Neigh=horse, bray=donkey. I.E., this guy is no horse to “get right back on.”
And/or he’s more of an ass than a horse?
What they said. Also, misdirected talk balloon in panel 1.
I definitely think everyone has the thrust of the comic, but I’m still a little confused by the ‘OK, introduce me’, and ‘Gotcha’. It kind of seems like the woman on the left wanted to introduce this particular man as she’s eyeballing towards him right after saying, ‘You have to get back on the horse’. What was her friend supposed to think?
Or is that look a silent ‘But not that guy!’ that her friend didn’t catch but we as readers should have?
Not a terrible punchline I thought, but a very rough execution.
Stan – I see nothing suggesting she had any intent to introduce the guy to her friend.
She’s not acknowledging him (or more likely not noticing him skulking around) when she’s talking about getting back on the horse. When he is noticed by both of them, she gives him a disapproving look – narrowed eyes, frown. Then looks embarrassed that HE is the first guy to show up after her ‘get back on the horse’ speech after her friend notices him.
Maybe it was intended as somewhat discontinuous dialog? So that we’ve skipped a whole scene, of the actual introduction.
And on that theory, when she said “Janice, this is [I forgot his name], he’s something of an ass..” was that conveyed privately, or more openly, to discomfit him?
Right. She’s giving a grimace to show that she is specifically NOT introducing her to That Guy.
Kamino and ianosmond: Yea, I agree with you. It’s the second point in my original post, and I think it’s at the heart of my problem with this comic.
If it’s so obvious to us all, why didn’t her friend notice the ‘disapproving look – (the) narrowed eyes, frown’ once the man comes into view? This look and body language wasn’t at all obvious to her, even though she’s standing right there. In fact, she even asked to be introduced to that guy.
This eyeballing towards him, or grimace you’re describing must have been interpreted quite differently by the woman on the right…or as an ‘intent to introduce the guy’.
No?
“This eyeballing towards him, or grimace you’re describing must have been interpreted quite differently by the woman on the right…or as an ‘intent to introduce the guy’.”
There are any number of reasons why a person in conversation with another person might miss or misperceive nonverbal cues. Pick one you like, assume it’s true, and there you have it. That was it.
People do NOT always pick up on nonverbal cues. In television and movies, nonverbal cues are usually over-emphasized to make sure you (closeup on eyes narrowing) get it. In real life, though, you’re not going to get that.
There’s an old film. It shows a girl, and then a guy looking horny, then food, and a guy looking hungry, then something else, and then a guy showing interest in that. Except the guy reacting is the same shot all three times, and it’s the “language of cinema” that tells you what he’s thinking, and NOT the nonverbal cues directly.
JP – Again, agreed. She’s missed the non-verbal cue that everyone believes is so obvious for some reason that is anything but clear, and interpreted it as a cue to ask for an introduction instead.
But HOW? From the comic, it seems that the only way WOTR knows that WOTL is familiar with that guy is because she gave him a look, a look clearly defined as “a grimace to show that she is specifically NOT introducing her to That Guy” and “a disapproving look – narrowed eyes, frown”…yet she still asked for an introduction! Of course “There are any number of reasons why a person in conversation with another person might miss or misperceive nonverbal cues”, but none of these are even close to obvious here. As you say, I’d have to ‘Pick one’ after I reached the conclusion that this must have been what happened.
I think there are a lot of assumptions required for this joke to work, and maybe that’s half the reason it ended up here.
“But HOW? […] none of these are even close to obvious here. As you say, I’d have to ‘Pick one’ after I reached the conclusion”
The cartoonist didn’t think the exact mechanism was important to the joke. (An easy way to break a joke is to load it with unneccessary details.) That may have been a mistake (as you say, a reason why it ended up here.)
I just wasted a lot of time looking for a list of characters. The visitor, Janice, is named for our convenience, but the other two are regulars, frequently-shown employees at Pillsbury. They frequently interact with each other, and also separately interact with others there, in particular the boss.
