frog Applause I should note (1) I am not only in the group that thinks of “long john” as applying to the donut variant, I am among those for whom that is a first reading. I grew up in Miami, and did not encounter long underwear as a fact of normal life until much later, and probably learned the term “union suit” for that before “long johns”. In fact, probably from animated cartoons, where there were dumb jokes about haste to deal with button rear flaps. So when I saw the caption about “long johns” that was my first thought, not a recherche second one.
    (2) I am a big fan of the Frog Applause comic, and was much relieved along with the rest of the admiring crowd when the GoComics cancellation was itself cancelled recently. But I think of the artist as a pretty great collagist (whose strength is not in her draftsmanship), and something of a surrealist or latter-day Dada, whose thought is often hidden. So I saw this one and when I thought it was playing on the multi senses of “long john” I didn’t for a minute doubt that on the basis of not seeing it in the drawing. I saw the guy at the counter of a donut shop! And that was enough!
    (3) As an aside, I am not a fan of the FA fandom very much. On the recently revived Froglandia blog, and in GoComics comments, it feels a bit excluding. But that mustn’t be held against the product. (3a) The artist is an activist on Twitter for an entirely different concern, and while that shouldn’t matter, it does sometimes complicate how one reacts to the comic.

  2. If that were indeed the meaning, it would be a pun (although the guy with donuts under his skin isn’t) but I balk at “straightforward”. There’s nothing in the caption, drawing, execution, or concept that would make us think there is any connection to point us in the direction that that is what is going on.

    In fact I’m inclined to think if anything it’s just a guy sitting at a table and contemplating that he was out of underwear so he used his thermal underclothes. (Which to me isn’t funny. Wouldn’t and haven’t we all done that at some time. I know I have.) [Unless the table is actually his pants…. Which if that was the intent the execution wasn’t clear.]

    You say “without a totally mysterious drawing or collage” which implies this cartoonist (whom I’m not familiar with) frequently had mysterious drawings to odd unclear comments. It seems like this is just another of the same.

    ….. google Frog Applause on Go Comics….

    …. Oh…..

    ……It’s one of those…..

    Yeah, I think you were so desperate for a straightforward joke (which is NEVER the case with Frog Applause) that you completely imagined the donut meaning. I think we just have to go with, like Bow Blouses one, it’s just a guy contemplating that he’s wearing thermal underclothes, which for Frog Applause is as straightforward a joke as it ever gets.

  3. But isn’t it wonderful to come across something like this in the comics pages, whether or not the content turns into a good semblance of a joke?

  4. Yes, it’s lovely.

    Lovely enough that it doesn’t need to make jokes about shoving donuts down one’s pants.

  5. mitch4: “Say what you will about it not being a good joke, I think it’s undeniable that it is clearly a pun.”

    Well, it’s definitely possible to deny that “it is clearly a pun,” since many people (myself included) are doing so. Whether we’re reasonable in denying that is another question. . .

    Like others, it’s not that I think it’s a joke about doughnuts that doesn’t work. It’s that I don’t see that it’s a joke about doughnuts.

    Then again, maybe it is, since I have no alternative explanation of the comic.

  6. Geeze, I’m beginning to understand that expression “You’re asking me to dent my experience”.

    I’m not saying anybody is obliged to agree with me. You don’t see a pun, fine. You do, but wouldn’t call it “straightforward” — fine.

    But why won’t you accept my account?, of coming across this at GoComics, and immediately, spontaneously, sincerely exclaiming (you can ask my cat) “Wow, he doesn’t have underwear, no wonder he looks downcast. Amazing, Teresa usually doesn’t draw that well. Oh wait, what’s this about long johns? If he doesn’t have underwear, what’s that about? Oh, the doughnut long johns! Wow, that’s funny! And so direct and non-surreal!”

    And that’s why I called it a funny straightforward pun. Because that’s how I immediately straightforwardly spontaneously saw it. (And also that the drawing was not mysterious — though obviously not trying to show the doughnuts stuffed in his clothes, just his demeanor.)

    So I see from this discussion others don’t see it that way. Fine, nothing obliges you to agree with me. But don’t try to tell me I couldn’t possibly mean it, that I have seen it as a funny and straightforward pun. Because I simply did. Eh?

  7. Well….. okay, sure, but occasionally I see something that makes sense to me one way but the more I study and think about it I realize I went off in a weird tangent that was purely coincidental. I really think we have to conclude interpreting this as a guy shoving donuts down his pants is an unintentional and accidental albeit funny interpretation.

    Similarly, seeing the witches cauldron as being very small improves the joke of the microbrew, it is certainly an accidental interpretation (it’s not actually that small and if that were the joke the cauldron could have been drawn much smaller.)

  8. Mitch4: Perhaps there’s some miscommunication here. I don’t dispute that you saw it as a comic about doughnuts, that you saw a pun, and that you enjoyed it – I don’t want to “dent” anything! But words like “straightforward,” “undeniable,” and “clearly” to me indicated statements about objective interpretation, rather than subjective experience. I understood those words to indicate certainty that the cartoonist intended the panel to communicate “doughnuts,” and that we should all objectively be able to arrive that that interpretation by looking at the panel.

  9. Know both meanings of long johns – I think the long doughnuts are called Long Johns in the Lancaster, PA area. While shaped like eclairs- they are nothing like them.

    I was surprised to hear that Hershey’s chocolate is now kosher. When we would go to my uncle (and aunt)’s house there was only Nestle’s chocolate as it was kosher and Hershey was not (and no Oreos, only Sunshine Hydrox for the same reason).

  10. I recently heard a radio / podcast piece about Hydrox cookies and how they were long eclipsed by Oreo even though many people considered Hydrox better tasting. (And they could be kosher even while Oreo were not.).

    Maybe Short Wave or Science Diction?

  11. Just recently I discovered that my mom (still) likes Oreos, and it was for that reason that we had them in the house so often when I was a kid. I did not like them then, and I still don’t like them now: I only ate them when there wasn’t a more palatable cookie in stock. I particularly disliked the ads that showed kids “saving the chocolate wafer for last“. Rubbish. The filling was OK, but the wafers were something to endure, not enjoy. Long before they were manufactured that way, I had mastered the trick of “unscrewing” two Oreos and reassembling the “filled” sides to form what was later entitled a “Doublestuff” cookie. That left me with two unadorned wafers to get rid of, but it was worth it to have one cookie that was almost reasonable.

Add a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.