The contest itself is simple. We all love xkcd edits, so it's an xkcd edit contest. You enter the contest by submitting a comic you've made, using only already-existing xkcd comics as your material. You can't add any of your own art - only your own text. Probably, winners won't just be people who take generic stick figures and make them have a funny conversation, unrelated to the original work. After all, this is xkcdsucks - we like to make fun of xkcd. Doesn't mean you have to, but it does mean we'll have a soft spot for it. No length restrictions either. But if you make it long, make it worthwhile. Make it worthwhile. And enter as many times as you'd like.
How to submit entries: In 2 weeks I'll open entries for posting. There'll be an official post that I write where all comments should include links to entries, and probably a related post where we can talk about the entries. We'll keep that open for maybe a week or two - so get started now if you'd like.
Prizes: Prizes are contingent on google actually sending me the money it owes me. (UPDATE: this has happened, SWEET)
Pickin' a winner:
Questions? Please ask. I'll update this post as needed with clarifications.
AND REMEMBER - THE BEST XKCD EDITS USE THE HUMOR-SANS FONT!
beep beep i am a robot doot doot doot
ReplyDeleteThis should be interesting...
ReplyDeleteOh I have something good planned.
ReplyDeleteOk, not really. But I'll think of something.
oh boy!
ReplyDeleteIt's deliberately misunderstanding the meaning of "derive" for laffs & chuckles, with shitty sexuality tacked on!
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'll bite and show my stupidity here. What the hell do waffle cones have to do with wine?
ReplyDeleteOther than that the comic wasn't really that funny. That guy is gonna do the other guy's mom. Ha ha?
This is probably a good time to mention goatkcd. Yep, it's exactly what it sounds like.
ReplyDeleteNWS
NWS http://www.goatkcd.com NWS
NWS
Since I would unhesitantly find this comic funny if SMBC made it, I consider this XKCD funny. It is better than many of the ones in the recent past.
ReplyDeleteThe alt-text sucks though. You can't have everything, I guess.
man, mom jokes are so fantastic.
ReplyDeleteAlso hilarious: http://www.goatkcd.com/690/ nsfw, obviously.
ReplyDeleteThe guy on the left is right. That's definitely not how it works.
ReplyDeleteI don't get the waffle cones either, Nate. Or how they'd be expensive enough to bother stealing your friend's credit card to pay for them, for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how long it will be until the Principle of Explosion page on Wikipedia is vandalized. As of 1:30 AM, the last edit was in September.
ReplyDeleteAlso, according to the shoddy xkcd search engine, this is the fourth comic to mention Miss/Mrs. Lenhart. I think this was pointed out in this blog before...
(CAPTCHA: motur... mother?)
They're presumably going to drink wine out of the waffle cones.
ReplyDeleteMore like sans-humour amirite! Can I just lazily submit one I did ages ago and expect to win? Well there's one way to find out I guess...
ReplyDeleteWill you send prizes to germany?
ReplyDeleteHow would they drink wine out of waffle cones? Waffle cones are not airtight, wine would drip out of them same as melting ice cream drips out of them.
ReplyDeleteAnd why would they drink wine out of waffle cones anyway? Or is it just supposed to be one of those "ZOMG WACKY!" things?
So Randall was flipping through one of his old math textbooks late Thursday night and this is the comic we get. The first two panels were quite exciting: I was hoping for a legitimate math joke that wasn't confined to the standard high school curriculum. But then it degenerated to a "your mom" joke, somewhere around the middle school level.
ReplyDeleteI think the latest comic is definitely inspired by my ramblings on tautologies. Which means that Randall wants to nail my mom. Ew.
ReplyDeleteWait, we had a comic on tautologies the last time around, and now a comic on the principle of explosion? What is it, has Randall *JUST* started to read "Logic for Dummies"? I've learned that shit years ago! I should have known I would have become an Internet superstar doing jokes as dumb as those! That's just ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'll definitely get to try this contest, especially if I'm able to choose this as a prize...
Noisia is totally cooler.
ReplyDeleteIf by some amazing miracle I win, I ask not for material prizes, but simply a picture of Carl's bum.
Captcha: watum
I think the author of hte worst comic should get the XKCD book.
ReplyDeleteso, Randall himself?
