Origin of a Cartoon

Hello! Today I got a light, breezy cartoon origin story for the fourth cartoon I sold to The New Yorker. Just to recap: this is the third-ish installment of a new-ish segment called “Origin of a Cartoon,” where I explore how one particular cartoon came to be. You can read parts one and two here.

Today’s cartoon:

Gangsters looking at a Pollackesque painting. This has always been a favorite of mine. I submitted it in my eleventh batch, but it was the second version of the cartoon that I tried. In my tenth batch I attempted an earlier rendition that did not sell:

I actually thought up both concepts for this premise simultaneously. I’ve spoken before about how sometimes cartoonists will try two versions of the same cartoon in the same batch. Sometimes, however, we may try one version in a batch, and if that doesn’t sell, try another version the next week. I think this might be more common with newer cartoonists, which I was at the time, because it feels unprofessional, like you’re breaking a rule somehow. Today I know that such rules do not exist. There are no rules. Submit what you like!

I had to decide which one had a better shot at selling. My reasoning was that the phrase “Make it look like an accident” was the thrust of the joke, and therefore the exact wording of that phrase should be intact. The present-tense “make it look like an accident” felt to me a better fit that the implied past-tense of “he makes it look,” in the second version.

Who knows why they took the second version a week later. It could have been that they bought a better gangster joke the week I submitted the first version. Or maybe the simplicity of the image in the second version is better. It was most likely that the second version is funnier.

It’s a question of tone. In the second attempt, the caption takes on the gentler tone of a gallery patron. This creates a contrast between the implied threat of the cliched words and the quiet setting of an art gallery. As I’ve said before and will probably say many more times: contrast is funny.

In the first submission, however, the words are spoken as an actual threat, and the joke comes from the realization that the demand is regarding painting technique and not violence. This isn’t a contrast, it’s a bait and switch.

But like I said, who knows why the second version was chosen! Could be the first drawing was too busy, or that having Pollack in the drawing is distracting. I like both drawings, but I do think the second one is more elegant.

The best part is that I did get to reuse the original version of the drawing for a cartoon I sold much later to The Washington Post:

That’s one good thing about being a digital artist. Old unused pictures can be given new life years down the road. I have to admit, however, that this cartoon is in similar territory to a cartoon I sold around the same time as that first Pollack one, but to Barron’s:

Like I said, there are no rules! Ok, that’s it for today! Thanks!

What Else?

Huge news! My fake nemesis, Asher Perlman, started a new substack. He’s the best cartoonist working today, so If you love cartoons this is a must-subscribe!