Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Comic 762: Sudo Make Me an Analogy

poopology is the study of poop, now you know
File this one under "conversations that might be funny in real life, but not staged as in a comic." The people are being clever - overly clever, in fact, with layers and layers of meanings piled on top of each other. It's possible that some people are clever enough to come up with lines like this in real life, in real time, but it's hard to believe, and when I see it in the comic, it just seems staged. It's not realistic.

The tricky thing is, as clever as this conversation is - and it is, especially the final line - even if it happened in real life exactly as we see it in the comic, it'll never be funny as a comic. Because readers (critical ones, that is) will see it and think "that's all well and good for characters, but they aren't acting like real people, they're acting like scripted characters." It's the reason I hate most of the alleged comedy in Shakespeare: It's all so layered and complicated that I stop hearing characters and just hear a writer, trying too hard.

And another thing: Is it just me, or is this another comic in quick succession that deals with distinctly pre-middle school academic material? Last time was basic multiplication tables, this time it's similes and metaphors, a distinction I vaguely recall a seventh grade teacher attempting to teach me.

How can you even be "bad at metaphors," the way the woman in panel 2 claims? How does that make sense?

135 comments:

  1. Being "bad at metaphors" is probably a bad response to the question posed, but it is a valid comment; she might not be able to make up good (read: witty and applicable) metaphors on the fly. I know I can't.

    The reason I like Shakespearean comedy is because it's FUNNY. It can get stilted at times, but watching an actor nowadays speak the written words (speak them in the right way, anyway) is as hilarious to me as any stand-up. There also exists comedy where the stiltedness of the lines is intentional, and makes the dialogue even more funny (like most stuff by Oscar Wilde).

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think I ever heard someone say Shakespeare was trying too hard before.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The new comic, while true, needs some identifying features for the characters. How are we supposed to know which is the computer nerd and which is the old guy? I give 763 a 3/10.

    ReplyDelete
  4. new comic alt text: eight drives, C: through H:? last time I checked that was 6 letters. C, D, E, F, G, H.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's not clever at all.

    Metaphors aren't hard to figure out. GG, Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  6. re: new comic

    I didn't laugh but I didn't facepalm either. It just feels like good ol' xkcd observational stuff, and at least it's pretty true in this case (unlike xkcd observational humor where the observation isn't really true, which is sort of like failing at failing)

    My filesystem is like the mouseover text. I dunno if that's really GOOMHR because he was criticizing that sort of haphazard organization.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Carl hates any writer who gets "too much" publicity. First it's Randall, now it's Shakespeare. Look out, Stephanie Meyer! You're next! [I was at the midnight opening, FTR, so I can tell you all with some sense of authority that it is "entertaining", if "utter trash artistically". But what did you really expect? Shirtless Native Americans? 'Cause yeah, it's got that.]

    Regarding the latest comic, I agree utterly with Femalethoth. It's a pity that XKCD as a site gets more hits; I really don't think XKCD should be more than a part time job. The only person I want to succeed more than PA [I know they have quite extraordinarily, but you get the point] is John Campbell PFSC. He has yet to release one of his "one-shot" comics that has not amused me to no end!

    Also, I full-heartedly support "creative" solutions, so Randall can screw off. Isn't he the one who told us 3 or so comics ago that "faking it" was perfectly acceptable in Math? Why the change of heart? Can you trust a man like that?

    [[Vote RAVEN in the next "Monarch of the Half-Assed Webcomics Election!]]

    ReplyDelete
  8. My issues with 762:

    1) He's done this kind of thing before. (Especially given the alt-text in 627.) Granted, that was back August of last year, so it's not incredibly recent.

    2) The wording isn't terrible, but it could be a bit more to-the-point. "Tip: If relatives say they've solved a computer problem, don't ask for details" or some variant would work just as well and would be a more effective form of communicating the same information.

    ReplyDelete
  9. i didn't see eclipse, but i saw twilight saga: twilight and read like the first eighty pages of the novel, and it's not entertaining, it's just garbage. i'm all for stupid entertainment, but i prefer stupid MALE entertainment because i'm a big sexist pig, and i appreciate it if the stupid entertainment doesn't require me to be so conscious of the fact that i am deliberately turning my brain off.

    one of the problems with a lot of stupid action flicks, which is also one of the problems i suspect with twilight, is that the stakes are either extremely low (crank, assault on precinct 13) or they make no sense whatsoever (can't think of any examples off the top of my head). in twilight, the stakes are abominably low--who will win the heart of a bland-looking, personality-free cipher??--and frequently nonsensical--you can't be a vampire! oh wait it turns out there's no disadvantages whatsoever to becoming a vampire in these books, phew.

    there should at least be some cursory reason to be interested in the success of at least one side in a conflict. since bella's love is so transparently not worth fighting over, it's stupid to have it be one of the driving forces of the narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow what a surprise! The older stick figure is (slightly) taller than the other one. I guess age is also determined by how floaty your head is from your neck.

    Seriously, the idea of 763 isn't too off-based and unrealistic so it's okay.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Psht, you clearly need to finish the books. There IS a cost -- losing Jacob as her friend! [except this isn't true because he falls in love with her half-vampire daughter... mm.... alright]. I stand by my point; if you go in EXPECTING anything, you've already lost THE GAME. I recommend seeing In The Name of the King -- A Dungeon Siege Tale. Utter crap, but I laughed my ass off. They probably didn't intend for that, but who cares? I got my money worth.

    After viewing XKCD for the past few months, I've come to the following conclusion: If some form of "art" sucks, either it better take about 1 minute out of your day or else you pretend it's a joke against the audience. If neither of these are true, you have lost. I Don't think XKCD is actually a joke [do you see me laughing? Asses on or off? GTFOOMHouse], but since it takes one minute on alternating weeks, the benefit from the occasional smile is worth it.


    Anyways, I've gotten my laugh out of XKCD, although not through his actual comic...
    Hahaha.... I love how stilted and awkward that line always sounds. "My problems"... like, wth kinda problems delay two B&W scenes that look like you sketched them in 5 minutes and wrote it in 1 of those? At least his dialogue, when compared with his actual writing, sorta makes sense now.

    Captcha: metanked. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. even if i expect mindless stupid entertainment, it STILL fails. or are you talking about some sort of zen total blankness?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Alternating Days***, obviously.