ReplyDelete"I think the latest comic is definitely inspired by my ramblings on tautologies. Which means that Randall wants to nail my mom. Ew."
ReplyDeleteDidn't Randall's brother say something about his mother reading the blog, on the IRC?
randy no matter how cleverly you try to set it up, you still just made a your mom joke. and that's terrible.
ReplyDeletealso, the setup wasn't clever or a demonstration of edification or a wry in-joke that NO-ONE WITH LESS THAN AN MSC AND AN IQ OF 140 COULD POSSIBLY APPRECIATE.
it was weak, amateurish, ignorant. anyone who so much as understands the term 'formal logic' would know more about the subject (and probably make a better joke about it) than the last two comics.
christ, two consecutive comics that fail to joke about logic. cannot wait to see what monday brings.
and wait again wait rewind a moment wait WAIT a your mom joke!?!
bullet.
head.
now.
i hope this joke shows up in american pie 4, what if stifler's mom is actually a professor of logic
ReplyDeleteI wonder if anyone really thinks about whether or not the wikipedia page on any topic referenced by wikipedia needs to, in turn, reference the comic.
ReplyDeleteWhy don't we see Penny Arcade references on every wikipedia page for a video game they might have mentioned in a comic? Where's the mad rush to add a link to Dinosaur Comics every time it mentions some philosopher?
Christ, why would xkcd deserve mention on the Spirit Rover page for a single reference in a single comic, whereas Garfield isn't mentioned ONCE on the "Cat" page?!?
Uncivlengr, I further propose that the pages on Utahraptor, Tyrannosaurus Rex, and Dromiceiomimus include an "in popular culture" reference for every time they make an appearance in Dinosaur Comics.
ReplyDeleteIs there an entry limit?
ReplyDeleteuncivlengr, that is a very good question.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer lies in the XKCD fan community as they relate to Randall Munroe.
Whereas every other webcomic I can think of is viewed by its fans as being a webcomic, XKCD is viewed as essentially being Randall Munroe curating ideas. He does not create jokes, but inside jokes (cf. the tautology comic) and random thoughts. To be a fan of XKCD is not merely to like a comic, but to be part of a community. Randall is not an artist and writer, but a curator, a charismatic figure around which this community revolves. In many ways the fans of XKCD see him as a friend--the sort who is probably too busy to hang out with you, but who you still value highly.
So when he makes a joke about "tautology," he has just created an inside joke. Now you can make these jokes with his other friends, and so be amused and build community. When he does not have a joke but instead a thought, you can discuss his thought with your friends. He generates a topic of discussion and a source of humor, three times a week. (He is never himself interesting or humorous, but that is neither here nor there.)
The community is a very positive community, in the sense that it likes itself very much. It is also a community of people who are reasonably tech-savvy (compared to the average population), and a community which is aware of the fact that its central figure is notable by Wikipedia's standards.
Since this community desires to continue perpetuating its inside jokes as much as possible, it sabotages the Wikipedia article of everything Randall Munroe ever mentions. It's a logical extension, in many ways: much as in smaller social circles, people will repeat their inside jokes with outsiders around, often hoping to 'bring them in,' so does the XKCD community try to codify its inside jokes for the entire world to see.
where did i read an article about fandom being what happens when the audience enjoys the work in question but at the same time unconsciously knows that it's actually awful stuff. so to sublimate this unconscious awareness, they divert their energies into promoting and pushing the object of their fandomness onto any and every other person/situation.
ReplyDeletewhy is there no such dostoevsky fandom, but harry potter is huge?
why is there no expanded universe of bergman films, but star wars has an enormous collection of comics, novels, etc?
why is xkcd linked in every almost-relevant wikipedia article, but dinosaur comics keeps to itself?
I think 'xkcd' is 'cult' encrypted with some sort of substitution cipher. Given Randall's propensity for cryptography, this might not be too far from the truth.
ReplyDeleteI'll have to applaud the XKCDists today. They waited a full 10 hours before vandalizing "Principle of Explosion". Kudos, you bastards.
Interesting thought.
ReplyDeleteMy first reaction is that seems more like a conflict between "literary" and "genre." Nobody wants to write Dostoevsky fanfiction because Dosteovsky wrote literary fiction, not genre fiction.
