Sunday, November 22, 2009

Comic 665: The Chronicles of THIS COMIC SUCKS

shut up shut up shut up
I think xkcd is in the middle of about 3 or 4 weeks of really mediocre stuff. Nothing that's really pissed me off for a while, just a lot of things that make me want to pat it on the back and say "it's ok, you can stop. You don't have to force yourself this much."

And that's how I originally thought of this one. But then the more i looked at it, the more it filled me with rage. Perhaps it was the lack of dialog that threw me off, perhaps the fact that I so clearly understood what was happening shielded me from the terrible fact that what was happening does not make sense.

Ok, let's talk about this. The girl (who is being smart and tech-savvy, surprise!) is Lucy, from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe (god i want to put an oxford comma in there but apparently that's not part of the official title). And instead of just heading straight into Narnia, she sends in some kind of mars-rover type webcam, to scout things out for her!

why the fuck should we give a shit.

Obviously, this option was not available to the Lucy in the story, written as it was in 1950. So it's just another dumb old random media mashup, one that tells us nothing new about any of the characters involved in either. It's not like those parodies where a character from something famous is suddenly put in a crazy new position, where you see how the creator thinks they would act. Here all we know is "what if Lucy had technology, and was really careful?" and the answer is she would use technology to be very careful. That's it! that's all there fucking is!

OK, here is my challenge to the xkcd fans: TELL ME WHY THE FUCK YOU LIKED THIS, or admit that you didn't. And no cheating by saying it wasn't supposed to be funny! it obviously was supposed to be.



what will happen for comic 666??????? maybe: nothing! has he ever done anything special for a certain numbered comic? 404 doesn't count, he didn't post it.

146 comments:

  1. He mentioned e in 217? Yeah, I know, that's a little contrived, especially since he also mentioned pi.

    And 404 TOTALLY counts; not posting it is doing something special.

    Oh, and... second?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shit, I got e wrong; it's 271, which doesn't mention e at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm diggin' the art on that last panel.

    But I thoroughly hated this comic. It made ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. Why is this funny? How could this at all be funny?!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well. To quote a forum-ite, "Comics like this one are what keep me coming back to XKCD." I'm not sure if that's an insult or a compliment.

    Another forum-ite quipped, "This thread is almost as funny as the comic," quickly adding "...which is hilarious." Don't kid yourself.

    (There's also the obligatory and I think mandatory by law comment of "Get out of my head, Randall!")

    Another forum-ite suggests that the last two panels should be a shirt, saying that he'd gladly buy them. (A few posts later, another forum-ite seconds this.)

    Anyway, the comic sucks. The last panel is well drawn. That's about it. Non-existent joke, the bare minimum illustration (sans the last panel), and I'm still perplexed to how Randall spends his days, because a microwave could write and illustrate a better comic in three days than this.

    My theory: Randall is already ordering some new t-shirt designs. Why else would he put so much detail into the last panel? He obviously doesn't care. Why put in that extra work when the forumies will call it "hilarious" and declare "OMG GET OUT OF MY HEAD RANDALL" automatically?

    I can't wait to see what Randall does for comic 666.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh yeah, and the alt-text. I like it because it keeps up the time-honored xkcd tradition of being not funny and instead being embarrassingly bad. Sometimes, I cannot even stand to read xkcd because it's so horrible I feel embarrassed for Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, it got me re-interested in Stargate: SG-1. I'm hooked now. Maybe this comic was a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Latest XKCD mostly made me think "Well, at least he's trying to get Mr. Hat doing clever shit again" but then I was like "Wait isn't this a really retarded version of an OLDER, BETTER xkcd" and then I remembered no, actually, it rips off an older, better FOXTROT and I can't find it argh.

    Basically, Jason explains to Peter that he has hacked alt.conspiracy.government.paranoid or something so that on some date, all their screens will sputter blackness, then display the text "They are coming", and then play the sound of helicopters approaching.

    I know that there are serious differences between it and today's xkcd update. However, I think it is similar enough in intention that I am not totally unjustified in remembering it.

    Argh someone please find it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wait. What does this comic have to do with Stargate?

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is clearly a Stargate reference. Place your nerd card on the table. What pisses ME off is when whiny Carl does not know how to play the game, he bitches and moans about how the game SUCKS. "Man I just don't get sex...Sex SUCKS, you could get aids and shit, it would be much better like THIS..."

    I think it is worth a tiny chuckle to see a small and illogical child think like a grown reasonable adult. People acting outside their age are funny.

    So there.

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1222/20091122foxtrot.png

    cf. XKCD #666

    ReplyDelete
  11. I hardly think the specifics of the probe matter. The basic idea here is that people in fantasy-type stories seem invariably to leap into strange situations with both feet rather than exercising a little bit of caution.

    Do you see an ancient and foreboding box with skulls carved into it? Open it! Do you see a creepy glowing statue with blood dripping from the eyes? Touch it! Do you see an odd liquid in the middle of a science lab? Drink it! Do you see an impossible gateway to a strange and fantastic world? Leap right through!

    Obviously, these actions are necessary for the story to take place--The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe would be a totally different book if the kids had called in the government--and they have become so common that we generally just accept them without question. This joke invites us to take a step back and question just how reasonable these choices are, especially when made by otherwise reasonable people. These characters rarely pause to so much as poke the mysterious goo with a stick before jumping in and rolling around, and it's an odd convention.

    The joke is hardly the pinnacle of artistic humor, but it is a fairly standard 'Hey have you ever noticed that...' gag. Perhaps for some people one instance of observational humor is enough to turn them off the entire genre, but for many a glint of recognition in a shared observance of the absurd is enough to elicit a smile. This joke isn't groundbreaking, but it is fairly well executed and good enough for me.

    Oh, and Dasafrak: The connection to Stargate is probably coincidental. In that show they often send probes through gateways before entering themselves, as this comic suggests would have been a good choice in this instance. They still go around trying out mysterious alien technology all willy-nilly, however.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, Carl. I used to be a fan, but defending the Oxford comma?! IT'S OVER. RANDY4EVA.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Femalethoth,
    basically what you just said is that both comics are about pranking people in a way relevant to their beliefs/disbeliefs. That is way to general to actually be a legitimate criticism. It's also common.

    I agree that xkcd has not been as good as it used to be. I don't think anyone who's not a fucking tool could contest that. That being said, it's always been about putting a nerdy twist on things. Criticizing him for that is like getting on Mariano Rivera for throwing his cutter to get hitters out. It works. Some of the mash ups and nerdy twists are funny. It just so happens that Randall's ideas have been shitty, the practice of putting a nerdy twist on things isn't the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chris, that's a very interesting commentary. Sadly, perhaps 0.2% of it is actually implied by 665; the rest is original to you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @basileus -- Yeah, I'm really not gonna argue "XKCD ripped off FoxTrot" very strongly, or actually at all, because they really are fairly different. It just struck me that, after a few moments' thought, I was immediately reminded of a decade-old comic that was (I think) much better. So, not a ripoff, just a sad case where the main good thing a comic does for me is remind me of something better.

    ====

    Anyway, "a nerdy twist" doesn't have to mean "dead-in-the-water insertion of technology into something that didn't have technology beforehand." Otherwise, Randall's about on the level of the CRACKED readers who contributed to that "Websites from before the Internet was invented" contest.

    ReplyDelete
  16. ramsey! the oxford comma is great. You can use it in the morning, at noon, and at night. I like them, Rob likes them, and Amanda likes them (i assume?). They are useful, clear, and simple to use.

    Chris: I think your explanation is probably the best anyone could give, but it still gives us the problem of why she is using 2000s era technology in a 1950s story. She could just as easily have used caution without computers and webcams. Why not, I dunno, go get a telescope or binoculars or something? Or go get some more people? I dunno, it just seems like if Randall really wanted to make that point he could have done it far better.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd like to weigh in: I love the Oxford comma. It makes things very clear.

    However, I cannot possibly weigh in as much as Rob, who is actually so heavy that he does not weigh in at all, but is an independent gravitational mass.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mal that Foxtrot strip isn't that old, I think it's from around 2003 or 2004, it was one of the later ones (meaning before Foxtrot became a Sunday only strip in 2006 I believe)

    Also, as interesting as a quip as these "what if the characters were safe instead?" type comics are, you gotta remember that if characters weren't doing stupid things like that, then we wouldn't have a show/movie/book to watch/read now would we.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I liked it. I didn't take it as Lucy, I took it as "This is what I think I and my friends would try to do in that situation."

    It's funny mainly because this WOULD be my first reaction. And that of most of my friends. It's observational humor on the minds of people like me. My 2 cp, having been linked here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dude, I scanned it from my copy of Foxtrot: Beyond a Doubt, published 1997. It's at least twelve years old.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The idea of this comic could be great, but there is one serious flaw in his implementation.

    The punchline and the setup are in the last panel. It isn't obvious that she has found the doorway to Narnia or whatever until the last panel, and the panel also explains what she was doing with the laptop.

    I think he should have made it obvious at first that she found Narnia, then have her mess around for a few panels leading the reader to believe she is preparing for a journey, then show us the probe.

    my $.02

    ReplyDelete
  22. 1997 was twelve years ago?????

    ReplyDelete
  23. 665's title text directly mentioned Stargate: SG-1... they generally send a device similar to what's depicted through the Stargate to make sure the atmosphere's breathable, the DHD's intact, and such.

    ReplyDelete
  24. hmm, I must be thinking of a different one with a similar punchline. I mean that's not the first time Jason did something like that

    ReplyDelete
  25. .......Randall changed the tile-text!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. which title text do you mean? Here's the one I see (up there as I write this, also, it's the one that the Forum thread has listed): "Moments later, the White Witch rolls up and, confused, tries to tempt the probe with a firmware upgrade."

    What part of that do you see as "directly mentioning" stargate?

    ReplyDelete
  27. About 665, the reason why this comic works is not because "acting cautiously prevents the plot from taking place" but because Narnia extols the virtues of being a kid, and part of that is curiousity. A Narnia where everyone acts according to scientific rigor is a terrible Narnia indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. also, a narnia where you can BRING YOUR LAPTOP is a terrible narnia indeed. no?

    come to think of it, maybe the kids should have brought guns with them to narnia? That was something that existed then. It would have saved a lot of trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The first things I thought of when I read 666 were Roald Dahl's The Twits, that scene from Amélie where she freaks the greengrocer out by breaking into his house and messing stuff up, and something in which a child constantly breaks into someone's house to saw off part of the legs of somebody's furniture so that they go crazy and believe they're becoming giants or something, which I originally thought was also in The Twits but now I can't find any reference to. Note how those are "OMG MY CHILDHOOD LOL!" and "OMG A CUTE FOREIGN MOVIE I'VE SEEN I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT THIS FAMOUS MOVIE!", two tropes very fitting to XKCD.

    I like the fact that Mr. Hat is back to not being a homicidal psychopath, but more of an evil prankster, and that his horrible girlfriend is nowhere to be seen. That said, I don't exactly like the cop-out dialogue in the first panel about the silent tools, and the joke is okay, but kind of an old, played out one. Also I think the knock-out gas is over the top. Still, good attempt to return to form with Mr. Hat. Who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Fuck Narnia and fuck the Oxford comma. GRR.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I read the comments about people defending 665 and how it was omg so deep you guys and it brought up all these concepts of whatever. The problem is I don't see ANY of that in there. I see a shitty comic and people's strained attempts to explain how it isn't shitty and they aren't succeeding very well.

    Reminds me of the time when I made an off-hand comment in a Skype chat with my friends about how yellow Skittles were the proletariat. It wasn't funny in the first place but it only steadily became worse as I sadly attempted to make a deep and thoughtful explanation as to why, effectively killing the small bit of humor that might have existed in it in the first place.

    And I only felt compelled to try and rationalize it because I was attempting to cover up how stupid the statement was.

    Also I rather like 666, although silent tools? How does that even work?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hahaha silent tools? The whole setup couldn't be more contrived. Randall's not even trying anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I just don't understand why somebody would ask "why" to the question of silent tools. Those would be awesome, even if you used them for good. You could do your carpentry at night in a city, for instance.

    I kind of wish the setup had somebody inventing the silent tools for such legitimate purposes, and then hat guy corrupting them in this manner.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I think the joke is designed to wring humour out of the unexpected, and it's more about 'what if The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe were set today'.

    I found it amusing because of that. In particular there's something about mr. Tumnus looking down at the probe that made me chuckle.

    ReplyDelete
  35. As a set up, this comic requires one to recognise what is happening quickly (so requires a familiarity with lion witch and the wardrobe). Having realised what is happening, we are then meant to feel confusion over the next few panels as to where the girl is going. The pay off then is the amusing response to a hidden world, the reaction of a scientist rather than a small child.

