The cartoon below by Alex Gregory appeared in the New Yorker on Sept 12th and is now doing the rounds of the blogosphere.
Bob Mankoff, cartoon editor of The New Yorker and president of the Cartoon Bank service, which is owned by the New Yorker said of this cartoon:
While many cartoons on blogs have been submitted and rejected by The New Yorker, this one, seemed to us, to perfectly capture the irony inherent in a communications phenomenon that permits so many to say so little about so much. I think it will become a classic
I don’t get it.
Via BusinessWeek
I’m not sure that cartoon works for me, because the way he’s phrased it makes it seem as though there is a diference between having a blog and pointless incessant barking when the joke appears to be insinuating there isn’t…?
Anyone with me?
Pointless, incessant barking is more enjoyable / worthwhile?
I’m thinking that the pointless, incessant barking is easier (no comment spam, hosting issues, etc.)
But I could be well wide of the mark!
No, no. I’ve got it. Blogging is still too complex for pets. Once my cat can blog I’ll make millions! ?
Ok see, this is more or less what I thought the essence of the joke was… but it looks like everyone takes their own mesage from it! I’m sure hostyle’s interpretation re cats is the right one though…
I dunno Lee,
I’m thinking if your cat can blog, your cat will make millions.
Brilliant Frank - I love it!
There’s a lot of pressure on bloggers who feel they must come up with daily significant thoughts that are worth posting and worth reading. Barking without worrying about the interpretation and response of others would be more relaxing I’m sure.