But I think what it is with fandom is that it's what happens when the audience wishes something about the work were real or accessible in some way. This is pretty easy to see in speculative fiction: you want to explore the world because it's cool, so you write about it.
With XKCD it's a little trickier. I think it's basically a wish that the illusion the comic maintains, of Randall hanging out and making jokes with you, were real. If you like XKCD enough, then your life will become one constant XKCD comic.
Although I have no proof to back this up and base it on nothing except my own personal feelings, I would suspect xkcd vandalism of wikipedia every time there's a comic on something probably sharply increased after 446 (that's the "Wood in popular culture" one).
ReplyDeleteProbably.
ReplyDeleteWhere Randy basically gave all his fans an inside joke in vandalizing Wikipedia, when Dinosaur Comics took on the same topic, he suggested that the only article you vandalize be the one for "chicken."
I always thought of fandoms developing in spite of the fact that they were bad instead of because they were bad, because they appeal to people in a way that they don't care that they're bad.
ReplyDeleteI'm gonna be doing it for a copy of Psychonauts, or possibly some albums. You suckers better get ready to be BEAT.
ReplyDeleteI think xkcd also feels a lot more cultish, which is a massive part of the whole fandom thing - people who like xkcd feel as if they're in some small group (like Rob says about community) so they're more likely to push outwards against the Big Bad World by eg putting xkcd on Wikipedia. xkcd is quite self-consciously anti-authoritarian (cf the tautology comic), is another thing. Right on, sister, right on!
"where did i read an article about fandom being what happens when the audience enjoys the work in question but at the same time unconsciously knows that it's actually awful stuff. so to sublimate this unconscious awareness, they divert their energies into promoting and pushing the object of their fandomness onto any and every other person/situation"
ReplyDeleteThis is bullshit.
Edgar: I believe the technical term is Randallizing.
ReplyDeletewhere did i read an article about fandom being what happens when the audience enjoys the work in question but at the same time unconsciously knows that it's actually awful stuff. so to sublimate this unconscious awareness, they divert their energies into promoting and pushing the object of their fandomness onto any and every other person/situation.
ReplyDeleteStephen Bond's personal website.
I agree with his take on criticism but he sounds like a douche
ReplyDeleteMalethoth and others: This guy has an interesting idea! Fandom as defense... I think the reverse could also be true of the xkcdsucks community. Instead of defending a work as good despite obvious flaws, we are attacking something as bad despite obvious popularity/(merit?).
ReplyDeleteSee the thing is though being popular is not the opposite of being bad.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, I was trying to decide whether or not xkcd had obvious merit. The idea struck a chord with me in that I enjoy many shows/movies which I know are bad, even perhaps hopelessly so. Ex. Star Trek TNG, True Blood... Both are on the margin for me. Something about the margin between good and bad is exciting. I like them, but I know they're bad, and the tension and conflicting feelings make me want to talk about it.
ReplyDeleteThe question I'm asking myself is, is xkcd on the same or a similar margin? I don't like it, but it has its moments, and those moments of quality make me hate it all the more. Furthermore, the conflicted feelings make me want to come here and talk about it. And to come to a community that shares my viewpoint.
Malethoth: cheers, that was it alright.
ReplyDeleteLOL @ http://www.goatkcd.com (NSFW, as already mentioned)
ReplyDeleteThe best one I've seen so far is 690.
goatkcd > xkcd
His point about religion is bullshit, Buddhism and Hinduism have just as much ridiculous crap in them as Christianity and I don't see any die-hard fanatics of those religions.
ReplyDeleteThe reason there are so many crazy fanatical Christians has nothing to do with how "awful" it is, it has to do with history of the religion, its majority status in the United States, and a few other factors. Otherwise like I said you'd have fanatical screaming Buddhists and Wiccans same as Christians and Muslims.
I was going to remark on how he says Tolkien is bad (Tolkien is mediocre at worst, above average at best as far as I'm concerned), but I just looked at the Tolkien article he wrote linked from the fandom article, and he's full of shit. "LOTR is for kids because nothing is mature unless it's about sex!" Stephen Bond must be Randall's biggest fan because xkcd is about sex so much so that makes it MATURE AND ADULT.
Oh a quick note, I have no beef with his claims that LOTR is a children's book, I can accept that. But to say it is a children's book JUST because it has no sex in it? That's fucking retarded.
