Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Comic 817: Words Cannot Express

masturbation

[ALT: A universe that needed someone to observe it in order to collapse it into existence would be a pretty sorry universe indeed.]

I'd like to preface this one by saying that I have, in the (now distant) past, enjoyed Randall's attempts at being "poignant." I like morose things. I write a microfiction blog which consists almost entirely of morose stories about existential despair. I listen to fucking Bright Eyes, for Christ's sake.

I say all of these things to make it perfectly clear that the reason I think this comic is a fucking abysmal piece of shit is not because I don't like this sort of thing, or because I demand that every comic be funny. No, the reason I hate this one is because the comic is nothing short of terrible.

There is nothing redeeming about this one, unless "at least there is no stilted dialog" counts as a redeeming quality. Even the title is fucking terrible. All I can think of is "mutual masturbation." And the comic itself?

Maybe your fanboys have convinced you otherwise, Randy, with their whole halo affect adoration of everything you ever do, but you are not an artist. The best your art comes to in your comics is a sort of non-art, which manages to basically get the point across but has no soul and nothing interesting about it. Your comic's art does not convey emotion. And normally you manage to get by with your non-art, because it is accompanied by words. But not here. Oh no.

Here you are trying to rely entirely on your non-art to convey what I'm sure you think is a very poignant message. But here is a tip for you! Faceless ovoids do not convey emotion, not even if you draw their creepy spider hands clutching themselves, or if you draw Megan seated with her knees drawn up to her chest. Honestly, she looks more like she's listening to someone tell a story.

Here is what seems to be going on here. Our star-cross'd lovers have been separated by tragic fate, and all they can think of is the other--and the distance between them is so great and tragic that they imagine that their lover is also lonely without them. And then I guess they get even sadder, imagining how lost their lover must be without them. I guess we're supposed to find that sweet? Or sad? Or something?

But what I'm getting is mostly "fuck, that's dysfunctional." Not only can these fucks not stand to be away from each other--that's not really that bad on its own--they also imagine that their partner is just as miserable as they are. They can't imagine them having fun or doing something else--they think of this person entirely in the context of their relationship. They cannot imagine the other person doing anything without them but pine.

And doesn't that sound incredibly fucking selfish to assume? "Oh, my girlfriend is out of town, she must be so incredibly sad without me there to complete her." That just creeps me the fuck out. And it's recursive, so I have to hate both of the characters equally. They are selfish, wretched monsters that need to harden the fuck up. And what do the fanboys do? They lavish the praises on like it's a newly-crowned king.

Don't get me wrong--you could make a good story or song or poem or comic or whatever out of characters who are this dysfunctional. You could make a beautiful piece of visual art out of it, too. But Randy did neither! He used no words, and he did not produce any art. Randy came nowhere near producing something good today. He did come very near to the opposite: producing something which is utterly, completely irredeemable, something so terrible that it becomes the standard by which all other terrible things are judged. He may even have succeeded.

The alt-text shows what I'm sure is an unintentional glimmer of self-awareness. While I'm sure its intention is to say "this is loneliness on a fucking UNIVERSAL scale, man," it could also read to be saying "you are incredibly fucking pathetic if you need someone else there with you in order to function as a human."

This comic is an affront to everything that is actually poignant or sad or profound out there. Whereas there are beautiful things out there that explore the flaws of the human condition vis-a-vis romantic relationships with cleverness and self-awareness, this has neither. This is a comic which mistakes its inability to interact with humans in a positive manner as some profound, earth-shattering statement of loneliness.

Carl used to have a tradition where he would try to say something nice about every comic. I am going to revive that tradition for one comic only, to point out the single vaguely positive thing about this comic that there is to say:

You can tell that they are thought bubbles.

I'd say good night, but there is now officially nothing good about it. Fuck everything.

281 comments:

  1. Um, so, doesn't the universe in fact require observation to collapse it into existence? You know, Schrodinger's Cat and whatnot?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this not Randy whining that the universe runs the way it does?

    ReplyDelete
  2. this is randy saying "THE UNIVERSE SUX AND I AM SO LONELY:(((((((((((("

    ReplyDelete
  3. xkcdexplained currently has the greatest post I've ever seen on the site.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You say the art is awful, and I admit it's lazy, but think about this. You had absolutely no trouble interpreting what was going on here. Despite the lack of expressions, despite the creepy hands, despite the fact that you've convinced yourself that no emotion can be conveyed, you understand very clearly what's going on here. You know what each character feels, right? Doesn't that count for something?

