The caption is, "Yes, Daddy; I totally understand your concept of the class-to-cash ratio; that's precisely WHY I'm calling."
So far I've had twenty cartoons un-accepted, or non-accepted, or, …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had an active account on our previous website, then you have an account here. Simply reset your password to regain access to your account.
If you did not have an account on our previous website, but are a current print subscriber, click here to set up your website account.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
* Having trouble? Call our circulation department at 360-385-2900, or email our support.
Please log in to continue |
|
The caption is, "Yes, Daddy; I totally understand your concept of the class-to-cash ratio; that's precisely WHY I'm calling."
So far I've had twenty cartoons un-accepted, or non-accepted, or, yeah, rejected by the "New Yorker." Why then, loser that this makes me, do I think the same cartoons are creative/clever/funny enough for you?
Probably because I believe they're good enough for anyone. Yes, my ego does have a few dents in it, but it's pretty much intact. No, it can't be that I'm just too cutting edge, too deep or clever; it has to be... while I consider how some overworked, overwhelmed, or lazy (think the postal worker with the attic full of undelivered mail) intern is deleting my submissions without fully consideration, I'm thinking about where I can use these bits and images.
Maybe I have too much of a west coast angle, too cross-hatchy a style, not obvious enough humor...captions that are too wordy. Constructive criticism is welcome. All other criticism can be directed to addressing controversial stuff; and, this time, I'm not going to say write pithy responses to Tom Camfield's posts.