ReplyDeleteThere are (or at least have been at one point or another) fanatics in all religions and cultures, just maybe not as numerous or noticeable. But other than that but other than that yeah his thing about fanatics is bullshit.
ReplyDeleteNate: I suspect Stephen Bond would say the same thing about xkcd that he says about Ender's Game and Donnie Darko: the protagonist is a Mary Sue and the work is nerd wish-fufillment. Mary Sue is a popular accusation these days. See criticsm of Twilight, Those books with the dragon face close-ups on the front, Star Wars. Sometimes the accusation is dead on, sometimes I find it reaching. We need a more rigourous definition of Mary Sue.
ReplyDelete4:02:
ReplyDeleteThe first real goatkcd, 106, struck me as infinitely funny.
The comic's up on xkcdexplained, and people are asking questions in the forums, but STILL no word on the waffle cones.
ReplyDeleteThis is really bugging me for some reason. I mean, I am open to random wackiness. I liked the sentiment of the ball pit for grownups. But there it was clearly presented as this obviously goofy thing for its own sake. Here he's throwing out this goofy thing but making it sound like it's some in-joke or reference to something for us to "get". Except no one gets it.
Re: Stephen Bond; I do like some of his comments like "Everything should be criticised, including the things you like, especially the things you like", but he does crap on too much about religion and other shit he obviously has no clue about.
ReplyDelete^religious tard.
ReplyDeleteThe example of Buddhist extremists I always hear is the sarin gas people in 1995; not Heaven 17, those ones... Aum Shinrikyo. A somewhat dodgy interpretation of Buddhism, aye.
ReplyDeleteReading the article, the point makes a bit more sense than when I read the comment here.
ReplyDeleteThe bit about Christianity was obviously just a jab at religion for the sake of taking a jab at religion - I'm no fan of it myself, but I don't presume the attraction is similar whatsoever to that of Star Wars, for Pete's sake.
I don't think it applies to xkcd, either - I think the attraction is moreso how Rob described, being an elitist inside-joke-fueled "community".
wooooo! just finished my edited comic! There will be at least one entry in your contest!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking about the article a bit more, and I thought of something that proves his theory wrong. A thing that is good but still has a rabid fanbase. That would be The Dark Knight.
ReplyDeleteIt was a good movie, not my favorite of the Batman franchise, but still good. A lot of the fanbase of the movie is annoying as hell though (I still remember people going to IMDB in droves to vote Dark Knight up to the number one spot). I'm sure his response would be "See, that proves it, Dark Knight was a horrible movie!" but eh, fuck him.
You know, I have to wonder if it is possible (after reading through some of mr. Bond's articles) for anyone on the internet (outside of Scientologists themselves) to view Scientology in either a pseudo-positive light, or a neutral light.
ReplyDeleteAs a History major (for those keeping track, yes I did change majors) and a Christian I can safely point out that Scientology is similar to Christianity from around 1000 AD to... well even 2003 if you really want to stretch that far in the sense of how protective Christians are of the legitimacy of their religion, the need to go out and forcibly convert people in the name of their religion and poo-poo anyone who speaks negatively of it.
With this in mind, while I may not actually like Scientology, I do find myself getting all bent out of shape whenever I see people say that Scientology is one of the worst "cults" to ever be created.
@Cam: I strongly suspect it's the cash thing. And the dog-killing thing.
ReplyDelete("And, students, this was the start of what modern-day theologians refer to as 'the dog libel'.")
Oh a quick note, I have no beef with his claims that LOTR is a children's book, I can accept that. But to say it is a children's book JUST because it has no sex in it? That's fucking retarded.
ReplyDeleteHe DOESN'T claim that, dude. It's retarded to think that he does. It's a children's book because the morality is incredibly, starkly black and white, everything is obvious, and all told it's a big morality play about how England should go back to idyllic pre-industrial times. And because it has absolutely no sex--or, in fact, any other meaningful intergender relationships.
I was thinking about the article a bit more, and I thought of something that proves his theory wrong. A thing that is good but still has a rabid fanbase. That would be The Dark Knight.
It was a good movie, not my favorite of the Batman franchise, but still good. A lot of the fanbase of the movie is annoying as hell though (I still remember people going to IMDB in droves to vote Dark Knight up to the number one spot). I'm sure his response would be "See, that proves it, Dark Knight was a horrible movie!" but eh, fuck him.
