At last, the "New Yorker cartoon" episode of "Seinfeld" is authentically deconstructed

"Every now and then, when I really want to know what the joke of a particular cartoon is, I just ask someone in the magazine's art department. That is the perk of being a cartoonist myself."

-- New Yorker cartoonist and Seinfeld writer Bruce Eric Kaplan

Elinoff, the fictional New Yorker cartoon editor played by Paul Benedict in this Seinfeld episode written by writer-cartoonist Bruce Eric Kaplan, explains to Elaine why he can't explain the cartoon that's driving her crazy. Actual New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff notes in a postscript to his new blogpost: "Whenever Bruce asks us to explain a cartoon, we resist the temptation to say, 'It's like gossamer, Bruce, and one doesn't dissect gossamer.' "

by Ken

No doubt many of you have been following New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff's recent series of newsletters-blogposts in which he has once again delved into the Seinfeld Season 9 episode, "The Cartoon," in which Elaine tries to get to the bottom of a New Yorker cartoon she can't understand -- and clearly suspects she's being hoodwinked by.

It all began with the July 11 post "I Liked the Kitty," which Bob began:

The question I get asked most often as cartoon editor is: How much money does The New Yorker pay for a cartoon? All I can say about that is: sell us one and you’ll find out.

The second most frequently asked question is: What did you think about that “Seinfeld” episode making fun of New Yorker cartoons? Well, it was written by one of our best cartoonists, Bruce Eric Kaplan, and my initial reaction was “Et tu, Bruce?,” but over time, the episode has grown on me. I’ve used it before to compare fiction to reality when it comes to what my desk looks like and how the cartoon department operates.

And I have decided to do so again, because the episode provides a fun way to comment on issues I’m interested in. For those of you who haven’t seen the episode, I’ve created a stripped-down comic-strip version of it that includes just the pertinent parts.

And here's the first installment of that version:

BOB M'S "KITTY" SERIES CONTINUED . . .

. . . with "I Liked the Kitty: Part II" (July 18) and "I Liked the Kitty: Part III" (July 25), and even included its own cartoon caption contest, before coming to rest today with a post called "Goodbye Kitty." Along the way Bob pursued all sorts of modes of inquiry into the episode and beyond, and if you haven't read the series, I'll leave that to you. But today's post, Bob says, "concludes my love/hate affair" with the episode, "by taking you behind the scenes with the guy who wrote it, Bruce Eric Kaplan, whom fans of the magazine know as 'BEK.' "

INSERT: AN AUTHENTIC BEK CARTOON


"TAKE IT AWAY, BRUCE," BOB WRITES --

And take it away Bruce does.

You would think that my idea for the cartoon episode of "Seinfeld" came from my own experience as a New Yorker cartoonist. But, like everything you would think, you are not exactly right.

About fifteen years ago, I was on an airplane, reading Time magazine, which had a small item in the front about how a New Yorker cartoon by Robert Weber had elicited an unusual number of queries as to what the caption meant. The image (an exquisitely drawn one, I want to say) is of a boy walking into the living room where his mother is vacuuming. He says to her, "I had the most incredible nap." Actually, it says, "That was an incredible nap!," but part of the fun of recounting a cartoon is slightly altering the caption to the way you hear it in your mind when you think of it.

The meaning of the cartoon was clear to me -- it is a hilarious comment on the fact that we live in a culture that feels comfortable saying that anything is incredible, or, more often these days, "Amazing!" We have incredible lattes, amazing socks, etc. But apparently some readers didn't get this.

I have a theory I just came up with in this moment -- perhaps people don't get the genre of ironic cartoons because they themselves are incapable of irony. But then again, I have only had this theory for a few moments, and it may be completely off base.

In any case, the reason for the Time item was that there has always been this widely held notion that some New Yorker cartoons are inscrutable. And even though this one wasn't inscrutable to me, others have been and continue to be. At least once a month, I turn to my wife and say, "What does this mean" about some cartoon. I could give you an example, but I don't want to because, I don't know . . . it seems wrong somehow. I will say that oftentimes they are cartoons by the same one or two (wildly popular and critically celebrated) artists. So obviously the vast majority of people understand and connect with what these cartoonists are commenting on.

Every now and then, when I really want to know what the joke of a particular cartoon is, I just ask someone in the magazine's art department. That is the perk of being a cartoonist myself.

When I saw the item in Time, I was writing for "Seinfeld," and of course always looking for things in my life that could be the basis of stories. And I thought, I would love to write an episode where a character is frustrated by not knowing what a New Yorker cartoon means and then goes about trying to find the answer by going to the New Yorker art department and asking what the joke was.

So this is all to say that this plotline came somewhat from my life as a New Yorker cartoonist but more so from being a lifelong reader of New Yorker cartoons and an occasional reader of Time.

And so, Seinfeld fans, there you have it, from the horse's mouth.

POSTSCRIPT: A COMMENT ON BEK'S STORY

Commenter Concertmaster has added this comment to BEK's account, referring to the Robert Weber cartoon that caused the fuss in Time that planted the idea of the Seinfeld cartoon episode in BEK's head:

I didn't get the point of this cartoon either, and I think the reason is revealed by Bruce Eric Kaplan's comment that the image is "an exquisitely drawn one". The cartoonist as visual artist has stolen the show from the cartoonist as verbal ironist. What jumps out immediately at the reader is that wonderfully vivid image of the mother vacuuming: She extends her arms at full length to thrust the vacuum wand deep under the chair; even her face is elongated to focus our attention on her target; her effort forces her body into provocative curves which are echoed by the snaking vacuum hose; mother and vacuum cleaner are centred in the image and sharply outlined in black. So the reader's eye declares that this is a cartoon about household chores; given this expectation, the caption makes no sense, and the rather subtle point about the boy's use of language doesn't have a chance. It would have worked better if the setting had been the kid's bedroom, with the visual focus on him.

That's way more than I would say, but it gives me the confidence to own up that I didn't get the cartoon either. I have a feeling, however, that I may have less difficulty than Bruce with those "one or two (wildly popular and critically celebrated) artists" whose cartoons he has to have the New Yorker art department explain to him.

INSERT: ANOTHER AUTHENTIC BEK CARTOON


BEK, BY THE WAY . . .

. . . in addition to his Seinfeld credits, was a writer and then a co-executive producer and an executive producer for HBO's legendary Six Feet Under (IMDb lists 40 episodes he was involved with), and more recently has been a writer and co-executive producer for the first season of HBO's Girls.

AND AN AUTHENTIC BEK NEW YORKER COVER
(with explanatory notes from the artist here)


FINALLY, IF YOU STILL HAVEN'T SIGNED

UP FOR BOB MANKOFF'S NEWSLETTER . . .

. . . you can sign up on the New Yorker website, including at any of the above-linked pages. As I keep pointing out, its arrival every Wednesday is the happiest thing that comes regularly into my e-mailbox. (Yes, of course it's free.)

#