Thanks to Phil Smith III, for sending this in and beginning the investigation by checking out the comments on syndication site and determining nobody there has a definitive answer.
Related
20 Comments
Well, sorry but I can’t even start on reconstructing the back-story since I have so much trouble parsing the drawing itself. How many horses are there facing the speaker, three or four? Are those orange-brown legs going upwards in the right quadrant the evidence of a fourth horse? Is that Chuck? Is he throwing his forelegs up in celebration, or because that is mechanically enabled by lack of a bridle?
Serious question: what is a bridle for?
I don’t think I’ve ever even been on a horse myself, but I ASSUME a bridle is to control the horse.
So if Chuck isn’t wearing his bridle, he either can’t go on the trip (sort of like calling in sick on Black Friday) or he will not be properly controlled.
I was confused by this one, too. If you decode the art, there’s a horse excitedly throwing its front legs up in glee at bad news.
That is, it has “unbridled enthusiasm”.
The problem is, for some reason Blazek drew another horse right between the invisible camera and the enthusiastic horse, so it’s hard to make out what’s happening.
Personally, I like CloonBounty’s answer. If you forget your bridle, you have to take the day off, probably without pay, and so it’s a bad thing — but in this case, it’s worth it.
I think Carl’s got it.
Yup, Carl’s got it. For the unhorsey among us, a bridle is the collection of headgear worn by a horse when it is being ridden (headstall, reins, and bit; this last can be replaced with a bitless form of control such as hackamore or bosal, which wrap around the horse’s nose & chin). For comparison, a halter consists of just a headstall and usually has a ring at the bottom to which a rope can be clipped for leading or tying the horse. The lack of visible nostrils & mouth on the four horses in the foreground make it look like they are wearing nosebags (aka feedbag or morral; a small bag in which feed is placed before buckling over the nose/mouth of a horse) rather than halters or bridles.
Aaaaand I’ll shut up now…
Thanks for the equine adumbrations.
In addition to the horse addressing the others, I count five horses in the foreground, at least four of whom are wearing what looks like the artist’s attempt at bridles. No idea which one is Chuck, but I assume he’s the orange one whom we can’t see too well. No clue about the joke, but “unbridled enthusiasm” is as good a theory as any.
I thought it might be “unbridled enthusiasm” but shouldn’t that be for something desirable. Such as “Today we have extra hay and no need to go very far” Bridled Horses: “Ah, very good… that’s nice…” Unbridled Chuck: “HOT DAMN! YESSSSS! OMG! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! etc.” Or is could be that being unbridled he is being inappropriately enthusiastic about things that can’t actually be good. Except being unbridled doesn’t cause you to be enthusiastic; it just means you over respond.
” How many horses are there facing the speaker, three or four?” Five. THis sounds like a joke but count the ears and divide by two.
“So if Chuck isn’t wearing his bridle, he either can’t go on the trip (sort of like calling in sick on Black Friday) or he will not be properly controlled.” Mmmmmaybe… but I don’t think that would be as funny. Also, wouldn’t that just mean he has to do it anyway without a bridle which is harder… or he’d be forced to go back and get his bridle.
Chuck is evincing “unbridled enthusiasm”
The cartoon mocks the cliched idiom
” How many horses are there facing the speaker, three or four?” Five. THis sounds like a joke but count the ears and divide by two.
Thank you Woozy. Especially for pointing out the ear-counting method, which indeed shows my original “three or four?” was an undercount.
Chuck is an okay name for a horse, but it could be an issue for a steer.
Chuck is also a good name for a wagon. 🙂
Or Chuck is a nickname for Charlie Horse.
Woozy, I believe “unbridled enthusiasm” is fully warranted here. The upcoming ride is going to be awful for the horses. Since Chuck has no bridle, it’s very unlikely that he’ll be part of that ride. Of course he’s happy that he won’t be going; wouldn’t you be, if you were in his horseshoes?
The last good “unbridled” pun was “It would be a night of unbridled passion” when the horse was reading “Fifty Shades of Hay”.