You know, he's already said that Batman Begins is pretty much intolerable, because it treats a fundamentally absurd character (a dude who fucking dresses up as a bat and beats the shit out of criminals, to absolutely no positive effect) with "poker-arsed reverence".
He would say the same thing about The Dark Knight: That it's an outrageously unironic film, with way too much ostentatious seriousness. He'd probably also rail against basic nonsensical plot elements, like the bit where Gary Oldman poses as Batman or a nobody notices the guy has a cell phone sewn into his chest until it explodes or how the **** did the Joker fill those buildings with explosives or whatnot. That the film tends toward being a chaotic mess of plot threads, and is constantly distracting the viewer from them with abrupt transitions and "badass" moments. So, yes, he would say that The Dark Knight includes in it elements of total direness that instills in fans greater fervor.
http://plover.net/~bonds/lyrics.html
ReplyDeleteI don't, to my knowledge, like a single song written after 1986
lol what a dumb
Wow, where's Kirk because he and I need to re-educate mr. Bond on his post-1986 music selections. Not to mention, did it occur to him that the "great composers" he was referencing also wrote shit back as far as the 1500s (Henry Purcell) and were breaking the mould? I mean, he's saying that listening to "a bunch of grown men singing "yeah! yeah! rock'n'roll!" or some such" is a bad thing. What the fuck was he expecting? Did he think he was going to hear an excellent Rock Opera like Tommy? You know what, I don't even think this guy has heard Tommy, and considering he stopped at IV with Led Zeppelin, he probably never listened to The Wall either. This guy just does not know what he's talking about with music
ReplyDeleteIt's a children's book because the morality is incredibly, starkly black and white, everything is obvious, and all told it's a big morality play about how England should go back to idyllic pre-industrial times.
ReplyDeleteAnd I said, I can accept that it's a children's book. I understand that fully. But no, his reasoning IS that it has no sex. He says explicitly:
"The ambitions, desires and passions of LOTR characters, such as they are, are those of an eight-year-old and his toy soldiers. It's a curiously emasculated, preadolescent, presexual, libido-free world."
The real telling line is this though.
"But entering the world of love and adult sexuality -- that's real white-hot terror, that's what separates the men from the boys."
By his own words, he says right there "If LOTR had sex in it it would totally be adult and mature but since it doesn't it's a kid's book." The stark morality is just incidental and actually has nothing to do with the maturity level. Seriously he quotes Der Ring des Nibelungen which has almost the same exact problems as LOTR and admits this saying it has its own severe problems, but claims it's deeper and more mature than LOTR why? Because of sex! That's a ridiculously shallow definition of maturity.
That it's an outrageously unironic film, with way too much ostentatious seriousness.
And I agree; yet even so, the film is still very good with a few notable exceptions. You mentioned a few of them, but others include the intolerable Rachel character (played by a somehow unattractive Maggie Gyllenhal, how did that even happen? She's a hot woman, she looked like ass in that movie, I don't get it), as well as an overrated role of Joker by Heath Ledger. Which isn't to say he was bad, just not as good as he's made out to be (I still think Nicholson and Hamill to be the superior Jokers). And Christian Bale's Batman voice is so, so bad. Absolutely awful.
Again, it's still not a bad movie. It's not the second coming of cinema to be sure, and it has a lot of flaws, but things can still be good in spite of their flaws.
After looking at what Cam pointed out, he reminds me of that one Onion article, "Area Man Constantly Mentioning He Doesn't Own A Television."
Stephen Bond wrote The Cabal. That sole thing makes him awesome in my book.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, but some of you may recall Ryan Learn and his claims that the role of the editor is only to fix grammatical errors.
ReplyDeleteI just encountered a thing that Vanity Fair did last July, in which they have their editors mark up Sarah Palin's resignation speech.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907?currentPage=1
Shared because it's amusing and also because it reminded me of Ryan Learn. I miss him dearly.
I just want to preen for a moment and remind you that I, yes, I, am the one who linked you all to Stephen Bond. Jay: great commenter or greatest commenter?
ReplyDelete'His point about religion is bullshit, Buddhism and Hinduism have just as much ridiculous crap in them as Christianity and I don't see any die-hard fanatics of those religions.'
