Bob Mankoff: Anatomy of a New Yorker cartoon

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

譯者: E Fan 審譯者: Willy Feng

I'm going to be talking about designing humor,

我今天要和大家談一談如何設計幽默

which is sort of an interesting thing, but it goes

這應該算是很有趣的題目

to some of the discussions about constraints,

也會談到設計幽默的限制

and how in certain contexts, humor is right,

還有在某些情境下幽默是對的

and in other contexts it's wrong.

但在另一些情境下則不妥

Now, I'm from New York,

我來自紐約

so it's 100 percent satisfaction here.

所以我是百分百對幽默很滿意

Actually, that's ridiculous, because when it comes to humor,

其實這很荒謬, 因為講到幽默

75 percent is really absolutely the best you can hope for.

你最多只能期待有75%的滿意度

Nobody is ever satisfied 100 percent with humor

世界上沒有人可以100%的滿意度

except this woman.

除了這個女人

(Video) Woman: (Laughs)

(影片女人大笑)

這是我的第一任老婆

Bob Mankoff: That's my first wife.

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

That part of the relationship went fine.

我們那時候關係很好

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now let's look at this cartoon.

現在我們來看看這個漫畫

One of the things I'm pointing out is that

我想先指出

cartoons appear within the context

這漫畫是在紐約客雜誌中

of The New Yorker magazine,

插在內文之中的

that lovely Caslon type, and it seems

文字是可愛的卡斯龍字型

like a fairly benign cartoon within this context.

在這樣的情境下看起來是個相當良善的漫畫

It's making a little bit fun of getting older,

它對變老這件事開了個玩笑

and, you know, people might like it.

你知道的, 人們可能會喜歡

But like I said, you cannot satisfy everyone.

但像我說的, 你無法滿足所有人

You couldn't satisfy this guy.

你無法滿足這個傢伙

"Another joke on old white males. Ha ha. The wit.

"另一個開年紀大白人的玩笑, 哈哈, 很好笑

It's nice, I'm sure to be young and rude,

很好, 我肯定你是即年輕又粗魯

but some day you'll be old, unless you drop dead as I wish."

但有一天你也會變老, 除非你猝死 - 像我期待的那樣"

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

The New Yorker is rather a sensitive environment,

紐約客雜誌是一個相較敏感的環境

very easy for people to get their nose out of joint.

讀者很容易不滿

And one of the things that you realize

然而有一件事你們可以感受到

is it's an unusual environment.

現在這裡是一個特別的氛圍

Here I'm one person talking to you.

我一個人和各位演說, 你們是一個群體

You're all collective. You all hear each other laugh and know each other laugh.

你們可以聽到彼此的笑聲, 也知道彼此在笑

In The New Yorker, it goes out to a wide audience,

而在紐約客, 面對的觀眾很廣

and when you actually look at that,

當你去檢視這一點

and nobody knows what anybody else is laughing at,

沒有人知道其他人在笑些什麼

and when you look at that the subjectivity involved in humor

而且會發現幽默的主觀性

是很有趣的

is really interesting.

Let's look at this cartoon.

讓我們來看看這個漫畫

"Discouraging data on the antidepressant."

"令人失望的抗憂鬱藥物研究結果"

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Indeed, it is discouraging.

這確實令人失望

Now, you would think, well, look,

現在你會說, 看吧

most of you laughed at that.

大部分的人都笑了

Right? You thought it was funny.

覺得這很有趣

In general, that seems like a funny cartoon,

一般而言, 這是一個很有趣的漫畫

but let's look what online survey I did.

但是讓我們來看看我做的線上調查

Generally, about 85 percent of the people liked it.

大體而言, 近85%的人喜歡它

A hundred and nine voted it a 10, the highest. Ten voted it one.

109個人給了最高分十分, 有10人投了一分

But look at the individual responses.

看看這些人的回應

"I like animals!!!!!" Look how much they like them.

"我很喜歡動物! 但看看他們呢.."

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

"I don't want to hurt them. That doesn't seem very funny to me."

"我不想傷害他們, 我覺得這看起來不有趣"

This person rated it a two.

這個人給了兩分

"I don't like to see animals suffer -- even in cartoons."

