The Rejection Collection: Cartoons You Never Saw, and Never Will See, in The New Yorker

The Rejection Collection #1

by Matthew Diffee

Each week about fifty New Yorker cartoonists submit ten ideas, yielding five hundred cartoons for no more than twenty spots in the magazine. Arguably the most brilliant single-panel-gag cartoonists in the world create a bunch of cartoons every week that never see the light of day.

These rejects were piling up in the dusty corners of studios all over the country. Sam Gross, who has been contributing since 1962, has more than 12,000 rejected cartoons. (Seriously. He's been numbering every single cartoon he's ever submitted to The New Yorker since the very beginning.) Enter editor Matthew Diffee. He tapped his fellow cartoonists, asking them to rescue these hilarious lost gems. From the artists' stacks of all-time favorite rejects, Diffee handpicked the standouts -- the cream of the crap -- and created The Rejection Collection, a place where good ideas go when they die. Too risqué, silly, or weird for The New Yorker, the cartoons in this book offer something no other collection has: They have never been seen in print until now.

With a foreword by New Yorker cartoon editor Robert Mankoff that explains the sound judgment, respectability, and scruples not found anywhere in these pages, and handwritten questionnaires that introduce the quirky character of each artist, The Rejection Collection will appeal to fans of The New Yorker...and to anyone with a slightly sick sense of humor.

Genres: Humor, Comics, Art, Nonfiction, Graphic Novels, Cartoon, Comedy

272 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 3, 2006

About the author

Matthew Diffee has been contributing cartoons to The New Yorker since 1999. His work has also appeared in Time, The Huffington Post, The Believer and Texas Monthly magazines. He is the editor of three volumes of “The Rejection Collection: Cartoons You Never Saw and Never Will See in The New Yorker” published by Simon & Schuster and is working on a new book for Scribner called “Hand Drawn Jokes for Smart Attractive People.” He’s done illustration work for bands like the Punch Brothers and for a special collector’s edition of Stephen King’s novel “Under the Dome.” Last year Diffee received the Silver Reuben Award for best single panel cartoonist of the year and was recently named Chairman of the Los Angeles Chapter of the National Cartoonists Society.

Reviews

[Melki · Rating 4 out of 5]

This collection of cartoons that failed to make the pages of The New Yorker was possibly the funniest thing I've seen this year. I not only laughed out loud, I snorted, guffawed and cackled.

As mentioned in the book's description, editors comb through over 500 cartoon submissions a week to fill an available 15 to 20 spots. Even the big names like Sam Gross and Gahan Wilson get turned down. Most of these cartoons end up on the floor not because they're not "highbrowy" enough for that venerable old periodical, but because they're too edgy, sexy or feature dinosaurs using foul language.

- A pint-sized, scythe-wielding grim reaper roams the pediatric ward.

- The oldest ship in the fleet has the figurehead with the droopiest breasts.

- Two dogs lie in bed basking in the afterglow. The female confesses sometime she'd like to try it "missionary style."

- A startled churchgoer notices a sign that says, "If the confessional's a-rockin', don't come a-knockin'!!!"

At a funeral, an elderly woman tells her friend, "It would have been an open casket, but he overdosed on Viagra."

Imagine getting paid to read 500 cartoons a week. How do I get a job like that? (Who am I kidding? I'd do it for free.)

[Philippe Malzieu · Rating 4 out of 5]

NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT
All this drawings, surprising, sometimes obscene, always funny.
A great wind of freedom.

[Malbadeen · Rating 5 out of 5]

hee-hee, haw, haw!

A collection of cartoons that were submitted to New yorker but rejected. What likely got them not accepted is what makes them so funny (too off color, language, to overt in sexual content etc).
I open this open a few times a year and still laugh everytime.

I'm promoting this to 5 stars after reading it again while drying my hair this morning.

[Richa Bhattarai · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don’t understand many of the cartoons in The New Yorker (and thus don’t find them funny), no doubt I lack knowledge of the context. It was enjoyable enough skimming through rejects, learning about the process and reading up on the artists (though the questionnaire got tedious after a while). Would be a great resource to an aspiring cartoonist.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Delightful, especially for disjointed sense of humor.

[Elizabeth Good · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is wonderful and funny. Not only does one get the cartoons (well, some of many) that were considered too outlandish for the New Yorker, but there are two pages where each cartoonist gets to answer questions so we can learn more about them, plus a third page with their photo. Fun to finally put some faces and background to some of the very names I had cut out and hanging on my refrigerator for, oh, a decade or two, with some very favorite cartoon or two or three that I loved to see even daily.

This collection is for those who appreciate the politically incorrect, the slightly bawdy, the outrageous, find death funny...the ones just a bit much for the New Yorker. It was just my cup of tea. There are some wonderful ones!

Interesting to read about how incredibly many are rejected weekly, even by the best. To have even one selected once in a while is a big deal. How these dedicated laugh-makers do it, live and survive and keep laughing, is a mystery to me. I love that they keep us laughing also.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

I should have a tag of ADULT on this collection of single panel gags, some of which are way beyond anything a child should see, or try to understand. I often cringed, even as I howled with laughter, at some of these cartoons. Each cartoonist uses the same questionnaire on a two page introduction to several of their "rejects". The way these questionnaires are completed is a romp through the mental and emotional lives of some very funny people as they reveal themselves in words and pictures.

Rejection is never easy to take, but these folks have found a way to get some of those rejected creations an audience beyond the editors. For this reader, I'm glad they did. There are some very funny gags in this book. If you find yourself feeling guilty for laughing at some of these cartoons, you will understand why the New Yorker chose to give them a pass. That said, I'm glad they found a venue.

[YoSafBridg · Rating 3 out of 5]

"all that is vile for the sake of a smile"
~Robert Mankoff in the foreword to The Rejection Collection
I must admit to a rather twisted sense of humour. I think you need to have that twist (or twinge or maybe it's an illness~i can't really tell) to enjoy The Rejection Collection: Cartoons You Never Saw, and Never Will See in The New Yorker edited by Matthew Diffee (though i also must admit there were a few of these i just didn't get~if that's a good thing or a bad thing i'm still trying to figure out)
I also often enjoy the cartoons in The New Yorker (as well as the rest of the magazine~yes i'm one of those~i even subscribe~people)~tho sometimes some of those fly a tad high for me as well. These panels aren't just any old rejects they are rejects from regular submitters if that helps at all~but again it takes a certain twist of mind...

[Lee Battersby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hilarious stuff-- cartoons dubbed too vulgar, edgy, pointed our just plain 'not quite right' for The New Yorker, chosen and commented upon by the cartoonists who submitted them.

I'm a huge fan of single panel cartoons, and count the likes of Charles Addams and Gahan Wilson amongst my artistic heroes, so a collection like this was always going to suck the money right out of my wallet. And it doesn't disappoint, with contributions from such personal luminaries as Wilson, Jack Zeigler, Mort Gerberg and William Haefeli, I was in cartoon fanboy dreamland.

From the line of mourners filing past Jesus on the crucifix and muttering "So much for nepotism", to the pigeon announcing Jackson Pollock as his inspiration, this is a collection that rewards the darker sense of humour, and is cacklingly delicious.

[Michelé · Rating 4 out of 5]

Its hard to rate this the way I normally rate books because it's not like a novel and shouldn't be evaluated as such. Anyway, I enjoyed it! I enjoyed the profiles, the uncensored humor, the particular styles. And I liked a look into other artist's minds (being a writer myself). Good coffee table book...not that I have a coffee table.

[Nicholas · Rating 4 out of 5]

I used to love reading the cartoons in the New Yorker. Now I rarely find one I think is funny. this collection of rejected cartoons were the best! It must be understood of course that they were culled. And in reading them it is clear they were rejected most likely for being too sexual, to over-the-top, "sick" or just plain offensive.

[Cathy · Rating 2 out of 5]

We've enjoyed The New Yorker cartoons for a long while, and have bought various New Yorker cartoon compilations, my favorite being the caption contest one. So, I thought these might be funny, maybe just less funny than those who made it into the New Yorker.

There was good reason most of these didn't make it into the New Yorker. Many of them are not as clean, or as funny, and some of them hurt rather than bring a laugh. There were a few good ones, though.

My favorite one, though, was the one where the funeral director asks the bereaved if she'd prefer a casket, a coffin, or Tupperware.

I also enjoyed the one about the grim reaper coming as a toddler (perhaps? not sure the age of the child-grim-reaper) to the pediatric ward. It was funny, but as someone who's lost a child, I say no, don't do that to those in that situation not ready for something like that. If my grief were fresh, I don't even know how I'd feel coming across a cartoon like that. Angry at the insensitiveness perhaps, but I did laugh at some things even back then. The comedic book about grief, "Why Are the Casseroles Always Tuna?" comes to mind, but that humor was more gentle and sensitive and provided a much-needed laugh. My point is that even though humor can be a part of healing for the bereaved, that rejected cartoon is not it, and I agree with the rejection.

There were several in "The Rejection Collection" on death that were not particularly crude, just not in good taste for those who might be grieving.

Most of the interviews with the cartoonists weren't all that funny, and some of them were sad. I'm not sure why they were included.

I don't think this one's worth keeping. For that matter, it's not even really worth reading. Too crude.