” Since Chuck has no bridle, it’s very unlikely that he’ll be part of that ride. ”
I don’t know. That’s just one step of separation that doesn’t work for me. EVENT =>…. => unbridled passion. is fine. But EVENT => … ergo and argument he WON’T be on the EVENT => unbridled passion about MISSING the event is just one step too removed to work for me.
Also, if it’s logical that he won’t go on the trip because he forgot that bridle (or the stirrup, or whatever) that’s makes his outburst logical and thus a pun explanation (he’s enthusiastic because he’s unbridled, get it?) seems superfluous and anti-climatic.
I still think it’d be funnier if horses all have the same positive response to an event but all the other horses are calm whereas Chuck is … unbridled.
“The last good “unbridled” pun was “It would be a night of unbridled passion” when the horse was reading “Fifty Shades of Hay”.”
The only problem with that cartoon was that as Fifty Shades of Gray was about bondage one assumes the passion would be very bridled; and stirruped, and reined,…..
The “Fifty Shades of Hay” joke assumes that one has heard of “Fifty Shades of Gray” and knows that it is about some kind of naughty stuff but has not read it because one does not read that kind of naughty book.
Mark in Boston. I don’t think it matters if you’ve read or know what 50 Shades of Gray is about. But the joke assumes that it is about “naughty stuff” and that the fact that it is about “naughty stuff” is more notable than that it is about bondage in particular and the pun of “unbridled” to naked to “naughty” stuff is more natural then the, when you think of it more logical and funny and, actually, kinkier idea that a bridle dovetails perfectly into bondage.
(Actually, a lot of S&M imagery does use equestrian equipment… or it did in the past….. Maybe that’s considered politically incorrect now…[that last comment was tongue in cheek BTW… I can write an essay on the topic if you want….])
I’ll admit I laughed when I saw the 50 shades of Hay cartoon and it was only refrigerator logic quite a while later that I thought …. wait a minute….
Woozy, you’re a bit off the mark there. There is no BDSM in 50SoG. There’s stalking & abuse in abundance, though. The author presents it as BDSM, but the encounters ignore the basic rules of Safe, Sane, Consensual.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Well, sorry but I can’t even start on reconstructing the back-story since I have so much trouble parsing the drawing itself. How many horses are there facing the speaker, three or four? Are those orange-brown legs going upwards in the right quadrant the evidence of a fourth horse? Is that Chuck? Is he throwing his forelegs up in celebration, or because that is mechanically enabled by lack of a bridle?
Serious question: what is a bridle for?
I don’t think I’ve ever even been on a horse myself, but I ASSUME a bridle is to control the horse.
So if Chuck isn’t wearing his bridle, he either can’t go on the trip (sort of like calling in sick on Black Friday) or he will not be properly controlled.
I was confused by this one, too. If you decode the art, there’s a horse excitedly throwing its front legs up in glee at bad news.
That is, it has “unbridled enthusiasm”.
The problem is, for some reason Blazek drew another horse right between the invisible camera and the enthusiastic horse, so it’s hard to make out what’s happening.
Personally, I like CloonBounty’s answer. If you forget your bridle, you have to take the day off, probably without pay, and so it’s a bad thing — but in this case, it’s worth it.
I think Carl’s got it.
Yup, Carl’s got it. For the unhorsey among us, a bridle is the collection of headgear worn by a horse when it is being ridden (headstall, reins, and bit; this last can be replaced with a bitless form of control such as hackamore or bosal, which wrap around the horse’s nose & chin). For comparison, a halter consists of just a headstall and usually has a ring at the bottom to which a rope can be clipped for leading or tying the horse. The lack of visible nostrils & mouth on the four horses in the foreground make it look like they are wearing nosebags (aka feedbag or morral; a small bag in which feed is placed before buckling over the nose/mouth of a horse) rather than halters or bridles.
Aaaaand I’ll shut up now…
Thanks for the equine adumbrations.
In addition to the horse addressing the others, I count five horses in the foreground, at least four of whom are wearing what looks like the artist’s attempt at bridles. No idea which one is Chuck, but I assume he’s the orange one whom we can’t see too well. No clue about the joke, but “unbridled enthusiasm” is as good a theory as any.