    Ways this joke might fail:

    If we do not recognise what is going on early on, this joke will fail.
    We see the punchline coming. Its not obvious to me, but if it, then fair enough.

    This joke isn't deep, its a simple play on expectations.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The basic idea here is that people in fantasy-type stories seem invariably to leap into strange situations with both feet rather than exercising a little bit of caution."

    Weirdly enough, the lack of caution is advocated in comics like 264, which makes me think that interpretation is different from the "hai guys mixing famous things with technology is FUNNY LOL" Randall intended.

    Fred, I wanted to cheer loudly when you reminded me of Amélie Poulain. Not only it is a fabulous film, but the character has strong and relatable motivations to pull off those pranks. I'm getting kind of sick of the hat dude; Randall's utter lack of talent when it comes to writing and character building shows he's not really a character, but a stupid gimmick, and not a very convincing one.

    ReplyDelete
  37. if xkcd had recurring characters, and one of those characters was a nerdy cautious science-y girl, 665 would've been funnier.

    instead, Lucy arbitrarily acts in a way that GOOMH I WOULD'VE TOO LOL!

    hell why not do a comic of Predator except with Arnie hiding in a ditch cacking himself because GOOMH I WOULD'VE TOO LOL!


    constructive criticisim: some jokes would work much better if they had developed characters - not author substitutes (and especially not opposite-sex author substitutes) - acting them out. so start developing characters, Randall.


    - Anonblip

    ReplyDelete
  38. I like the new comic!

    The last panel wasn't great, but i still like it!

    ReplyDelete
  39. I was wrong. I was thinking of .. bloody hell, Firefox, let me copy/paste! http://www.reddit.com/r/comics/comments/a6bf8/prudence_xkcd_stargate_had_it_right_from_the_get/

    ReplyDelete
  40. Look, the real question is, does Poore like the Oxford comma? Does he like it as much as he likes to drink? I think on this slippery slope of a fine point, the fate of the Oxford comma is decided.

    Unrelatedly if I met a man who could move a window, silently, in the space of six to eight hours, and have the change not be apparent to cursory inspection, my response would not be "Nice prank I guess."
    So, uh, Randall, get in my head por favor.

    The joke of the comic is that the black hat man anticipates that breaking and entering a man's house repeatedly may upset him.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I see Randall has been reading House of Leaves again.

    ReplyDelete
  42. You would think CS Lewis would have used the Oxford comma, since he actually taught at Oxford.

    ReplyDelete
  43. hell why not do a comic of Predator except with Arnie hiding in a ditch cacking himself because GOOMH I WOULD'VE TOO LOL!

    god damn you why did i laugh >:C

    ReplyDelete
  44. Not Supposed to Be HereNovember 23, 2009 at 7:51 AM

    I thought this comic was pretty good, and did a decent job of getting Mr. Hat back to his roots. ...Incidentally, did anyone else especially like the alt text?

    Oh yeah, and I like the Oxford comma.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I love the Oxford comma. It's a glorious thing.

    Also, I was okay with 666. Silent tools is a... stretch at best... but it's still a good joke.

    Captcha: "andindie". I feel like there's a great Jeph Jacques joke here, but I haven't figured it out. Someone want to come up with something?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Jacque and Indie, a Happy Days spin-off.

    ReplyDelete
  47. To quote explainxkcd

    That’s right, it’s like that one scene from a thousand movies except this time there are silent tools. Read this comic again, then say aloud “this is one of the web’s most popular comics.”

    I love that group so much.

    ReplyDelete
  48. In Randall's perfect world, all women are quirky tech savvy geeks.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I had no idea it was called the "Oxford" comma. I always thought of it as the "Strunk & White" comma.



    And the 666 one wasn't particularly funny, either. Now if the guy had killed himself so he can come back as a ghost and mess with them, that would've been funnier, since it deals with skepticism. Saying "I invented an impossible set of tools", which would be of interest to a skeptic, cracks a smile because...?

    ReplyDelete
  50. I like the Oxford comma only slightly less than I like drinking. Consider the fact that I was intoxicated for more than 12 hours yesterday, and you will understand that this means I like the Oxford comma quite a bit.

    About the comic - if Randall wanted to make the crossover between Stargate and Narnia better, and the character's actions to make more sense, he could have just set it in the Stargate universe:

    1st Panel: show the Dialing Room, maybe some short dialog ("Chevron seven locked","Send the MALP through", etc.)

    2nd Panel: show the MALP (the name of that little probe thing, for non-Stargate fans) moving toward the Stargate

    3rd Panel: the last panel of the current comic

    It gets the point across faster, and it doesn't break verisimilitude until the last panel (which creates and actual punchline). Of course, the amount of extra 'art' this comic would require is probably beyond Randall's ability and motivation.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I prefer to call it the serial comma.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I prefer to call it the cereal comma. That way, it can be part of a complete breakfast when I eat my own words.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I generally hate this website but I love you for wanting to use an oxford comma. Actually, that kinda sounds like an xkcd bit.

    ReplyDelete
  54. This comic fails on yet another front. Hypothetically, if Lucy had some kind of way of "cautiously" scouting out the portal to Narnia first, and was inclined to do so, she probably would not have found the portal to Narnia in the first place. Crossing into Narnia is all about making a child-like leap of faith. Tellingly, the one Pevensie who childishly plays at adulthood in later books is the only one who can never find her way back - she lacks a true sense of wonder and excitement for things unknown, an inability to appreciate the beauty of such a world without viewing in through the lens of her own smug "maturity". So does Randall, its seems. Concept = FAIL.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 666 would work just as well (i.e., not well at all) as an entry in the "My Hobby" series.

    My hobby: Impersonate a poltergeist to freak out skeptics.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "...TELL ME WHY THE FUCK YOU LIKED THIS, or admit that you didn't...."

    They've no other options?

    Innit?

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think that serial comma is the "correct" name (whatever that means), but I prefer the name Oxford comma. It has more character. Oxford commas are not actually needed except where the word and occurs in a list item. I, however, prefer to use them all the time, for consistency.

    TRiG.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Aquarians -- Oh, it's possible that XKCD fans like a comic without even knowing why. But I don't think most of them like to present themselves as total dumbfucks.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Fred: Changing the heights of things is also in the Twits. The man slowly adds tiny bits of wood to the woman's cane, and to everything else, so that she thinks she's getting smaller. Then he stretches her with balloons.

    I'm thinking this is what your thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  60. That is exectly what I am thinking, yeah. Thanks, that was bugging me all day.