"就算只是漫畫, 我也不喜歡看到動物受苦"

To people like this, I point out we use anesthetic ink.

對這些人, 我會說我是用加了麻醉藥的墨水

Other people thought it was funny.

其它人認為這很有趣

That actually is the true nature of the distribution of humor

實際上這是當你沒有幽默感時

when you don't have the contagion of humor.

群眾很自然地對幽默的一種散播

Humor is a type of entertainment.

幽默是一種娛樂

All entertainment contains a little frisson of danger,

每一種娛樂都隱含了一些危險因素

something that might happen wrong,

有些時候可能會出錯

and yet we like it when there's protection.

但有所保護的時候, 我們會喜歡它

That's what a zoo is. It's danger. The tiger is there.

像是動物園, 老虎很危險, 但有柵欄保護

The bars protect us. That's sort of fun, right?

這樣就感到一點有趣了, 對吧

That's a bad zoo.

這是一個不好的動物園

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

It's a very politically correct zoo, but it's a bad zoo.

這是一個政治正確的動物園, 但不是一個好的動物園

But this is a worse one.

更糟的動物園則長這樣

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

So in dealing with humor in the context of The New Yorker,

所以, 處理在紐約客文章中的幽默

you have to see, where is that tiger going to be?

你必須知道老虎會在哪裡

Where is the danger going to exist?

哪裡存在著危險

How are you going to manage it?

你又會如何去面對

My job is to look at 1,000 cartoons a week.

我的工作是每週檢視一千個漫畫

But The New Yorker only can take 16 or 17 cartoons,

但紐約客只能留下16到17個

and we have 1,000 cartoons.

然而我們有一千個

Of course, many, many cartoons must be rejected.

因此有很多很多的漫畫必須被退回

Now, we could fit more cartoons in the magazine

當然我們可以在雜誌中放入更多的漫畫

if we removed the articles.

前提是把文章都拿掉

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

But I feel that would be a huge loss,

我覺得那會是很大的損失

one I could live with, but still huge.

我是可以接受, 但還是很大的損失

Cartoonists come in through the magazine every week.

每週很多漫畫畫家進來雜誌社

The average cartoonist who stays with the magazine

平均來說, 他們每週畫10到15個漫畫

does 10 or 15 ideas every week.

But they mostly are going to be rejected.

但它們大部分會被退稿

That's the nature of any creative activity.

所有創意工作都是如此

Many of them fade away. Some of them stay.

這些人多數隨時間離去, 有些人會留下

Matt Diffee is one of them.

Matt Diffee 是其中一個

Here's one of his cartoons.

這是他的漫畫

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Drew Dernavich. "Accounting night at the improv."

Drew Dernavich 的 "在劇場的會計之夜"

"Now is the part of the show when we ask the audience

"這是表演的一部分, 我們會請觀眾隨機地給我們一些數字”

to shout out some random numbers."

Paul Noth. "He's all right. I just wish he were a little more pro-Israel."

Paul Noth 的 "他沒問題的, 只希望他扮演以色列人能更專業一點"

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now I know all about rejection,

各位, 我很了解退稿

because when I quit -- actually, I was booted out of -- psychology school

因為當我休學, 事實上是我被踢出心理學學校

and decided to become a cartoonist, a natural segue,

決定要當一個漫畫畫家, 一個很自然的決定

from 1974 to 1977 I submitted 2,000 cartoons to The New Yorker,

我從1974到1977年，送出了2000個漫畫去紐約客

and got 2,000 cartoons rejected by The New Yorker.

然而2000個漫畫都被紐約客退回

At a certain point, this rejection slip, in 1977 --

在1977年的某個時間點, 退稿單從這張：

"很抱歉我們無法採用您的材料，謝謝您給我們機會參考您的作品"

[We regret that we are unable to use the enclosed material. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider it.] —

magically changed to this.

神奇的變成這張：

[Hey! You sold one. No shit! You really sold a cartoon to the fucking New Yorker magazine.]

”嘿，你賣掉了一個！不是蓋的，你真的成功的賣出了一個漫畫給他媽的紐約客雜誌。”

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

Now of course that's not what happened,

當然, 這不是真的狀況, 只是我心理上的感受

but that's the emotional truth.

