[Alt: You know that I'll never leave you. Not as long as she's with someone.]
In some ways, I'd like to think that this blog, and the greater world of xkcd-related-anger that it tries to tap into, is self-sustaining at this point. What I mean is that there's a big part of me that thinks that I shouldn't even have to write a blog post at all: not only is the horribleness of this comic self-evident, but the entire pattern of creepy, unfunny "romance" related comics that this is a part of is self-evident as well. But that would hardly be sporting of me.
I'll start with one big thing that this comic is not: Some people seem to think that this comic is in some way about pedophilia. Probably all these people are trolls, but i am not a human by birth so I can't quite tell if these people are being serious or not. Of course, the only piece of "evidence" these claims have is that the girl is shorter than the guy. That's true, but it hardly proves the point that she's much younger. Guys are generally taller than girls. It may not be true in xkcd world, but whatever, xkcd hardly has internal consistency. XKCD has plenty of flaws that are real, so guys, let's stick with those.
For one thing, it's a near identical copy of comic 44. Now that comic was a long time ago, and Randall doesn't have a search bar on his site anymore, so maybe he just forgot. But both are three-panels of a guy and girl (look who is taller! it is still the guy!) starting off by saying that one loves the other, and then revealing that actually, eh, not so much. Of course, broaden your topic to any comic where characters are in a failing relationship and you've got a whole pillar of the xkcd universe. Does this comic add anything meaningful to that corpus? Not a bit.
Is it funny? No, not really. There's a little bit of subverted expectations, but they are lost in the fact that basically you are seeing a man tell a woman that he doesn't like her very much, or at least, not as much as one might expect in the situation. Why would he say that? There doesn't seem to be a non-convoluted reason for it. It's more about just figuring out a way to start a sentence in a way that sounds nice, and end it so that it is mean. It's of a level of complexity with "you're pretty funny...PRETTY FUNNY LOOKING!" which I did once think was quite clever but then I graduated from 7th grade. More intriguing and complex are garden path sentences, but coming up with something like is no doubt too much work for a busy cartoonist.
And then of course, the alt-text just repeats the exact same joke: I love you! But not as much as I love some other people. HA HA.
not sure why i am not feeling more rage tonight, i think it's just that I've seen this so many times, there's little new to say. but just so there is no confusion: This is truly an atrocious strip, on its own, and in the context of other similar horrible xkcd "boo hoo not everyone loves me as much as I want them to" comics.
I'll start with one big thing that this comic is not: Some people seem to think that this comic is in some way about pedophilia. Probably all these people are trolls, but i am not a human by birth so I can't quite tell if these people are being serious or not. Of course, the only piece of "evidence" these claims have is that the girl is shorter than the guy. That's true, but it hardly proves the point that she's much younger. Guys are generally taller than girls. It may not be true in xkcd world, but whatever, xkcd hardly has internal consistency. XKCD has plenty of flaws that are real, so guys, let's stick with those.
For one thing, it's a near identical copy of comic 44. Now that comic was a long time ago, and Randall doesn't have a search bar on his site anymore, so maybe he just forgot. But both are three-panels of a guy and girl (look who is taller! it is still the guy!) starting off by saying that one loves the other, and then revealing that actually, eh, not so much. Of course, broaden your topic to any comic where characters are in a failing relationship and you've got a whole pillar of the xkcd universe. Does this comic add anything meaningful to that corpus? Not a bit.
Is it funny? No, not really. There's a little bit of subverted expectations, but they are lost in the fact that basically you are seeing a man tell a woman that he doesn't like her very much, or at least, not as much as one might expect in the situation. Why would he say that? There doesn't seem to be a non-convoluted reason for it. It's more about just figuring out a way to start a sentence in a way that sounds nice, and end it so that it is mean. It's of a level of complexity with "you're pretty funny...PRETTY FUNNY LOOKING!" which I did once think was quite clever but then I graduated from 7th grade. More intriguing and complex are garden path sentences, but coming up with something like is no doubt too much work for a busy cartoonist.
And then of course, the alt-text just repeats the exact same joke: I love you! But not as much as I love some other people. HA HA.
not sure why i am not feeling more rage tonight, i think it's just that I've seen this so many times, there's little new to say. but just so there is no confusion: This is truly an atrocious strip, on its own, and in the context of other similar horrible xkcd "boo hoo not everyone loves me as much as I want them to" comics.
CARL YOU PROMISED RAGE.
ReplyDeleteI WANT RAGE.
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
[echoes /b/]
ReplyDeleteI was all prepared to dance around the fires of your fury tossing truly irresponsible amounts of fuel at them, and then you walk out with a goddamn sparkler.
It hurts, Carl. It hurts.