This is a belabored preface to answering Stan’s issue, “it seems that the only way WOTR knows that WOTL is familiar with that guy is because she gave him a look,”. Well also because friend Janice gets often to hear about her pal’s day at the office, including the people she has to deal with all the time.
I think I now understand the strip where I didn’t before; the discussion helped, but it has gotten so tangled that I can’t point out where exactly enlightenment came, so instead, for anyone still confused, I’ll summarize my new understanding of the strip that was informed by the preceding discussion:
Janice (woman on the right) has recently broken up with some one, and regular-character-on-the-left is trying to persuade her that she needs to get right back in the game, get back on the horse. All the while, annoying-regular-character has seen the situation and is sidling in for the opportunity. Janice sees him sidling in, and decides to challenge regular-character’s assertion using this weasel guy — if regular-character-on-the-left really means what she says, then she should be happy to introduce Janice to this weasel guy — he’s a guy, she needs to get back on the horse, right? Regular character on the left knows that her position has been destroyed, and displays appropriate chagrin, and Janice says to herself basically, “yeah, I thought so” or more crudely, “yeah, you are full of it” — more bray — she’s braying like a donkey — than neigh — conviction about her horse metaphor. Yes, this last bit is a bit stretched for wit, but I now at least understand the actions of each character.
(And for the record, I second Mitch4 — there is no good character guide for the actual current characters of this strip; all I’ve been able to find is what seems to be the initial pitch for the strip rehashed…)
I don’t agree with larK. I don’t think it was a challenge or that the woman knew that this was someone the other wouldn’t recommend. I think she saw him coming and decide, “Oh all right, do your thing.”
I like larK’s interpretation. It may not be what the author intended, but it works for me.
The female regular, it turns out, is Ms. Foxx.
And she is the boss / founder’s admin assistant.
Here is the guy from the Bray strip, not using his name but confirming that he is a manager at the firm.
Ha. There is class of games called 4X. In that case, it stands for eXpand, eXplore, eXploit, eXterminate. I wouldn’t be surprised if the cartoonist was familiar with the usage.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Neigh=horse, bray=donkey. I.E., this guy is no horse to “get right back on.”
And/or he’s more of an ass than a horse?
What they said. Also, misdirected talk balloon in panel 1.
I definitely think everyone has the thrust of the comic, but I’m still a little confused by the ‘OK, introduce me’, and ‘Gotcha’. It kind of seems like the woman on the left wanted to introduce this particular man as she’s eyeballing towards him right after saying, ‘You have to get back on the horse’. What was her friend supposed to think?
Or is that look a silent ‘But not that guy!’ that her friend didn’t catch but we as readers should have?
Not a terrible punchline I thought, but a very rough execution.
Stan – I see nothing suggesting she had any intent to introduce the guy to her friend.
She’s not acknowledging him (or more likely not noticing him skulking around) when she’s talking about getting back on the horse. When he is noticed by both of them, she gives him a disapproving look – narrowed eyes, frown. Then looks embarrassed that HE is the first guy to show up after her ‘get back on the horse’ speech after her friend notices him.
Maybe it was intended as somewhat discontinuous dialog? So that we’ve skipped a whole scene, of the actual introduction.
And on that theory, when she said “Janice, this is [I forgot his name], he’s something of an ass..” was that conveyed privately, or more openly, to discomfit him?
Right. She’s giving a grimace to show that she is specifically NOT introducing her to That Guy.
Kamino and ianosmond: Yea, I agree with you. It’s the second point in my original post, and I think it’s at the heart of my problem with this comic.
If it’s so obvious to us all, why didn’t her friend notice the ‘disapproving look – (the) narrowed eyes, frown’ once the man comes into view? This look and body language wasn’t at all obvious to her, even though she’s standing right there. In fact, she even asked to be introduced to that guy.
This eyeballing towards him, or grimace you’re describing must have been interpreted quite differently by the woman on the right…or as an ‘intent to introduce the guy’.
No?
“This eyeballing towards him, or grimace you’re describing must have been interpreted quite differently by the woman on the right…or as an ‘intent to introduce the guy’.”
