Thursday, August 21, 2008

Comic 465: The Amazing Vanashing Talent


I basically do not have to work anymore. Here's another guest post (not from Stanley Spitz this time). As usual, I do not agree with everything he says, but I am a fat lazy bum so deal with it. So with no further ado, here's Mr. Esteban Smarinetti-
--------
Let's say you have a group of 30 nerds who want to watch a movie. These nerds are an eclectic, and varied group. Some of them are easily and deservedly mocked film geeks, most are science and tech geeks, and maybe a few that don't really meet either label other than general nerdery. You propose two movies to watch. One of them is Bonnie and Clyde, a movie that gave birth to Hollywood's Second Golden Age with its radical use of violence, unprecedentedly explicit sexuality, and proposition that two murderous bank robbers could be counterculture antiheroes. The other movie is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, whose politics never went beyond "Nazis...I hate those guys," and pretty much defined campy, popcorn-munching entertainment for Generation X and Yers. I think anyone who reads this blog and those who read xkcd would predict that crowd would choose to watch Indiana Jones by a vast majority. I also think that a smaller but still substantial majority would also agree that Bonnie and Clyde is a better movie. Indiana Jones, however, is safer, and more enjoyable to watch in a crowd (read: easier to make fun of and quote incessantly). This thought experiment is meant to show that, in a group of intelligent, educated people, nostalgia and camp value is more valuable than searching for quality in art. Whether this is predominantly due to postmodernism, contemporary political apathy, or some other cultural factor I cannot say, but it is certainly a troubling thing to think about when you care as much about art as I do.

Randall Munroe is not to blame for this particular trend, but he has certainly taken advantage of our love of nerd nostalgia—dare I say exploited it—for his own reputation and self-aggrandizement. Wednesday's xkcd tackles the Father Superior of nerd geek nostalgia: Star Trek. Make no mistakes about it, despite it classifying itself as "normal" as opposed to "quantum" teleportation, this is still a reenactment of a Star Trek ritual that rivals only a Darth Vader breath in its ability to give nerds boners.

While Randall may have been able to get away with a post like this a couple of years ago, he's exhausted his options here. The post directly preceding Wednesday's was a surface-level inversion of a popular 90s television show, The Fresh Prince of Bel Air (few things are loved by nerds more than anything having to do with the 80s or 90s). Four comics previous to that, he not only used the same joke about popular misconceptions of science due to movies (this time it was Jurassic Park), but continued his trend of spending far too long on an extending story to make a pun that hasn't been funny since the first time he did it over a year ago... The comic right before that one was a Ghostbusters reference. For those who haven't been keeping score, that's 4 out of the 7 previous xkcd posts that have made overt references to beloved nerd pop culture artifacts. And two of the other ones both referred to movie cliches, one with Morgan Freeman sounding comforting (tastefully timed after his automobile accident, may I add), and one using Google Maps for a horror movie cliche. So in actuality, it's really 6 ironic references to pop culture cliches and geek movies/television shows out of the last 7 posts. Any more posts like these, and we may actually want to see the mushy love comics again.

What strikes me about Randall's use of pop culture so heavily of late is how incredibly dated it seems and how out of character it is for Randall. In truth, this kind of humor was already falling out of favor before xckd was even published. Randall got away with it in earlier days because a) his pop culture references were much rarer and b) usually included a twist of science humor that was still fresh at the time (this comic being the classic example). But what's particularly appalling about this recent trend is that in one of the very first xkcd's was devoted to calling out exactly this kind of use of humor. Rereading this comic after the last few weeks of xkcd is like the scene in Citizen Kane when a bitter, older, ruthless capitalist Kane is sent the manifesto claiming to be a people's advocate that he wrote as a young, green, idealist newspaper mogul. But of course, that comes from a sincere movie, so that parallel is likely to go over the xkcd fanbase's head.

--------

Thanks, Esteban. As before, e-mail czwheeler@gmail.com if you want to talk about writing something for this blog. All authors are paid (compliments) handsomely!

24 comments:

  1. Woah there... he mentions Star Trek in passing... it has nothing to do with the real content of this particular comic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anon - correct me if I'm wrong, but the punchline has to do with "we all want Star Trek teleporters." The setup is a physics interview, but the purpose of the strip is devoted to a science fiction joke.

    E.S. - Holy cow...from intro to citations to increasing the scope and disappointment of your critique, this is a 'xkcdsucks' masterpiece. Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm with anonymous.

    The punchline "has to do" with Star Trek, but only in that Star Trek is the canonical sci-fi teleporter.

    I'd say the joke is really more about science journalism and the unreasonable expectations/assumptions it creates/uses. The punchline being that we've developed real teleportation, and the scientist doesn't bring it up because it isn't the topic of his research.

    Sidenote: much of the value of puns lies in the lengths one goes to to set them up. It's a bit of a Rube Goldberg effect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I keep thinking, maybe this one won't suck... and am bitterly disappointed every time.

    Also, I found this great website that was called doesxkcdsucktoday.com or something like that, and it basically said either h1 Yes /h1 or h1 No /h1 It even had an RSS feed, which I thought was clever, because the date matched up with the comic. But I can't find this site now! Anyone know the URL?

    ReplyDelete
  5. That would be http://isxkcdshittytoday.com

    It really is a marvellous complement to this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "is xkcd shitty today" is indeed a lovely site. I am about to post a whole big series of fun links and stuff, that will be in there. I must say that while they get points for simplicity, I think this blog offers better analysis...

    I actually like puns. Few other actual human beings I know do. They are better, of course, if they are told in real life as a part of a conversation or an observation, if it's more of a joke that ends in a pun it's not as impressive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I enjoy puns. I enjoy elaborate setups for puns and most incarnations of the pun. So long as the pun is delivered with the expectation that people are going to hate you for it, I like it. It is probably a character flaw.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No. That post does not make any sense at all. Making a joke about star trek or a terrible (yet somehow hilarious) pun is not at all equivalent to mindlessly *quoting* Python. No, Monroe did not invent this kind of humor, but in my opinion he excels at it. It is not everyone's cup of tea, but this labored attempt at deconstruction falls very short indeed. The author of the blog seems to be looking for fatal flaws in all the wrong places. He deifys one razorblade into a mountainrange. But I guess when you style your blog after a hammer, the world by necessity becomes full of nails.

    The smug and condescending tone does not help either.

    But then perhaps all this is just going over my little old head.

    ReplyDelete
  9. good thing it was written by a guest poster, and not the author of this blog!

    also: you win the award for crappy analogies, what does turning a razorblade into a mountainrange mean.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It means taking something small and magnifying it until it loses all context. Much like a razorblade looks like a mountain range when you look at it through a high-powered microscope. Thanks for the award. I'll make sure to pass it on to Mr. Cummings. I'll also assume that your misuse of punctuation is some sort of a misconceived tribute to him.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I can't decide whether I should make fun of this Cuddlefish for his Chestertonian attempts to use clever wordplay as replacement for an argument, attack his analogies, attack him for attempting to use ee cummings as a weapon in an argument, or just call him an idiot and be done with.

    I mean, sure, this was kind of an annoying post by a guest author. But you are no better! You have perfectly adopted the annoying style of the original post, down to the 'referencing art in the attempt to make my point sound more profound,' but adding a level of elitist 'you aren't cool enough to understand this reference' that ultimately undermines your point because rather than being taken with your brilliance and cultural awareness, people are distracted at the awkward analogy.

    I suspect it was contrived just so you could make this smug 'I know more about poetry' response, but even then, that sabotages the effectiveness of your post. If you don't want to explain you can use a hyperlink.

    Actually, man, the last annoying analogy Cuddlefish was using a 'missing the big picture' analogy. Was it you? If so, my previous advice stands: go home and cry, you are unloved.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "just call him an idiot and be done with"

    That would be rather in the style of the blog, wouldn't it? Only if you were to do it as tediously as possible of course.

    "clever wordplay as replacement for an argument"

    Augmentation. The word you're looking here is 'augmentation.' Or perhaps 'adornment.'

    "but adding a level of elitist 'you aren't cool enough to understand this reference'"

    Your own flawed perception apparently. Though it was by no means my intent.

    "I suspect it was contrived just so you could make this smug 'I know more about poetry' response, but even then, that sabotages the effectiveness of your post. If you don't want to explain you can use a hyperlink."

    You seem to misconstrue my intent to the same degree that you do Monroe's. From the context I will assume that "Cuddlefish" is a little in-joke that you use to dismiss anyone who finds fault with your analysis.

    This was my first comment here by the way. I've read a few other blog posts here since then and the same pattern of smugness, condescension, willful misunderstanding, nitpicking and otherwise piss poor analysis persists.

    "You have perfectly adopted the annoying style of the original post"

    Oh goody! Does that mean that I'll get to do a guest blog too?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Augmentation. The word you're looking here is 'augmentation.' Or perhaps 'adornment.'"

    No, 'replacement.' You see, your argument is completely lacking of substance--the only thing it has is an assertion and an analogy. An argument requires something to back the assertion--analogies do not do this. Thanks for playing, though!

    "Your own flawed perception apparently. Though it was by no means my intent."

    Of course, you can't very well acknowledge that what you're doing is to try to make yourself appear more well-read than the people you're talking to. That'd ruin the whole point! No, you have to feign innocence. "Who, me? I certainly would never drop references just so people will think I'm smarter than I am, because I'm a horribly dull individual and a talentless hack."