And of course, that is not New Yorker humor.

想當然爾, 那不是紐約客的幽默

What is New Yorker humor?

什麼是紐約客幽默?

Well, after 1977, I broke into The New Yorker and started selling cartoons.

在1997年後, 我闖進了紐約客雜誌並開始賣我的漫畫

Finally, in 1980, I received the revered

終於在1980年, 我收到了令人崇敬的紐約客的合約

New Yorker contract,

which I blurred out parts because it's none of your business.

我模糊掉了一部分因為那跟你們無關

From 1980. "Dear Mr. Mankoff, confirming the agreement

”在1980, 親愛的曼考夫先生, 確認了合約..."

there of -- " blah blah blah blah -- blur --

"所以... 啦啦啦啦... 啦～”

"for any idea drawings."

”對於任何構想畫作...”

With respect to idea drawings, nowhere in the contract

"關於構想畫作..."

在合約中從頭到尾都沒有提及"漫畫" 這個字

is the word "cartoon" mentioned.

The word "idea drawings," and that's the sine qua non of New Yorker cartoons.

"構想畫作" 這個字, 是紐約客漫畫的必要條件

So what is an idea drawing? An idea drawing is something

所以什麼是構想畫作? 構想畫作是..

會讓你思考的東西

that requires you to think.

Now that's not a cartoon. It requires thinking

這不是漫畫, 這需要部分畫家的想法

on the part of the cartoonist and thinking on your part

和部分你的想法

to make it into a cartoon.

讓它畫成一個漫畫

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Here are some, generally you get my cast of cartoon mind.

這裡有一些範例, 你可以從這了解我的漫畫思維

"There is no justice in the world. There is some justice in the world. The world is just."

”世界沒有公義, 世界上有一些公義, 這世界就是公義的”

This is What Lemmings Believe.

"這是旅鼠相信的" (按: 跳下懸崖會上天堂)

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

The New Yorker and I, when we made comments,

當我和紐約客在下註解的時候

the cartoon carries a certain ambiguity about what it actually is.

漫畫帶著一種模糊的意義

What is it, the cartoon? Is it really about lemmings?

這真的是關於旅鼠的漫畫嗎?

No. It's about us.

不, 是關於我們

You know, it's my view basically about religion,

這基本上是我對宗教的觀點

that the real conflict and all the fights between religion

真實世界中宗教之間的

is who has the best imaginary friend.

爭論著誰有最佳的幻想朋友 (按：小朋友常常會有的那種)

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

And this is my most well-known cartoon.

這是我最有名的漫畫

"No, Thursday's out. How about never — is never good for you?"

"不, 星期四不行. '永不' 如何... '永不' 你可以嗎?"

It's been reprinted thousands of times, totally ripped off.

這漫畫被印了上幾千次, 超夯的

It's even on thongs,

甚至印在丁字褲上

but compressed to "How about never — is never good for you?"

但被簡化成「'永不' 如何... '永不' 你可以嗎?」

Now these look like very different forms of humor

他們看起來像是非常不同形式的幽默

but actually they bear a great similarity.

但其實他們有很多的共通點

In each instance, our expectations are defied.

每一個例子中, 我們的預期被挑戰

In each instance, the narrative gets switched.

每一個例子中, 敘事被調換了

There's an incongruity and a contrast.

有著一種不協調與對比

In "No, Thursday's out. How about never — is never good for you?"

在 "不, 星期四不行. '絕不' 如何... '絕不' 你可以嗎?"

what you have is the syntax of politeness

你看到的是有禮貌的句子結構

and the message of being rude.

和很粗魯的訊息

That really is how humor works. It's a cognitive synergy

這就是幽默運作的方式

認知的綜效. 將兩個互相矛盾的東西混在一起

where we mash up these two things which don't go together

並且暫時存留在我們的腦海裡

and temporarily in our minds exist.

He is both being polite and rude.

它同時表現禮貌和無理

In here, you have the propriety of The New Yorker

在這, 你有紐約客的禮貌和語言的粗俗

and the vulgarity of the language.

Basically, that's the way humor works.

基本上, 這就是幽默運作的方式

So I'm a humor analyst, you would say.

所以, 你可以說我是一個幽默的分析師

Now E.B. White said, analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog.