    ReplyDelete
  5. perhaps I should elaborate. I have no difficulty understanding a story which is incredibly boring, but this doesn't make it a good story. the fact that "what's going on" is obvious isn't even vaguely similar to a redeeming quality. art is not merely there to describe what's happening, it's meant to evoke something. this does not. it doesn't come close to evoking something.

    it is, as I described, non-art. it is there and it gets the message across, but it is completely lifeless and soulless. there is nothing good about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I thought the point was "Forever alone nerds dream about people like them but of the opposite gender (because that would be gay otherwise, amirite?), wouldn't it be better if they got together?"

    Still a shitty comic about dysfunctional people, but maybe slightly less dysfunctional than your reading?

    ReplyDelete
  7. i guess you could read it as them being nerds who aren't already together. i just don't think that's what he's going for (the title implies a slightly greater connection, I think)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon 11:11, seconded. I laughed for several seconds upon reading it.

    It's especially funny considering xkcdexplained's usual tone of sarcastic explanations just bordering on outright mockery. Usually they're so subtle... that was hilarious. One of the things explained has over sucks and redux is brevity, and that post uses it perfectly.

    But yeah, this comic is so god awful that I am just going to talk about the responses to it, which are better than anything I could come up with.

    Rob, your post is great. Fuck those people who say Carl was so much better; the fact that you were able to critique this comic without saying "What the fuck is this shit" shows greater restraint than I have, because that is honestly all I could say about this comic.

    ReplyDelete
  9. oh man so deep too deep for my tiny philistine brain

    a comment on the possible coincidences of an increase in FHS, xkcd's fate: http://imgur.com/zfcqU.png

    ReplyDelete
  10. What would be the point of a universe in which there were no actors conscious of their existence within it? It would just be a huge space with some stuff in it. Without someone to acknowledge that they exist inside of it, it has no inherent meaning, purpose, or value.

    Randy, you are whiny little bitch.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Don't forget that it's just a crappier version of http://xkcd.com/372/ (which I did find kind of poignant). He's literally recycled the exact same idea, except this time he couldn't be bothered drawing more than one panel.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bright eyes are amazing. Didn't know rob had taste :s

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's a common thing nowadays for xkcd strips to be shittier versions of old xkcd strips.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Since Rob didn't bring it up: in Randall's blog(no, no "BLAG" shit!) he says he's going through a rough period, and will continue to make comics but maybe nothing else.

    I'm of opinion that he should have halted the comics as well, because THIS is the result.

    This actually made me go "oh, shit" loudly to myself. This is bad. Not because it's emotional and not funny, it's obvious it's not meant to be funny! But it's two people moping and thinking of each other in infinite loop(GOOMHR, I know about infinite loops too!) Adding emotion to the characters would make it artistically better, but... how do I put this?...

    I imagine someday in the future Randall will look back at this and even him will think "what the hell was I thinking?" I know how that feels, sometimes I look over at my old art notebooks and think "dude, I was such a dumbass!"

    So, paraphrasing Tatsuya Ishida's comic of today, "Mope Drawing, don't let that happen to you."

    ReplyDelete
  15. The forum reaction this this honestly surprises me.
    I read this comic and thought "Oh great, another boohoo I miss Megan comic"

    Then I thought "There's no way in hell the forum is going to like this, this is what? The fourth megan comic in a month?"

    Then I went to the forums and read what people thought about it, and all I can say, if Randal really is this fucking lonely, he could just get one of his XKCD fans to come over and give him a blowjob or something.

    I mean, they already suck his cock over the internet, why not go to his house and show Randal how much you really love him?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I basically read the xkcd blog post as 'there's going to be 4 months of comics even worse than usual'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Completely agreed, Rob. I think it boils down to this: It tries to convey a situation in a meaningful way, but fails completely due to a lack of good art. As such, there's no emotion to drive it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hmm. I wonder if it's a bad thing that I've stopped visitting the xkcd.com front page to check for comic updates, and instead rely on this blog. At any rate, while I'm sure Randal didn't intend it, as the alt text doesn't really indicate it except for slight contextual similarity, I was reminded of the concept of a strongly anthropic universe wherein it exists only by the conscious understanding of the universe by a being inside said universe. Which is a pretty fun exercise in recursive metaphysical thinking, I guess.

    Basically this comic is terrible, but if you happen to look at it in completely the wrong way, it's not 100% shit. In the same sense that if you happen to have the Mona Lisa burned in to your retina and you stare at a blank canvas, it doesn't look like shit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm starting to think some of my Twitter pals may be retarded, it's the only way someone could say "xkcd, you genius" to THIS comic.

    Also

    "but if you happen to look at it in completely the wrong way, it's not 100% shit."