Where do you live?
'Oh a quick note, I have no beef with his claims that LOTR is a children's book, I can accept that. But to say it is a children's book JUST because it has no sex in it? That's fucking retarded.'
You misread the article. Read it again.
'Stephen Bond must be Randall's biggest fan because xkcd is about sex so much so that makes it MATURE AND ADULT.'
Not really.
http://plover.net/~bonds/asdf.html
'This guy just does not know what he's talking about with music.'
That's true.
Rob, those were clearly not real editors. Any editor who made that many changes would be fired.
ReplyDeleteof all the cuddlefish I've done battle with, I miss Ryan Learn the most. can we have a moment of silence?
ReplyDeleteEven though that Onion article is from (no shit) The Onion and we therefore are just supposed to read it and laugh, I can't help but cry a little because I know people who act like the guy without a tv. They may not do it with a tv, but they will somehow find a way to ruin your day talking about something they always have to bring up, or they just have to find a way to make themselves look better than you... for what purpose?
ReplyDeletecam you just broke the moment of silence
ReplyDeleteit's cool I think we were quiet long enough.
ReplyDeleteeven if cam is an insensitive JERKFACE.
The Wire has a very vocal fandom and it is one of the best television series of all time.
ReplyDeleteOF ALL TIME
ReplyDeleteOF ALL TIME
ReplyDeleteRe not having a television: BO!
ReplyDeleteWhere do you live?
ReplyDeleteThe US. So I guess what you are implying is, that there are fanatical Hinduists but I don't see them because I live here? Okay, I can accept that. At any rate, they're certainly nowhere near as vocal as fanatical Christians (who are trying to rip our country's Constitution to shreds) or fanatical Muslims (who like blowing shit up).
I still maintain there can't be fanatical Buddhists. I'm sure maybe someone who is smarter than me will come along to correct me, but I thought one of the major things about Buddhism was trying to rid oneself of desire. If you are fanatical about something that kind of means you have desire and thus would make them not a very good Buddhist.
You misread the article. Read it again.
I have read it. I covered this in my last comment. He said very clearly that LOTR is only immature and childish because of a lack of sex. He says, and I quote, I'll even add the italics he had in the original sentence, "But entering the world of love and adult sexuality -- that's real white-hot terror, that's what separates the men from the boys."
I don't know how that could be any clearer. He directly states "Sex is what makes something adult." The only way to think that his sentence has any other meaning is if you're the kind of person who looks for hidden meanings in EVERYTHING.
"Man I sure would like a turkey sandwich."
"And by turkey sandwich, are you making a comment on the condition of human society?"
Not really.
Oh I didn't know he did that one. I'd seen it linked to before on this site. I was more kind of making a joke, but I admit it was a shitty joke.
Also man I love Stuff White People Like. It's a shame he doesn't update more often.
He also mentions love. Seriously, it's pretty obnoxious that you're trying to be so ridiculously selective about his article on LotR. "No, all the other stuff he talks about doesn't matter. Remember that sentence about the Wagner? He thinks there's absolutely nothing to adulthood but sex. NOTHING. Everything else is a red herring, according to Bond."
ReplyDelete'I still maintain there can't be fanatical Buddhists. ... If you are fanatical about something that kind of means you have desire and thus would make them not a very good Buddhist.'
ReplyDeleteA lot of Christians would argue that the fanatics aren't very good Christians. You can agree or disagree (personally I am not a fan of Christianity or religion at all) but the fact remains, there are plenty of fanatics who self-identify as Buddhists.
'I have read it. I covered this in my last comment. He said very clearly that LOTR is only immature and childish because of a lack of sex.'
But did you reread it? He spents less than a paragraph and a half talking about sex. That's one of his major criticisms, yes, but he spends more time word-for-word talking about LOTR's stark moral climate. He isn't just criticising the lack of love and sex, he's criticizing the lack of anything adult at all.
You guys are talking about http://plover.net/~bonds/tolkien1.html, right? He talks about the stark moral climate at the end of the third paragraph and the beginning of the fourth. He talks about love and sexuality in the end of the fourth and the whole of the fifth. Just glancing at the paragraphs it would appear that he spends more words on sex than morality.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we're going to say that he talks about love as well as sexuality, then I'd point out that I enjoyed what I call the love stories in LotR: Sam and Frodo, Merry and Pippin, Legolas and Gimli. The bromances, so to speak. And, as far as that goes, there's at least one point I agree with him on: you have to contort it pretty bad to find sexuality there.
