BillR sent this in and said “I know pineapple on pizza is a contentious issue (I’m in favor, myself) but what’s the joke here?” And hdh sent it and had a related thought: “Okay does this have something to do with the domino effect or pineapple on pizza controversy?”
I agree it’s probably just a gesture of pineapple-hate. But I can’t quell the urge to take “gruesome” as “grew some” despite not having any available grammatical quirk that would make that sensible.
Hey, not avoiding brand names!
Chak says “I know this is supposed to be a pun, but I’m hoping some of our Aussie readers will tell me what it is. ” I agree it has to be a pun — in fact the artist’s home blog gives the title “Ram home the pun” — and I’m no more able to say just what it is.
Thanks to Andréa for this subtle groaner:
Sources say that either the exclamation “Great Scott” is not attached to any particular person with that name; or else may be associated with Sir Walter Scott, or with U.S. General Winfield Scott. But here, with the talk of Antarctica and the South Pole, surely they intend some kind of glance at famous and unfortunate polar explorer Robert F Scott?
And another from Andréa, who calls this “Barely an oy”. Also fodder for you dialectologists out there.
An OY-Ewww :
This semi-CIDU OY is from Boise Ed, who notes the apparent error that they are doing downhill skiing but the text is about cross-country. But why is it not actually in error? Hmm?
Let’s mark this Lard’s as a CIDU-Oy, inasmuch as it does a rather nice word-play joke, but may take a couple beats to figure out.
Not a perfect portmanteau but it’ll do, and we get to treat the cat fans. For those not into cats, you may not be aware that a vernacular name for this sort of tricolor marking is “calico cat”.
And not-a-perfect exemplar of “pun”, but this is certainly word-play!
(Fifth batch of these.)
Okay, sometimes CIDU comes down to “I don’t understand how one cartoon can make that many mistakes”.
Carl Fink sent in this Loose Parts and says:
1) I for one read right through the joke on the first pass. I’ve been
reading numbered lists for so long, I don’t actually notice the numbers
any more.
2) Counting is not arithmetic!
And Carl also on this Off The Mark:
Painting with … antigravity pigments?
So would a real painter glue the palette to his hand and then hold it
vertically like that? Wouldn’t the paint run off it? I say “glue”
because he clearly doesn’t have a thumb on the other side, so he can’t
grip it.
Also, why is he wearing a lab coat? That doesn’t look like an artist’s
smock to me.
This Reply All Lite could probably count as Unintentional Arlo Award. Either the artist does not know a very widespread vernacular sense of Johnson, or does not think her readers would make that association and attribute it to these characters.
Pardon my objectionable sick joke! (Which may not be instantly evident, thus the semi-CIDU category.)
This Wrong Hands is almost a good Oy, playing on “usher” being both a family name and a role in a wedding. But do we make sense of the different kinds of dwelling the two people have?
This Pardon My Planet is not really wrong. But it’s not right, either.
Sent in by Max C. Webster, III, who says “I assume Old Jake is the dog, and the familiar sight is his boy, but as for the joke . . . huh?”
This one from Ken Berkun.. The zombie could have said something about “Brains!” and the scarecrow may connect to the Oz Scarecrow who felt the lack of brains. But do those line up right for a “I hear that”?
Wait up, I’m still stuck on “I hear that”. Does that somewhat less common expression offer any advantages (besides maybe shortness) over the more modern / natural sounding “Now you’re talking!” or “You said it!”?
Crankshaft often uses a pun or attempted pun as the punch. Can it be that “processing” is meant to work that way here?
I guess this is meant as a critique of how some people think of the process of teaching and learning?
Boise Ed recommends Doc Rat, and this Oy from the October 1 front page at Docrat.com.au was more available than others.
And indeed Brevity is generally going to yield up some species of OY, as here:
Sent by Michelle, as a LOL/OY maybe (she says “Love this one!”). But it is sort of unclear to me! Yes, of course I recognize the underlying pun on the modern expression for dismissing something as obvious. But I don’t quite get the “No shift” as applied in context to this scene.
Sadly, I’m missing something. I don’t see what the mystery or investigation is here – when Holmes says “We must get to the bottom of this”, what is the *this*? And if “no shift” is meant to be part of the answer, is it that the car was built leaving out the transmission; or that the transmission has been stolen; or just that the driver failed to shift when they should have? Also, why are the wheels splayed? Is that just his stylization of “very old model car”? Or is it meant to show there was an accident?
Maybe I’m just expanding on “Comic I don’t understand” to carp on aspects of the cartoon. Sorry, but that happens sometimes, I guess.
BTW, there are no spoilers for my questions at the Tomversations blog entry, but there is an amusing background note about his previous attempt to use this idea, and reliance on a different meaning of “shift”.
Pearls Before Swine is so often in service of a pun that we may stop noticing when it pulls off a pretty good one!
Here’s a bit of a CIDU-OY.
Comics I Don't Understand 