    No, you cannot expect just stupid entertainment or absolute "blankness". Go one step sideways and expect a joke -- not a bad piece of art, but a PARODY of art. Someone made this to LOOK like a film, and if you know this fact you are in on their joke against everyone else in the theatre.

    Also, Eclipse has shirtless Native Guys. That's a step in an entirely different direction, though.

    Oh, and non-sensical plot? The Wickerman starring Nicolas Cage. Hilarious, though, again, because I have assumed Nicolas Cage films are all jokes against us. Try watching a film like "Knowing" with that mentality; it ceases to be terrible and becomes hilarious. NOOOOT THE BEEEEESS. Hahaha...

    Captcha: Delik. I'm thinking of Doctor Who.

    ReplyDelete
  14. it's not a parody. it also doesn't work as a parody, because it's not actually mocking anything in particular. it seems stupid to deliberately misread a text, in a way that doesn't work particularly well, just so you can feel smug.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I graduated from uni in computer science and still don't know the difference between similie and metaphor. I have little interest in finding out either.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's not mocking something in particular, it's mocking the entirety of film. But, that's not the point.

    "Feel[ing] smug" is not the point -- if you ever feel smug after watching a film about a girl who everyone loves having to choose between a sexy werewolf [who loves her] or the sexy vampire [who also loves her], then dear gods, the joke is on you.

    But if I'm about to spend 3 hours on a film -- I am enjoying it one way or another.=P Certain films are artistically done well, or are genuinely entertaining -- you usually know within 10 minutes which the film is. If it is trash, you have to find the joy in it. Why? Because you have another 2 hours to go, and "leaving" is a poor option.

    XKCD? That's different. It's 1 minute, and I feel fine if I have wasted it. There are many minutes in my day that go wasted.

    Me, Smug, no. This is stubbornness; I refuse to not enjoy myself for 2+ consecutive hours. I do not see the merit of sitting there, scowling at the film for hours, feeling better for recognizing its failure. No, THAT sounds smug to me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "it seems stupid to deliberately misread a text, in a way that doesn't work particularly well, just so you can feel smug."

    Femalethoth, I love you. I want to scream this in the face of about half the people I know. GOOMH FEMALETHOTH!!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. twilight is not a parody of film itself, unless you willfully misinterpret the word "parody".

    "Feel[ing] smug" is not the point -- if you ever feel smug after watching a film about a girl who everyone loves having to choose between a sexy werewolf [who loves her] or the sexy vampire [who also loves her], then dear gods, the joke is on you.

    you're oozing superiority, man. you're the one talking about how the joke's on me, the joke's on the studio audience, the joke's on the filmakers. you're above it all, you're too clever to be caught with such dumb stuff. are you just incapable of recognizing your own smugness?

    or maybe you're just stupid. some smugness of my own coming up: if you willfully detach your brain so that you enjoy absolutely everything that occupies a sufficient amount of your time, then your critical faculties are being deliberately wasted.

    recognizing that something you just experienced is awful is a perfectly legitimate thing. it's stupid to deliberately convince yourself that actually it was quite enjoyable after all. glorious fucking stoicism?

    i mean, christ, why would you commit to spending two+ hours watching eclipse in the first place? are you too dumb to be selective with what you watch? probably, because you deliberately broaden your tastes to the point that you're incapable of not enjoying something.

    ReplyDelete
  19. My gripe with 762 wasn't that it was trying oh-so-hard to be clever -- I really don't mind when writing is unrealistic because it's too smart -- but that it just sorta fails. Saying "like" doesn't make something a simile.

    I really didn't mind 763. The only thing that bugged me was hand placement on guy #2. I assume he's holding his head in his hands, but it's just vague enough it could be hands around the mouth in cartoonish shock. *shrugs* So not so bad.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, I'm not saying that I would EVER see the film again; nor would I ever read the books again. Nor would I ever see "The Wickerman" again.

    You seem to be breaking things into a Black and White "Good->Enjoyment/Sucks->Misery" Dichotomy. A lot of things suck. They are NOT GOOD. But if there is ANYTHING there to derive enjoyment of WHILE YOU ARE THERE, then you may as well take advantage. You can sit there and tell yourself all the flaws, or you can enjoy it. AFTERWARDS you can speak all about how terrible it was, how it made you feel sick, and how you will never admit to having seen it.

    Was it a waste of time? Probably. But why frustrate yourself with that? Like you said, Why the Hell are we there in the first place? I don't know. I really do not know. But knowing that it is terrible is one thing; not enjoying yourself is quite another.

    Am I smug because I can derive enjoyment even from utter crap like that? No, that's more masochistic. I keep going back for more crap [Although I did stop going back to QC, so there's something] and getting a sick pleasure out of it while everyone screams, "Stop enjoying yourself! This is not enjoyable!"

    TL-DR: The first mistake is taking anyone seriously when she says that Twilight was entertaining.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "I graduated from uni in computer science and still don't know the difference between similie and metaphor. I have little interest in finding out either."

    metaphors and similes are not computer science and it would make no sense for you to be taught them in computer science. they are primary school english

    ReplyDelete
  22. If something sucks and is enjoyable, it's usually not because you deliberately misread the intention of the film, in a way that doesn't work at all, unless you also deliberately misinterpet the terms of your new interpretation. Reading Twilight as a parody of film itself is stupid. Twilight doesn't even come close to supporting such a reading.

    It seems a lot more like the enjoyment you got is "Haha, man, the people who actually like this stuff must be serious schmucks!"

    Which is condescending bullshit.

    Seriously, I can accept that something is terrible and enjoyable. You don't seem to be able to accept that something can be terrible and not enjoyable. I'd be impressed by how well you're able to rationalize "Well I have to enjoy it SOMEhow, otherwise I will have been unhappy for two hours of my life, this would be the worst possible thing!", but there's no evidence that you do it well at all. Your only example of such rationalization is clunky and ineffective.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Bad at metaphors could just mean you have trouble understanding and/or identifying them when they're used. Pretty common among ASD peeps.
    Also, while I didn't laugh out loud at this, I smirked slightly, but that's possibly just because I'm so amused at how well the last line works.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The people who actually like this XKCD stuff must be Serious schmucks, amirite? No, that's condescending bullshit. [[I think they are, but luckily I am a condescending... bullshitter? Well, you get the point]]

    ReplyDelete
  25. So XKCD is as bad as Shakespeare? Admit it, you secretly looooove Randall and want to make kissy kissy with him.