Perhaps it's just his style, but I get the feeling that he's assuming that this sort of "kids' stuff" ought to be beneath adult tastes. That enjoyment of such a thing is a mark of immaturity or that such enjoyment should, at best, be recognized as a sort of (temporary) regression. I say that it's no regression for a mature adult to enjoy a plain Coke or a simple lemonade instead of a more adult Jack and Coke or complex wine.
To me, the main theme of LotR is similar to Robert Frost's Nothing Gold Can Stay. I wouldn't call that kids' stuff except in the sense that the poem could also be enjoyed by a younger audience. They're different, though. I'd say that Frost is saying something better has passed away while what I get from Tolkien is just a difference, that "every new beginning is some other beginning's end" It was passing the torch to the age of men, who showed the shades of grey that were otherwise missing from LotR. From simple good to complex good. It's sad as if one had to start enjoying coffee and stop enjoying chocolate milk when entering adulthood (I enjoy both).
"I still maintain that there can't be fanatical Buddhists. I'm sure maybe someone who is smarter than me will come along to correct me, but I thought one of the major things about Budddhism was trying to rid oneself of desire."
ReplyDeleteTwo of the most famous quotes from the Gospels are "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" and "love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you". Islamic tradition, if not the Qur'an itself, pretty much explicitly forbids attacking innocents and cowardly warfare. Just because a religion condemns something does not mean people of that religion will not do it and claim that their religion justifies it. Somebody more familiar with East/South Asian culture/history could probably confirm it but I'm confident that there were Buddhist extremists at some point in history if there aren't now.
waywalker did you just quote Closing Time
ReplyDeleteDear Lord, Way Walker, he's not saying that LotR is intrinsically worse because it's immature.
ReplyDelete"Which is not to say that a writer must engage the issues of his day, or that Lord of the Rings does not succeed within its own fairly limited parameters. But let's not pretend the result is anything other than kids' stuff. "
Your selective reading is rapidly growing so obvious that it's unbearable.
He isn't saying it's worse because it's immature, but he is writing a crappy rant that focuses less on one of the bigger issues of the series and more on a tiny issue that in the context of the series doesn't matter. Like Way Walker said, there are multiple instances of bromances in the series, which makes sense, taking into account the fact that it's the story of an all-male fellowship traveling across a continent to save tha wurld. It's a criticism directed at people who delude themselves that Lord of the Rings is some mature, adult book, but it's still a stupid criticism.
ReplyDeleteYour blah blah blah is so blah blah blah that blah blah blah.
Mal:
ReplyDelete"Dear Lord, Way Walker, he's not saying that LotR is intrinsically worse because it's immature."
There may be a simple misunderstanding here. To be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that Bond saying it was "kids' stuff" (a wording I quoted from Bond because it's more likely neutral than "immature" and something he actually called LotR) implied it was intrinsically worse, but that it was intrinsically worse for an adult audience. Since I think there's only a disagreement if we both understood the latter, I'll assume that for the rest of this post.
"Your selective reading is rapidly growing so obvious that it's unbearable."
That was my first post on this. Where else do you accuse me of selective reading? Or was it so rapid that one post did it?
Anyway, how was my reading here selective? The part you quoted is even part of what I was thinking of when I wrote, "Perhaps it's just his style, but I get the feeling that he's assuming that this sort of 'kids' stuff' ought to be beneath adult tastes." It's no great leap to say that the phrasing of, "But let's not pretend the result is anything other than kid's stuff," suggests it's not appropriate for adult/mature reading.
This is especially the case when you take the choice of language elsewhere into account. Earlier, "immature" is paralleled with "cowardly" and is obviously meant as a pejorative. "Emasculated" certainly has negative connotations, and "preadolescent" and "presexual" do not just suggest that sexuality is absent but that it would be included post-adolescence (and, in context, for an adult/mature audience). Other phrasings he uses to describe things associated with children (e.g. "simplistic Sunday-school" and "as a child... I too wanted to believe I was reading a serious adult book... But then I read some more books") are usually meant negatively and suggest that something that is for children/immature readers is not for adult/mature readers. It's not explicit (which is why I said it may just be his style) but most of what he wrote suggests that "kids' stuff" is something that ought to be left behind when entering adulthood, something that separates the boys from the men, as it were.