    "You seem to misconstrue my intent to the same degree that you do Monroe's. From the context I will assume that "Cuddlefish" is a little in-joke that you use to dismiss anyone who finds fault with your analysis."

    No, your intent is pretty clear. You're smug with no reason to be, which is the worse kind--an individual best described as pompous, without the benefit of ever actually being right.

    Entirely wrong about the word, but I'm not going to tell you what it means, because I am only helpful to people with the capacity to think and reason.

    "This was my first comment here by the way. I've read a few other blog posts here since then and the same pattern of smugness, condescension, willful misunderstanding, nitpicking and otherwise piss poor analysis persists."

    Oh Cuddlefish, you make me so sad. Since you seem to be a big fan of being a mind-numbingly imbecilic fuckwit, let me break it down for you.

    Have you ever heard the word 'humor?' Yes? How about 'comic' or 'comedic?' You have? Great! How about 'sarcasm?' 'Irony?' Now, here's a big one you might remember from sophomore English class--'satire?'

    Very good!

    Let's move on. Have you ever heard the words 'snark' or 'snarky?' Probably not! Have you ever heard the phrase 'snarky blog?' I'm assuming no--it refers to a blog which is snarky. In fact, if you bothered to read the header, you'd find a pretty good working definition of a snarky blog--or you would if you were capable of creative thought.

    The header reads as follows: "[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic." Now, use the five brain cells you have left--you know, the ones huddling together for warmth in the back of your cavernous skull--and piece together what I'm trying to say. I believe in you! You're bound to succeed at basic reading comprehension eventually in life, it might as well be now!

    Figure it out yet? Have you spotted the flaw in your attack on a veritably archaic post, made by a guest poster who has appeared I think twice ever in the archives, on a snarky blog about a webcomic?

    I'll leave you to think about that one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Of course, you can't very well acknowledge that what you're doing is to try to make yourself appear more well-read than the people you're talking to. That'd ruin the whole point! No, you have to feign innocence. "Who, me? I certainly would never drop references just so people will think I'm smarter than I am, because I'm a horribly dull individual and a talentless hack.""

    Because every reference to a work with which you are not familiar is obviously a personal insult aimed at you. To deny it is inevitably a laughable attempt to save face. If you were to ever assume even a modicum of good faith, you'd be made to look like a fool so this is most certainly not an option. Jesus man. Were you mercilessly teased by the lit club in high school or something? You need to address those issues.

    A word of completely unrelated advice: Don't ever try to read The Tale of Genji. You'll probably suffer a minor stroke when you realize that the author is ridiculing you across the gulf of centuries.

    "Have you ever [snip] "

    So what you are trying to say in your own idiosyncratic way is that this blog is not meant to offer anything like a rational, coherent or self-consistent critique and is in fact a sadistic (to the readers of course) parody of a blog? Well that explains a great deal. Are you furthermore saying that you find this humorous? I can see how it might be in a very Kaufmanesque sort of way.

    Thank you my dear Dr. Dugong for that explanation. I'll leave you to your cuttlefish now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Because every reference to a work with which you are not familiar is obviously a personal insult aimed at you. To deny it is inevitably a laughable attempt to save face. If you were to ever assume even a modicum of good faith, you'd be made to look like a fool so this is most certainly not an option. Jesus man. Were you mercilessly teased by the lit club in high school or something? You need to address those issues."

    No, I was the lit club that mercilessly teased other people. Then I stopped being seventeen and realized that being a pompous fuck is actually just stupid, and that everyone who interacts with them is not impressed by their dazzling intellect but rather annoyed at their obvious attempts to impress with their dazzling intellect. I was fortunate enough to have an intellect and turn it to other things. You, alas, have no such luck. Poor soul.

    As for assuming good faith--you must really be an idiot if you think you have good faith on here. You are criticizing a guest post (and not a terribly popular one) as indicative of a problem endemic in an entire blog. You are a pompous, condescending fuckwit. You use phrases like 'your flawed perception' and 'misconceived tribute.' You are not acting in good faith.

    "A word of completely unrelated advice: Don't ever try to read The Tale of Genji. You'll probably suffer a minor stroke when you realize that the author is ridiculing you across the gulf of centuries."

    Oh dear, you're one of those. I don't object to criticism, my dearest cuddle-muffin, I object to idiots. Especially idiots that fancy themselves clever and well-read. I don't mock you because you're a critic, I mock you because you're a stupid one. I've had plenty of intelligent and reasonable discourse with critics. They just have to demonstrate their intelligence and good humor before they get treated with respect.

    "So what you are trying to say in your own idiosyncratic way is that this blog is not meant to offer anything like a rational, coherent or self-consistent critique and is in fact a sadistic (to the readers of course) parody of a blog? Well that explains a great deal. Are you furthermore saying that you find this humorous? I can see how it might be in a very Kaufmanesque sort of way."

