Life, 1884-02-14 · page 12 of 16
Life — February 14, 1884 — page 12: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
# Life Magazine Cartoon Analysis **The Cartoon ("Sport"):** This is a hunting joke depicting a city visitor who has spent the morning shooting at nothing, finally hitting *something*—a farmer's cow in the adjacent field. The "disgusted host" delivers the punchline: the angry cow's owner is approaching with dogs. **The Satire:** The humor targets incompetent urban hunters visiting the countryside. The city visitor, poorly skilled and overeager, mistakes a farm animal for game. His obliviousness to the consequences (farmer's wrath, approaching dogs) underscores the clash between city sophistication and rural realities. The joke mocks both the visitor's marksmanship and his ignorance of country life's practical dangers. **Context:** This reflects late 19th-century American leisure culture, when city dwellers traveled to rural areas for sport. The cartoon assumes readers understand hunting etiquette and the real hazard of shooting livestock—both socially embarrassing and legally problematic for the guest.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
Mi, vt wnt ee dit 1 AGDYy U0 / ALANA yagagl@s . a ef “iy ee Ke. - Visitor from the city (who has been missing game all the morning): “D> I HIT ANYTHING THAT TIME?” Disgusted Host : “You HAVE, SIR; A COW IN THE NEXT FIELD, AND THE OWNER IS COMING THIS WAY WITH A COUPLE OF DOGS.” the play as a “‘ symphony in skim-milk.” It might as well hav. been described as an adagio in red, white, and blue. It goes without saying that Mr, Boyesen is ‘a damned literary feller.” That settles him. He can not, of course, write a play. The persons who discovered that Mr. Bartley Campbell's feeble, strained and ridiculous drama, “ Separation” —ridiculous in spite of its merits, which were frankly pointed out here last week—is a fine and thoughtful play, have pounced upon Mr. Boyesen with forcible agility. Nothing could be more conven- tional, more untruthful than the motive in ‘ Separation.” It has been slashed to death by play-mongers for the last century. Moreover, Mr. Campbell had not courage enough to attack this motive himself. He built on an improbability. He has one situation, and this had been used before with better effect. Finally, the third and fourth acts of “Separation” are useless pudding. Yet ‘* Saparation ” is thought an admirable work, and “Alpine Roses” is what certain linguistic experts call an “ artis- tic failure.” Well, I should be glad to set myself on record with a failure that is artistic. Again, it was said that Mr. Boyesen’s play was brilliantly acted, that the acting was better than the play. Nonsense. The acting was uncertain and misdirected, for the most part. At least four of the chief characters were done without spirit and understanding. The only successsul performers in the cast were Mr. Lemoyne, Mr. Clarke, Miss Cayvan, and Miss Burroughs. Yet even Mr. Clarke straddled vaguely between tragedy and farce; while Miss Burroughs, a charming though inexperienced actress, was unable to express the real spirit of a young girl who is at once light-hearted and true-hearted, frivolous and womanly. It was acknowledged at the theatre, after the first performance of ‘* Alpine Roses,” that this play had not been given fairly by the actors. The acting now is by no means what it was then. If it had been in the right spirit at first, would it have been modified substantially ? But, as a matter of fact, Mr. Boyesen has written,omething better than a ‘ skim-milk” symphony, withi inadequate motive and unreal characters. His play,.j4s true, starts from a con- ventional ground-plan. We,hive all heard of the trim and well comicbooks.com