Nobody puts baby in Cornered

Cidu Bill on May 14th 2017


Was anybody else really distracted by the fact that the baby looks like a 60-year-old midget?

Filed in Bill Bickel, Cornered, Mike Baldwin, comic strips, comics, humor | 27 responses so far

27 Responses to “Nobody puts baby in Cornered”

  1. Dave Van Domelen May 14th 2017 at 04:27 pm 1

    It’s the glasses.

  2. Joseph K. May 14th 2017 at 04:43 pm 2

    Big nose, glasses, long face. It definitely looks like a 60 year old “baby”. Maybe that’s why they refused to pay the ransom

  3. Mona May 14th 2017 at 05:37 pm 3

    Everyone is wearing glasses except the blonde lady, including the other lady’s baby. Maybe it’s a Cornered thing.

  4. Kamino Neko May 14th 2017 at 05:52 pm 4

    5/6 people in that comic have the exact same face. The only difference for #6 is the lack of glasses.

    … Also, why the heck does a baby who still needs to be carried in a papoose have glasses?

  5. Cidu Bill May 14th 2017 at 06:09 pm 5

    And of course the glasses makes the baby’s baldness look like old man baldness, not newborn baldness.

  6. Kevin A May 14th 2017 at 06:21 pm 6

    The blonde is wearing glasses; Mike just over-tipped (slanted?) them in this panel. There are many examples of side views where the temple connects at the bottom and sometimes slant forward a little. The glasses on the being in the carriage is an exception (hmm.. as are the blonde lady’s; were Mike’s hands a little shaky the day he drew this?)

    I also mistook her glasses for huge eyelashes at first.

  7. Mark in Boston May 14th 2017 at 08:38 pm 7

    Everyone in Cornered wears glasses, including cats and dogs and squirrels.

  8. turquoisecow May 14th 2017 at 09:58 pm 8

    Both babies look like old people. The short human (kid?) looks like a short adult. Conclusion? The cartoonist can’t draw young people.

  9. James Pollock May 14th 2017 at 11:06 pm 9

    I think it’s a guest appearance by Alfred Hitchcock.

  10. Chakolate May 14th 2017 at 11:27 pm 10

    turquoisecow said,

    “Both babies look like old people. The short human (kid?) looks like a short adult. Conclusion? The cartoonist can’t draw young people.”

    Apparently he also has trouble with eyes.

  11. B.A. May 14th 2017 at 11:35 pm 11

    Nobody’s mentioned Bill’s subject line, so I will.

  12. Minor Annoyance May 14th 2017 at 11:42 pm 12

    O. Henry got there first with “The Ransom of Red Chief”. And I think it was a Punch cartoon that had a couple of gangsters offering yet another ransom reduction with a fat adult in a child’s sailor suit in the background.

    For a while my Mom would throw people off by saying “We have three — one of each.” Then my younger brother was born and she had to retire the joke.

  13. B.A. May 15th 2017 at 02:26 am 13

    High five to Minor Annoyance’s mother!

  14. Olivier May 15th 2017 at 03:28 am 14

    I’m sorry, MA, but I don’t get it.

  15. Proginoskes May 15th 2017 at 03:36 am 15

    @ Joseph K [2]: My thoughts exactly.

    @ Mark in Boston [7]: Yes, but at least the cartoonist doesn’t put a squirrel in the corner.

    @ James Pollock [9]: You mean Alfred Hitchcock drew this? (He has a cameo in every movie he’s ever directed, for those of you who don’t get the reference.)

    @ Chakolate [10]: Maybe the cartoonist wears glasses? That would connect a couple of threads on this page …

  16. Kilby May 15th 2017 at 03:49 am 16

    @ Olivier (14) - M.A.’s mother’s “one of each” (@12) means “One of mine, one of his, and one of ours.“.

  17. Olivier May 15th 2017 at 04:00 am 17

    Oh. Thanks. I was going for surrealism, which is probably the intent, as the usual question following the number of children is their genders.

  18. Kilby May 15th 2017 at 07:59 am 18

    @ Olivier (17) - I would never have guessed “surrealism”. One might think (given recent progress on social issues) that it might (now) be a reference to a transsexual child, but that sort of an explanation doesn’t fit into the time frame that we are talking about here.

  19. Powers May 15th 2017 at 08:20 am 19

    Of course it’s up to Olivier to confirm or deny but I expect the “one of each” was intended to get the interlocutor thinking, “one boy, one girl, and one ???”.

  20. Olivier May 15th 2017 at 09:08 am 20


  21. Mitch4 May 15th 2017 at 09:26 am 21

    I think MiB #7 may be right! (So far just reviewing the ones on CIDU that come up for the tag.) Maybe it’s as speculated, he just has trouble with drawing eyes otherwise.

    But whatever the explanation, the glasses is a more consistent generalization than my previous observation that often there is a street corner, or corner of some office walls.

  22. James Pollock May 15th 2017 at 11:12 am 22

    “You mean Alfred Hitchcock drew this? (He has a cameo in every movie he’s ever directed, for those of you who don’t get the reference.)”

    In the intro to “Alfred Hitchcock Presents”, he would step up to a profile drawing.

    Er, look for yourself.

  23. Bob May 15th 2017 at 01:51 pm 23

    Re Alfred Hitchcock - he made cameos in most of the movies he directed, but not all.

  24. jens Peter May 15th 2017 at 05:38 pm 24

    A simple case of progeria- probably the one nobody would pay ransom for - people are heartless.

  25. Mark in Boston May 15th 2017 at 10:02 pm 25

    Victor Borge used to tell the “one of each” joke. He told of an obscure composer who was a Portuguese, married a Portogoose, and they had three Portogoslings, one of each.

    Maybe he was thinking about the kid who told Art Linkletter that his family was soon going to have a new baby. “Mom hopes it’s a girl. Dad hopes it’s a boy. I hope it’s a cocker spaniel.”

  26. Kilby May 16th 2017 at 03:52 am 26

    @ Powers & Olivier (19 & 20) - I remember an expression said about (very) doubtful individuals: “he, she, or it.

  27. Mark in Boston May 16th 2017 at 08:56 pm 27

    My sister, describing her cats: “They used to be shes, but now they’re its. They’re she-its.”

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply