On July 3, 1804, Clark describes his relentless battle with mosquitoes:

“The Musquitors so bad this evening that the men could hardly work in the Delawares to finish them… they are exceedingly troublesome to me.”

Why it’s humorous: Clark’s constant frustration with mosquitoes, despite being on one of the most important expeditions in American history, reads like someone having a really bad day. It’s amusing to imagine these tough frontiersmen swatting helplessly at mosquitoes while dealing with far more serious concerns like survival and navigation. It adds a relatable, almost trivial frustration to a monumental event.

2. Lewis’ Battle with a Grizzly Bear

On May 14, 1805, Lewis recounts his terrifying (and hilarious in hindsight) encounter with a grizzly bear:

“He was so near that I could not reload my rifle before he came up, and as I was retreating as fast as I could, he followed me... I had run near 80 yards before I felt the least inconvenience from my flight, but I soon found that the bear had entirely the advantage of me...”

Why it’s humorous: Lewis’s description of trying to outrun a bear—realizing too late that the bear was faster—is comically self-aware. His mix of panic and surprise that this massive animal had “entirely the advantage” over him sounds like something out of a slapstick wilderness comedy. The passage’s charm comes from the fact that even these great explorers had moments of sheer, ridiculous panic.

3. Clark’s “Iron Boat” Disaster

On July 8, 1805, after weeks of hauling iron frame parts across rugged terrain for an experimental boat, Clark’s carefully crafted "iron boat" fails spectacularly:

“She leaked in such a manner that she would not answer… we were compelled to leave her.”

Why it’s humorous: Clark's flat, matter-of-fact tone about this months-long engineering failure is unintentionally funny. After all the trouble of lugging iron overland and attempting to assemble a revolutionary boat, it turns out to be a complete bust. It’s like a major modern project going down in flames, but narrated with zero fanfare—just resignation.

**4. The “Prairie Dog Capture”

On September 7, 1804, the men go to great lengths to capture a prairie dog for scientific purposes:

“We poured into his hole 5 barrels of water without filling it, we then set the prairie on fire and smoked him out.”

Why it’s humorous: The absurdity of these men pouring barrels of water down a hole, followed by setting a prairie on fire, just to capture a prairie dog makes this one of the more absurd moments in the journals. It highlights their determination and resourcefulness, but also how over-the-top their methods could be. It's like a massive overreaction to the simple problem of catching a small animal.

5. Lewis’ Over-the-Top Enthusiasm for a Prairie

On August 18, 1805, Lewis gives an exuberant description of a prairie:

“As we passed on it seemed as if those scenes of visionary enchantment would never have an end.”

Why it’s humorous: Lewis’s poetic, almost dreamy description of a prairie feels hilariously over-the-top when compared to the practical details of surviving the wilderness. It's like he’s suddenly waxing lyrical in the middle of a tough expedition, as if he's in some trance about the landscape. This level of enthusiasm for what is essentially a large field feels both endearing and unintentionally funny.

**6. Clark’s Curious Use of “Sacagawea’s Husband”

In March 1805, Clark keeps referring to Sacagawea’s husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, simply as “the interpreter”:

“The interpreter’s wife who accompanied her husband on this expedition proved to be of great service to us.”

Why it’s humorous: Despite Charbonneau being an integral part of the expedition, Clark refers to him almost dismissively as “the interpreter,” while giving Sacagawea much more credit. It’s a subtle, humorous slight against Charbonneau, who many historians agree was not the most competent individual, and it shows that Clark may have found him more of a nuisance than a help.

7. The “Tastes Like Fish” Incident

In July 1805, the group eats a beaver and finds it surprisingly palatable:

“...the flesh of this animal is by no means disagreeable and tastes something like fresh fish.”

Why it’s humorous: The idea that they expected beaver meat to taste like something terrible and are pleasantly surprised by its resemblance to fish is oddly amusing. It highlights the strange culinary experiences they encountered, and how their expectations were constantly being challenged—especially when it came to food.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5603018&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=4942357",#48141887)

“About 10 oClock this morning one of the Party Came to me and informed me that his Tobacco had been Stolen last night... I enquired of the guard whether any of the Party had been out of Camp last night, he informed me that the man who had lost his Tobacco had been out himself... after a long investigation of the matter I discovered that the fellow had Stolen his own Tobacco...”

Why it’s funny: The absurdity of someone reporting their own theft is peak irony. The image of Lewis conducting a "long investigation" only to discover the thief is the victim himself adds a classic farcical twist. It's like watching a detective solve a mystery only to realize the culprit is right in front of him—classic misdirection. The humor lies in human fallibility and the overreaction to what is essentially a non-problem, all wrapped in the seriousness of an important expedition.

2. Clark's Encounter with the "Barking Squirrels" (September 16, 1804)

“I saw a Village of Barking Squirels... those little animals are numerous... their Bark put me in mind of the little toy dogs.”

Why it’s funny: Clark’s whimsical comparison of prairie dogs to "little toy dogs" offers an unexpectedly lighthearted moment. For a man hardened by wilderness survival, it’s funny to see him reduced to thinking about toy dogs when faced with unfamiliar wildlife. The mental image of these explorers encountering the "barks" of prairie dogs—likely serious in their minds—juxtaposed with such a trivial comparison, adds a humorous absurdity. This clash between the grandiosity of their mission and the mundanity of their observations is particularly entertaining.

3. The Great "Buffaloe" Hunt (August 24, 1805)

“Capt Lewis & myself went out to hunt the Buffaloe, we Saw a great many and Shot at a large gang but killed none, they were So wild that we could not get a Shot at them.”

Why it’s funny: This failed buffalo hunt is comically relatable. Lewis and Clark, iconic explorers, can’t even get a good shot at a "large gang" of buffalo. Despite their expertise, they come back empty-handed, making the whole event feel like an early slapstick hunting sequence. The visual of them stalking a herd of buffalo, only to be outmaneuvered by the "wild" creatures, adds an element of helplessness that borders on slapstick. The whole situation is a classic case of high expectations meeting comic failure, especially with hunger looming over the crew.

4. The "Dancing" Bear (July 15, 1806)

“The bear being closely pursued r[a]n into the water... he raised himself up on his hind feet and menaced us... he would sometimes swim around seemingly to look for a place to land but would find none and return again to the shore... we at length drew him on shore and killed him.”

Why it’s funny: The mental image of a bear frantically "dancing" in the water, searching for a place to land while the explorers chase it, feels straight out of a slapstick comedy routine. The bear’s futile attempts to escape, combined with the explorers’ relentless pursuit, paint a picture of chaos. The contrast between the serious intent to hunt and the almost cartoonish way the scene unfolds makes it both absurd and darkly funny. It’s as if the wilderness itself is part of the joke, with the bear performing its awkward, doomed routine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5603018&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=4942357",#48141910)