    ReplyDelete
  61. What people are ignoring is the fact that if your reaction upon finding a gateway to another freakin' world is to leave the room, then you never deserve to find anything amazing, ever.

    ReplyDelete
  62. WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT AN OXFORD COMMA?

    No one else was gonna do it so I had to pull a Vampire Weekend refrence.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am amazed that this blog even exists. It would be even more fascinating if someone started another blog claiming this one sucks, and spent more time and effort in it than you do here. And then someone else starts claiming THEY suck... and so on, and so on. After seeing this place, I am convinced that this scenario is a serious possibility.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Uh, check the meta sub-title in the top left.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The "'xkcd sucks'" sucks blogs don't ever update, tho. It's a pity.

    I agree with the criticism here: 665 has good art but no joke worth making. But I think it's the inverse of 618 in that respect, which had a good joke performed badly. NASA nuking the little prince's asteroid is inherently hilarious in a way that sending robot probes to Narnia isn't... but the art was insufficient to get this across, probably because it's hard to make a stick figure look like a child. It left me asking why the killer asteroid was populated by some random 70s fashion refugee wearing flares and possessing Batman-like space-breathing skills. If he'd given the little prince a scarf and mittens, it might have worked. (And cited an asteroid number, which is even mentioned in the book...)

    Good job on the art for this one tho. I like those trees and the stick-figure faun.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Okay Carl, I'll tell what I liked about this strip.

    I just first saw the comic, chuckled, and proceeded to do my homework. This comic didn't seem bad if you just read it. The reader does not analyze and think of ways how it sucks. Do people just read it and say "HEY! This is actually not funny at all. In fact, it makes me angry! GRRR! I don't give a shit" unless if you are already biased against it. I never even knew or briefly think of some things you typed. Seriously! Compared to some other strips, it isn't half bad.

    Really? REALLY? You just "SHIT" on some 8 panel comic? I seriously doubt it. DOES THE COMIC HAVE TO FUCKING MAKE SENSE? It's his comic. He can make whatever he fucking wants. You're really making picky small things that don't really matter and try to give them reason why you hated this comic.

    I really wonder WHY it filled you with rage. It doesn't have to be something that you would give a shit about. It's just something to laugh at and think of in a weird way. Just by reading your post makes me think to you are a really childish jackass. Don't quote me line to line and put a counter underneath it. Don't even give me that shit.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Compared to some other strips, it isn't half bad.

    Damning with faint praise, bruh.

    It's his comic. He can make whatever he fucking wants.

    It's his blog. He can post whatever he fucking wants.

    ALTERNATELY:

    Apparently what he fucking wants is to make a shitty comic.

    Don't quote me line to line and put a counter underneath it. Don't even give me that shit.

    If you don't want people to respond to you, don't post anyway. There's a reason this blog has a comments section.

    ====

    Good job on the art for this one tho. I like those trees and the stick-figure faun.

    I know there's an unspoken "compared to Randall's normal featureless uninteresting drek" rider in this statement, but I still find it pretty sad when "good art" means "heads attached to bodies, a guy sort of recognizable as Mister Tumnus, and a couple decent-looking trees."

    ReplyDelete
  68. "Don't quote me line to line and put a counter underneath it."
    'Kay, I'll just do the whole thing.

    "Okay Carl, I'll tell what I liked about this strip.

    I just first saw the comic, chuckled, and proceeded to do my homework. This comic didn't seem bad if you just read it. The reader does not analyze and think of ways how it sucks. Do people just read it and say "HEY! This is actually not funny at all. In fact, it makes me angry! GRRR! I don't give a shit" unless if you are already biased against it. I never even knew or briefly think of some things you typed. Seriously! Compared to some other strips, it isn't half bad.

    Really? REALLY? You just "SHIT" on some 8 panel comic? I seriously doubt it. DOES THE COMIC HAVE TO FUCKING MAKE SENSE? It's his comic. He can make whatever he fucking wants. You're really making picky small things that don't really matter and try to give them reason why you hated this comic.

    I really wonder WHY it filled you with rage. It doesn't have to be something that you would give a shit about. It's just something to laugh at and think of in a weird way. Just by reading your post makes me think to you are a really childish jackass. Don't quote me line to line and put a counter underneath it. Don't even give me that shit."

    WAAAH WAAAH WAAAH WAAAH

    ReplyDelete
  69. fuck you anonymous @10:56
    you stole my joke hours before i read this

    ReplyDelete
  70. I know there's an unspoken "compared to Randall's normal featureless uninteresting drek" rider in this statement...

    Well, maybe - it's pretty normal to include expectations in your judgement, you can be pleased with something easily if you're not expecting better - but I really did find the stick-figure faun kinda cool and amusing. And the trees look good, not that I'm any kind of authority on good-looking trees, but they do.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "I just first saw the comic, chuckled, and proceeded to do my homework."

    That isn't actually saying what you liked about the comic. That's just saying that you liked it. Why did you chuckle? What caused you to think it was funny? What is the reason you liked it?

    "This comic didn't seem bad if you just read it. The reader does not analyze and think of ways how it sucks."

    Maybe it's just me, but 'If you don't think about it it is not bad' has never seemed like a terribly compelling defense.

    "Do people just read it and say "HEY! This is actually not funny at all. In fact, it makes me angry! GRRR! I don't give a shit" unless if you are already biased against it."

    First, you need a question mark in there somewhere. Second, yes, people do that without inherent bias. Sometimes you read something and then you think about it afterwards. There are plenty of examples of this for me in cinema. I'll watch a movie and think it was excellent and then I'll think about it more and my opinion of it declines as I realize or remember other things about it. In other words, as I apply thought to something, which I do, because I am a thoughtful person, sometimes I realize that it falls short.

    "I never even knew or briefly think of some things you typed. Seriously!"

    As Socrates famously said at his trial, "An unexamined life is not worth living." Because a thought has never occurred to you--who seem to think that one should "just read" their entertainment and not subsequently stop to think about it or analyze it in any way--does not mean it is not a thought that is worth thinking. You should perhaps consider the words of Mr Socrates--by which I mean to say you should take up self-examination and learn to think about everything around you in a critical fashion.

    "Really? REALLY? You just "SHIT" on some 8 panel comic? I seriously doubt it."

    Um, apparently we did. Why do you doubt it? The evidence is right before your eyes, man! Also what's up with the scare quotes?

