Since the magazine is off this week but I’m not burnt out, let’s try something different! I’m gonna read through the mid-February issue of past years ending in a 7, and select the most notable cartoons. Why those particular issues? Because I said so, that’s why! I’m screenshotting the cartoons. If this is a hit, I may do it again! I’m sending it to everyone this time, as a treat – if I repeat the act, it’ll be behind the paywall.
1927: As with many of the old cartoons, I’m not totally sure what this means and suspect it is both related to the quality of language used (it succeeds there!) and perhaps to the Futurists, who I suppose it’s mocking as manic? I love it, regardless.1937: There is some element of class observation I’m missing here, I think, but it’s a really well-structured caption, landing on “dead” with a thump.1937: Anyone wondering if the magazine’s profusion of mid pet jokes is a recent trend – actually, I think there used to be even more. I like this one, though – mostly just for the drawing.1947: Pictured: Me writing the newsletter.1947: Elegant and ridiculous – a perfect combo.1947: Simple brilliance. I have to say, somewhere between the thirties and the forties, the magazine became funny in a way that still translates. Everything in those first two issues was mostly just bewildering.1947: And now there is no way to find out. Reject Casper, embrace tradition.1957: Topflight phrasing – the joke is really less about the kid than about language twisted to mean nothing.1957: How often with this setup does the therapist get to deliver the line?1967: Didn’t realize this terminology was already around by then. Presumably it was new-ish and thus part of the joke here? Thankfully it’s not the whole joke.1967: Sent me down a fun little rabbit hole. The past may be a foreign country, but at least you don’t have to worry about past warmongers doing present crimes.1977: One thing missing in the current era’s cartoons – even a modicum of political bite. This isn’t much, really, but it’s funny and the right amount of cynical.1977: Similarly, economics-speak feels like a harder target than the youth slang that’s so often mocked these days.1987: Not that that’s new, either.1987: Boy, this issue is pretty grim. This is representative – and possibly the best of the bunch.1997: The first thing in the past fifty years to actually make me smirk.1997: Not overcomplicated or overexplained – and “Abernathy” is the perfect name.1997: Well this doesn’t read the same anymore, does it…1997: Great “very old businessman”. But together, this and what’s directly above it give me flashbacks to a certain nationally televised debate.2007: I just came from there; trust me, you don’t want to go back.2007: I remember as a kid I thought Kaplan’s cartoons were regularly some of the funniest, but these days they usually don’t work for me. I figured it was my shifting taste, but this made me chuckle – so maybe he’s just gotten worse?2007: This may just be “what if new things, but old?” – but it’s executed really well.2017: Not coincidental that I think McPhail is funniest without an excuse for a mugging face.2017: Late-era Mankoff’s taste got way too zany – Emma Allen can skew too mundane, but I think that’s preferable. This, believe it or not, is among the least zany offerings in the issue.
Hey, that was fun, yeah? Let me know what you think of this experiment.
Song!
See ya.
Don't miss what's next. Subscribe to Last Week's New Yorker Review:
Loved this. Cartoon archaeology!