I sorta liked 771. More than any of the recent strips, anyway.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance of 771, I saw the title "Period Speech" and people on stage and was really worried it would be some HORRIBLE joke on the Vagina Monologues.
ReplyDeleteLuckily, I was wrong.
Except 771 has been done before, multiple times, if I remember right.
ReplyDeleteI'm certain the whole "reenacting the blogosphere" joke has been made at least twice.
I kinda like 771 as well. But is it established that we do this now? In other words, is our idea of "olde English" actually an amalgamation of many different time periods of older English, or is that something Randall is assuming to be true so that he can make a joke? Given some of his other hijinks, I wouldn't put it past him. But that will seriously make or break this strip for me.
ReplyDeleteAs for 770, I think we all agree with Carl's criticisms. But it was sooo much of an uninspired XKCD-type comic, one that anyone could have written with no thought, that I was hoping for a little more rage.
Oh wait, I don't think that's what Randall is saying after all. I think the comic stands on its own regardless of what we do in the present time. So, OK! It is not a bad strip!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure the comics like this are supposed to be particularly funny.
ReplyDelete...I mean don't ask me what they are supposed to be exactly. Sad? Profound or something? Anyone care to take a guess...?
But I wouldn't necessarily point at this and say "that is non-humorous" as a definite failure on Randall's part.
770 is, of course, GOOMH-bait and nothing more: Randall has stumbled upon the Great Secret of the Universe that, holy crap, unrequited love exists, and so - instead of giving us any inspired take on the situation - tells us 'here is person A in unrequited love with person B but who is in a relationship with a mere person C, insert yourself and your harem into the appropriate positions and have a good cry. see you on Monday'.
ReplyDeleteThis comic looks EXACTLY like a classic A Softer World comic, down to the 3 panels and zooming on the same picture.
ReplyDeleteThis comic also seems to show a certain naivity too in the implication that the situation presented is some kind of problem. The guy is aware that there are other fish in the sea. He's also aware that they're not interested in him. That doesn't mean he doesn't value his current relationship, or that it's somehow a disappointment to him.
ReplyDeleteJoey Comeau would've pulled this one off a lot better though.
ReplyDeleteJoey Comeau has pulled this sort of thing off a lot better before. it is kind of why this one is so incredibly sad--it's an ASW ripoff that doesn't do anything nearly as interesting as ASW does.
ReplyDeleteit's also a lot more thematically appropriate to ASW.
XKCD is not the funniest comic on the Internet with no vowels in it.
ReplyDeleteThere is always "B.C." comic, which is not great but sure beats XKCD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.C._%28comic_strip%29
Come on, Carl! I wanted to see you rip this one apart, especially after you did such to the last one which was actually pretty good. I have disappointment. See, here is a sad face to prove it. :(
ReplyDeleteIt's about the dissonance in a relationship that came about through settling for less. The subversion is between the romantic ideal and how it tends to operate in actuality.
ReplyDeleteIt's not hard to know what's going on, here.
damn, i knew someone would prove me wrong on that vowel thing! that said: i LOATHE bc. i don't really feel like going into why. Try the Comic Strip Doctor for now.
ReplyDeletestill a good catch though
It's of a level of complexity with "which I did once think was quite clever... BUT THEN I GRADUATED FROM 7TH GRADE!"
ReplyDeletea fair point. That said, if xkcd is at the same level of humor as a criticism blog, it's failing pretty hard. I'd like to think we hold our comics to a slightly higher standard than comparing them to a website whose purpose is analysis, no?
ReplyDeleteI realised the ASW similarity just before I clicked the comments link - and I've realised why this would be much better as an ASW: the art! ASW always has a photo, and a good one too. Often the photo its linked to the text in a subtle way; however Randall has gone for simply representing what's happening - and not particularly well.
ReplyDeletealso, even if the imaginary ASW version was just a picture of people embracing, there's so much more depth possible in seeing a model's face, in the framing of the camera angles.
ReplyDeleteand it wouldn't be a fucking dialog bubble. it is so much better as an internal narration than as a dialog bubble. why does Randy hate everything good
This comic is clearly a reference to the stable marriage problem.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem
Randall is a making a joke about how creepy the gale-shapley solution is. Not the best comic in the world but decent enough I guess.
Captcha: Worse. As in: could be worse.
oh yes, the reference is SO OBVIOUS, how did i not realize it!
ReplyDeleteRob is right, for once in his useless life, this text feels much more like narration than actual speech, and would be better that way. oh well.
I thought he was whispering in the last panel, implying an internal dialog. I'll grant it's not clear enough if that really was his intent (and won't comment on whether or not it redeems it).
ReplyDelete