    "DOES THE COMIC HAVE TO FUCKING MAKE SENSE? It's his comic. He can make whatever he fucking wants."

    It's our blog; we can do whatever we fucking want.

    "You're really making picky small things that don't really matter and try to give them reason why you hated this comic."

    Any given work of art is, at some level, no greater than the sum of its parts. Your post, for instance, will never be a masterpiece because of little details like the fact that you don't seem to know how to conjugate verbs or write coherent sentences. It's the little things that make it up, and so often it's the little things that differentiate something which is good from something which is mediocre, or something which is mediocre from something which is terrible.

    "I really wonder WHY it filled you with rage."

    Pretty sure this has been discussed.

    "It doesn't have to be something that you would give a shit about."

    Nor does this blog, incidentally.

    "It's just something to laugh at and think of in a weird way."

    Or something to look at and derive pleasure from mocking. "Look," the post says. "Look at how stupid this comic is." And the posters say, "Ha, ha."

    "Just by reading your post makes me think to you are a really childish jackass."

    Just reading your comment makes me wonder where you learned English. That is seriously one of the most poorly constructed sentences I have ever read--and I've dealt with some really bad papers.

    "Don't quote me line to line and put a counter underneath it. Don't even give me that shit."

    OOPS

    ReplyDelete
  72. I can't believe I forgot again about this stupid CAPTCHA!

    ...So, as I was saying about 666... aw, shit, I don't have the same energy to post the same text again, so I'll summarize.

    Black Hat Man is back, that is good. I was getting fed up with general characters who lack chracterization in this comic. Also, I think I was starting to hate Megan, but that's another issue...

    Now... "Look, I've made silent tools!" "Why?" What do you mean WHY?! Why not? Who wouldn't like the notion of not being disturbed by damned construction tools at any time(especially when your workplace is being reformed)? Also, "Woosh"? As far as I can understand how a silent tool could work, I can't imagine it making "Woosh". Maybe "Boink". Maybe "Tink". But not Woosh. Randall surely could think of a better setup...

    Finally, the art is good, except for that panel in which BHM is just floating over a rock. Especially jarring because in the next panel he is carrying the other guy, and they're touching.

    All in all, not horrible, the idea is pretty cool, and it not unleashed my wrath, like that other certain comic whose number I never remember, which consisted of stick figures over grey background for four damned panels... Yeah.

    Mole out, and I hope I do not forget to post the CAPTCHA this time.

    CAPTCHA: thiscommentboxsucks. Oh, snap!

    ReplyDelete
  73. It doesn't really make sense to me that some people spend such a long time reading and writing rants about a comic they don't like. Surely it's more reasonable to just write your own if you don't like this one? And if you don't think you can do that, why have a go at someone who tries?
    Personally, I quite like xkcd - I understand that you do not. I agree that there are some rather lame comics, and some that require prior knowledge that the average reader may not have, but there are also some good ones.
    I also do agree that it could work better with recurring characters.
    However, it does seem futile to foster such hate and then to fuel that hate by writing angry rants about it.
    I'm happy for you to not like xkcd. I just don't see why you need to be quite so vocal and abusive about it. It's a bit of a waste of time, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Not Supposed to Be HereNovember 23, 2009 at 3:49 PM

    Good GOD. All right, you know why I give my name as Not Supposed to Be Here? Because I happen to like xkcd. I think it's high time we had an opinion from someone who likes xkcd - pardon me, someone with a brain who likes xkcd - on this blog. I don't think it's a masterpiece of the Internet, surely, but it achieves the main point of a webcomic, which is to be moderately entertaining. It provides me with a little humor, and that's all I'm looking for.

    Now, that said, your points are valid. Your FAQ is a perfect way to counter arguments from people who don't bother to read it. I congratulate you on your practically airtight defense.

    About the comic itself.... I agree with what Chris said a few posts in. Yes, it's not implied much by the comic, but you have complained about Randall beating us over the head with the blunt end of the comic's premise, correct? I also realized that having a webcam recording everything would help convince the others that Narnia was real.

    Infuriated responses in 3... 2... 1...

    ReplyDelete
  75. Oh god. Not this same tired argument again. Srsly, are you retarded or just ignorant? Your point has been successfully addressed a zillion times before.

    ReplyDelete
  76. A refreshing point which I've never read anything like. This cuddlefish has truly caused me to reevaluate my life and priorities with his truly astounding and original line of thought, and all without the oblivious taste of irony that so many other opposition comments contain.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Ps I posted this drunk from my droid so I outgeek you all, bitches

    ReplyDelete
  78. Old people killed my 9 year old PC and I'm posting from my sisters basement where I'm too lazy to sign in so I fail, howdy doody.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "It doesn't really make sense to me that some people spend such a long time reading and writing rants about a comic they don't like."

    It doesn't take that long. Assuming Carl writes at about 20 words per minute, this post took him about 20 minutes to write. Twenty minutes is pretty negligible, especially when you take into consideration that it was probably spread over a lot longer period of time where he was doing other things. It's a great way to fill a few minutes. Feel free to apply this to comments, as well.

    "Surely it's more reasonable to just write your own if you don't like this one?"

    Well, let's see. You can take all of the time and effort to make your own comic--coming up with a premise and theme, deciding if you want persistent characters or a persistent story, deciding on the art style, finding an artist if you can't do the art yourself--and don't tell me you can do an MS paint or a stick figure comic, because those markets have been pretty well filled up and you will look derivative if you do--and then making up a website and advertising/marketing your comic so you actually get traffic, in a market which is already pretty full up and hard to break into without the right connections, only to probably not achieve any real level of success, and for no reason other than you dislike a current webcomic... or you can write a critical review of the webcomic in question.

    Let me emphasize what you are saying here. You are suggesting that the more reasonable response to disliking a webcomic is to sink massive amounts of time and effort into producing something better, rather than writing a critical review. You think that it is more reasonable to waste countless hours and effort.

    "And if you don't think you can do that, why have a go at someone who tries?"

    Because analytical skills aren't the same skills you use to make a comic?

    "However, it does seem futile to foster such hate and then to fuel that hate by writing angry rants about it. I'm happy for you to not like xkcd. I just don't see why you need to be quite so vocal and abusive about it. It's a bit of a waste of time, don't you think?"

    It's fun.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I liked it because I didn't read it as Lucy. I saw her as the typical xkcd girl experiencing a similar situation. The humor in this for me lay in the incongruity of doing something as tech-savvy and suspicious as sending in a rover in the setting of a story about fantasy and childhood innocence.
    The alt-text was funny too

    ReplyDelete
  81. sooo i'm just incredibly late to this party i guess. most of what i want to say has been said so um

    yeah carl you were righ to assume that i like the oxford comma too. tho i never knew it was called that until today.