E.B. White 說, 分析幽默就像是解剖一隻青蛙 (按：E.B. White 是紐約客的知名作家)

Nobody is much interested, and the frog dies.

沒有人會有興趣，而且青蛙會死

Well, I'm going to kill a few, but there won't be any genocide.

我會殺死一些, 但不會造成種族滅絕

But really, it makes me —

但它讓我...

Let's look at this picture. This is an interesting picture,

我們來看看這張圖, 這是一幅有趣的圖

The Laughing Audience.

在笑的觀眾們

There are the people, fops up there,

上面這些紈褲子弟

but everybody is laughing, everybody is laughing

除了一個人, 每個人都在笑

except one guy.

This guy. Who is he? He's the critic.

這一位

他是誰? 他是評論家

He's the critic of humor,

他是幽默的評論家

and really I'm forced to be in that position,

說真的, 我是被強迫做這事的

when I'm at The New Yorker, and that's the danger

在紐約客, 有很高的機率

that I will become this guy.

會變成這個人

Now here's a little video made by Matt Diffee, sort of

這裡有一個 Matt Diffee 做的短片

how they imagine if we really exaggerated that.

他們如何誇張的想像我的工作

(Video) Bob Mankoff: "Oooh, no.

歐.. 不

Ehhh.

呃

Oooh. Hmm. Too funny.

歐, 恩, 太過好笑

Normally I would but I'm in a pissy mood.

通常我會讓他過, 但是我現在心情不好

I'll enjoy it on my own. Perhaps.

這, 或許我留著自己享用

No. Nah. No.

不, 不, 不

Overdrawn. Underdrawn.

畫太多, 畫太少

Drawn just right, still not funny enough.

畫得剛剛好, 但是不夠好笑

No. No.

不, 不

For God's sake no, a thousand times no.

我的天, 一千個不 !

(Music)

(音樂)

No. No. No. No. No. [Four hours later]

不不. (四個小時以後)

Hey, that's good, yeah, whatcha got there?

嘿.. 太好了, 你那有什麼?

Office worker: Got a ham and swiss on rye?BM: No.

火腿起司裸麥麵包? 不要

Office worker: Okay. Pastrami on sourdough?BM: No.

醃燻牛肉發酵麵包? 不

Office worker: Smoked turkey with bacon?BM: No.

煙燻火雞培根? 不

Office worker: Falafel?BM: Let me look at it.

沙拉三明治? 讓我看看

Eh, no.

呃, 不要

Office worker: Grilled cheese?BM: No.

烤起司? 不要

Office worker: BLT?BM: No.

BLT? 不要 (按：BLT 是培根生菜番茄三明治)

Office worker: Black forest ham and mozzarella with apple mustard?BM: No.

黑森林火腿和白乾酪配蘋果芥茉? 不要

Office worker: Green bean salad?BM: No.

綠豆沙拉? 不要

(Music)

(音樂)

No. No.

不, 不

Definitely no. [Several hours after lunch]

肯定不 (午餐後幾個小時)

(Siren)

(警笛聲)

No. Get out of here.

不要, 給我滾

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

That's sort of an exaggeration of what I do.

這就是將我的工作誇大之後的樣子

Now, we do reject, many, many, many cartoons,

我們拒絕很多很漫畫

so many that there are many books called "The Rejection Collection."

多到市面上有好幾本書叫做 : 退件漫畫大全集

"The Rejection Collection" is not quite New Yorker kind of humor.

《退件漫畫大全集》不是紐約客式的幽默

And you might notice the bum on the sidewalk here

你可以看到路邊喝醉的流浪漢和他的腹語人偶在嘔吐

who is boozing and his ventriloquist dummy is puking.

See, that's probably not going to be New Yorker humor.

這不會是紐約客的幽默

It's actually put together by Matt Diffee, one of our cartoonists.

其實這是我們其中一位漫畫家 Matt Diffee 的作品

So I'll give you some examples of rejection collection humor.

我來舉一些《退件漫畫大全》裡的例子

"I'm thinking about having a child."

”我考慮來生個小孩”

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

There you have an interesting -- the guilty laugh,

瞧, 你們這是有趣的內疚笑聲

the laugh against your better judgment.

