Can some of you who claim the bird isn’t headless, that’s just how Larson draws birds give us an example of another picture drawn by Larson with a tiny head? Because to me, it is obvious the bird does not have a head.
I’m torn between the bird being “Bootsy” and the customer brought her dead bird in and is trying to contact the bird’s spirit, and the customer is trying to contact her dead *cat *“Bootsy”, and the bird losing it’s head is the sign. I think the former is funnier. YMMV.
With no headphones or bird of prey beak, these are pretty similar. This guy just has a neck for a head, very similar to the bird in question. Not a bird, but Benny here has the same no-head head. And if Larson had put a beak on it, that bird would look like any one of these penguins.
So it’s either:
A. Larson forgot to put a beak on a background bird in a cage, and the joke is “make fun of how we call our pets”.
-or-
B. The bird is headless, and the joke is…?
You say “no reason.”
Reason 1: The poster who has the cartoon as part of a Powerpoint show says that at 400% the bird is clearly headless.
Reason 2: Looking at the rough newspaper scan, Larsen apparently has omitted the horizontal cage bar at the bird’s level. As an illustrator I’ll tell you it was likely left off to make the bird more prominent. It almost looks like the bird swing is in front of the cage.
Reason 3. The bird is already very prominent before leaving off the cage bar.
Reason 4. Having the bird’s head missing provides a “sign”, which ties into the caption.
Hmmm…that’s not a hotlink… Anyway, if you search for “far side birds” it’s the one with birds of prey in a tree listening to headphones.
I always thought the joke was that she’s gone to a psychic to contact her dead cat - and when have you ever known a cat to come when you call it?
Bird at 400%. It’s headless, and obviously meant to be so. I agree with those saying that the (bad) joke is the implication that Bootsy’s ghost beheaded the cat as a “sign.”
You might say that doesn’t make much sense, but I would respond: cow tools. (And on that note, I hereby declare “cow tools” as an idiom meaning “thing intended to be obviously nonsensical, but bearing just enough tenuous internal logic that it comes off as cryptic instead.”)
I will disagree - there’s nothing obvious about any of Larson’s art. I will respond to any counter-arguments with: Cow Tools. Here’s the thing - 90% of Larson’s jokes are “look at how stupid people are”. “Going to a psychic to contact a dead cat” fits right in there, all on its own, without a secondary supernatural joke needed whatsoever.
And that enlargement shows even more clearly that Larsen left off the cage bar that should be in front of the bird. The reason an artist would do that is to make the bird more prominent. If the bird was just background detail, then including the bar in front of its chest would be default thing to do.
Miller: That would have been a good cartoon, but I don’t think it’s this cartoon. Not with the emphasis on “a sign.”
It certainly looks like a headless bird if you blow it up 400x. The fact that you have to blow it up 400x to realize this, on the other hand, argues against it being the punchline of the comic.
Those are obviously women sitting at what is obviously a table in what is obviously a place of business called Madame Zoe’s. In Madame Zoes there is obviously a bird cage, obviously containing a bird which obviously is missing it friggin head.
At this point you’re channeling Michael Palin from the aforementioned parrot sketch.
Laf. And true. I didn’t imagine I’d ever be part of a real life re-enactment of that sketch, but --whoa dude-- here we are.
…huh? The bird doesn’t have a head. And of course there are obvious things about the art; it’s a comic strip, not an Escher print. The strip is obviously set at a psychic shop which is obviously called Madame Zoe’s, there are obviously two people at the table, one of whom, obviously Madame Zoe, is obviously conducting a seance, and next to the table, there’s obviously a birdcage with an obvious bird in it that obviously does not have a head.
That’s 4x, and that’s of a shrunken PowerPoint-insert size, not life-size. Just for giggles I printed the thing at the actual size of a Far Side comic; the bird still had no head.
At this point I’m more than willing to concede the joke if everyone can just agree that the bird has no head, because it doesn’t. I’m really not seeing where this is debatable. Bird head, this strip does not contain.
Actually, y’know what, never mind, I just got the joke. The cat is actually alive, and is sitting on the floor at the bottom-left of the panel. Like the bird’s head, you can’t actually see it, but it’s there. Larsen’s art is weird like that.
One horizonal bar and two vertical bars, as if the cage door is missing.
Yeah, multiple bars. And it’s overkill to harp on this further, but if you examine itcritically, Larsen stops one of the vertical bars just before it reaches the tail. Having it merge with the lines of the tail would be visually confusing. The horizontal bar discontinues right around the perch, rather than at a welded intersection. So, I don’t see a missing door, just an artist who wanted to emphasize a small but key element.
It was too subtle for general apprehension, and also not one of his better gags.
So I blew it up 1600% in MS Paint and the parrot absolutely has a head. It’s missing a beak and eyes, though - which is typical of Larson’s birds. And what you’re seeing in the lower left corner is not a cat,
but most likely an accountant, or claims adjuster. It’s very dark and blends in with the psychic’s dress, but it’s definitely there.
Or maybe he just wasn’t very careful with the bird and birdcage because it was a small and unimportant part of the background and had nothing to do with the joke at all. Larsen presumably had deadlines to meet and may not always have had time to make everything perfect.
Maybe it’s a lion tamer.
Guy I know emailed him not long ago to ask what was the joke in a cartoon that was in a calendar, 'cause none of us could figure it out.
Larson replied but did not explain it, just said they don’t always work and that that particular one shouldn’t have been published.
I blew it up big enough to see the bird’s DNA. It was born without a head.
A reference to Beau Geste? I never saw the film, but my mother said the fort scene spooked her when she saw it.