    FRED I THOUGHT OF THE TWITS TOO

    roald dahl 4 lyfe

    also: there is something slightly similar in Arrested Development, when Lucille has people move the wall between her apt and Lucille2's apt. All of Lucille2's bowls and stuff are hanging out of her cabinets and she can't open her doors all the way, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  82. How he drew Mr. Tummus kinda freaked me out - to me, Mr. Tummus was a kind and sweet... faun? (can't remember) but he makes him look like a devil.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I mean I am not defending the art or anything but the classical image of Satan is taken pretty much directly from the mythical faun (or, more directly, from Pan).

    ReplyDelete
  84. And by classical rob means the medieval view. Way to confuse eras, fatty.

    ReplyDelete
  85. No, by classical I mean "the one that is classic."

    ReplyDelete
  86. It isn't your fault for not knowing this Rob, I mean: If you can't see past your own waist, how can we expect you look back into classical eras. We can't fault you for it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Everyone knows that the TRUE classics are ANCIENT GREEK AND ROME.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Kirk you do not know how words are used. Classical has like two dozen definitions. YOU ARE A FAT FATTY WRONGFACE AND YOU SUCK

    ReplyDelete
  89. How did Mal get the right definition of classical when there are so many, rob? Clearly it is because Mal is an intelligent, productive member of society and you are just rob, the ever hungry.

    ReplyDelete
  90. HERE IS THE DEFINITION I WAS USING
    IT IS IN THE FUCKING DICTIONARY
    YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED

    "Well-known; classic"

    protip: JARGON IS ALWAYS WRONG
    TAKE YOUR FUCKING HISTORY STUDY
    AND GO FUCK YOURSELF
    YOU ARE UNLOVED

    ReplyDelete
  91. Classical came after Baroque and before Romantic, which was followed by Post-Romantic. In other news, after the Romantic era, people got really lazy about coming up with names for things.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Thanks for scrolling all the way down...

    ReplyDelete
  93. JJJJJJJJJJJJJJENGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    ReplyDelete
  94. "I'll watch a movie and think it was excellent and then I'll think about it more and my opinion of it declines as I realize or remember other things about it."

    This happened to me with District 9, which admittedly is not a bad movie, it's above average. But the more I thought about the plot holes and a lot of the content, the less I liked it. It moved from "Best movie I saw this year" to "Well okay it's in the top ten at least."

    As opposed to Transformers 2, which was pretty much immediately just "Oh God I hate you Michael Bay why do you ruin everything you touch."

    I wonder if all the people who post here and say "If you hate xkcd so much go make your own webcomic!" also go to Gene Siskel's site and say "If you hated this movie go make your own!" or write to Gourmet magazine and say "If you hated this restaurant so much go found your own!" They must have very busy lives, writing to all these critics.

    ReplyDelete
  95. NO because THOSE critics are so much more CONSTRUCTIVE and HELPFUL and PROFESSIONAL and THEY AGREE WITH ME SOMETIMES.

    ReplyDelete
  96. "I wonder if all the people who post here and say "If you hate xkcd so much go make your own webcomic!" also go . . . write to Gourmet magazine and say "If you hated this restaurant so much go found your own!"

    Ha.

    "This happened to me with District 9, which admittedly is not a bad movie, it's above average. But the more I thought about the plot holes and a lot of the content, the less I liked it. It moved from "Best movie I saw this year" to "Well okay it's in the top ten at least.""

    Serenity is probably the most profound one, for me. I watched it and at first I thought it was some of the best cinema I'd ever seen. Then later on I went in to something like "eh, I guess it was pretty good" to "meh, I wish they'd never made it."

    ReplyDelete
  97. I still like District 9, but I think I'd have to see it again to see how annoyed I get by it. The main thing that bugged me during the movie itself was how drawn-out and pointless the back-and-forth combat in the climax was.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Shit people, i told you not to do that it really pisses me off. Does a blog post have to inherently having correct grammar? I'm glad that you're so convinced of your cause and I agree to you on a couple of points, but that was a vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness. It was not that bad because, well, Carl couldn't really explain how bad it was, there's nothing really wrong with it unlike TGI Friday's one. I said it is his webcomic so you'll stop commenting on how stupid the plot is. What I meant for the reading the webcomic, had a small laugh then did my work was I didn't look real deep in it. I mean, Rob, watching a 2 hr movie is WAY different than reading a short almost daily webcomic. And why did you quote Socrates? I didn't want to think about holes in the webcomic! I read it for pure amusement. That's um basically it. Rob, apparently Carl was very vague about why he hated this comic so much. Perhaps it was all the perhaps. Femalethoth or Mal (wtf is up with your name) I want people to post about my post just in regular style. Singling out sentences makes them individually weak and the whole idea of what i'm getting at is gone. And the sentence about the childish jackass, I accidentally added a "to." Also wtf is it with the classics? I'm really confused now.

    ReplyDelete
  99. "Shit people, i told you not to do that it really pisses me off."

    I would apologize but you suck.

    "Does a blog post have to inherently having correct grammar?"

    This isn't just nitpicky grammar, this is you being so bad at conjugating verbs it's distracting and difficult to read.

    "I'm glad that you're so convinced of your cause and I agree to you on a couple of points, but that was a vitriolic and bitter collection of unwarranted nastiness."

    Stupidity always warrants nastiness.

    "I mean, Rob, watching a 2 hr movie is WAY different than reading a short almost daily webcomic."

    Only in terms of scale.

    "And why did you quote Socrates?"

    If you really can't figure that out, you should probably take some serious time to examine yourself, very seriously.

    "I read it for pure amusement. That's um basically it."

    What an utterly insipid way to live.

    "Also wtf is it with the classics? I'm really confused now."

    This is because you apparently dislike exercising your brain. Thought is good for you. It helps you not be mindless and insipid.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anon 8:30, as accepting and kind as I am, you are the single most retarded person who has ever commented on this blog, and at one point we had a guy who would only post phrases about "ass turds".

    If your argument can't stand up to close scrutiny, then your point IS weak. If you can't convey "the whole idea of what you're getting at" clearly and concisely, that is your own goddamn fault. Go take some writing classes, and maybe when you are able to use the English language to accurately express yourself, someone will give a damn what you have to say.