跟你們良好判斷力作對的笑聲

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

"Ass-head. Please help."

”屁頭, 幫幫我" (按：說自己是屁頭 但暗指對方屁頭)

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now, in fact, within a context of this book,

事實上, 在這本書的脈絡中

which says, "Cartoons you never saw and never will see

”這裡都是不曾也不會在紐約客上看到的漫畫”

in The New Yorker," this humor is perfect.

這些幽默是完美的

I'm going to explain why.

讓我解釋一下

There's a concept about humor about it being

幽默有一個概念是善意的作對

a benign violation.

In other words, for something to be funny, we've got to think

換句話說, 關於一個好笑的幽默

it's both wrong and also okay at the same time.

我們可以認定同時是錯誤和正確的

If we think it's completely wrong, we say, "That's not funny."

如果我們認為是全盤錯誤的, 就不好笑了

And if it's completely okay, what's the joke? Okay?

如果完全正確, 就不會是笑話了, 是吧

And so, this benign, that's true of "No, Thursday's out. How about never — is never good for you?"

所以在 "不, 星期四不行. '絕不' 如何... '絕不' 你可以嗎?" 的善意中

It's rude. The world really shouldn't be that way.

它是無禮的, 現實世界不會是這樣的

Within that context, we feel it's okay.

在這脈絡下, 我們覺得這是可以接受的

So within this context, "Asshead. Please help"

但在 ”屁頭, 幫幫我"

is a benign violation.

這是善意的作對

Within the context of The New Yorker magazine ...

在紐約客雜誌內文中

"T-Cell Army: Can the body's immune response

”T細胞軍隊: 身體免疫反應能幫忙治療癌症？”

help treat cancer?" Oh, goodness.

天吶

You're reading about this smart stuff,

你正在讀這篇有水準的文章

this intelligent dissection of the immune system.

一篇關於免疫的詳細文章

You glance over at this, and it says,

結果一眼就瞧到

"Asshead. Please help"? God.

”屁頭, 幫幫我"　天吶！

So there the violation is malign. It doesn't work.

所以這樣算是惡性的作對, 不被接受的

There is no such thing as funny in and of itself.

這樣的內容並不有趣

Everything will be within the context and our expectations.

每一樣都必須被含在文章脈絡和我們的期待中

One way to look at it is this.

我們可以用這一種方式來解讀它

It's sort of called a meta-motivational theory about how we look,

被稱之為 後發動機理論

a theory about motivation and the mood we're in

這是關於我們的動機和情境的關係

and how the mood we're in determines the things we like

我們的心情如何決定我們喜歡或討厭

or dislike.

When we're in a playful mood, we want excitement.

當我們在玩樂的狀態下, 我們渴望興奮

We want high arousal. We feel excited then.

我們想要激起慾望, 感到刺激

If we're in a purposeful mood, that makes us anxious.

當我們在有目的性的情景下, 這讓我們興奮

"The Rejection Collection" is absolutely in this field.

"退件漫畫大全集" 屬於這一類

You want to be stimulated. You want to be aroused.

你想要被刺激, 被激起欲望

You want to be transgressed.

想要逾越規則

It's like this, like an amusement park.

這樣就是去遊樂園

Voice: Here we go. (Screams)

[影片] 衝吧 （尖叫）

He laughs. He is both in danger and safe,

他笑了, 他在即危險又安全的狀態

incredibly aroused. There's no joke. No joke needed.

極度的刺激, 這不是在開玩笑, 不需要任何幽默

If you arouse people enough and get them stimulated enough,

如果你給人們足夠的刺激

they will laugh at very, very little.

他們就會幾乎笑不出來

This is another cartoon from "The Rejection Collection."

這是在"退件漫畫大全集"中的另一則漫畫

"Too snug?"

”太合身了嗎？”

That's a cartoon about terrorism.

這是關於恐怖份子的漫畫

The New Yorker occupies a very different space.

紐約客雜誌是位在一個完全不同的地方

It's a space that is playful in its own way, and also purposeful,

在這裡是可以嘻笑也可以嚴肅的

and in that space, the cartoons are different.