    I bet the first two lines are actually from a real conversation had amongst his social wits (the only difference being that none of them were actually female), and he thought he would improve upon that hilarious sexual innuendo. Maybe the third line was thrown back as well, because it might actually seem to make sense in the context of a conversation in which you don't have time to think up better phrasing.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anyways, thanks for arguing, I wanted to see how far I could carry that line of reasoning before becoming self-conflicting. I think it only works if I force the assumption, "I am an idiot" or "I am a jackass". Or both, I guess.

    Twilight Eclipse at least had shirtless guys. I think you missed that point. That is my only real point to justify seeing it beyond "vampires and romance omg!".

    I am not condescending, I was using a strawperson [hahahaha, P.C.] of myself -- I watched the Vampire Diaries religiously while the first season was running. I've gone to all three midnight openings of the Twilight Saga. I'm willing to accept that they are not from a thematic view great "works of art" or whatever, but do I enjoy them? Hell yes. And not for some "better-than-it" schmucky reason, but because I enjoy that sort of literature/story -- so shoot me. [Sue me? I do not actually know this expression...]

    Most of what I said DOES hold for Nicolas Cage films, though -- I am not arguing an unarguable philosophy, I am arguing from evidence. Watch all his later films, and they all read like jokes. Really; it takes little effort to argue that Nicolas Cage is playing a joke on everyone.

    Things that are terrible and not enjoyable? Wisdom Teeth removal. Dead pet cats. Certain web comics. Happy now? 'Cause you know, that's been the goal along. =P

    ReplyDelete
  27. A Shakespeare: Overrated blog!

    That would be awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "I am not condescending,"

    Yeah this is bullshit. I've only barely skimmed your posts and I want to punch you in face for being a haughty cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Never really got what the whole big deal was with 631. It wasn't an especially hilarious joke but a lot of people took it very badly for no apparent reason.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Nicolas Cage rocks, and is definitely not comparable to Twilight in badness.

    ReplyDelete
  31. 'A simile is like a metaphor' is not a simile. For a start, it's not true: a simile isn't 'like' a metaphor, a simile IS a metaphor. Similies are the subset of metaphors that make the comparison explicit using the words 'like' or 'as' (so 'The moon is a ball of cheese' and 'the moon is like a ball of cheese' are both metaphors, but only the latter one is also a simile).

    And secondly, not ever sentence with the word 'like' in it is a simile. Some are just comparisons. A metaphor is the use of figurative language, but there's nothing figurative about 'a metaphor is like a simile': it's just a straightforward pointing-out of similarity.

    However you wouldn't expect geeks to understand this, because geeks are incapable of understanding the nuances that make language such a vibrant, living and beautiful thing: they can only understand rules and patterns, so they have to come up with a pattern ('things that have "like" in them are similes') and then apply it to everything. Lacking judgement and understanding, they substitute pattern-matching and so are unable to distinguish between figurative and non-figurative language use because to them, it's all just words stuck together by grammar.

    So not only is the comic not funny, it's completely wrong and a prime example of why you should never get involved in a conversation with a geek.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @SK
    You write a long post about nuances and subtleties, the conclusion of which painted an entire vaguely-defined class of people with the same brush and this doesn't strike you as being slightly hypocritical?

    Did you know that there are language geeks too?

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comic fails simply because all of the wordplay up until the final line is stupid. It starts with a juvenile sexual innuendo, degenerates into nonsense, and then ends with something that might be considered passable.

    Believable similitude isn't a prerequisite for any form of art to be good, not even if the "art" in question is just some stupid gag strip. That's some archaic bullshit you're dishing out there.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I hate comics like 763-

    It's randall saying "I'm good at computers- WHY AREN'T YOU? and NO I shall NEVER help you

    I Am BEYOND you, lowly non-computer scum!"

    I mean seriously- if he offers friends no help whatsoever and just says "fix it by trial and error" then what the fuck did he expect?

    No wonder NASA fired such an unhelpful douchebag-

    "We need to re-calibrate the computer systems on Challenger before the next flight"
    "I'm playing Runescape just now, try fixing it with trial and error"

    ReplyDelete
  35. If comic 763 is "observational humour", why is the thing Randall is "observing" something that his readers ALREADY KNOW? Come on, that situation of watching a computer novice pulling something completely bizarre in his computer is not news -- that's a common, ordinary situation. It's something like observing "did you notice how some people don't dive in the sea because they don't like cold water?????" -- Yeah, I have noticed that before, Mr. Deep Philosopher.

    Also, it's the common problems of xkcd all over again: minimal art and huge blocks of text. That is a blog post, NOT a comic. Also, try reading that AS a blog post and see how dull and uninteresting it is. Yes, many people have difficulties with computers and eventually do some strange stuff. Two thoughts:

    1) YES, THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE. GROW UP AND DEAL WITH IT.
    2) Replace "many people" with "Randall" and "computers" with "females" and you have an explanation for all the creepy, yucky sexkcd.

    ReplyDelete
  36. 763 is just the "take a screenshot of the JPEG of the scan of the photograph of the word document" thing, which was funnier because you could just show the real thing rather than have stick figures describing it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Anon (3:40 AM)

    That's the most ridiculous thing I've read all evening. Not only is the comparison completely off (doing your job vs. helping relatives with their computer problems) but you're totally wrong.

    Want to download and send a Youtube video to someone, for example? Well, let's say that rather than encouraging said relative to come up with their own solution that, however convoluted, works, just give them the 'right' solution-- run this perl script which downloads the youtube video, interfaces with the MUA to send an email with the video as an attachment. Heck, it could work fine for the relative. What's the end result? They've learned nothing at all. What happens when they want to send a Vimeo video to someone? Shit! Better call Randall; until then we won't be sending videos to anyone.

    The point is that it is nearly always better to teach someone how to fish than to just give them the fish.

    (I guess just sending the person the URL to the video is out of the question, huh?)

    ReplyDelete
  38. Carl, let me get this right: youre saying that no writer should ever aspire to anything remotely "intellectual", and should make sure that all his or her writing is squarely aimed at the lowest common denominator? And Shakespeare is just an elitist douche who was shit at writing dialogue?

    So, presumably you dont believe that TV, cinema and even literature has been "dumbed down" to the point where it is largely fit only for drooling morons? Or you believe it has, but that this is a *good* thing? Which?

    ReplyDelete
  39. WARNING: DOUCHEY ARMCHAIR PSYCHOLOGY AHEAD.