    We don't care if you don't want to think. You may embrace ignorance, but we don't. None of us give a shit what you want or what you like. None of us care if our posting style pisses you off. Either get the fuck over it, or get the fuck out.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anon 8:30, if you look carefully at The_P's post, you will see that even picking apart individual sentences does not weaken any of them. Obviously pulling them out of context would change their meanings, but the idea poore is trying to convey--i.e. that "you are the single most retarded person who has ever commented on this blog"--is evident in every single sentence that he uses.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Not Supposed to Be HereNovember 23, 2009 at 9:43 PM

    ""I read it for pure amusement. That's um basically it."

    What an utterly insipid way to live."

    Wait, what? I don't understand exactly what the problem is with reading a comic for amusement. To use your common metaphors, would you say that going to a restaurant just to eat is an insipid way to live? Is it now a requirement that everyone analyze and pick apart every comic they read?

    ReplyDelete
  103. Not necessarily. But to treat anyone who does as suspect or deviant, and to act as though the only valid way to experience a restaurant is uncritical appreciation... That is an entirely different stance. The problem is when you treat things solely as meaningless, when you pathologically refrain from critical analysis, when you deny that a serious consideration is worth committing to. A blanket rejection of analysis and serious thought in favor of a bland, polite acceptance of everything is enormously distasteful.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Lack of critical analysis lead to the Holocaust.

    xkcd fans hate jews.

    ReplyDelete
  105. From the xkcd boards:

    "Did this comic remind anyone else of the pastry scene from Van Wilder?"

    I think that sums things up pretty well...

    ReplyDelete
  106. Just to add to the Classical debate (that's still going, right?) I think it's basically the same as the question over what Conservative means (at least in Britain): it all depends on whether it's capitalised.

    Referring to Classical means the specific periods of time: either musically between Baroque and Romantic or in terms of 'the Classics' which means Ancient Rome/Greece (yeah, not convinced that combining is too helpful). However, referring to the classical (small c) meaning of something would be just the generic old fashioned interpretation.

    Similarly, being Conservative means supporting the Conservative party. Being conservative means you hold traditional views.

    Hence everyone's a winner! Except since people like hatred and bile in this website, we better say Rob wins for using it in the right way in the first place, before people made a mistake in calling him on it. Congratulations Rob! Unless he was just being useless and lazy and forgetting to capitalise words. In which case: Boo Rob!

    ReplyDelete
  107. When I watched Narnia for the first time, when she got to the wardrobe, my first thought was: Why she dosn't get a fucking film camera before going into the possibly dangerous portal!? So I almost consider that a goof in the film and therefore I couldn't agree more with this comic.

    ReplyDelete
  108. by "goof" do you mean "plot hole"

    ReplyDelete
  109. When I read Narnia for the first time in 1950, when she got to the wardrobe, my first thought was: why doesn't she take advantage of all that WWII era technology and get a friggin' Mars Rover before going into the possibly dangerous portal?!?!?!1 So I definitely consider that a massive flaw with the novel -- in fact I ceased reading it because it was too egregious an error for me to give any more time to the worthless work -- and therefore I couldn't agree more with this comic.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Call me insane, but I legitimately enjoyed today's comic (666). The premise was kinda humorous, a silent hammer. The followup was decently clever, driving people insane. And the punchline was absolutely unexpected and yet not one of his "Huh. Well wasn't that funny? . . . no, not really.", like 665 was.

    My only complaint is in the art really. Panel 2 really annoys me with those legs being ever so slightly off.

    ReplyDelete
  111. For the record, I also think that's xkcd girl rather than Lucy. Same 'do. And it makes much more sense than imagining that he randomly transported Lucy forward 60 years for the purpose of the comic.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @André: Yeah cuz a little 8-year-old is going to 1. think to go get a camera 2. know how to even use a camera (remember this is in the 1940s, people weren't quite as tech-savvy)

    ReplyDelete
  113. Cameras and rovers are for pussies. There's no room for such limp-dickery in the magical (and awesome) land of Narnia. The only thing you should ever bring with you to Narnia is a huge fucking sword, to bissect the various wolves and goblins and witches and other monsters that will invariably try to kill your ass Dead. That is why Randall fails. In the land of Narnia, if they ever saw his piece of shit robot made out of cardboard, rubber bands, and fail [note the OXFORD COMMA gaiz], they would kick his ass out for deficient ballsiness in a heartbeat. After laughing their asses off and stomping the failbot into tiny little fail-pieces first, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  114. This blog can now close, as Anon 9:52 has officially written the most epic fucking comment ever. EVER.

    Actually, I officially nominate Anon 9:52 to start writing the reviews.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Does anyone else feel like cringing at the overuse of the word "fail"? I have little problem when it's used a few times in a facetious context, but this constant overuse is just a helpless cocksucking of Internet memes (look! no circumflex!) a la... well, a la Randall Munroe.

    In other words, LOL FAIL

    ReplyDelete
  116. "anon 9:52" is now synonymous with "kickass"

    examples of usage: "man you are so cool, like anon 9:52"

    ReplyDelete
  117. Anon 9:52 wins any argument that opposes him now (well unless Rob or Poore can counter him, but I don't think they will)

    ReplyDelete
  118. Head Report on #666: 8 head instances, only 3 attached (to the right body). Of note is that, in panel 4, Mr Hat's head is more attached to the crotch of the other character than to his own body. So, I give that an extra -1. Score of 2/8.

    ReplyDelete
  119. a good thing about 666 is that randall doesn't try to stuff in "his/her"

    or i think it's a good thing. i dunno, does the fact that i'm noticing it at all make it bad?

    ReplyDelete
  120. "Wait, what? I don't understand exactly what the problem is with reading a comic for amusement. To use your common metaphors, would you say that going to a restaurant just to eat is an insipid way to live? Is it now a requirement that everyone analyze and pick apart every comic they read?"

    There is a difference between "thinking about something after you have read at it" and "analyzing and picking apart every comic you read."

    But first, your restaurant metaphor. Food is generally quite different from entertainment, for many reasons--our choice of entertainment has a great deal to say about who we are as a person. Our choice to order a grilled cheese sandwich rather than a cheeseburger, not so much.

    Restaurants have a lot more to think about--it is worth thinking about why one likes or dislikes a place. An unexamined life, remember? There's a lot more to a restaurant than food.

    Returning to webcomics: yes, if you consume entertainment without giving it any thought, you are living in an insipid fashion--especially if you are actively fighting for the superiority of not thinking about your entertainment.