    Nope, but thanks for playing!

    ReplyDelete
  16. So far all you've done is called me a "stupid poo head" and admitted that your bizarre over-the-internet reconstruction of my personality is more projection than anything else. I thought that might have been the case. Never the less, I'm glad that you've grown so much as human being in the last five years.

    I couldn't make heads or tales of Genji myself by the way. It's dialogue is full of references to old Japanese poetry that I know nothing about. It's not just a silly thing that sad nerds and people like your seventeen-year-old self do. It is (as you probably well know) a well established form of communication. It is also not in and of itself smug or insulting.

    "You use phrases like 'misconceived tribute' You are not acting in good faith."

    Now look who's talking about being humourless!

    "'your flawed perception' and "

    And yes- your perception is indeed very flawed. I really can't do much about that but point it out to you, now can I? You are making some very specific assumptions about tone, inflection and intent and acting as if these assumptions represent the absolute objective truth. Whether you know it or not, you are filling in a whole lot of blanks and being a little to certain about it. Not good internet practice. You start a lot of flame wars that way and very little actual communication results.

    "You are criticizing a guest post"

    Which happened to have been the post that brought me to the site. Other posts that I have read have demonstrated similar gaps in logic and I've commented on those as well.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm just gonna drop in and say the whole e.e. cummings comment is what we call "name-dropping." You see, it's like when you drop poo on the floor but really it is a name and the stink that rises up is your intention to appear smarter for knowing something.

    And also you said (sarcastically, I assume), "Because every reference to a work with which you are not familiar is obviously a personal insult aimed at you." Umm isn't that sorta how you took "Cuddlefish"? I mean obviously it's not some well known poet but it is something we use around here and you took it as an insult.

    Anyway, enjoy your fun, you two!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "So far all you've done is called me a "stupid poo head" and admitted that your bizarre over-the-internet reconstruction of my personality is more projection than anything else. I thought that might have been the case. Never the less, I'm glad that you've grown so much as human being in the last five years."

    No, I've called you a fuckwit and an imbecile and probably a few other things besides. There is a difference. And you aren't using the word "projection" correctly. Or, for that matter, quotation marks.

    "I couldn't make heads or tales of Genji myself by the way. It's dialogue is full of references to old Japanese poetry that I know nothing about. It's not just a silly thing that sad nerds and people like your seventeen-year-old self do. It is (as you probably well know) a well established form of communication. It is also not in and of itself smug or insulting."

    Oh dear, you're dumber than I thought. Making a reference is not smug--making references in lieu of an argument and then making a condescending half-explanation is. It's a matter of tone, and context.

    "Now look who's talking about being humourless!"

    Do I give off the impression I'm not enjoying myself? You are rapidly losing marks for perception here.

    "And yes- your perception is indeed very flawed. I really can't do much about that but point it out to you, now can I? You are making some very specific assumptions about tone, inflection and intent and acting as if these assumptions represent the absolute objective truth. Whether you know it or not, you are filling in a whole lot of blanks and being a little to certain about it. Not good internet practice. You start a lot of flame wars that way and very little actual communication results."

    I once again draw your attention to a few pertinent facts. One, this is a snarky blog which is described as "[a] vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness about a silly and harmless comic." Two, you are an anonymous poster who is not sending any of the conversational signals that indicates he is interested in actual communication. When you set out with snark drawn, expect to be faced with snark in return. If I wanted a serious, respectable conversation with you--keep in mind that this hypothetical is entirely implausible, as you have not in any way done anything to suggest that you are a person who is fun to talk to--I would be having one right now. But I'm not--and neither are you. You should probably stop pretending.

    "Which happened to have been the post that brought me to the site. Other posts that I have read have demonstrated similar gaps in logic and I've commented on those as well."

    Yes, and none of your other comments were any more insightful or worth responding to. Perhaps you could try participating in the discussions which are still ongoing? I mean, we can keep this up forever but I'm sure the others would love to mock your pompous self-importance.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Holy fucking shit.

    Its an anylzation of a joke, which is then analyzed for its analytical value, and then the analysis of the analysis is FUCKED UP THE ASS!

    I hope you all get shot.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anylzation? What are you, four?

    ReplyDelete
  21. I agree with the angry guy. He makes a solid point.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yeah! He seems like a smart fellow, we should listen to what he says.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you gentlemen. I appreciate the support. In my first post I voiced my support for all those involved here (Besides myself of course) being shot, though i declined to mention that it would be best if it were in the testicles. Obviously there are other exceptions to the list, but not Rob. Rob if a fucker. Go fuck yourself Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  24. oh moy goodness, 3 totally seperate people agree that we suck! if three people, who are not the same person, who just happened to post within 4 minutes of each other, who are anonymous but whatever, all think we are working too hard, we probably are!

    GOODNESS!

    ReplyDelete