There are ten pairs of cartoon feet in this Sunday “Ink Pen” strip from 2010:
…
Unfortunately, the author didn’t bother to make any of the dialog “characteristic”, which might have helped to identify each figure. I have a positive ID for only five and a half of them. Can anyone match all ten (unseen) talking heads to their correct feet?
P.S. Bonus assignment: Provide an unmistakable (but very short) quote for each character.
There seems to be a point, something cynical or at least skeptical, but hard to pin down. “Recycling is just a fake anyway”?
Time for an inoffensive Bacön:
According to Wikipedia, “From 1993 to 2002, Pastis was an insurance defense litigation attorney” which would seem to breed a lot of cynicism.
.
And let’s try out a pairing of some bacon with some fur:
This one was already a massive anachronism when it was originally published, and is even more so now:
He’s making some kind of statement, but I don’t get the standpoint. Is there some belief system under which all the heavenly host are taken to be bedeviled with fear and trembling?
This comic made me more than moderately confused:
…
I haven’t watched an American television game show in over three decades. I assume that they still exist, but I have no idea whether this comic might be playing on some current development in the genre.
Usual John, Unca $crooge, and Dirk the Daring all sent this in, Dirk noting: “Normally this strip is just about sex, repetitive, but easy to understand. But this one I don’t get, what are they laughing at? Am I missing something obvious?”
It’s 9 Chickweed Lane, so it’s almost certainly about sex, but I don’t get it, either. Here’s the previous two days in this story line:
The following day (August 31, 2024) switched characters entirely, and does not help.
Dirk The Daring found this in The New Yorker. Of course a statistically significant percentage of New Yorker cartoons are CIDUs, but this one seems close to making sense. Something about her big ears and the ENT in the window?! Anyone? Bueller??
…
When this first scrolled up for me, I had just glanced at it when I was called away to do something else, and my inner ear was repeating the final panel but misremembered with the terms reversed. I thought it was making an excellent if subtle point. Can a dog do a trick without *knowing* it? (Can a human?) Does a dog really know anything, or is that just what we say as a courtesy, while meaning the dog has a habit or pattern? But then, how does lack of knowledge not prevent successful performance? We say a person knows how to ride a bicycle when we see they are able to, but chances are they could not articulate what to do — so is it the same courtesy designation?
And I think we could raise some of the same questions from the way the comic actually presents the line!
Comics I Don't Understand 