Author / EditorM

by EditorM

They both work!

As we have asked before with Baldo, does the joke depend on language, and does it work in both the Spanish and the English versions of the strip?

Here there are two loci for our standard questions: In panel 2, the dialog from the second character (who I think must be Jake); and in panel 4, the second part of the dialog from the speaking character.

My take on those two, in short summary: The panel 2 pun works fine in English, and the Spanish also has something of a pun, by substituting a different statement instead of a translation. In panel 4, in the Spanish there seems to be an amusing equivocation, by virtue of a grammatical ambiguity; which does not carry over into English.

In some detail:

PANEL 2

In the English, notice the emphasis given in the lettering to the word TIRED. And while Jake says that, he is all over a stack of TIRES; even seemingly pointing to them as though in a sort of illustration.

In the Spanish, Jake’s line translates according to Google as “Oh, so you roll out of here early?” (and I think the “you” is not the only choice — it’s more of an impersonal, and might amount to “we”). So it no longer mentions tires or tiredness, but with the mention of rolling still manages to indirectly bring in the tires and roughly complete a pun. (And as a noun instead of verb, rueda is rendered first off as wheel.)

PANEL 4

OK, a bit of background. English (like, say, French) in simple sentences, in at least semi-formal speech or writing, requires an overt subject, even if a person and number could be inferred. Spanish (like many other European languages) allows skipping a subject pronoun if the verb form is enough to determine person and number. You can see this in both of Jake’s sentences in panel 3 — creo is 1st-person singular, but the sentence does not need to say yo creo; same for pienso not needing yo pienso.

Then in panel 4, the third character’s line Pero no creo que trabaje could be But I don’t think it works [it = the potential joke], or But I don’t think he works [he = Jake]. Which is a fairly good joke, or anyway language-amusement. [My point about not requiring overt subject pronoun turns out not crucial here, since if this sentence did use a subject pronoun, él for he or it would still be indeterminate.] But in English we get But I don’t think it works, and no secondary dig at lazy Jake.

by EditorM

Human tools

Okay, what does this collection of sort-of-household objects represent? What is their connection to the inset cartoon panel at the bottom, and what’s the joke?

I had a clearly incorrect idea to begin with, that these are the functions which have been supplanted by use of a phone, and thus an indication of how severely she is restricted until her phone is operational again. But no; there really can’t be a hammer-and-saw app that actually cuts wood or pounds nails.

And while we’re looking at it, how accurate is Bub’s memory-definition?

POSSIBLE SPOILER.
In the GoComics comments, there is a pretty plausible suggestion for one of our questions: The objects are things that go on working, without needing an update. IMO imperfect but pretty good — as explaining the selection, even if not the joke.

by EditorM

I’m stumped!

Thanks to Tim Harrod for sending this in, and for his comments (below).

“Another baffler from the Hart estate. What has the Wizard done that’s transgressive, that he wouldn’t want to be connected to or blamed for? Does he think lumberjacks will be pissed that he’s slightly undoing their labor? I’m pretty sure they just want the wood.”

by EditorM

No, it’s just wrong!

No, when it comes to the first panel, I can’t even!

A word I was more likely looking for was “elliptical”.

Well, I’m going to call this a colorist’s error (leading to an interpretive crux) …

… with me thinking it should be green like the delivery bag, but squirrel-shaped, to show that McKenzie (the delivery person, a main character of the strip) succeeded in trapping the critter inside. And she is then giving the customer a live animal, plus whatever part of the order remains unconsumed in the bag, plus (uh-oh!) food already eaten by the animal.

But on further look, I was wrong. It is meant to be the squirrel, with face details clearly shown. And a large satisfied tummy. (Where is the bag? Did he eat that too?) Is her comment to the customer meant to imply the customer could force regurgitation (or slice the animal open!?!) and treat the semi-digested food as still good for human consumption? Well, she doesn’t simply think this will fly — some of the patches in the sky are not clouds but anxiety-sweat beads — so I guess she conveys a just-kidding with that. But who knows?