Carl Fink contributes this. “OK, why would the rhino have holes in its cardigan? Its own horn wouldn’t be poking it. Is it a joke about how anthropomorphic animals arms and legs don’t let it move on all fours without its chest scraping the ground, unlike the actual animal? I don’t get it.”

[start of rant] To your editor, this seems roughly like the comic strip analogy to the uncanny valley: “as the appearance of a robot is made more human, some observers’ emotional response to the robot becomes increasingly positive and empathetic, until it becomes almost human, at which point the response quickly becomes strong revulsion. However, as the robot’s appearance continues to become less distinguishable from that of a human being, the emotional response becomes positive once again and approaches human-to-human empathy levels”.

As we move animal characters from being animals acting mostly naturally (the cat Ludwig in Arlo and Janis, for example) to animals not acting much like actual animals at all (Pearls Before Swine) there’s a spot where the jokes just don’t work. There’s so many human characteristics put into the characters that we don’t accept the remaining animal characteristics needed to make the joke work.

Here’s a case where, in my opinion, the use of animals actually gets in the way of the joke. Hippos don’t need sunscreen and don’t sit upright on the sand. But the joke doesn’t have much to do with hippos at all: it’s that there’s a tiny bottle of sunscreen that’s too small for one of them, but the second is complaining there’s none left for them. The joke would be clearer with two normal sized people and a tiny bottle of sunscreen. [end of rant]