Or Too Naughty for The New Yorker - 293 Cartoons That Were Too Dumb

I can now easily see why these cartoons were rejected. Too drunk htey may have been, htey were actually mostly not too dark and some of them were naughtier than others BUT the primary reason was probably thatt hey were really not very good and should have been rejected anyway.

Some of these cartoons are funny and others dreadful, and you can easily see why some of them were rejected. Diffee points out some of the criteria in the text -- they made reference to things like harming animals or children (only tongue in cheek, thank heavens) or were too sexy for the New Yorker. In some cases, the artists should have figured that out before they wasted their time submitting. In others, it's as good or better than the magazine's trademark subtle humor. They're all worth a look, if you don't mind being offended occasionally, or grossed out. The maddening thing to me, though, was the lamebrain idea of giving all of these cartoonists a single form questionnaire that asked them things like "Where do you get your ideas?" or "How many desert island cartoons have you submitted?" By the time you've read the exact same questions the 111th time (with mostly unfunny answers), you realize this is one to skim, not to read. They should have just stuck to the cartoons.

I've only read a couple New Yorker cartoons. The magazine is too high-brow for me. But these were really funny and I "got" most of them. My favorite was the guy sitting in a diner with the coon-skin cap on telling the waitress as she walked alway with his pie order "Remember the alamode"

The content of this book is fantastic. It gives an insight into the mind of each cartoon artist as well as the reasons why certain cartoons did not get printed in The New Yorker (but probably published in other mags). Most of the gags are a hoot!