• PapaStevesy@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think that’s a very generous read, and I just don’t see it. The first three panels are well done, but the last adds nothing. It’s like someone ending a Little Johnny joke with “and then the teacher sent him to the principal’s office” instead of with whatever dirty thing Johnny said that was supposed to be the actual punchline.

      • PapaStevesy@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Lol, I never suggested anything about the author’s writing process and I certainly never even implied that I thought you were a dumbass, which I don’t. But now I’m not convinced you’re not the actual cartoonist, since you seem to have intimate knowledge of their creation process and their recreational habits. It’s not a “character study”—you would need characters for that—it’s a setup with no punchline, it’s half a joke. Actually, it’s worse, it’s a joke with a decent punchline, followed by a whole extra panel that just restates what the reader already learned in the previous panel with the actual punchline, making me feel like the author thinks I’m a dumbass.

          • PapaStevesy@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sorry I didn’t read and respond to that wall of text, lol. All I’ll say is, If you need 6 paragraphs to explain why it’s a good joke, it’s not a good joke.