I thought it might be “unbridled enthusiasm” but shouldn’t that be for something desirable. Such as “Today we have extra hay and no need to go very far” Bridled Horses: “Ah, very good… that’s nice…” Unbridled Chuck: “HOT DAMN! YESSSSS! OMG! WE’RE NUMBER ONE! etc.” Or is could be that being unbridled he is being inappropriately enthusiastic about things that can’t actually be good. Except being unbridled doesn’t cause you to be enthusiastic; it just means you over respond.
” How many horses are there facing the speaker, three or four?” Five. THis sounds like a joke but count the ears and divide by two.
“So if Chuck isn’t wearing his bridle, he either can’t go on the trip (sort of like calling in sick on Black Friday) or he will not be properly controlled.” Mmmmmaybe… but I don’t think that would be as funny. Also, wouldn’t that just mean he has to do it anyway without a bridle which is harder… or he’d be forced to go back and get his bridle.
Chuck is evincing “unbridled enthusiasm”
The cartoon mocks the cliched idiom
” How many horses are there facing the speaker, three or four?” Five. THis sounds like a joke but count the ears and divide by two.Thank you Woozy. Especially for pointing out the ear-counting method, which indeed shows my original “three or four?” was an undercount.
Chuck is an okay name for a horse, but it could be an issue for a steer.
Chuck is also a good name for a wagon. 🙂
Or Chuck is a nickname for Charlie Horse.
Woozy, I believe “unbridled enthusiasm” is fully warranted here. The upcoming ride is going to be awful for the horses. Since Chuck has no bridle, it’s very unlikely that he’ll be part of that ride. Of course he’s happy that he won’t be going; wouldn’t you be, if you were in his horseshoes?
The last good “unbridled” pun was “It would be a night of unbridled passion” when the horse was reading “Fifty Shades of Hay”.
” Since Chuck has no bridle, it’s very unlikely that he’ll be part of that ride. ”
I don’t know. That’s just one step of separation that doesn’t work for me. EVENT =>…. => unbridled passion. is fine. But EVENT => … ergo and argument he WON’T be on the EVENT => unbridled passion about MISSING the event is just one step too removed to work for me.
Also, if it’s logical that he won’t go on the trip because he forgot that bridle (or the stirrup, or whatever) that’s makes his outburst logical and thus a pun explanation (he’s enthusiastic because he’s unbridled, get it?) seems superfluous and anti-climatic.
I still think it’d be funnier if horses all have the same positive response to an event but all the other horses are calm whereas Chuck is … unbridled.
“The last good “unbridled” pun was “It would be a night of unbridled passion” when the horse was reading “Fifty Shades of Hay”.”
The only problem with that cartoon was that as Fifty Shades of Gray was about bondage one assumes the passion would be very bridled; and stirruped, and reined,…..
The “Fifty Shades of Hay” joke assumes that one has heard of “Fifty Shades of Gray” and knows that it is about some kind of naughty stuff but has not read it because one does not read that kind of naughty book.
Mark in Boston. I don’t think it matters if you’ve read or know what 50 Shades of Gray is about. But the joke assumes that it is about “naughty stuff” and that the fact that it is about “naughty stuff” is more notable than that it is about bondage in particular and the pun of “unbridled” to naked to “naughty” stuff is more natural then the, when you think of it more logical and funny and, actually, kinkier idea that a bridle dovetails perfectly into bondage.
(Actually, a lot of S&M imagery does use equestrian equipment… or it did in the past….. Maybe that’s considered politically incorrect now…[that last comment was tongue in cheek BTW… I can write an essay on the topic if you want….])
I’ll admit I laughed when I saw the 50 shades of Hay cartoon and it was only refrigerator logic quite a while later that I thought …. wait a minute….
Woozy, you’re a bit off the mark there. There is no BDSM in 50SoG. There’s stalking & abuse in abundance, though. The author presents it as BDSM, but the encounters ignore the basic rules of Safe, Sane, Consensual.