在這裡, 漫畫可以很不一樣

Now I'm going to show you cartoons The New Yorker did

我接下來給各位看看紐約客在 9/11 之後做的漫畫

right after 9/11, a very, very sensitive area when humor could be used.

這是非常敏感性的議題

How would The New Yorker attack it?

紐約客是如何在這上面發揮的？

It would not be with a guy with a bomb saying, "Too snug?"

絕不會是一個綁著炸彈的老兄說 ”太合身了嗎？”

Or there was another cartoon I didn't show because

或是另一個我沒有拿出來用的漫畫

actually I thought maybe people would be offended.

因為我覺得會冒犯到某些人

The great Sam Gross cartoon, this happened

Sam Gross 的漫畫

after the Muhammad controversy where it's Muhammad in heaven,

穆罕莫德在天堂上

the suicide bomber is all in little pieces,

見到被炸的粉碎的炸彈自殺客

and he's saying to the suicide bomber,

他對那位炸彈客說

"You'll get the virgins when we find your penis."

”當我們找到你的雞雞就會給你應得的處女”

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Better left undrawn.

這個最好是沒被畫出來才是

The first week we did no cartoons.

第一週我們沒有刊登漫畫

That was a black hole for humor, and correctly so.

那時有個幽默的黑洞, 所以這是沒問題的

It's not always appropriate every time.

這不是總能被接受的

But the next week, this was the first cartoon.

但下一週, 刊登了第一個漫畫

"I thought I'd never laugh again. Then I saw your jacket."

”我以為我不會再笑了, 直到看到你的外套”

It basically was about, if we were alive,

基本上這說明, 如果我們活著

we were going to laugh. We were going to breathe.

我們就要笑, 要呼吸, 要存在著

We were going to exist. Here's another one.

這是另一則漫畫

"I figure if I don't have that third martini, then the terrorists win."

”我覺得如果我不喝第三杯馬丁尼, 恐怖份子就贏了”

These cartoons are not about them. They're about us.

這些漫畫不是在講他們, 是在講我們

The humor reflects back on us.

幽默投射到我們自己身上

The easiest thing to do with humor, and it's perfectly legitimate,

最簡單的幽默, 且政治正確的方式

is a friend makes fun of an enemy.

是朋友取笑敵人

It's called dispositional humor.

這是意向幽默

It's 95 percent of the humor. It's not our humor.

95%的幽默是這一種的, 但我們的不是

Here's another cartoon.

這是另一則漫畫

"I wouldn't mind living in a fundamentalist Islamic state."

”我不介意住在基本教義派穆斯林國家”

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Humor does need a target.

幽默需要一個對象

But interestingly, in The New Yorker, the target is us.

但有趣的是, 在紐約客, 對象是我們自己

The target is the readership and the people who do it.

對象就是讀者和閱讀者

The humor is self-reflective

幽默是自我反省

and makes us think about our assumptions.

讓我們思考理所當然的事情

Look at this cartoon by Roz Chast, the guy reading the obituary.

看看Roz Chast的這幅漫話，他正在看訃告

"Two years younger than you, 12 years older than you,

比你年輕兩歲，比你年長十二歲，

three years your junior, your age on the dot,

早你三年，與你同歲

exactly your age."

正值同齡

That is a deeply profound cartoon.

這是寓意很深的漫畫

And so The New Yorker is also trying to, in some way,

同時，紐約客也在嘗試著從某些途徑，

make cartoons say something besides funny

讓漫畫不僅有趣

and something about us. Here's another one.

更關於我們自身。這是另外一個例子。

"I started my vegetarianism for health reasons,

“我因為健康原因開始吃素，

Then it became a moral choice, and now it's just to annoy people."

然後它變成道德選擇，現在只是為了騷擾他人。”

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

"Excuse me — I think there's something wrong with this

“打擾一下，我想這有點問題

in a tiny way that no one other than me would ever be able to pinpoint."

至少沒有人同我一樣精準”

So it focuses on our obsessions, our narcissism,

它關注了我們的執著與自戀

our foils and our foibles, really not someone else's.

我們的固執與缺點，不是別人的

The New Yorker demands

紐約客雜誌需要

some cognitive work on your part,

你們在認知上的努力

and what it demands is what Arthur Koestler,

正是Arthur Koestler在書中

who wrote "The Act of Creation" about the relationship

《創造的藝術》中寫到的

幽默，藝術和科學的關係

between humor, art and science,

is what's called bisociation.