    I think it's clear what Raven's deal is. She's just had a case of serious cognitive dissonance. For see, she likes Twilight, unironically, and all her friends do, too. So she goes and watches it, possibly more than once. But at the same time, she knows, on some level, that she shouldn't be enjoying it. She knows that Cool People On The Internet hate it, and she also knows that she, too, is a Cool Person On The Internet. In some cases this can be solved by saying that the movie is entertainingly bad, but this is not true in this case. Twilight is an ordeal even if you're watching it ironically. So she throws up a flimsy excuse about how the movies are "parody" and how she's oh so clever for getting what everyone else missed, and voila! She's a Cool Person On The Internet again, still gets to watch Twilight, and is now smarter than everyone she knows.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Anon 1251:
    "Yeah this is bullshit. I've only barely skimmed your posts and [... ]"

    Hahaha. This is why I love the internet. "I consider myself perfectly informed because I am kind of familiar with the matter at discussion, furthermore, I am remaining without any identification for when it turns out I'm wrong". I bet you got to the quoted section in your post and said, "I'm gonna set this bitch right!" Keep on digging and you'll eventually reach the stars, mate! =D

    ReplyDelete
  41. @anon 631: Oh no, I am one of the COOLEST people on the internet. I actually like this vampire romance stuff. XKCD like, totally made a comic about us, yo. See how I'm tying this thread of conversation back into XKCD? And making myself sick? Really nobody is winning, especially not me. >.>

    Anyways, remember to actually finish reading things before posting. Now you look kinda like a tool. Am I tool? Fuck yes, but I've just dragged another anonymous soul down with me! [Femalethoth I forgive entirely because he does not post after I told her I am GENUINELY into vampire stuff and was.... well, in hindsight, I think I was trolling for a few posts? Sorry, Mal, was just sorta going with the [il]logical flow of things; nothing personal].

    ReplyDelete
  42. Well excuse me for giving people the benefit of the doubt and at least TRYING to come up with a scenario in which they're not dumber than a sack of hammers.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Carl did you like intentionally make this comment box bad when you set up this blog? Because I've tried to post like three times now and it keeps eating my comments. What the fuck, man? No other blog I've been to has these problems.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Aaaaaand of course the comment in which I'm bitching goes through.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Anon 5:54

    The problem is Randall's not "teaching people to fish" He's just acting elitist and douchey-

    Ther'es a large difference between pointing people in the right direction where they can find the answer (i.e. 'help') and being a faggot (use trial and error; and if you can't work it out you're a moron).

    Randall isn't teaching people how to fish- he's sitting on the opposite bank, bitching about people who can't fish and throwing rocks at them

    ReplyDelete
  46. I sort of hate Raven. please, just stop talking... please...

    anyways, I lost a bet and had to watch the first Twilight. It was ridiculous and I have basically blacked it out... I only recall Edward giving Bella furtive glances.

    I do not understand the appeal of Jacob, Edward or Bella for that matter. (well I guess Jacob I get but, whatever...ha) Its a shame that the concept of vampire/vampirism is totally ruined but it had been working that way for a long time... slowly being watered down and sexed up that Twilight was inevitable. Stephanie Meyer's writing comes off as lonely teen girl fan fiction, with herself as Bella (obviously).

    Frankly it frightens me that the most popular movie amongst women in this country is a film directed by a woman, starring a woman and written by a woman that is about a girl wanting to give up her life/freedom for a hot guy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Femaletoth he/she's just talking about bad movie night basically come on I mean I know it's expressing itself monumentally poorly but that was obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Oh wait "it" wasn't an anon it was this raven people are still arguing with.
    I will now read the rest of the comment thread!
    Oh ok so what I said still stands but Raven is just annoying as shit on top of monumentally bad at saying anything.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @ Comic 762

    I'm baffled that nobody caught on to the horrible sexual innuendo presented in the first panel: two guys and one gal (well, stickfigures, that is) making a "sandwich".

    ReplyDelete
  50. anon 9:03... we all got it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anon 5:54- The point is that it is nearly always better to teach someone how to fish than to just give them the fish.

    Yeah, except that he's not teaching them to fish. To make your analogy accurate, what Randy is doing is punting the hobo out on the doorstep, forcing them to learn how to fish on their own instead of grabbing some bait & tackle, a couple poles, and starting up the boat.

    Which is to say the least completely fucking unhelpful.

    @ Emily- I sort of hate Raven. please, just stop talking... please...

    +1, unfortunately.


    anyways, I lost a bet and had to watch the first Twilight. It was ridiculous and I have basically blacked it out... I only recall Edward giving Bella furtive glances.


    FTR, only one part of that movie is worth watching (unlike New Moon, which has plenty of hilarious scenes), and that's when Bella walks into class in front of the fan and supposedly blows her "scent" at Edward. Watching Robert Pattinson's terrible acting is a hoot because his approximation of "the best smell I've ever smelled" looks more like "oh god what the fuck died and got shit on by a skunk holy fuck ew".

    The books are a gigantic wankfest/vampire fanfiction and- trust me on this- not worth anyone's time. Do not read them. Do. Not. Some things are so terrible they're funny, and the books are not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hey, that's like a threesome. Lol, simile.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Carl your comments section was spawned from the bowels of satan. Now I have to doublepost.

    @ anon 9:03- I'm baffled that nobody caught on to the horrible sexual innuendo presented in the first panel: two guys and one gal (well, stickfigures, that is) making a "sandwich".

    HOLY SHIT NO WAAAAAAAAAAAAY

    Yeah, we all got it. The question is, is that supposed to be funny or something? It's just rounding out the middle-school level english education topic (similes and metaphors) with middle-school level sex jokes. The 8th graders might gobble it up, but that's it.

    ReplyDelete
  54. hurr hurr, you said "gobble it up"

    ReplyDelete
  55. Okay I can't read this Twilight bullshit and NOT comment.


    My roommate was a big fan, and I agreed to read all the books if she would read Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett. This was before the movie craziness began, back when Twilight was a big book fad and seemed so much less sinister.


    The nonsense that Twilight is "so bad that it's good" is just that... nonsense.


    Twilight's writing is awful, yes. But that is not the worst thing about this book. The worst thing about this book is that it commonly portrays women as weak and unable to function in society on their own. Every woman who is not directly tied to a man either becomes a villain or is portrayed as a useless idiot (and I'm not talking about Bella... I'm talking about characters intentionally portrayed this way).

