« Your new challenge: Jan. 13, 2014 | Main | Your new challenge: Jan. 20, 2014 »

Comments

Jason

I just don't understand how some of these get selected. You say in your writing guidelines "Study the drawing. Try to figure out what's going on, what makes it unusual or offbeat, and how one might explain that incongruity". So in this Christie appears to be swearing in to something, taking an oath, with a traffic cone on his hand. Half of these comply with that, and some can argue that the captions occur just before the oath (such as the winner's). But some of these are so clearly not an oath-related caption that it makes no sense to the picture, yet they are selected. What good is it to study the drawing if, in this example, comments without any oath-related logic are considered runners up or best of the rest?

Phil

I have to agree with Jason, having made the same observation myself in the past. I submitted nine captions this week, six of which were “oath-related,” but the one selected was not. Recognizing the flexibility in the enforcement of the guidelines, I have “taken advantage” of them occasionally, allowing as how - in Kevin’s judgment - humor sometimes trumps guidelines.
Humor, of course, is a subjective thing. For example, one of the ones I liked that wasn’t selected was “I had no part in the debacle over the Hudson.”

Carolyn

What about his inauguration speech? Chris Christie is very self-centered, as evidenced by his use of hurricane relief money, so humor about him talking about himself is not far-fetched.

Congratulations to all!

Gerry Schmitt

HE didn't do it!!!

Jason

Carolyn, if the cartoon was of Christie at a podium or holding a sheet of paper as if he were addressing an audience, I would agree that you could incorporate his inauguration speech into the caption. But clearly this cartoon is of him swearing in to an office, or a court, with a hand on what presumably is a Bible (or anything else used in swearing in events), and holding his hand up to further emphasize it. To that regard, you could use any component of an oath..."swear to tell the truth and whole truth", "i swear to uphold...", or what could be said before starting the oath, like the fingers crossed thing (since that eludes to not telling the truth) or during the oath (uphold or hold up--brilliant!). Any derivative of that fits the cartoon well, tying in his recent controversies with the traffic situation or, as you said, the use of the hurricane money (though the traffic one makes more sense with the traffic cone in the picture). Half of these follow those guidelines, and the others don't--they just seem totally random usages of pun that don't fit the event being represented in the picture. And if humor does trump guidelines, then why offer the guideline to study the picture to see what is going on? I know this is all for fun, so I'm really trying not to make a big deal about it. I'm just trying to understand why some captions get selected that don't really fit.

Ross

Congrats to the winner and all the mentions!

The comments to this entry are closed.