被稱作「雙向聯想」(bisociation)

You have to bring together ideas from different frames of reference,

你必須把各個不同框架中的知識整合起來

and you have to do it quickly to understand the cartoon.

而且必須要足夠快到讓妳理解漫畫

If the different frames of reference don't come together

如果這個各領域的整合過程

in about .5 seconds, it's not funny,

不在大約0.5秒內，那它就不會有趣，

but I think they will for you here.

我想這些都達到要求了

Different frames of reference.

各個不同框架的認知

"You slept with her, didn't you?"

你跟他同床了，是不？

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

"Lassie! Get help!!"

萊斯！去找人幫忙！

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

It's called French Army Knife.

法國小刀

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And this is Einstein in bed. "To you it was fast."

愛因斯坦在床上，“對你它很快”。

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

Now there are some cartoons that are puzzling.

有些漫畫比較費解

Like, this cartoon would puzzle many people.

就像這個漫畫會難倒很多人

How many people know what this cartoon means?

有多少人懂得這個漫畫的梗？

The dog is signaling he wants to go for a walk.

這只狗在暗示牠想要遛遛

This is the signal for a catcher to walk the dog.

這是捕手打該遛狗的暗號

That's why we run a feature in the cartoon issue every year

這就是為甚麼我們每年在紐約客上

called "I Don't Get It: The New Yorker Cartoon I.Q. Test."

開設專欄「我看不懂：紐約客漫畫智力測驗」

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

The other thing The New Yorker plays around with

另外, 紐約客操作的是

is incongruity, and incongruity, I've shown you,

不協調, 和不協調

is sort of the basis of humor.

我已經說過它是幽默一個基本的來源

Something that's completely normal or logical isn't going to be funny.

很正常或有邏輯的事情不會有趣

But the way incongruity works is, observational humor

不協調發揮作用的地方是, 日常幽默

is humor within the realm of reality.

是現實範圍內的幽默

"My boss is always telling me what to do." Okay?

“我的老闆總是告訴我該做什麼”

是吧

That could happen. It's humor within the realm of reality.

那可能會發生, 那就是現實範圍內的幽默

Here, cowboy to a cow:

這裡是牛仔對牛說：

"Very impressive. I'd like to find 5,000 more like you."

“非常好! 我希望在找到5000個像你這樣的牛”

We understand that. It's absurd. But we're putting the two together.

我們都明白這, 雖然奇怪些, 我們將它倆歸為一類

Here, in the nonsense range:

這裡是荒誕範圍：

"Damn it, Hopkins, didn't you get yesterday's memo?"

”該死, 霍普金斯, 你沒看到昨天的備忘錄嗎?”

Now that's a little puzzling, right? It doesn't quite come together.

它有點讓人迷惑, 不是嗎? 幽默沒有很快浮現

In general, people who enjoy more nonsense,

總體上, 喜歡荒誕的人

enjoy more abstract art,

會喜歡抽象的藝術

they tend to be liberal, less conservative, that type of stuff.

他們傾向自由主義, 比較不保守, 或者類似的

But for us, and for me, helping design the humor,

但是對於我們, 對於我, 幫助設計這些幽默

it doesn't make any sense to compare one to the other.

並沒有必要去比較它們

It's sort of a smorgasbord that's made all interesting.

這就像是一個大雜燴, 讓所有事情變得有趣.

So I want to sum all this up with a caption to a cartoon,

因此, 我要利用一個漫畫的文句來做個總結

and I think this sums up the whole thing, really,

我認為這可以將所有關於紐約客的漫畫

about The New Yorker cartoons.

彙總起來

"It sort of makes you stop and think, doesn't it."

"這真的可以讓你停下來思考, 對吧?"

(Laughter)

(笑聲)

And now, when you look at New Yorker cartoons,

從現在起, 當你在看紐約客的漫畫時

I'd like you to stop and think a little bit more about them.

希望你們可以停下來多思考一下其背後的意涵

Thank you.

謝謝

(Applause)

(掌聲)

Thank you. (Applause)