    And when women are tied to men, everything they do is about maintaining their relationships. I think this has been confused by fans as "love conquers all" but really it's a more damaging message to put forth in society. Over and over, the most important thing to major every female character is the man in her life. Men can pursue other things (Edward plays piano, Carlisle is a doctor, Charlie is a policeman and lives his life single). But the women who pursue such things are portrayed in negative light. Leah the werewolf is seen as a thorn in everyone's side (and overly competitive, intentionally thinking "gross girl" thoughts other male werewolves shouldn't have to put up with listening to, etc.)


    The list goes on. The internet is chock full of the horrendous things the popularity of Twilight has the potential to do to the role of women in our society.


    So. You can't say that Twilight is a joke. It's not. Millions of teenage girls are being exposed to what I believe are very deliberately defined gender roles. There are things about Twilight that are objectively bad and damaging to our society. There is no place for people who pay money to the franchise and enjoy the movies because they are just so "bad." The real "bad" isn't artistic failure, it's failure to contribute to society any meaningful role models and instead promote a backwards and sexist agenda.


    And if you like the vampire genre so much Ravenzomg, do yourself a favor and watch Buffy.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @ Rachel-

    Renee's character pisses me off in particular.

    Also Alice is probably the exception to your rule- she's not really that defined by her relationship with Jasper (in fact she's pretty much just Bella's personal Deus Ex Machina, but that's anotehr topic).

    And WHAT THE FUCK I AM DEBATING DRIVEL LIKE TWILIGHT WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME.

    Captcha: Peary. I think the pc term is "pear-shaped".

    ReplyDelete
  57. @ Ves

    Yes, I think you're right about Alice. Alone, she is a good female character. But she doesn't stand out ENOUGH to be a counter example. She might not do everything for Jasper, but what other motivations does she really have? Her family? What interests does she have outside what could loosely be defined as a home life?


    Not that there's anything wrong with devoting yourself to your family. But she doesn't break Meyer's pattern of "good women" are devoted to husband and family, and "bad women" pursue other goals. And that pattern puts limitations on the role of women in the Twilight world.

    ReplyDelete
  58. lol yes Renee is awful. And the whole marriage at 18 just so that we can go all the way? sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ rachel- Alice has a bizarre devotion to Bella (or, more specifically, Bedward [or Edwella, whichever you prefer]), but she's at least marginally competent.

    What especially bothers me about Renee is how bad she looks contrasted with Charlie- they both marry young and divorce soon thereafter. Charlie is, as you said, reasonably successful as the police chief of a small town. Renee on the other hand literally needs her daughter to keep her from getting herself injured. And she punts Bella to Charlie's care so she can uproot herself and follow her new boyfriend around! It's pathetic and depressing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. 762 looks like Randall read Godel, Escher, Bach and then ripped the shit out of it and made it suck.

    ReplyDelete
  61. ravenzomg, you are my new hero

    ReplyDelete
  62. Jesus, can't I go /anywhere/ on the internet and not run into people arguing about Twilight? I think the haters talk about it more than the fans.

    ReplyDelete
  63. that's true for a lot of things

    ReplyDelete
  64. Rob is just overjoyed that there's somebody on this blog that loves Twilight as much as him.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @Rob: Guess who just won a bet that she could commandeer an unrelated thread and get other people to talk about Twilight for at least 15 posts within 24 hours? Fuck yes. [18 responses mention "Twilight" or a character from the Twilight Saga, and 2 were in response to my poor display of literary knowledge or being an ass.]

    Thank you everyone, I am happy to never mention Vampires again unless they fucking burn in the sun. If you were here I would use my prize money to buy you drinks so you could forget this incident. But hey, hopefully this makes it all better.

    Love and stuff,
    Raven.

    PS: I figured this particular XKCD [being 763] was perfectly acceptable to high jack. The comic is exactly what I expect from XKCD; he phrased it awkwardly, added in a touch of condescension [I apparently can fake this, so I should know].

    Also, his comic title sounds to me like a sexual double entendre. "Work Around". Right? Or am I not translating that correctly? Look at the two stick figures, how they are exactly poised.

    Captcha: ensityph. Lacking taste, but having a lisp.

    ReplyDelete
  66. you're thinking reach around, not work around.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @anon 2:23 -- right! That one. I suppose that could lead to some interesting discussions if you mix those two up. Although, in real life probably not... It's a pity there isn't a comic that deals with language and bad jokes, right?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Congrats, Raven. Hopefully, like the poor stupid relatives of Randall who don't know how to use computers, the fool who underestimated the car crash that is Twilight by making such a bet with you has learned something.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I should've really tried this at the XKCD forums. But I do not want to have ever signed up there. If you know what I mean.

    Seriously though, are there people like this? I haven't met anyone who routinely uses the internet that does not understand the basics of computers. Am I just not talking to the wrong people? The only people who I have met anywhere remotely like that are those who don't own computers and steadfastedly attempt to die without ever having to own one.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Guess who just won a bet that she could commandeer an unrelated thread and get other people to talk about Twilight for at least 15 posts within 24 hours? Fuck yes. [18 responses mention "Twilight" or a character from the Twilight Saga, and 2 were in response to my poor display of literary knowledge or being an ass.]

    ::drums fingers on table:: ... right.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Who here hates rhetorical questions?

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Ves
    My eyebrow nearly receded right into my hair from the expression I made while reading Ravenzomg's denouement post.

    Just... augh. I'd mention that to make oneself look like an ass, realise this, and then call troll is a transparent trick which we all learned while squabbling as children, but with her kind of flawed, self imposed victory conditions, any reply merely makes her feel vindicated.

    P.S. Oh look, I did mention it after all!

    ReplyDelete
  73. @Anon 4:10 Passive Aggressive? On the Internet? Well, change of pace at least. Kudos for replying like a regular person would, as opposed to using all caps or swearing every other word at a complete stranger. Who says we aren't all reasonable folks?

    That said, the deed is done and I couldn't care less. Continuing the discussion "vindicates me", and I'm only carrying this thread of discussion so long as people carry it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Carl do you have like a three second attention span or something?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Since I don't know how to type in this box, I'm going to have to copy and paste a link to pastebin.org for a full review of today's comic.

    http://pastebin.org/385714

    ReplyDelete
  76. Unidentified person #1: Oh, YEAH? Well, I bet YOU can't start an unrelated discussion on Twilight on some blog that lasts for more than 15 posts!!
    Unidentified person #2: Oh, YEAH? Well, I bet I CAN!
    Unidentified person #1: Deal?
    Unidentified person #2: Deal!

