Bunny

May 21, 2005 2:23 AM

Bunny: About 260 installments of a simple, and amusing (to my mind) web comic. Just a little something for the weekend if it is rainy where yer at.
posted by edgeways (42 comments total)

A bunny with something funny on it's head? Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

These are great, edgeways. Really, really love it.

(my fave, I think)
posted by taz at 3:31 AM on May 21, 2005

Love 'em. My fav
posted by hojoki at 3:39 AM on May 21, 2005

Oh, no! Here I am again, but I can't help it; this person is a genius. I love this one, and this one, too. And this one. No, I just give up. Really.
posted by taz at 3:54 AM on May 21, 2005

I don't get these cartoons at all. I think they are terrible. I don't understand them, and I don't think they are clever or funny.
posted by mokey at 4:46 AM on May 21, 2005

Brilliant.

(Thanks! These are fabulous!)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:09 AM on May 21, 2005

I know what you mean, Mokey - I've been an avid bunnier for ages, but some of the people I've shown have given it the full "meh."

I loves em, though.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 6:36 AM on May 21, 2005

It's about time for someone to start analyzing and deconstructing the "new" humor that's been developing for a few years now. It's for anyone 20 or under (25 at max) and is based almost solely around irony.

It's the same thing that fed the craze for Napoleon Dynamite.

Since I'm an absurdist man myself, and my ironies are almost always of the grim sort, I can't really get into this sort of thing.

But I find it interesting... especially as I cannot yet quite grasp the mindset that DOES find these sorts of things hysterical. (if you understand why something is funny to a particular group or culture, you're a long way towards understanding them. The Stooges excepted. They're universal. :->)
posted by InnocentBystander at 7:00 AM on May 21, 2005

er. I'm way older than 20 or under (please. don't ask)... and this is one of the best things I've seen in years.
posted by taz at 7:24 AM on May 21, 2005

I've never gotten the Stooges.
posted by squidlarkin at 7:46 AM on May 21, 2005

InnocentBystander — Speaking as one of those under-25s, I think this is a far cry from Napoleon Dynamite. ND is almost all social humiliation jokes. The characters are total losers. They ought to know they're embarassing themselves. The fact that they're too oblivious to get embarassed is funny, in a kind of cringe-inducing way.

But the point of this strip isn't that Bunny ought to be embarassed. It's just that he's totally strange. It's surrealism for the sake of surrealism. As far as I can tell, most New Yorker cartoons work the same way. (A snail falls in love with a tape dispenser. A guy dances in his junkyard.)

Of course, a lotta people don't think New Yorker cartoons are funny either.
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:56 AM on May 21, 2005

There was a Napoleon Dynamite craze? When was that? It made less than two hundred thousand dollars its opening weekend in the states, and in nine months time managed to accumulate less than $45 million. The Aviator made over twice that. Blair Witch Project made over $140 million, and almost $30 million in its first weekend of wide release. Napoleon Dynamite's only saving grace was that it cost only $400,000.00 to make, but Blair Witch Project cost less than ten percent that. By no stretch of the imagination can one call Napoleon Dynamite a 'craze' or even a 'sensation.' It was barely a blip on the radar, and these bunnies are comparatively much cooler.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:31 AM on May 21, 2005

I'm 35, and I regard the Bunny as a sublime work of surreal art :)
posted by kaemaril at 8:41 AM on May 21, 2005

um. er. I'm older than 20. (way older.) I like Bunny. He's surreal. It's not the best thing I've ever seen, but it's worth a chuckle or two every week, and that's certainly enough to keep in on my comics/everyday list. (FWIW, I hate the Stooges. Always have.)
posted by jlkr at 8:58 AM on May 21, 2005

I'm over the "25 at max" crowd as well, and I think these are great. I'm not a fan of the Stooges, either.

grapefruitmoon posted my favorite so far. Good rainy day link!
posted by schnee at 9:01 AM on May 21, 2005

Who is keyser soze?
posted by ArsncHeart at 9:06 AM on May 21, 2005

wtf?

The bunny wanted to avoid all political confrontation? What? What the hell is that all about? So there was a lot of political confrontation going on at the time, and the bunny wanted to avoid it? What!!! What is it, incisive? No! Surreal? No!

