Sent by Brian in STL and by Chemgal; the latter asks “Is the ventriloquist doing voodoo?!”
I think, pretty clearly so; but maybe under a system that departs from the classic rules of voodoo?
14 Comments
I mean, it’s fully in keeping with the classic comedy rules of voodoo. Make doll of target, hurt the doll and the target is hurt.
I think “voodoo” is it, though I’m puzzled why the heckler is on stage.
The man on stage is doing voodoo as a comedy act. The heckler is the man in the foreground, with the spilled beer. When he started heckling, he became the subject of the voodoo.
Sorry, I mean he’s doing ventriloquism, but turned it into voodoo with the dummy. I’m guessing this heckler has bothered this comedian before, which is why the dummy looks like him for the voodoo.
I’d agree with the comments so far, as to it being originally a ventriloquism act; and the history of heckling from the foreground guy; and the addition of voodoo elements into the act.
BUT does the act still function with ventriloquism? And how would that combine with the voodoo?
The classic voodoo going on is the practitioner stabbing the “dummy” and the heckler experiencing stab feelings. But then what happens when the ventriloquist projects his will-to-speak onto the dummy?Does that get passed along to the “voodoo victim”? Is that why he’s crying out and everyone is looking at him? (Or, well, it could just be crying out from the pain of stabbing.)
And…how is it that the ventriloquist’s dummy just happens to look like the heckler? Come here often?
The joke is fine. Best not to over-analyze it.
Until I saw the pin, I thought the ventriloquist was “projecting” his voice to make the heckler appear to say something embarrassing (of course that’s not how ventriloquism works, but this is cartoon physics…). Maybe that was the previous round of the conflict, and now it’s escalated to voodoo?
The joke is fine, I just don’t quite understand where ventriloquism comes into it.
@Powers it’s ventriloquism if the viewer wants, but it’s not necessary to the joke.
@Powers, a ventriloquism act provides a rationale for having the voodoo doll on stage: it’s also the ventriloquist’s dummy. We can imagine other reasons why there might be a doll on stage (including, obviously, the possibility that the performer “pretended” to do voodoo in his act), but those are not as immediately explicable.
It should be noted that I didn’t submit this as a CIDU. I sent it as a synchronization along with this Lio strip that appeared the same day:
Thanks for catching us up with that one, Brian. My apologies that the contributors’ notes at the top of today’s post didn’t accurately cover who was sending in what, in what category; I didn’t have the facility to get that right and still remain concise.
This Lío throws an interesting light on how creators today treat the traditions of voodoo. As far as we are shown in the Non Sequitur, it suffices to make the dummy or doll resemble the target victim. But here in Lío, he seems to have been following the rule of incorporating some bodily part or effluvium from the target — here the old guy’s hair.
(That also answers the speculative explanation of his hair loss as an effect of voodoo manipulation.)
I’m sure this joke came up somewhere recently in the comments, so I know I’m repeating it, but it belongs here:
A woman asked her husband, “Do you ever get a sharp pain somewhere in your body that feels like somebody stuck a needle in it?” “No,” he replied.
The woman went out of the room, came back and said “How about now?”
Comics I Don't Understand 
I mean, it’s fully in keeping with the classic comedy rules of voodoo. Make doll of target, hurt the doll and the target is hurt.
I think “voodoo” is it, though I’m puzzled why the heckler is on stage.
The man on stage is doing voodoo as a comedy act. The heckler is the man in the foreground, with the spilled beer. When he started heckling, he became the subject of the voodoo.
Sorry, I mean he’s doing ventriloquism, but turned it into voodoo with the dummy. I’m guessing this heckler has bothered this comedian before, which is why the dummy looks like him for the voodoo.
I’d agree with the comments so far, as to it being originally a ventriloquism act; and the history of heckling from the foreground guy; and the addition of voodoo elements into the act.
BUT does the act still function with ventriloquism? And how would that combine with the voodoo?
The classic voodoo going on is the practitioner stabbing the “dummy” and the heckler experiencing stab feelings. But then what happens when the ventriloquist projects his will-to-speak onto the dummy?Does that get passed along to the “voodoo victim”? Is that why he’s crying out and everyone is looking at him? (Or, well, it could just be crying out from the pain of stabbing.)
And…how is it that the ventriloquist’s dummy just happens to look like the heckler? Come here often?
The joke is fine. Best not to over-analyze it.
Until I saw the pin, I thought the ventriloquist was “projecting” his voice to make the heckler appear to say something embarrassing (of course that’s not how ventriloquism works, but this is cartoon physics…). Maybe that was the previous round of the conflict, and now it’s escalated to voodoo?
The joke is fine, I just don’t quite understand where ventriloquism comes into it.
@Powers it’s ventriloquism if the viewer wants, but it’s not necessary to the joke.
@Powers, a ventriloquism act provides a rationale for having the voodoo doll on stage: it’s also the ventriloquist’s dummy. We can imagine other reasons why there might be a doll on stage (including, obviously, the possibility that the performer “pretended” to do voodoo in his act), but those are not as immediately explicable.
It should be noted that I didn’t submit this as a CIDU. I sent it as a synchronization along with this Lio strip that appeared the same day:
Thanks for catching us up with that one, Brian. My apologies that the contributors’ notes at the top of today’s post didn’t accurately cover who was sending in what, in what category; I didn’t have the facility to get that right and still remain concise.
This Lío throws an interesting light on how creators today treat the traditions of voodoo. As far as we are shown in the Non Sequitur, it suffices to make the dummy or doll resemble the target victim. But here in Lío, he seems to have been following the rule of incorporating some bodily part or effluvium from the target — here the old guy’s hair.
(That also answers the speculative explanation of his hair loss as an effect of voodoo manipulation.)
I’m sure this joke came up somewhere recently in the comments, so I know I’m repeating it, but it belongs here:
A woman asked her husband, “Do you ever get a sharp pain somewhere in your body that feels like somebody stuck a needle in it?” “No,” he replied.
The woman went out of the room, came back and said “How about now?”