    Now tell me that doesn't sound like the set up for a very, very bad xkcd comic.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Sup guys me and a friend just watched Eclipse and man, after watching New Moon I declared it worse than Highlander 2, Batman and Robin, and Bio-Dome combined, but I have to say, Eclipse was some 25% worse than New Moon.
    So, would I recommend it? Hell yes, that was the best bad movie night ever.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Did anyone else notice that this seems to be one of the first times the woman is acting in a stereotypical way -- offering to make sandwhiches?

    Of course, the women is also the most clever and most witty.

    Also, from panel 3 to panel 4, floor guy switches positions.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Fernie, if it was an XKCD comic you wouldn't get to see it happening in all its boring minute detail. THAT would be an Abstruse Goose comic. So I am clearly an Abstruse Goose comic. GODS, you don't understand me and my suburban angst! [Twilight is still associated with the emo/angsty group, I am assuming, unless it is actually just 12-year old girls in general]

    I kinda liked Batman and Robin, but that's just a Schwarzenegger bias.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I love the "the only reason you're saying you're trolling is you Lost the Argument" responses. they have always been my favorites really. it's like saying "you were so successful at trolling me I still don't believe you were trolling me EVEN AFTER YOU TOLD ME ABOUT IT."

    so yeah keep it coming!

    ReplyDelete
  81. Rob, +1. My motive isn't really important, there are posts here.

    From XKCD's "About" section, "Who are you?":
    "[...]In my spare time I climb things, open strange doors, and go to goth clubs dressed as a frat guy so I can stand around and look terribly uncomfortable. At frat parties I do the same thing, but the other way around."

    I would bet that he has never once done either of those last two things, and I'm not even sure about the "strange doors" thing. Maybe has looked terribly uncomfortable, though.

    Oh, also, all you folks who are criticizing XKCD's art? He is "drawing more seriously" now, so stfu.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The thing that annoys me about this blog is that there is usually one good point and several annoyingly minor ones, like the hair obsession in the last review. Its just stuff that most people notice and gloss over, or just ignore.

    Clearly Carl is losing it! Panic! Oh god. Someone get that man a beer and a holiday!

    ReplyDelete
  83. @rob - i'm always kind of disappointed by the metric that A Successful Troll Is One That Earns Responses, Period. if you reply to a troll, you have BEEN trolled, hahaha chump!!!

    it seems like it's a perfectly plausible thing. there are tons of completely fucking stupid people who post insipid condescending bullshit on this blog. we don't immediately assume that all of them are secretly quite clever and just here to troll us.

    oh wait are you trolling me right now??? you must, because i'm responding to you and i'm annoyed by what you've said, oh shiiiiiiiiiit.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Everyone on this site is a troll.

    No wait, everyone is Jesus in purgatory.

    Wait... I'M SO CONFUSED

    ReplyDelete
  85. no the metric by which I judge a successful troll is this:
    are they hilarious? (Y)

    there is also an option on:
    when they say they are trolling, do people say hilarious things like 'no you aren't, you just lost the argument'? (Y)

    ReplyDelete
  86. I thought we'd already established that everyone here is Carl's sockpuppet.

    ReplyDelete
  87. well, common scholarly consensus is that there's a dozen or so regular commenters, all of them with a large number of sock puppets. a few theorists--called the Orthodox Carlists--propose that they are literally all Carl, while the Reformed Carlists believe that they are all Carl and Rob, or sometimes that they are just Rob.

    ReplyDelete
  88. What about the people who think Carl is Randall?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Randall is also a troll. Additionally, by extension, everyone here is Randall's sock puppet.

    Rob, I'm pretty sure you're the only Reformed Carlist here. Take your cult elsewhere, you fiend!

    ReplyDelete
  90. are you kidding? I totally don't believe I exist.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @Anon 7:59 PM:

    They're Luciferian Randallites.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @SK:

    Firstly, you are wrong. A simile is not a metaphor. They are two different types of figurative language which are often confused for each other. The distinction is quite similar to that between equality and approximation in math: in a metaphor, one compares two things as if they were perfectly interchangeable whether or not they really are, whereas in a simile, one compares two things as if they were similar but still fundamentally distinct. You cannot make a metaphor out of a simile, or vice versa, without fundamentally altering how the things are compared (equality versus approximation). Metaphors NEVER use 'like' or 'as' and similes ALWAYS use one of those two.

    "A simile is like a metaphor" is, in fact, a simile, because similes and metaphors DO share a few characteristics, but are definitely not precisely the same (they are *approximately* the same without being *equal* to each other). They are both examples of figurative language, and both of them ARE explicit comparisons of different types. Now, if someone said, "A metaphor IS a simile," (no 'like' or 'as') they would be making either a faulty metaphor or an inaccurate statement of fact (depending on the purpose of the sentence, really).

    Secondly, you are half wrong on your point about similes: you are correct in that every sentence with the word 'like' is not a simile, but this is true only in instances where the word 'like' is used as a verb, or possibly when clarifying an insufficiently specific statement ("I hate men [who are] like Homer Simpson" for instance--still comparison, but not a simile). Even when a simile is a "straightforward statement of comparison" it's still a simile, such as if you were to say, "A railway is a road for trains."

    For more information on the distinction between metaphors and similes, you can visit the following website, which gives a very thorough explanation of the difference (and from which many of my specific phrases/examples/points were derived):
    http://knowgramming.com/metaphors/metaphor_and_simile_difference.htm

    Thirdly, I find it highly offensive that you think a person cannot be both a "geek" and a language enthusiast or pursue some kind of artistic endeavor. Many people from the Hellenistic period forward were polymaths who excelled with all sorts of scientific/pattern recognition/"geeky" subjects while still being or becoming renowned artists/authors/philosophers. Geniuses such as Eratosthenes, Leonardo da Vinci, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Omar Khayyám, Abbas Ibn Firnas, Zhang Heng, Avicenna, Isaac Newton, Goethe, and Isaac Asimov, just to name a few. They seemed quite comfortable doing precisely what you said is impossible. Furthermore, I personally take great pleasure in both writing poetry and in pursuing scientific understanding, so I find it mind-boggling that you can claim that scientific thought closes out figurative thought. Perhaps you have had an unusually high quantity of bad experiences with allegedly 'geeky' people who didn't see the utility or beauty of literary endeavors--if so, perhaps the men and women I listed above may provide useful counter-examples for you.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @SK:

    Firstly, you are wrong. A simile is not a metaphor. They are two different types of figurative language which are often confused for each other. The distinction is quite similar to that between equality and approximation in math: in a metaphor, one compares two things as if they were perfectly interchangeable whether or not they really are, whereas in a simile, one compares two things as if they were similar but still fundamentally distinct. You cannot make a metaphor out of a simile, or vice versa, without fundamentally altering how the things are compared (equality versus approximation). Metaphors NEVER use 'like' or 'as' and similes ALWAYS use one of those two.

