This single-panel comic runs in the Washington Post.The gags aren’t funny, the drawing the worst I’ve ever seen, and yet the Post still carries it. My eye is attracted it to the way your tongue is attracted to a sore tooth. I really try not to read it but today I glanced over. Usually I can at least tell what is intended but this time I have no idea what’s going on.
How do you arrive at that conclusion from what is drawn? I looked at this stupid comic this morning for ten minutes and could not figure out WTF the cartoonist was getting at. How does humming or anything else equate to storing the perfume in her mouth?
I’m another person who detests this cartoon, but end up looking at it because it’s right next to Bizarro, which is almost always funny.
The chipmunk cheeks were the givaway. Cartoon whistling involves pursed lips and concave cheeks-which leads to the assumption that she is humming while holding a mouthful of something.
It’s a pretty common comic convention that humming is used to distract others from noticing whatever it is you are doing to pull something over on them. Whistling too, actually.
I didn’t get it either. The art work on this comic is jaw-dropping bad, almost every day. He is especially pathetic at drawing any kind of animal, and machines don’t fare so well either. His pine trees and flames are so poorly rendered that the first few times I saw them I couldn’t even figure out what they were supposed to be. It’s as if he is drawing things he’s never actually seen, based on someone’s vague description. This is not the first of his comics I didn’t get, either. About 1 in 20 is so poorly drawn or poorly thought out that I just don’t get it. About 1 in 20 is funny enough to make me smile. Like Chefguy I read it because it’s right next to Bizarro. Dan Piraro is the best comic artist working these days, IMHO.