    Basically the problem with most recent xkcds. It seems what Randall needs is to get his ideas and do the complete opposite or something. :P

    ReplyDelete
  20. Nice thing to say: It reminded me of that one Escher piece which reminded me that the Escher exhibit is in town for only a few more days which reminded me to remind my dad to go see it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Basically in my unique personal context this comic has served a practical function. I guess this is where I say GOOMHR.

    ReplyDelete
  22. no, the correct use of GOOMHR in this instance is more like:

    "GOOMHR, I'm sad and alone and dont have Megan too!"

    ReplyDelete
  23. oh jesus the forumers
    please tell me they're joking. it's not deep or clever or funny or insightful

    ReplyDelete
  24. I think this comic was supposed to remind people of an Escher drawing, specifically this one.

    This would suggest a different reading than Rob's, something along the lines of nothing happens if nobody makes the first move. This ties in with the alt-text: who observes the observers, so that they may exist and observe the rest of the universe?

    Regardless, it's not particularly poignant or clever, but not soul-crushingly horrible.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Not defending it - this comic is shit.

    But good job completely misunderstanding it Rob.

    I think the reason Randy thinks it's clever/worth posting is because of the existential dependency that both thought bubbles have in relation to the other.

    It's still shit, Futurama did that with the "universe in a box"; Escher did it with his "hands drawing each other"; it's not a novel idea, and the content of Randy's drawing (emo whiney wha wha) is just puke.


    But Rob you totally missed the mark. Slow clap.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Don't get me wrong, I hate xkcd as much as you do but this comic was genius and how dare you insult poor innocent Randall and his deep, profound thoughts this comic is awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon 5:31 you are funny.

    I chuckled heartily.

    ReplyDelete
  28. What a miserable piece of shit of a comic.

    @1:52
    Completely agree, it's a minimalist version of 372. And it's shit.

    There goes the decent/ok/mediocre streak of 3, and my theory that maybe his issues could produce better comics.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "Totally missed" is a bit much to say even if you go by the inspired-by-Escher's-drawing interpretation. After all, each of these people imagines the other as being lonely and miserable, which was a bigger part of Rob's rant than any supposed past history of the two.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Holy fuck who cares about Escher and recursion and deeper meaning about being emo. It's still just a five-second doodle of a teenager's emo mentality.

    xkcdsucks + xkcdexplained = ONLY WAY TO COPE WITH THE RAGE WHEN SEEING THIS SHIT

    ReplyDelete
  31. Is it really that bad if so many are spending time talking about it more than flaming it? Not every artist's work is a masterpiece. Give xkcd some slack and appreciate the run, not the step.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @9:54

    Moar liek "appreciate the run-into-the-ground"

    AMIRITE??!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon 9:54, this step has led randall off a cliff of whiny emo bullshit.

    "Keep", shut the fuck up. There is no 'mark' to miss. This comic is so fucking minimal there are about a thousand ways to interpret it, and NONE of them avoid sucking.

    ReplyDelete
  34. ThePirateKing, I disagree. There is one way to interpret this comic that makes it not suck. It involves closing the browser and humming "Hall of the Mountain King" until you forget about it.

    ReplyDelete
  35. dear god, reading the forums (and some posts here), you get the distinct impression that he could post a photo of himself having a wank and people would go on about it showing the deep and meaningful loneliness of the human soul or something...

    ReplyDelete
  36. They're not imagining each other lonely. Each one is imagining the other imagining the other imagining the other...

    Someone missed the mark.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You guys are wrong this comic did inspire emotions in me. Rage at him being able to make a living from this bullshit while I can't find any work counts as an emotion, right?

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comic draws an interesting conclusion: Those emo people never find anyone, since they need to find the one person they dream of dreaming about them. Thus, they will certainly die alone.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I find it funny that apparently some commenters think "existentialism" is a one-way ticket to artistic credibility.

    "Not every artist's work is a masterpiece. Give xkcd some slack and appreciate the run, not the step."

    No, not everything is masterpiece, but not all non-masterpieces are equal. Nor should they be exempt from criticism just because they're not masterpieces. Actually, the mere fact that they aren't masterpieces should be more than enough reason to criticize them: "This is what you shouldn't do if you want to make a good (insert medium)."

    ReplyDelete
  40. RANDALL MUNROE RELATIONSHIP WATCHNovember 10, 2010 at 11:31 AM

    Randall Munroe currently does...NOT...have a girlfriend, and apparently neither does the universe.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Usually I try to be as lenient as possible when it comes to XKCD. However, this one was just plain bad.

    The art is basic (as usual), and the concept has already done before by Randall. Now, that wouldn't be a problem if the one before was made AFTER this one, as it would show improvement. However, this is just a shittier version of an older, better comic.