    "A simile is like a metaphor" is, in fact, a simile, because similes and metaphors DO share a few characteristics, but are definitely not precisely the same (they are *approximately* the same without being *equal* to each other). They are both examples of figurative language, and both of them ARE explicit comparisons of different types. Now, if someone said, "A metaphor IS a simile," (no 'like' or 'as') they would be making either a faulty metaphor or an inaccurate statement of fact (depending on the purpose of the sentence, really).

    Secondly, you are half wrong on your point about similes: you are correct in that every sentence with the word 'like' is not a simile, but this is true only in instances where the word 'like' is used as a verb, or possibly when clarifying an insufficiently specific statement ("I hate men [who are] like Homer Simpson" for instance--still comparison, but not a simile). Even when a simile is a "straightforward statement of comparison" it's still a simile, such as if you were to say, "A railway is a road for trains."

    For more information on the distinction between metaphors and similes, you can visit the following website, which gives a very thorough explanation of the difference (and from which many of my specific phrases/examples/points were derived):
    http://knowgramming.com/metaphors/metaphor_and_simile_difference.htm

    Thirdly, I find it highly offensive that you think a person cannot be both a "geek" and a language enthusiast or pursue some kind of artistic endeavor. Many people from the Hellenistic period forward were polymaths who excelled with all sorts of scientific/pattern recognition/"geeky" subjects while still being or becoming renowned artists/authors/philosophers. Geniuses such as Eratosthenes, Leonardo da Vinci, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Omar Khayyám, Abbas Ibn Firnas, Zhang Heng, Avicenna, Isaac Newton, Goethe, and Isaac Asimov, just to name a few. They seemed quite comfortable doing precisely what you said is impossible. Furthermore, I personally take great pleasure in both writing poetry and in pursuing scientific understanding, so I find it mind-boggling that you can claim that scientific thought closes out figurative thought. Perhaps you have had an unusually high quantity of bad experiences with allegedly 'geeky' people who didn't see the utility or beauty of literary endeavors--if so, perhaps the men and women I listed above may provide useful counter-examples for you.

    ReplyDelete
  94. I almost want to believe Ravenzomg is actually Randall.

    As for the comic, it shows how horribly condescending Randall can be. What's obvious to nerds isn't always to someone unfamiliar with computers.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Ravenzomg were you serious with the Nicolas Cage bashing though? Nicolas Cage rocks and is a pimp. Also for a truly entertaining Cage film watch Vampire's Kiss.

    ReplyDelete
  96. To anon@6:16am

    No. Carl doesn't know the answer. He/She spittles without reason.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @Anon 9:45, 9:47

    Overzealous much? Thanks for the grammar lesson, the italics, the name dropping to display your intelligence (read: ability to browse Wikipedia), and especially for posting twice. It's clearly very, very important.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Actually The Wicker Man does not have a non-sensical plot. The plot is the same as it is in the awesome Hammer original, and while it's not great, it's far from nonsensical. What made the remake hilarious wasn't the weak plot but the insane acting and the bear suit punching.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Thirdly, I find it highly offensive that you think a person cannot be both a "geek" and a language enthusiast or pursue some kind of artistic endeavor.

    Dammit, someone's offended in the comment section again. Time to bake yet another apology cake.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Oh, of course. You must be right. After all, you learnt about the subject from a random page on the internet, and it's not like just anyone can make one of those.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Oh, Nicolas Cage is probably my favourite actor. I only think his movies are a joke because I think only he is capable of duping the entire world like that. If his movies are a joke, he is the one orchestrating the whole thing.

    And no, the plot of Wickerman isn't non-sensical, but it does have several non-contributing scenes, specially when he is running around the house and sees all the weird shit. I know that's "establishing mood" or something, but maaaaan. Did those girls that spoke in unison have a point? Or were they just THERE? And that weird old guy? Wtf was he doing [well, I know what he was doing in a bed, but why do we care?]?

    Nic. Cage FTW.

    Oh, and I am obviously Randall. Randall/Raven. Too similar to pass up, right? Except then I'd have to be "Megan", wouldn't I? How could he pass up that chance?

    ReplyDelete
  102. It's quite simply. Mix up 'Randall' and 'Megan' and you get 'Reagan'. That's not satisfactory to Randall, so he mixed that up with 'vagina', which we all know he is willing to service selflessly at any time because women are so very important, and you get 'Raven'.

    ReplyDelete
  103. It's so obvious now. Although how could he not be satisfactory with Reagan? Third most bad-ass president of the USA evar.

    A morbid thought: If Randall were ever to make a comic about XKCDsucks, or even a tooltip about XKCDsucks, this place would be leveled by curious fans. I'd be disappointed, but it would be hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Oh, goatkcd, are you ever NOT hilarious?

    ReplyDelete
  105. CARL!

    You fat sociopath!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Thirdly, I find it highly offensive that you think a person cannot be both a "geek" and a language enthusiast or pursue some kind of artistic endeavor. Many people from the Hellenistic period forward were polymaths who excelled with all sorts of scientific/pattern recognition/"geeky" subjects while still being or becoming renowned artists/authors/philosophers. Geniuses such as Eratosthenes, Leonardo da Vinci, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Omar Khayyám, Abbas Ibn Firnas, Zhang Heng, Avicenna, Isaac Newton, Goethe, and Isaac Asimov, just to name a few. They seemed quite comfortable doing precisely what you said is impossible. Furthermore, I personally take great pleasure in both writing poetry and in pursuing scientific understanding, so I find it mind-boggling that you can claim that scientific thought closes out figurative thought. Perhaps you have had an unusually high quantity of bad experiences with allegedly 'geeky' people who didn't see the utility or beauty of literary endeavors--if so, perhaps the men and women I listed above may provide useful counter-examples for you.


    Looks like someone's gunning for the Pretentious Douchebag of the Year Award!

