Interesting that the immediate counterpoint is the New Yorker comic strips. While certainly witty, I'd question whether these are even intended to be funny. As

Interesting that the immediate counterpoint is the New Yorker comic strips. While certainly witty, I'd question whether these are even intended to be funny. As in, do people literally read them and laugh out loud, find themselves thinking back on a particular strip and laughing and so on. I always assumed the New Yorker panels were more of an acerbic, dry, 'aha' kind of observation than anything designed to be 'funny' in the traditional sense. Meanwhile, Garfield while hackneyed (as the article points out, even intentionally so) has its moments. The classic New Yorker panel is perhaps 'On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_... Clever, timely and memorable, sure. But inducing of mirth? Questionable. Comedians make the differentiation between 'funny' and 'funny, funny', as between a 'bit' and a 'joke, joke', something that follows the traditional structure of a joke book or cracker. It's an interesting distinction for something that isn't particularly well described by the subtleties of English.