Chop

Cidu Bill on Sep 29th 2008

brevity2008092116458.jpe

Click to see comic

Filed in Bill Bickel, Brevity, CIDU, Guy & Rodd, comic strips, comics, humor | 18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Chop”

  1. Winter Wallaby Sep 29th 2008 at 12:17 am 1

    In the first panel they seem to not just be bowing deeply, by avoiding looking at him? It seems to imply that there’s some taboo that the king is so “kingly” that he should not be gazed upon. But I’ve never heard of such a taboo.

  2. Kit Sep 29th 2008 at 01:36 am 2

    Barry Manilow has it in his backstage rider . . .

  3. Jake P Sep 29th 2008 at 01:38 am 3

    In addition to what you said, Winter Wallaby, about gazing at the king being a taboo, I wonder if the orange-haired guy is the brown-haired guy’s whipping boy. When the whipping boy tries to trick the other guy into gazing at the king, he ends up with the punishment. Their difference in dress is what leads me to believe this.

  4. HM Sep 29th 2008 at 09:21 am 4

    I thought it had something to do with those creeps who do the “upskirt” photos…were they trying to look up the King’s robe to see what was there (like the old question about whether the Scots wear anything under their kilts)?

  5. ISRW Sep 29th 2008 at 10:47 am 5

    The ‘joke’ is definitely that he’s sneaking a taboo look at the passing king.

    It might’ve been funny, too, if a mirror had somehow figured in the execution…. or something.

  6. Jon88 Sep 29th 2008 at 11:49 am 6

    It’s “Brevity.” It’s not supposed to be funny. (Is it?)

  7. Charlene Sep 29th 2008 at 01:14 pm 7

    It might have been funnier had the taboo ever existed. “A cat may look on a King”, as the old saying goes.

    Comics basing their ‘jokes’ on old discredited urban legends (like this one or Marie Antoinette saying “let them eat cake” - ugh no) simply fail to be funny. You can’t be funny if the basis of your joke is a lie.

  8. Mark Jones Sep 29th 2008 at 09:46 pm 8

    Eh, I disagree, Charlene. The basis of the joke doesn’t necessarily have to be true, it only has to play on a popular perception of the era.

  9. Charlene Sep 29th 2008 at 10:18 pm 9

    No, if it’s wrong it’s not funny, not in a comic. It can work in prose or in dialogue because you can build a world where the narrator or speaker is ignorant of the fact, but not here.

    So the joke falls flat for anyone who knows the legend is false. Worse, the reader who does know and who doesn’t laugh feels as if he or she is being mocked for not being ignorant enough to get the “joke”.

    It’s simply unfunny and can never be funny.

  10. Winter Wallaby Sep 29th 2008 at 10:42 pm 10

    Mark, I agree that sometimes a comics can play on an popular incorrect perception. But is this a widely circulated urban legend? I’ve never heard of it before.

    I guess it sort of makes sense. I know no one is supposed to look directly at Yahweh, and the king is kind of a god, so yeah. But the joke really doesn’t work if you have to spend several minutes puzzling this out.

  11. brien Sep 30th 2008 at 05:48 am 11

    The custom of averting your gaze from the monarch IS very well known (except, apparently, by people who read and don’t understand comics). The origins of the custom are thought to be from 3rd century Persia, where it was said the emperor’s aura was so pure and bright it might blind an onlooker. The custom was borrowed by the west beginning in the late medieval period, where it continued up through the late Renaissance.

  12. Powers Sep 30th 2008 at 11:15 am 12

    It’s a new one to me. Never heard it before.

  13. Mark Jones Sep 30th 2008 at 12:06 pm 13

    Yes, I agree that this particular concept is *not* a widespread urban legend, and so the comic doesn’t quite work. But I disagree with Charlene’s assertion that comics based on popular misconceptions can’t be funny.

    BTW, did anyone else think “Members of the public may only gaze upon the Duke of Manhattan with written permission of the Senate of New New York!” upon hearing the explanation?

  14. brien Sep 30th 2008 at 01:17 pm 14

    Well, it’s not an “urban legend” at all. I can’t understand why that phrase keeps coming up.

    It’s a custom, and it is EXTREMELY widespread. Virtually every empire in the world, from England to Japan, followed this custom at some point in their history. It’s hard to get more widespread than that.

    You people just don’t know your history. That’s YOUR fault, don’t blame the custom. All that being said …

    This comic would have been funnier about 300 years ago.

  15. rob Oct 2nd 2008 at 02:25 am 15

    actually this comic probably would have gotten the author/artist executed 300 years ago, haha. i’m with brien though, that taboo is not some falsified urban legend, there have been many cultures who required servants and commoners to look away from royalty. however EVEN IF IT WERE an urban legend, the joke could still be funny to someone who recognized it either as an urban legend, or was one who believed it to be true. I could see how the joke would be missed for one who wasn’t aware, but it would not be mocking someone who knew it was just a legend (even though it isn’t a legend).

  16. Cadillac Rancher Oct 2nd 2008 at 04:03 pm 16

    I’m not familiar with this strip, but it seems as if “Henry” has grown up to become king.

  17. Trish Oct 2nd 2008 at 11:06 pm 17

    Whether urban legend or actual royal laws of the land, I still don’t get the funny. Best I’ve got: maybe the joke is related to nitpicking the rules - real or not. You’re not allowed to gaze directly upon the countenance of royal personages but there’s nothing in the rules that says you can’t look upon a of said personage. After all, you’re not breaking the rules if your gaze is downcast as it should be. Ha ha! Smart guy! Off with your head anyway!

  18. Trish Oct 2nd 2008 at 11:13 pm 18

    the phrase in there was supposed to be “nothing in the rules that says you can’t look upon a “”"reflection”"” of said personage…” I think I accidentally learned some syntax rules.

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply