Customer Reviews

The Rejection Collection: Cartoons You Never Saw, and Never Will See, in The New Yorker

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"The Rejection Collection," edited by Matthew Diffee, consists of cartoons that were "too risque, silly, or weird" to be accepted by the New Yorker magazine. Diffee asked thirty of his friends and colleagues, all of whom have had their work published in the New Yorker, to sift through their rejects and submit their favorites. From these, Diffee picked HIS favorites, which he dubs "the cream of the crap."

Diffee inserts photographs of the artists as well as quirky questionnaires that allow the cartoonists to express their feelings about such topics as their childhoods, what makes them laugh, and how they handle rejection. Unsurprisingly, their answers tend to be offbeat, humorous, and filled with doodles. The cartoons themselves have to be seen to be believed. They are scatological, profane, sadistic, stupid, clever, politically incorrect, and often hilarious. It's fair game to satirize crooked politicians, cosmetic surgery, and idiotic voice mail messages, but how can anyone make fun of adultery, chemotherapy, transsexuals, child abuse, alcoholism, and suicide? Aren't these subjects off limits? It turns out that in some cartoonists' slightly warped minds, no subject must be avoided in the name of political correctness and good taste.

One of the book's strengths is the insight that it offers into the creative process. Some of the artists believe that the writing and the ideas are more important than the drawings--no ideas, no cartoons. However, in the best cartoons, the writing and drawing are so well integrated that neither element dominates. These cartoons work so well that the reader finds himself laughing out loud (and feeling guilty afterwards).

If you have a friend who is a bit wacky, irreverent, and not easily offended, this collection would make a good gift. I wouldn't give it to Mom, Dad, your rabbi, or your priest, however. In these pages are naked guys and ladies, references to bodily functions, and content that can euphemistically be described as inappropriate for people with delicate sensibilities. Although some of the cartoons simply fall flat, the best of the bunch effectively satirize modern society, the human condition, and the madness that surrounds us every day.

The cartoons in this book are mostly great, and I am very glad that Matthew Diffee decided to collect them between two covers for our benefit. However, what definitely weighs the book down are the interruptive cartoonist questionnaires which, although funny at times, reek of self-importance. As someone who takes great interest in cartoons and cartoonists, reading through the cartoonists' witticisms feels unnecessary even to me. One purchases a book of cartoons to see the cartoons, and the long Q&A sections that pepper the book simply destroy any sort of flow that it may have had. In general, cartoons which are funny individually become much funnier when looked at cumulatively (an idea that Stephen King hinted at in his introduction to one of the Far Side treasuries). Unfortunately, this book never allows itself to establish a one-after-another, hit-you-until-you're-down rhythm, and it suffers for it.

My advice to Mr. Diffee is to attempt to publish a second volume, 3rd, and 4th, etc., but without the cumbersome stoppages every three pages. There are clearly enough wonderful rejected cartoons out there to merit these volumes, and continuing to publish them is a fantastic idea, but the cartoonists' egos should be left at the door. Being a cartoonist is about showing off your work, not yourself.

If, however, somebody decided to compile biographical pieces on and photographs of New Yorker cartoonists, and not market the book as a book of cartoons, the questionnaires used in this tome would be highly appropriate and informative in that type of setting. Maybe that's another idea. But the two shouldn't be combined, because the reader is left wanting either way, not getting enough cartoons or biographical stuff.

These cartoons are much funnier than the ones which actually appear in the New Yorker. I usually laugh out loud two or three times per issue, but almost every cartoon in this book was a winner! Most of these cartoons were rejected not because of poor quality, but because they're in, ahem, questionable taste. The little questionnaires (full of sly wit) which each cartoonist answers were annoying at first, but ended up being one of my favorite parts of the book (partly because they stopped me from barreling through the cartoons and getting overloaded). A perfect gift for somebody who isn't easily offended!

I had high hopes for this book, and it did not disappoint. I laughed out loud many times while reading the book.

I must disagree with the reviewer who did not like the cartoonist questionnaires interspersed throughout the book - I thoroughly enjoyed them. They allowed the cartoonists to be creative in new ways. By the way, have a look at the lower right box in the questionnaires, the small gray box that says "For office use only" - Diffee fooled most of the cartoonists into leaving that box blank, which was funny in and of itself.

Can't wait for the next book in this collection to come out.

....unless you don't mind being seen cackling, gasping for breath with beer
running out of your nose.
You already know that these are cartoons by New Yorker cartoonists that were
rejected by that magazine. If you're a regular reader of the New Yorker, this book
will be a revelation: the difference between these cartoons and the ones that get
published is not just that these are much funnier. The difference lies in the
exuberance and boundary-pushing that's the hallmark or true art. Or at least
true cartoons. There's less of the insider-joke smarminess that congratulates you
for being hip enough to get what the joke is. Seeing what the magazine didn't
want to publish has diminished my respect for it just a bit. (I'm not cancelling my
subscription though.)

There's the cartoon of the couple sitting on a couch. Through the window, we see
the full moon. The man is visibly turning into a werewolf. The woman observes:
"You're lucky. I'm turning into my mother." Then there's the Roadkill Zoo and the
Santa with a craving for venison and the ventriloquist who getting drunk while
his dummy barfs and. . . . . . .


