24 Comments

  1. Is that really your only question? There’s so much else to unpack here:

    • Why is she making a “reassuring statement” to not think of her as his bride?
    • Why is the officiant wearing a bathrobe?
    • Why did she choose this moment, the wedding, to say this to him?
    • Why does he look terrified, not ecstatic?
    • What’s the deal with her waist and her forearms?
    • Why are there no guests in attendance?

  2. Add to that why is she calling herself his bride to be when she’ll have that role for only another few minutes.
    I see intervene as meaning either genetic editing or getting a better looking sperm donor. Given that I assume he’s rich (old or ugly grooms always are in this strip) the plan might backfire, since he must have some good genes stuck in there.
    But mean spirited for sure.

  3. @ BC – I’m not sure whether it was PMP, but at least one of the panel features that shows up here reasonably often is known for recycling all the artwork, and just inserting new dialog.

  4. I think the first interpretation is correct. The babies will have at least a 50% chance of looking better than he does.

  5. Variously attributed and likely apocryphal: But what if the child gets my beauty and your brains?

  6. “Not necessarily, James”

    The possibilities are either 50% (faithful) or 100% (NOT faithful)

  7. Arthur, I’ve only ever heard it attributed to Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe — but of course for an apocryphal story, there really isn’t any right or wrong.

  8. The most coherent reading is, “Don’t think of me as your future sex partner because I’m not. Think of me as somebody who’ll have our nominally joint heir after some interaction with a superior sperm donor, which I deem a heroic service to humanity.”

    Yes, a mean-spirited gag less elegantly cruel than it should be.

  9. “Winston Churchill and ? is the story I’ve heard.”

    I believe the Churchill quote is usually with Bessie Braddock

    Bessie Braddock MP: “Winston, you are drunk, and what’s more you are disgustingly drunk.”
    Churchill: “Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what’s more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow
    I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly.”

  10. On the Einstein attribution — David Bodanis in the Preface to his book “E = Mc^2” says it was written to be understood by Cameron Diaz.

  11. “says it was written to be understood by Cameron Diaz.”

    … I … don’t understand what this means. That *what* was written to be understood by Cameron Diaz? and why Cameron Diaz? Is he saying that somehow the joke was reworded from Bernard Shaw and Isadora Duncan to Einstein and Carmeron Diaz(????) ? Are that it had always been about Shaw and Duncan but for a movie role Diaz didn’t know who Shaw was so it was rewritten to be about Einstein? Or are you saying Bodanis wrote his book so that it could be understood by Diaz? (That’s a pretty mean thing to say isn’t it? So far as I know Diaz isn’t particularly stupid nor does she play stupid characters.)

  12. Or are you saying Bodanis wrote his book so that it could be understood by Diaz?
    Yes. Sorry I was unable to scoop up text from the Amazon free preview, but that is what he was saying.
    (That’s a pretty mean thing to say isn’t it? So far as I know Diaz isn’t particularly stupid nor does she play stupid characters.)
    Ah, no no no. She had been on air in some interview and brought it up, as wishing she were a bit more scientifically educated. Bodanis mentioned this to some of his non-specialist friends, who said they felt the same. He was casting all these, celebs or his own friends, as intelligent people who can understand a bit more technical explanation than they usually get.

  13. “(That’s a pretty mean thing to say isn’t it? So far as I know Diaz isn’t particularly stupid nor does she play stupid characters.)
    Ah, no no no. She had been on air in some interview and brought it up, as wishing she were a bit more scientifically educated. Bodanis mentioned this to some of his non-specialist friends, who said they felt the same. He was casting all these, celebs or his own friends, as intelligent people who can understand a bit more technical explanation than they usually get.”

    As a professional wordsmith, he *really* should have phrased it better. (Or maybe it was in the original, non-excerpted version?).

  14. From the 1934 movie “It’s a Gift”:

    “You’re drunk!”

    W.C. Fields: “And you’re crazy. But I’ll be sober tomorrow and you’ll be crazy for the rest of your life. “

  15. Geez. He wanted to write it so that an interested, intelligent amateur could understand it. And took as his model for such a person the actress Cameron Diaz.
    That is meant to stand as a contrast to the stories that presume an actress or model must be a dimwit.
    I”m sorry my wording of a summary led you all in the wrong direction.

  16. I have heard it said by GB Shaw to Isadora Duncan.

    And it seems to have been also attributed to Arthur Miller and Marilyn Monroe.

Add a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.