Thanks to Ooten Aboot:
… who explains: “I understand the point of bread pudding is to use perishable ingredients (e.g. bread, milk and eggs) before they perish. I don’t understand why A & J would keep perishables as their ‘snow provisions’. Suspension of disbelief will only stretch so far.”
Thanks to David Curwin.
Is there even a nephew in the Capt. America canon and this kid is claiming to be him? Or is it altogether his invention?
Is there a *particular* “traditional Christmas sweet, cherished for generations” that he fears will be mishandled by American adaptation? And he doesn’t name it? Are we supposed to be able to figure it out; or is it just generalized and hypothetical?
Originally picked up from GoComics, but phsiiicidu was able to locate it at SMBC’s own site. So we can report on the rollover text, as there are those who think an SMBC is incomplete without it. But here it seems to offer nothing to solve those doubts. “One day, molecular printers will allow starbucks to serve every conceivable food as a whipped topping.”
I think we have in the past counted literalizing figures of speech as a kind of generalized language-play, that can fall under the OY umbrella. But this is a bit long would weigh down the Saturday Morning OYs list, so here it is as a bonus, just to enjoy for itself.
Okay, I get the general plot of how they’re both mutually surviving (or evading) some sort of sincerity tests. But no, what is the role of the TWSS trope? Is it a save? But in panel 2 it seems, on the contrary, to deepen the trouble, since Lucretia seems not to know the trope … or does she? But in panel 5 she provides a perfect set-up line for the trope as comeback, so she must know it. (And BTW what in fact is the bit about Fiddler getting at? What / how much is the supposed quote?)
I was going to attribute the original TWSS pattern to somebody, but didn’t know who. The entry at dictionary.com includes a surprisingly discursive article illustrating the usage and tracing the origins, after providing the basic compact definition: “That’s what she said is a form of innuendo that takes innocent statements out of context and makes them sound lewd or sexual.” They first find it in a 1973 book, which however calls it an ancient one-liner.
Thanks for this to Andréa:
She points out it could be both of the animals, or simply the cartoonist, who aren’t aware the dog *is* a “gourmand”, by the standard way that is distinguished from “gourmet”.
P.S. After we already had this post scheduled, the Comic Strip of the Day site included this cartoon, and had an extended discussion of “gourmet”, “gourmand”, and some related words.
Thanks to Phred for sending this in.
But published on Friday the Thirteenth, which may explain it.
Yes, it’s something of a CIDU, raising unanswered questions, even if they aren’t deep questions. Is the boy from his public family, or his secret family? And either way, what is the point of this conversation? (Besides getting to enact a takeoff on this erstwhile very standard capitalist melodrama scene.)
If you were thinking that the color version might brighten our outlook, let’s give it a try:
Was it true, the warning in the bottom left?
Tell me this isn’t just the Liar Paradox dressed up.
Comics I Don't Understand 