There are any number of reasons why a person in conversation with another person might miss or misperceive nonverbal cues. Pick one you like, assume it’s true, and there you have it. That was it.
People do NOT always pick up on nonverbal cues. In television and movies, nonverbal cues are usually over-emphasized to make sure you (closeup on eyes narrowing) get it. In real life, though, you’re not going to get that.
There’s an old film. It shows a girl, and then a guy looking horny, then food, and a guy looking hungry, then something else, and then a guy showing interest in that. Except the guy reacting is the same shot all three times, and it’s the “language of cinema” that tells you what he’s thinking, and NOT the nonverbal cues directly.
JP – Again, agreed. She’s missed the non-verbal cue that everyone believes is so obvious for some reason that is anything but clear, and interpreted it as a cue to ask for an introduction instead.
But HOW? From the comic, it seems that the only way WOTR knows that WOTL is familiar with that guy is because she gave him a look, a look clearly defined as “a grimace to show that she is specifically NOT introducing her to That Guy” and “a disapproving look – narrowed eyes, frown”…yet she still asked for an introduction! Of course “There are any number of reasons why a person in conversation with another person might miss or misperceive nonverbal cues”, but none of these are even close to obvious here. As you say, I’d have to ‘Pick one’ after I reached the conclusion that this must have been what happened.
I think there are a lot of assumptions required for this joke to work, and maybe that’s half the reason it ended up here.
“But HOW? […] none of these are even close to obvious here. As you say, I’d have to ‘Pick one’ after I reached the conclusion”
The cartoonist didn’t think the exact mechanism was important to the joke. (An easy way to break a joke is to load it with unneccessary details.) That may have been a mistake (as you say, a reason why it ended up here.)
I just wasted a lot of time looking for a list of characters. The visitor, Janice, is named for our convenience, but the other two are regulars, frequently-shown employees at Pillsbury. They frequently interact with each other, and also separately interact with others there, in particular the boss.
This is a belabored preface to answering Stan’s issue, “it seems that the only way WOTR knows that WOTL is familiar with that guy is because she gave him a look,”. Well also because friend Janice gets often to hear about her pal’s day at the office, including the people she has to deal with all the time.
I think I now understand the strip where I didn’t before; the discussion helped, but it has gotten so tangled that I can’t point out where exactly enlightenment came, so instead, for anyone still confused, I’ll summarize my new understanding of the strip that was informed by the preceding discussion:
Janice (woman on the right) has recently broken up with some one, and regular-character-on-the-left is trying to persuade her that she needs to get right back in the game, get back on the horse. All the while, annoying-regular-character has seen the situation and is sidling in for the opportunity. Janice sees him sidling in, and decides to challenge regular-character’s assertion using this weasel guy — if regular-character-on-the-left really means what she says, then she should be happy to introduce Janice to this weasel guy — he’s a guy, she needs to get back on the horse, right? Regular character on the left knows that her position has been destroyed, and displays appropriate chagrin, and Janice says to herself basically, “yeah, I thought so” or more crudely, “yeah, you are full of it” — more bray — she’s braying like a donkey — than neigh — conviction about her horse metaphor. Yes, this last bit is a bit stretched for wit, but I now at least understand the actions of each character.
(And for the record, I second Mitch4 — there is no good character guide for the actual current characters of this strip; all I’ve been able to find is what seems to be the initial pitch for the strip rehashed…)
I don’t agree with larK. I don’t think it was a challenge or that the woman knew that this was someone the other wouldn’t recommend. I think she saw him coming and decide, “Oh all right, do your thing.”
I like larK’s interpretation. It may not be what the author intended, but it works for me.
The female regular, it turns out, is Ms. Foxx.
And she is the boss / founder’s admin assistant.
Here is the guy from the Bray strip, not using his name but confirming that he is a manager at the firm.
Ha. There is class of games called 4X. In that case, it stands for eXpand, eXplore, eXploit, eXterminate. I wouldn’t be surprised if the cartoonist was familiar with the usage.