He may just be using accurate phrases with inaccurate connotations (I used to use drugs.... I still do, but I used to, too. -- Mitch Hedberg).
Rob:
Yes, yes I did.
@ Anon 7:16
ReplyDeleteHmm. Okay, true. Especially since the fanatical religious folks tend to spout off nonsense that they think justifies their fanaticism. I still find it difficult to believe there could be fanatics of certain religions, but you are right, so I'll admit defeat on this.
Still, if his theory was as solid as he believes it to be, we should see huge numbers of fanatics of every religion, not just a couple.
Anyway I've been following more links of this guy and the more I read the more idiotic he is. Crap like "Extroverts are mentally ill and afraid of real friendship" to "People who use pseudonyms online are cowardly and if you don't use your real name then your comments are stupid and worthless!" and even the nonsensical "I believe the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims."
Blah. Seriously this guy doesn't know shit about dick.
"Prizes: Prizes are contingent on google actually sending me the money it owes me."
ReplyDeleteWow! You rally are a tool. And you said I knew nothing about Google Adsense. I know enough to not do business with them. Keep dreamin' and wishin' fer the money you will ne'er receive. *chortle*
Oh no my last name isn't really McTony oh no.
ReplyDeleteSo guys I live at 101 Dalt Hicks Way Markham Ontario if anyone does want to come kick my ass for anything I've said here.
There, I have redeemed myself.
Although to be fair about the extrovert article, he doesn't appear to be criticizing every outgoing, sociable person, so much as people with 200 apparent "friends" who all get equal time and indiscriminate intimacy.
ReplyDeleteIt may be true that he doesn't draw any distinction (otherwise it's possible he's merely using the word extrovert incorrectly), but at worst that's a delusion about the state of humanity, rather than stupid judgment. That is to say, incorrect principles, not poor reasoning.
Also what he said in the generalizations article wasn't that at all you stupid Nate you.
ReplyDeleteI do enjoy punching people with his thoughts on music in the face though.
guys Waywalker wins the argument for dropping a reference to a 90's song.
ReplyDeleteeven the nonsensical "I believe the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims."
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't say that, you dumb fucker.
Truth, if it is to be found at all, lies somewhere in a dialectical space between a statement and its antithesis. Better to push at the boundaries of such a space than potter about in the middle.
"Somewhere in a dialectical space between a statement and its antithesis" doesn't mean "exactly halfway between two opposites", and only Randall painfully trying to twist the statement into a shitty joke would think so.
Still, if his theory was as solid as he believes it to be, we should see huge numbers of fanatics of every religion, not just a couple.
Unless you personally don't happen to live in a region filled with fanatics. Stay parochial, bro.
"I know enough to not do business with them. Keep dreamin' and wishin' fer the money you will ne'er receive. *chortle*"
ReplyDeleteMan, I'm still waiting for that stupid PIN letter Google is supposed to send me. And they won't give me any money before I receive it.
Scott, you're a Canuck too? Sweet, join the exclusive Canadian members of xkcdsucks with myself and... whoever else on here will admit they're from the Great White North
ReplyDeleteNate,
ReplyDeleteyou completely misread his statements, but its ok, we all are biased on certain things.
Now you just need to recognize that you did this, and were cool.
Apologize to Malethoth's boyfriend!
ReplyDelete"As a History major and a Christian"
ReplyDeleteIf you're both these things, then either you're in a shitty school or you're an idiot. Fuck, it's almost as bad as being a biology major and a creationist.
My entry:
ReplyDeletehttp://i265.photobucket.com/albums/ii238/ymersvennson/xkcd2.jpg
"If you're both these things, then either you're in a shitty school or you're an idiot. Fuck, it's almost as bad as being a biology major and a creationist."
ReplyDeletehistorical incongruities of the bible?
atrocities committed by religion?
or is it an obnoxious jab at theism
Just an obnoxious (and probably ignorant) jab, most likely. It's the internet, what can you expect.
ReplyDelete