_Lynn Hoffman, author of bang BANG, which was rejected once or twice itself

The book description and customer reviews below offer a reasonable "objective" description of the rationale and contents of the book, so permit me to add a personal take on this fine collection.

First, while I agree that many (perhaps half) of these cartoons are "too" out there to appear in the New Yorker, I would say (after having read the rag for over ten years) that many would be published if offered again (and Editor Mankoff happened to forget they were amongst the over 20,000/year that he rejects).

I also agree that these are on the whole funnier than the ones that are printed in the average New Yorker edition.

One of the Cartoonists nailed me, hard, on every cartoon - 5 out of 5 - extended laughs.

I would say if you laugh at one (or two) cartoons, like I do, then you will not regret spending your hard-earned coin on The Rejection Collection.

BY THE NUMBERS
30 cartoonists are featured (plus Diffee, the editor).
5 cartoons/cartoonist (Diffee offers two).
2-page questionaire/cartoonist
Average laughs/cartoonist: 2, maybe 2-/12.
(Of course this reflects what made ME laugh - your mileage . . . etc.)

THE QUESTIONNAIRES
One reviewer thought the questionaires "reeked of self-importance". For my money the questionnaire was a big value-added feature. All these "guys" (including the women) are clever and I was entertained, not only by the content, but by the different ways they responded to and (in some cases) messed with the questionaire itself.

Remember your friends and classmates who refused to color inside the lines? Some like these are in this book. I came away thinking I'd love to have lunch (or pound some brews) with many of these cartoonists.

Some example questions/instructions:

Where will you be in ten minutes? (best answer: "In a tub of scotch. Blended.)

My first cartoon . . .

Most cartoonists I know are . . .("significantly hairier than you think.....")

Inside a box: Draw something in this space that will help us understand your childhood: (there were a few drawings evocative of a Catholic upbringing)

NEW YORKER DVD PLUG
Maybe the best reason to get this book is that it may cause you to revisit the DVD-ROM set of "The Complete New Yorker". For the uninitiated, this includes every page of every New Yorker magazine published from its inception in 1925 through January of 2005 (plus two February issues). The Complete New Yorker is perhaps the only thing in publishing that, even at its new price, is competitive in entertainment with garage sale paperbacks (in reading hours/cent) .

The DVD's are accompanied by software, which offers a catalog/database which allows searches by category (for instance, Talk of the Town, Profiles, Current Cinema, and of course, Cartoons). This is combined with searches by Author (Cartoonist), Key Word, and Year.

It was a simple matter to find out that Gahan Wilson has been selling cartoons to the New Yorker since the middle '70's, and to view/print each of these at leisure.

So, get this book and the DVD set, and you will have literally tens of thousands of cartoons at your disposal. Need I say you will also get tens of thousands of articles, short stories, movie reviews, profiles, full-color ads (and so forth) spanning nine decades?

I liked the cartoons in the book, which ranged from hilarious to hu-hum to just plain bizarre. It was interesting to see cartoons in the 'New Yorker' style that were either too risque, offensive, obscure, etc. to publish.

For each of the 40 cartoonist, there is a 2-page questionnaire they filled out. Unfortunately, humor in cartoons doesn't always translate to humor in this questionnaire, and most of the time they just come off as trying too hard. I wish these 80 out of 250 pages were cut and more cartoons presented.

The cartoon on the cover of "The Rejection Collection", a marvelous compilation edited by Matthew Diffee, says it all......the twisted witticisms by various contributors to the New Yorker appear here as they never could in the magazine. Two hundred fifty pages of hilarity are interspersed with mini-biographies of each cartoonist and the book is a total delight. To think that these cartoons have never seen the light of day until now makes them even more of a treasure.

Much like poring through "The Complete Cartoons of the New Yorker" each reader will have several favorites, but "The Rejection Collection" tugs at a deeper sense of the slightly macabre. I highly recommend this book for its collection of irreverent cartoons...it will be hard to put this down for all the laughter it provides.

Rejected cartoons by contributors to the New Yorker? A great idea. This is not a New Yorker sponsored book and so the book gives no reasons why, but most of those rejected either are bathroom based(two aleins zipping by earth in their flying saucer and one says to the other "Hold that thought, I have to go No. 5), or political(cop, gun drawn at a minority who is fleeing,"Stop and I'll shoot."), or too sexual high school cheerleader and classmate on stadium bench, with the young woman saying," No, Justin I am saving myself for college."). The book underscorces just how rare the talent is to both draw and be funny. If you are a new yorker fan, you'll embrace these prodigal cartoons, and love them all the more.

The publicity for this book wants us to make us think that the three main reasons why the New Yorker rejected these cartoons was because they were too silly, too risque, or too weird. Nope. Although these elements are present in some of the cartoons, the outstanding factor, present in a great many of them, is BAD TASTE. I will say the cover illustration does not hide this fact. (Look for yourself.) Of course, there is a market for these; witness Truly Tasteless Jokes and whatever may be on the Web.

On the other hand, there are some funny ones that I would label on the borderline of taste (for example, some of their cartoons on the subject of death might not offend someone who has not recently had a friend or relative die). And there are some that I would have taken: the "bi Ken doll" with the larger number of accessories is an example. And the cartoons are generally on the same level of professionalism as regular New Yorker cartoons.

Caveat emptor!