    A lot of summer blockbusters tend to be completely mindless. I have no problem with enjoying them--but you should be able to identify why you enjoyed something. It is entirely legitimate to like Transformers because you wanted to watch giant robots blow things up, or the new Indiana Jones film because you wanted to watch a campy adventure with Cate Blanchett as a Soviet spy. None of these preclude one from thinking about it.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Anon 9:52 is so right. Besides wasn't it already established earlier in the comments that Narnia is a land of wonder and innocence? In fact in the books themselves the Professor (I believe) says something along the lines of, they would visit Narnia again, but when they least expected it, and added that if they actively tried to find Narnia they never would.

    Meaning if anyone found Narnia and left to get a camera or probe or whatever, they wouldn't find it when they got back, because they'd be actively searching for it and thus the portal to Narnia would be closed.

    "To use your common metaphors, would you say that going to a restaurant just to eat is an insipid way to live?"

    Well, I would if the person went to a place where the health code was more of a guideline than a rule, with some fat guy scratching his ass while he handled the meat patties, and maybe a few rats having a party in the corner. Saying "Hey everyone's got to eat" would not be a satisfactory explanation as to why someone would voluntarily choose to eat in that kind of place rather than a clean, sanitary restaurant.

    It would say something about his character as to why he chose to eat there. He might say he enjoys the food, but that wouldn't change the fact that objectively that would be a terrible place to eat, whether or not he enjoys it.

    Admittedly, restaurant/entertainment isn't a perfect metaphor, nothing ever is.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anon:52isliek,soawesomeNovember 24, 2009 at 5:08 PM

    Anon: 52 just fucking pwned all arguments that have been and will ever be created. Further resistance against this fact through the form of continued discussion is entirely pointless.

    So carry on, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Trite observation paired with an instantly recognizable reference. Four heads connected to four bodies, but three instances of floating over a chair. Shitty alt text.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I totally forgot about SkiFree. I miss it.

    I still don't like the comic.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Agreed with Rob. I kind of liked the alt-text though.

    ReplyDelete
  126. comic #667: usual sort of criticisms here, but loking on the bright side, randall didn't pollute the punchline by having megan or the other character say something in the last panel. this is an improvement.

    ReplyDelete
  127. I am having the same reaction as stick girl, knowing you can actually escape from the abominable snowman THAT easily totally takes the fun out of SkiFree

    ReplyDelete
  128. Comic 667 has a few flaws (why is she thinking in panel 2 instead of just talking to the dude?) that dilute the humor, but the biggest failing is that the punch line is saved for the alt text! Can we actually see this pendant, maybe? That might be funny!

    also wtf this blog is now TWO comics behind.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Y'know, countering the argument that 'people who like xkcd are dumbfucks', which I think was in the comments page of another blog post, there are quite a few people in my acquaintance getting introduced to xkcd and finding it -- all of it -- comedy gold. I think reading through all of xkcd at once actually improves it, or at least dulls out the mediocre strips in lieu of the things that people find funny. And since different people find different things funny, (although the My Hobby section seems to be drawing out quite a few people) that's quite a few different things being found funny. In other words, although the forum people mostly just wank on about stuff, there're a ton of casual fans that quite like xkcd, thank you very much.

    ...Although I will add that said people getting introduced to it are slightly younger non-USA kids, and thus don't read into each section of each strip quite as deeply as you lot here.

    On the other hand, I might just point a few people this way, because watching the regulars here puncture the arguments of diehard xkcd fans through snark is endlessly amusing. Even the flame wars. Wait, no, especially the flame wars.

    ReplyDelete
  130. there are quite a few people in my acquaintance getting introduced to xkcd and finding it -- all of it -- comedy gold. I think reading through all of xkcd at once actually improves it, or at least dulls out the mediocre strips in lieu of the things that people find funny.

    Hey chuckles, I don't think "all of it" means what you think it means.

    And since different people find different things funny, (although the My Hobby section seems to be drawing out quite a few people) that's quite a few different things being found funny.

    This doesn't follow. At all.

    ...Although I will add that said people getting introduced to it are slightly younger non-USA kids, and thus don't read into each section of each strip quite as deeply as you lot here.

    .....what?

    ReplyDelete
  131. "I think reading through all of xkcd at once actually improves it, or at least dulls out the mediocre strips in lieu of the things that people find funny."

    That's, uh. That's not how you use "in lieu."

    "In lieu" means "in the place of." It is where the word "lieutenant" comes from actually! You can serve in lieu of someone else, or give somebody a check in lieu of cash.

    You are using it to mean something like "in the light of," which is annoyingly common. Apparently because it rhymes with view or something? I have no idea. Most often you see it in things like "in lieu of this new evidence I have decided that I actually want a chocolate sundae." It is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Rob, you prescriptivist fool! Words mean whatever people want them to mean!

    ReplyDelete
  133. Yeah I was using "not how you use" to mean "IS A TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE WAY TO USE IT" obvs

    ReplyDelete
  134. Rob, you prescriptivist (silent) tool!

    ReplyDelete
  135. I do really think you're being quite a bit harsh here. Sure, this isn't as good as some other comics, but there are some insightful, funny strips. Sure, it isn't always original, and sometimes the comics aren't laid out perfectly. I'd call xkcd a mediocre comic. And this strip does sort of allude to the idea of examining things rather than going all willy-nilly into them, and gives one a tiny something to think about. Not groundbreaking, but I think it's better than you give it credit for.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Okay, I thought they didn't even know going into that wardrobe would send them to a completely different world. So how would she have even known to set up a probe, just to go into a piece of furniture filled with clothing? In stargate they knew it was going to lead to some other planet, a wardrobe shouldn't be one of those things you need to go "Oh wait a second, this could send me to a frozen dimension, better get my land rover." Unless that's supposed to be the joke. And in which case, that's even dumber.

    ReplyDelete
  137. I thought that it was a commentary on being too careful. Instead of entering the wardrobe, the girl--who I didn't see as Lucy--sends in a probe. It's a careful, logical, scientific thing to do...but it costs her interaction with Mr. Tumnus and an adventure in another world.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Fernie: Does anyone else feel like cringing at the overuse of the word "fail"?

    Yes. It's getting silly.

    TRiG.

    ReplyDelete
  139. I'm an xkcd fan, but I didn't like this one. I didn't hate it, but I felt like if nobody remembered the chronicles of narnia anymore.

    ReplyDelete