Nanobunny

Was nanotechnology in the news? So you just make the bunny tiny because nanotechnology is tiny... is that clever? What!!!! Is that funny? What??? It's stupid!!!!!

boing

Bunnies bouncing? What? OK I admit bouncing a ball can be fun, but a picture of something bouncing just isn't fun in the same way, it's just a picture! Jesus. This is so lame man.

Let me state that I am not a person without a sense of humour. I am also not a person who thinks nonsense is worthless. I love nonsense. Nonsense represents a relaxation of the rules which govern ordinary discourse, therefore it is enjoyable. Monty Python is a good example, I find it funny because it is nonsensical. I also found Napoleon Dynamite funny because it had jokes in it, ditto the three stooges, marx brothers, whatever. Irony, I love it, I love Woody Allen, I like stand-up comedy, every damn thing. What I am saying is that I am not a person without a sense of humour. But jesus, these cartoons are so damn lame folks. The absurdity is not funny, because the bunny is already absurd, so putting it in absurd situations does not make it funny. Something non-absurd in an absurd situation might be funny. And there is absolutely no irony whatsoever in these cartoons... just a restatement of something which is obvious. There is no interpretation, no twist. Political confrontation is confrontational, wow! Nanontechnology is small, wow! Bouncing is enjoyable, what!! It is bland, people!! BLAND! This is humour for people who don't want to really challenge their perception of the world, they just want something which is nothing, totally bland, insipid, maybe slightly cute. There is no edge whatsoever to this comedy, it is not comedy, it doesn't register, it's nothing, it doesn't provoke a reaction, there is no setup, no defeating of expectations. You might as well look at a picture of some flowers. Sorry if I sound harsh, this is just my reaction to the cartoons.
posted by mokey at 9:07 AM on May 21, 2005

Sounds like someone needs a hug.
posted by hugsnkisses at 9:15 AM on May 21, 2005

See... that was funny.
posted by mokey at 9:19 AM on May 21, 2005

My favourite is the one grapefruitmoon linked to, but I think this one is pretty pertinent, given all the talk about ninjas and pirates around here.
posted by hopeless romantique at 9:42 AM on May 21, 2005

Mokey, I'm totally with you. Except maybe without the same level of fervor. But I'm always surprised at the level of interest in things like this... "cute" disguised as comedy. (Which is not to say that comedy can't be cute.)

It's not as insipid as Love Is, but it's along the same lines. Or The Family Circus or Ziggy. Just calling it a "comic" doesn't make it funny.

Also, ending every line with an ellipsis even when there's no implied continuation is TOTALLY ANNOYING...
posted by medialyte at 9:53 AM on May 21, 2005

Wow. Some of you people... (implied continuation)
Mokey - are you being serious?

The comics are not hilarious - I don't think the artist is going for hilarity. Did you laugh at this? Absurdist is the wrong word. Irony is also the wrong word.
They are funny for a number of reasons -
Bunnies are cute, and cute things make us laugh. Sometimes they make us tear up a little bit, and they always make my teeth feel...funny...

How do you respond to this?
It should illicit some emotional response...a smile? You see - it is not humor, per se - but it is a form of "happy". For many people, seeing the bunny gets the same physiological response.
But this - compounded with the two other important concepts, generates a high degree of funny.
First - bunnies are not able to operate moonlasers or take part in political action. They don't have anything to do with ninjas or pirates. To see them acting this way taps at the anthropomorphic funny button.
Also - many of the things that the bunnies are doing are out-of-the-ordinary, even for human beings. A cartoon of two individuals carefully constructing a giant risk board is slightly funny. The idea of two bunnies doing it is fantastic.
This form of humor is so alien to the Stooges' physical comedy, or Napoleon Dynamite's "cringe value" comedy. It is very, carefully simple. The artist is using the fewest words - and carefully selecting images.
Appealing at every level.
And a refreshing departure from the cluttered, machine-gun onslaught of modern stage comedy.

And, fwiw, I never found the Stooges' funny in the least.

