Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Comic 634: We Made More Than One

Fun times at xkcdsucks world headquarters: Today's guest poster, whom I will call "Captain Tacos" because he did not specify a pseudonym, sent me not one but two reviews of this comic. They can easily be called the "normal" review and the "wacky" review. I've pasted the normal one below; to read the wacky one click here.

I'm more than happy to skip writing about this particular comic; I thought it was beyond bland and utterly forgettable. So instead I will encourage you to give it up for CAPTAIN TACOS:

sucks

" (For shorter form, read only first line.)

... .... ... meh.

And let me explain, by 'meh' I do not mean this is a mediocre comic that is neither funny nor interesting. By 'meh' I mean this is a terrible comic that is neither funny nor interesting. My roommate and I had a long argument about this. He notes that this comic has no major flaws; his criticisms are that "made more than two" is awkward and should be "had more than two" and that the title, "Date" slightly gives away the joke. The premise is contrived and doesn't lead anywhere, Combined with the lackluster punchline, he calls this a mediocre comic. I disagree; I argue that the absence of humor constitutes a huge, crippling, if you will, fatal flaw. When did 'not good, but with the absence of vaginas,' become mediocre. Probably last week, when there was a giant vagina in the comic! Perhaps this was the point of that comic, to so lower the bar that all future comics would be judged more kindly because they were not so blatantly pornographic. (This principle was at work in Carl's analysis of 632)

Often, an XKCD strip will have a decent idea with the potential for some LOLs, and then Randall will fuck it up. Our service will be to explain how he fucked up, and make fun of him for it, and occasionally fix it. But here, there's nothing to fix, and nothing really to make fun of. Its the carbon ash of a comic: it has no potential energy for anything, but is in a completely stable, useless form. But each strip starts with the promise of funny. The very fact that a strip was made and proffered to us, the public, implies that there is some good in it. Presumably if it started with the promise of carbon ash, it would not be proffered. But, as has been noted elsewhere in this blog, the goal of a webcomic is comedy; when a strip does not meet that goal it has failed. Failure is not mediocre! Failure is bad!"

30 comments:

  1. Perhaps it should read, "middle school students with pretensions to being biologists?"

    Punnet squares are a simplified tool for teaching Mendellian genetics, which is itself a simple, grade-school-level theory. Biologists know a lot better.

    So the comic fell rather flat for me. Its faux-nerdy premise lacks the internal logic which is necessary to suspend disbelief.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carl, please post the "wacky" review in text form!

    ReplyDelete
  3. PS, people who don't have an IRC client or don't want to install one can use this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That 'wacky' review is probably my favorite thing I have ever read on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HEY CARL:

    *I* said that about the channel! You punk, I can tell from the capitalization!

    But, yeah, Justin gets the credit for starting it :p

    ReplyDelete
  6. lol, is the companion in the wacky review poore (whatever happened to him)?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think I may have ran into a future XKCD comic (or what I think may fit the criteria of an XKCD comic)

    I was googling for fun (and because I was installing windows AGAIN), and I thought "Hey let's see what the max number of times someone has installed windows on the internet." So I did and I learned that... well... here's the results. 7 times 8 times.

    Somehow I think Mr. Munroe will form this data into a comic sometime in his lifetime due to evidence layed out in his "X girls Y cups" comic, and other google based comics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The wacky review = PURE GOOD and I am in agreement that it is my favorite thing ever. Except, possibly, for WMH.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Willem Huggies is my favorite overall, but as far as single pieces go this takes the cake.

    However, I still pine for ye olde Rob weeke.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @dehdesh: Try some larger numbers. For example, 15.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It also turns out that somebody has installed Linux 7 times.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The wacky review totally ruled. You should've posted it in the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  13. That wacky review was made of gold and encrusted with diamonds. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thumbs way the hell up for the wacky review. That made my day.

    Captcha: eurepus... "'Eurepus,' he cried as he ran down the street naked"

    ReplyDelete
  15. Eye color is controlled by three or more genes (and we don't even know the genes for rarer colors like hazel). So it's too complicated to determine by Punnet square, unless both of the people on the date have green eyes in which case it's obvious anyway.


    ALSO CAN WE MENTION HOW FUCKING CREEPY IT IS TO PLAN YOUR CHILDREN ON THE FIRST DATE?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes, because we all know that if every single detail about a web-comic isn't scientifically accurate, then it sucks...

    ReplyDelete
  17. oh man you guys he's still here

    also i... fiftieth? the motion to post the text form of the wacky review.

    and early anon, poore posted on the previous thread

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't know much about bio, but aren't the odds for these kinds of things always the same, and they wouldn't increase each time you have a kid?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Um, no.

    If you flip a coin once, you have about an even chance of it landing heads. If you flip a coin three times, you have a better than even chance of one of them landing heads.

    Probability!

    ReplyDelete
  20. i think DR means like each time you flip the coin it's the same probability that it will land heads.

    so having more kids doesn't increase the probability that the next one will have certain genes, but having more kids means you are increasing your chance at having at least one with said genes.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Right after I posted I saw that there was a 15... but I didn't feel like posting again.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Someone has done it 23 times. Your research skills are incredibly lacking. I was able to arrive at this number in just three minutes. I don't doubt someone has done it more. You have no dedication. You have no purpose living. Please go kill yourself, preferably before you pass on your genes to your offspring. It's the least you can do for humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lint of Death: I only just now saw your comment about the demand (DEMAND!!!!) for more Rob Week. I will do my best to accommodate this, soon.

    ReplyDelete
  24. whatever rob you know you can't resist the call of the rhubarb

    which will undoubtedly return as soon as you want to guest post again

    ReplyDelete
  25. @dehdesh the "23 anon" is not me, the "15 anon".

    Fuck him/her.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Made more than one" is the correct phrase. They aren't talking about the creation of new life here, they're talking about combining genetic traits, the way you might create a custom website or design a furniture set. The child is an object they are creating, not a person. Which, by the way, is the point of the joke.

    Sorry, I usually lurk this site, and sometimes it makes a point or at least makes me laugh, but you constantly call Randall out on using weird language when it's done intentionally.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ^ See, this is the guy who gets a dagger in the chest.

    ReplyDelete