In the previous Post of 20/6 (which polled your AYE or NAY votes) we achieved a staggering majority of two respondents who agreed that (for them) cartoons entered the brain faster and deeper than what someone else has unkindly termed “flash-in-the-pan-fiction.”
Marketing theory (from orgs like Readers Digest and Gallup) indicates these two lone votes indicate but the tip of an iceberg floating on an opinion sea of 200 to 300 people who agree with the proposition but aren’t engaged enough to participate – a familiar disease of modern democracy in over-comfortable zones of habitation. Therefore let’s appear suitably modest and only claim a trend towards 400 theoretical votes FOR cartoons with Zero AGAINST.
Except there were 2 PAGE Unlikes who left, one saying he found us “Boring!” – hardly a unique vote-with-the-feet for us, so let’s slash the pro-cartoon majority to 50, noting however that one of those two “real” voters commented that she found the prize-winning flash fictions in the June Post “boring”.
Leaving these “borings” to flat-line themselves out towards the horizon with a steady hum, let us follow an Oz commentator’s suggestion to view the bittersweet cartoons by her delightfully perceptive compatriot, Michael Leunig.
I’ve chosen three from his gallery, none using a single word, and thus reaching a final score of 16 cartoon “speed-stories” employing a total of 91 words since the May 19th start.
Next Post we hope to wrap up this (yawnsome?) theme by exploring some of our research into the very recent origin of the flash-fiction fad.
1- Where, as you have so overwhelming voted, did this “wretched spawn” originate?
2- Literary Science is indeed wonderful when it plunges so relentlessly into the Unknown Unknown!