Start with this comic - it's a little less simple, a little more cluttered - but it plays on the same basic emotions.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:19 AM on May 21, 2005

Yes I was being serious. Kittens in army helmets -- that is funny, because it is incongruous, because the kittens are real kittens. Cartoon bunnies such as the one depicted are already a "joke" in themselves - they are slightly fantastical, suggestive of nonseriousness. How can such a nonserious thing be funny merely by placing it in an unlikely situation? What is an unlikely situation for a "comical" cartoon bunny? Nothing! The bunny character itself already contains whatever joke might be present simply through being a cartoon bunny... It's like someone coming up to you and saying the word "joke!". It's the suggestion of a jokey attitude as if that was a joke in itself! Which is a very poor substitute for the subversive jibe of a real joke. These cartoons take the value out of real jokes by replacing them with non-jokes and pretending they are the same thing.

I'm not fervent or angry I'm just disappointed and confused that people will settle for this almost nonexistent level of humour! OK the stooges are not that good, let's use the Simpsons as an example of what I think good humour can be.
posted by mokey at 10:54 AM on May 21, 2005

Yeah, I'm with the naysayers on this one. I really, really want to like the bunnies, but they just do nothing for me. They're cute and that's about it. Most of them seem to be cheeky references to one thing or another (e.g. Doctor Who).
posted by neckro23 at 11:23 AM on May 21, 2005

oh my lord, something that is funny to some and not to others, gasp.

For me, part of it is the 'disconnect' factor. But, then again my humor runs broad and it would be easier to talk about what I dislike then list everything I like.

Must be pretty wet where yer at Monkey to invest this much time in a fluff post like this ;).

hope eveyone's Sat. is going well
posted by edgeways at 11:50 AM on May 21, 2005

Wow. Somebody needs a thorough beating from the iron-shod "Humour is subjective" stick. Is Bunny funny for you? No. OK, fair enough. Is Bunny funny for me? Yes. Is Bunny funny for some (lots) of people? Yes. Who the hell are you to be "disappointed" at what some people find funny?

Kittens in army helmets -- that is funny

If you say so. See, that leaves me totally stone-cold not at all amused. Ditto with dogs playing poker. See how this humour stuff varies?

For the record, I find the Bunny Suicides (warning: almost certainly copyright-infringing) more amusing than Bunny. But then, while I find them both amusing they're not as funny as Something Positive, which - HORRORS! - I believe some people find to be not funny. I guess I should be "disappointed", but frankly I'm indifferent to it.
posted by kaemaril at 11:51 AM on May 21, 2005

mokey has put more thought and effort into disecting the bunnies than anybody should put into enjoying them.

Simplicity, distinctive style, general cuteness but not afraid to be occasionally anti-cute, good choice of cultural references, and the "Acronymns of the Apocalypse: Lol, Omg, Wtf and Keke" is semi-classic (but I would've picked Ymmv as the fourth).
posted by wendell at 12:01 PM on May 21, 2005

OK, humour is subjective, I accept that, but is that as deep as we are allowed to go? Aren't we allowed to discuss our reaction to a piece of humour or try to understand it or analyse it? Hasn't anybody got a criticism of my position except to say that I'm over-analysing things? My position is easily assailable, I am simply suggesting that a comedic character in a nonsensical situation is not funny - it does not generate any tension, there is no dynamic between the ordinary and the ludicrous. I think an ordinary character in a ludicrous situation would produce humour. Arthur Dent, for example. The accountant in the Monty Python sketch who wants to become a lion tamer. There is a disparity there which produces humour. I don't see any tension in these cartoons, just a lack of tension. Is that what you want? Just say so. I am not really as exercised about all this as I might sound, I am just giving my reaction.
posted by mokey at 12:36 PM on May 21, 2005

i think we can all agree that they're cute.
posted by ackeber at 12:44 PM on May 21, 2005

I believe there are quite a few examples of comedic characters in nonsensical situations proving to be quite funny. Zaphod Beeblebrox, even without Arthur Dent, is inherently funny.

And why are the Bunnies "comedic" and not ordinary characters anyway? It's precisely the transposition of cute lovable ordinary bunnies, and not for example Mickey Mouse, into weird situations I find amusing.

For example : I'm Luke Skywalker, I'm here to rescue you

A Bunny trooper? OK, that is quite funny. Would it be hugely funnier if it were Arthur Dent in that costume? :)
posted by kaemaril at 12:50 PM on May 21, 2005

They're kinda like internet New Yorker cartoons, aren't they?
posted by furiousthought at 2:31 PM on May 21, 2005

totally pointless crap. Not saying if you like this there's something wrong with you, but... I'm totally with mokey here.