    ReplyDelete
  107. Just to let things the stand very clear, I am aloria's sockpuppet. The fact that aloria has been nowhere to be seen is a confirmation of this absurd statement.

    I dare you to reply me,

    Mole

    ReplyDelete
  108. What were the stipulations of this bet? Like, if I post 30 times on a subject and people reply to half of my posts, then there's 15 posts on that subject, but whoop-de-do. I proved that people wouldn't completely ignore what I'm talking about. If I post once and that instantly sparks a chain reaction, that's proving a point.

    ReplyDelete
  109. irt Ves 7:12:

    Nah, I can do worse than that. But for now-

    irt Anonymous 9:47

    Interest in sciencey stuff does not one a geek make. The likes of Khayyám, Goethe (and later Feynmann) were not geeks.

    Also, I think you got troll'd by SK there.

    irt aloria 9:56:

    Or are you Mole's sockpuppet?

    ReplyDelete
  110. WHO's incredibly insecure about his own creative abilities and feel the need to lash out at others to make himself look better?

    YOU are! YOU are!

    ReplyDelete
  111. you are not defined by your interests.

    ReplyDelete
  112. anon, you are an idiot. your arguments can be easily applied to you. all you do is have to change "YOU are" to "I am." There.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Randall "fixed" the comic by switching "eight" to "six" and "H:" to "J:". Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Guys the internet is serious business.

    ReplyDelete
  115. OMG Anon 12:21 I know old 4chan memes too! GOOMH

    ReplyDelete
  116. Fuck, Randall, you're amateur.

    I can't wait to see what tomorrow brings. More crappy art? More crappy dialogue? A reheated observation about minor trivia that not even real nerds are interested in? Whatever happens, you can bet that somewhere around the world at least a few hundred pseudo-intellectual posers will print it out and tape it to their cube wall to show their co-workers how clever they are.

    I really wish this whole 'geek chic' fad would die now; it's getting stale. Get the hipsters on to cowboys or bikers or some shit.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Anon @9:45/9:47

    You found?/created? the one page on the internet that supports your bizzare definition of simile. I googled simile and "simile dictionary" and EVERY definition I found specifies that "unlike" things are being compared in a simile.

    "Cow are like buffalo"
    "Indigo is like blue"
    "Motorcycles are like bicycles"

    These are all literal comparisons; sure, there's an important difference between the items being compared, but there are even more similarities. Items being literally compared don't have to be "equal"; being "approximately the same" still makes for literal comparisons, not similes. Otherwise, the only valid literal comparisons would be: "cows are like cows".

    Your link on the other hand, has a very high standard for what is "unlike"; it insists that 99 is not "like" 100. Yes, 99 doesn't equal 100, but if I say I spent "like 100 dollars" on something, everybody reasonable will understand that I spent something around 90-110. It also seems to suggest a distinction between similes and metaphors is that metaphors should be taken literally!!! And then there's the weird "if it needs further explanation, it's probably a simile; if it makes instant sense, it's most likely a metaphor". I don't see how "cotton candy clouds" makes instant sense, but "clouds like cotton candy" requires further explanation; the simile formation actually seems to require less explanation in this example.

    ReplyDelete
  118. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN

    I have come from an ALTERNATE UNIVERSE where Carl is not a fat useless monster

    to say

    http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=46
    http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=132
    http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=324

    unfortunately I now must return

    AWAY

    ReplyDelete
  119. Huh. I suspect we will only know the TRUE MEANING of this doubtless vital message in DA FUTCHA.

    Carry on as you were, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  120. The website that last anon linked to with the horribly incorrect definitions of "metaphor" and "simile" is not only hideous but, if you scroll all the way down, seems to have been written by a delusional crackpot:

    "This website is dedicated to the proposal that the metaphorical relationships drawn between any two disciplines are, in fact, universal, being isomorphic mathematical derivations of the Unified Field Theory. Further, that this symmetric aspect of metaphor is extrapolatable both linearly and laterally, thus may be harnessed to mathematically predict missing knowledge and invention in all other disciplines: an interdisciplinary Rosetta stone of universal scope."

    ReplyDelete
  121. @Ryan: You get 10 posts to generate 15+ posts, with the additional stipulation that the first post can only mention Twilight as a portion of the actual post. But I mean, it's not exactly like "Omfg, Twilight is soooo good!" would get many responses on its own. Go ahead and try it somewhere.

    @Persons Apolis: Oh gods, the art. At least he visibly improves over 300 comics. The parts where everyone talks while the shot indicates a closed mouths is really getting to me for some reason. Oh, I think your third link is off by 1. But what do I know except angst? Or something. [And whatever DID happen to that blonde chick that worked at the coffee shop?]

    ReplyDelete
  122. @Ves

    There is such a thing as taking an argument to far. I do believe that was anon's point.

    "WHO's incredibly insecure about his own creative abilities and feel the need to lash out at others to make himself look better?

    YOU are! YOU are!"

    ReplyDelete
  123. Clarification for my post above, the bottom was giving an example.

    ReplyDelete
  124. But is it possible to get 15 consecutive posts not mentioning Twilight on a Twilight forum? That's the real challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Rob no one cares about your penis problems.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Your mom is Rob's penis problem. BAM. I said it.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @BLANDcorporatio

    Oh, I see what you did thar...

    ReplyDelete
  128. People can too be that clever in real life. My family does it all the time around the dinner table. Moreover Shakespeare was not alone in his many layers of wit, nearly every writer from that time period wrote that way, and many people talked that way too. so there!

    ReplyDelete
  129. I have to agree with some of the above, I frequently have conversations like that with friends and family. Sure, not everyone talks that way, but people do, and to them it is funny.

    ReplyDelete
  130. The point of comics isn't to make it as realistic as possible, that just defeats the purpose of it. Carl fails to acknowledge this.

    ReplyDelete
  131. http://gocomics.typepad.com/tomthedancingbugblog/2010/08/an-old-charley-the-australopithecine-comic.html

    Ha. Charley the Australopithicene's understanding of analogies is LIKE Randall's understanding of similes.

    ReplyDelete
  132. man i love tom the dancing bug. But of course, that comic is better, because it's not just "here's a funny conversation you could have", it's all about the portion of your brain that allows you to create analogies and compare very different ideas.

    Not Ruben Bolling's finest work, but at least it's trying a little harder. And, you know, has art.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "This comic sucks, just like Shakespeare."
    ...
    Nice work, xkcdsucks.

    ReplyDelete