# Cartoonless New Yorker **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 11, 2001, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cartoonless-new-yorker/92705 "2001-11-11T00:23:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cartoonless-new-yorker/92705/1 "2001-11-11T00:23:16Z")
When the September 24th edition of _The New Yorker_ ran with virtually no cartoons, the question occured to me of whether there was a precedent for this. However, the obvious possible candidate that came to mind was the issue with Hersey’s “Hiroshima” in it and I have to admit that I wasn’t sure whether they habitually carried cartoons _at all_ in that period. (While lots of the writing from those days - Parker, Thurber, Lillian Ross etc. - is familiar, that’s now become independent of the original format.) Now, with the Roger Angell piece in the November 12th issue about WWII cartoons, it’s obvious to me that copies of the period were just as strongly visual as currently. So, two related questions: 1. Is there a precedent for the magazine running without the cartoons? 2. Was the “Hiroshima” edition an otherwise fairly normal issue? (I believe it was a specially extended issue, but that’s not that uncommon.) ---
**Author:** ![stuyguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@stuyguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuyguy)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cartoonless-new-yorker/92705/2 "2001-11-11T00:52:07Z")
Can’t say with 100% certainty, but I seem to remember on-air commentators saying that the cartoonless edition was unprecedented for the NYer. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cartoonless-new-yorker/92705/3 "2001-11-11T01:37:06Z")
AFAIK, “Hiroshima” ran as an article over two issues of the magazine, and there were still cartoons (though they probably didn’t have them on the same pages as the article). The black cover issue of the New Yorker was almost certainly the first time they didn’t run any (there was one drawing, but with no caption and the subject wasn’t humorous). ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cartoonless-new-yorker/92705/4 "2001-11-11T06:00:13Z")
Per “Genius in Disguise,” a biography of Harold Ross, “Hiroshima” ran as a single issue published August 31, 1946. The issue was without without cartoons and without most of all of the other regular editorial features. > [@](#): > > The issue, sixty-eight pages, contained only advertisements, the Goings On calendar, and [“Hiroshima” author John] Hersey’s article, which started on the page where on any other week Talk of the Town began. The original title [“Some Events at Hiroshima”], which Ross had disliked, was shortened simply to “Hiroshima.” The piece ran as a Reporter at Large, in four sections, the first of which was entitled “A Noiseless Flash.” An editor’s note to readers on the first page said: “The _New Yorker_ this week devotes its entire editorial space to an article on the almost complete obliteration of a city by one atomic bomb, and what happened to the people of that city. It does so in the conviction that few of us have yet comprehended the all but incredible destructive power of this weapon, and that everyone might well take time to consider the terrible implications of its use.” There’s more if anyone’s interested, but I don’t want to bore you. ---
**Author:** ![mobo85](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mobo85](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mobo85)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cartoonless-new-yorker/92705/5 "2001-11-11T15:26:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RealityChuck \* > \*\*The black cover issue of the New Yorker was almost certainly the first time they didn’t run any (there was one drawing, but with no caption and the subject wasn’t humorous). \*\* Wouldn’t the front cover count as a cartoon, too? It’s a very nice one-a completely black cover, except for the outline of the World Trade Center ---
**Author:** ![Ukulele\_Ike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/df788c/32.png) [@Ukulele\_Ike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ukulele_Ike)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2001, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cartoonless-new-yorker/92705/6 "2001-11-11T16:45:53Z")
Sept. 24th did run ONE cartoon, a George Booth on the Contributors page in the front of the book. No caption, and it shows his famous old lady violinist character sitting with her head lowered and fiddle on the floor next to her. Next to her is her cat, who has its paws over its head.