Now, PBF, there's some good humerical construction.



It's precisely the transposition of cute lovable ordinary bunnies, and not for example Mickey Mouse, into weird situations I find amusing

well I obviously peoples' thresholds for amusement vary.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 3:16 PM on May 21, 2005

thresholds? No. Criteria? Yes.
posted by kaemaril at 3:59 PM on May 21, 2005

(Damn, hit Post instead of Preview. Darn) ... to continue ...

Out of interest, how is Bunny's "totally pointless crap" any different from the PBF you posted? What deep insight did it offer into the human condition? Other than minimising human tragedy, that is?

The example PBF struck me as mildly amusing, but certainly no less pointless than Bunny. The others seemed ... OK ... too, but certainly nothing I'd want to write a mefi post extolling.
posted by kaemaril at 4:04 PM on May 21, 2005

"Minimizing human tragedy"... uhuh. I see it as a brilliant send-up on the many stupid ways people/men try to present their proposals.

See, I didn't find /any/ amusement from bunny at all. No chuckle at the unexpected twist. Just one big blank... "OK...".

Not all PBF so far is good, only about half perhaps. But I clicked on the above "best of" links, and if that's bunny's best I don't feel a need to see any more.

Here are 5 of PBF's best:

Man with no... (risque)

Instant Bacon (oh no, minimizing porcine tragedy)

Today is my birthday

Not today little one (risque, but a funny bunny)

Gopher Trouble (the guy is no great illustrator but that last panel just cracks me up)

and, my favorite:

Freaking Vortex

Now, I don't feel any great need to defend these as funny. If you don't find them funny then our tastes differ. But I would say these are loads funnier/imaginitive/clever/deeper than the Bunny examples above.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 5:53 PM on May 21, 2005

It's about time for someone to start analyzing and deconstructing the "new" humor that's been developing for a few years now. It's for anyone 20 or under (25 at max) and is based almost solely around irony.

I have to wonder if InnocentBystander is in that well under 20 range and missed the boat on The Far Side, which clearly inspired this genre. Started in what, the late 1970's?, I think it has more appeal than just the under 20 crowd.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 6:39 PM on May 21, 2005

These are hysterical :)

Thanks for sharing
posted by karlshea at 6:40 PM on May 21, 2005

One more vote in the "I like this" column. I can't really explain why, I just do.
posted by wanderingmind at 7:33 PM on May 21, 2005

I'm under 20, and I don't find it very funny.

But this I do!
posted by Citizen Premier at 10:19 PM on May 21, 2005

I'm with mokey. I don't get it. I found a couple mildly amusing, such as the "sticking it to the man", which is an OK pun, I guess, or the "chance of being overdramatic" one, which seems a decent bit of generic literary parody, but ... why is the stormtrooper one funny? Or the risk board? Or the nanotechnology one? Or the one with them sneaking through the woods? I really don't even understand what they're trying to accomplish.

And I do like comics such as, say, Jim's Journal.
posted by kyrademon at 2:14 AM on May 22, 2005

"Minimizing human tragedy"... uhuh. I see it as a brilliant send-up on the many stupid ways people/men try to present their proposals.
Yes, because nothing is funnier than seeing wacky marriage proposals involving piles of dead bodies.
Yeah, see where we're going with this humour is subjective and one man's funny is another man's "meh" thing? If you "don't get" Bunny that's fair enough, but it's hardly fair to pronounce something as being not worthy of being funny if you don't get it. I don't find that particular PBF funny, and the others are ... OK ... but I still prefer Bunny, thanks. That's hardly something that mokey should find "disappointing", is all I'm saying. Nor should I find it "disappointing" that you prefer PBF. We just have differing tastes.
posted by kaemaril at 5:04 AM on May 22, 2005

It's about time for someone to start analyzing and deconstructing the "new" humor that's been developing for a few years now. It's for anyone 20 or under (25 at max) and is based almost solely around irony.

Possibly, but these Bunny strips could not be used as an example in such an analysis. They are almost entirely whimsical rather than ironic and whimsy is not something that can be described as "new".
posted by MUD at 5:44 PM on May 22, 2005

Dumb, not funny. Annoyingly drawn, no jokes, just ick.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 9:04 PM on May 23, 2005