An apt quote:
"all that is vile for the sake of a smile"
~Robert Mankoff in the foreword to The Rejection Collection

[Oscar Dent · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book contains several repetitive interviews (no fault of the cartoonists, they are largely asked the same (bad) questions, which give little room for funny answers), hundreds of cartoons that are rejected for various reasons (largely due to being bad), about 30 that are genuinely very good (but were rejected for valid reasons regarding taste or topic), and one of the best jokes I've ever heard (you'll know it when you find it).

As should be expected, a very mixed bag.

[Smh624 · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a life-long lover of cartoons, especially ones from The New Yorker, I really enjoyed this compilation of questionaire answers from the cartoonists and examples of their rejected cartoons. Most were rejected for the theme of cartoon, often sexual or political. Many are rude or edge toward bad taste, but funny!

[Hákon Gunnarsson · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title is quite accurate, it is a collection of cartoons that were submitted to the New Yorker, but rejected. Some of it made me laugh out loud, but too much of it didn’t even make me crack a smile. In my view it is an uneven collection, but it did make me laugh a few times, so not a total loss.

[Matthew Whalen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting inside look at some of the cartoonists who regularly submit cartoons to the New Yorker magazine. The editor provides a template for the cartoonists to supply their insights regarding the process and their inspiration(s). Quite a few interesting and amusing cartoons accompany the authors' stories. If you're a fan of the magazine, this collection is worthwhile.

[Danni Green · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, it's pretty clear why most of these were rejected. There was enough laughworthy content to make it worth finishing the book, but also definitely some racist, sexist, queer-antagonist, and other related crap. Good to know what's on people's minds though!

[Michael Rudzki · Rating 5 out of 5]

Filled with cartoons that were rejected from the New Yorker, this book also includes a questionnaire filled out by each of the cartoonists. Those give the reader a glimpse into what it's like to be a professional in the industry.

[Deke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Laugh out loud funny!

[lara phillips · Rating 3 out of 5]

amusing lunchtime read, but not as good as I'd hope.

[Michael P. · Rating 4 out of 5]

These cartoons are almost all wonderful.

[Z · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was very nice to read the forms about cartoonists. these people are really creative. as for the cartoons... I think I totally understand why the cartoons are rejected. :)

[Melissa Miles · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5.

[Mike · Rating 2 out of 5]

I too would have rejected most of these, although for some reason almost all of the ones about stage magic and ventriloquism (5? Why?) were very funny.

[Z · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh…it is odd, but I hoped they would be worse. Most a just bland.

[Karl · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fair warning. This book is not going to please everyone.

[Katie · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was a fun diversion of reading comics that were too stupid or naughty for the New Yorker. My main complaint was there was too much writing and too few comics... just show me the comics!

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some very funny cartoons, most of which the artists HAD to have known would be Rejected.

[Lynn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Don't read this book in public unless you're willing to be seen cackling, gasping for breath with milk running out of your nose.
You already know that these are cartoons by New Yorker cartoonists that were rejected by that magazine. If you're a regular reader of the New Yorker, this book will be a revelation: the difference between these cartoons and the ones that get published is not just that these are much funnier. The difference lies in the exuberance and boundary-pushing that's the hallmark or true art. Or at leasttrue cartoons. There's less of the insider-joke smarminess that congratulates you
for being hip enough to get what the joke is. Seeing what the magazine didn't want to publish has diminished my respect for it just a bit. (I'm not cancelling my
subscription though.)

There's the cartoon of the couple sitting on a couch. Through the window, we see the full moon. The man is visibly turning into a werewolf. The woman observes:
"You're lucky. I'm turning into my mother."

Then there's the Roadkill Zoo and the Santa with a craving for venison and the ventriloquist who getting drunk while
his dummy barfs and. . . . . . .


_Lynn Hoffman, author of bang BANG, which was rejected once or twice itself

[Andres · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you know the kinds of cartoons that make it into the New Yorker magazine, then you'll quickly figure out why these cartoons never made it into the magazine (and never will). Provocative, vulgar, crude, tasteless but always funny (even in a shake-your-head way) this collection is at least one read-through.

Each of the 30 artists hilariously fills out a questionnaire and contribute 5 cartoons each. The editor explains how a cartoon gets made, accepted or rejected (by the New Yorker, not by him for this book obviously). It's an interesting look at how the cartoons are chosen (or not) for the magazine.

Of note, though, is that of the 30 artists represented here only 4 are women. Of the 30 artists none are a person of color. I wouldn't have noticed that before but with all the exposure lately of how homogenous the publishing industry is it's interesting to see how un-diversified the artists here are (there's a picture of each one). This might only reflect those who chose to contribute to this book, but still, makes me wonder. The book was published in 2006, so I thought the sequel of 2007 might be better? Not really.