    How anyone can find this to actually be deep and insightful as it is, is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I just read Randall's blog post, and... damn, the same guy who produces such a shitty webcomic is working on neat stuff like a DIY underwater robot?

    He actual seems like a cooler guy than we give him credit for, if he'd only stop making xkcd.

    ReplyDelete
  43. at this point I am pretty much sure that Randy has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is not really funny, seeing how it takes years and years and years of psychoanalysis to work out and therefore we won't see xkcd, his main mean of overcompensation, disappear in a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think we can all conclude that this is definitely Randall thinking about Megan thinking about him. Because Megan is definitely not thinking about him thinking about her.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @2:02

    Especially since comics are usually read left to right.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I feel like a broken record; I've been here for a handful of postings already and for almost all of them you seem to be DELIBERATELY missing the point, Rob.

    The point is that there are two universes, and they're both being mutually imagined by the other into existence. If one were to stop, for instance, the other would as well; but since they're both mutually imagined by the other, that can't happen. But both of them have the unfortunate affliction of desiring the other's physical company, so they can't actually interact.

    Perhaps, Rob, you could start writing blog posts about what the strip is actually about instead of some highly inaccurate invented interpretation.

    ReplyDelete
  47. How the hell did you get that out of a single panel which has four objects: two thought bubbles and two stick figures in "sad" poses, Mr. Pitchfork?

    What the fuck?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Like I said before, there are a lot of ways you can interpret it because barely any effort was put into it. That doesn't make it at all decent. It just makes it unclear as to what Randall's original intention with this comic was, if he even had one.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "microfiction"

    Is that what they call it these days?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Pitchfork is an illiterate fuckhead. you should really pay him no mind.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Is that what they call it these days?"

    it also goes by "flash fiction," inter alia. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfiction

    not sure why you're confused about the term, but hopefully that helps!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Holy shit I clicked the "random" button on xkcd and Windows crashed. No joke.

    Pretty sure it was coincidental, because it has been doing that a lot lately... but still, this comic is so bad it crashed my computer. Damn you, Munroe!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rob, didn't your mother ever teach you not to use words you don't know the meaning of?

    ReplyDelete
  54. @November 10, 2010 2:34 PM:

    I simply looked at the comic, and refused to make invalid inferences. I took it at face value with little bias and few assumptions.

    Plus, if you actually read the alt text you should get that the alt text is actually about the comic and not a random disconnected thought like it never is.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Rob, didn't your mother ever teach you not to use words you don't know the meaning of?"

    of course. this is why I never do. you really are an illiterate fuckhead, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
  56. I'd like to present you guys with a post on the XKCD forums:

    "Most of the people who have criticized this comic, especially, are not "hating" on Randall or XKCD in general - just this comic (and sometimes others). Now, I'll freely admit that often, subjects such as humor are subjective (I've never been a big fan of Adam Sandler movies, but I understand why some people think his brand of comedy is funny), and that is a matter of taste. But if something attempts to be funny and is instead nothing (Like a joke that begins "Knock Knock! Who's there? A person at the door."*), it has failed in what it has set out to do, and can be called "bad." Now, it's been said numerous times (and I agree) that not all XKCDs are supposed to be jokes. Sometimes, they are intended to make you think. Sometimes, they comment on pop culture, nerd culture, or recent events (generally in a manner that makes you laugh, or makes you think). But they all have a purpose, a meaning which starts the conversation. This comic has none of the above. It is one notch above a blank page; all it does is force interpretation, not to arrive at interesting connections to Randall's purpose, but just to discover what his purpose was in the first place. I think someone even suggested that the comic was secondary to the interpretations, which in this case I agree has happened, but I think it is also the mark of a poor comic - it should lend itself to interpretation, not rely on it (nod to "The Economic Argument" debate).

    But ultimately, if you enjoy a comic, don't let me sway you into questioning it. I make my critique in good faith, as I think others have (not that we wish to denigrate Randall or XKCD as a whole, but feel that this is beneath what he can do), and while I feel strongly that my critique is valid, in the end, it is up to you to listen or to ignore.

    *By the way, if someone even suggests that this is humorous, based on sidestepping the normal knock-knock joke routine, I swear I will lose all faith in humanity and go on a murderous rampage."

    So much truth it hurts my brain.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Mr. Pitchfork is the worst thing to happen to xkcdsucks.

    ReplyDelete
  58. he'll eventually go away. the stupid ones always do when their illiterate fuckheaded ideas fail to find purchase.

    ReplyDelete
  59. That... it's...

    Okay, I'm going to stop being a /complete/ ass for a moment and try to... do... something.

    Let's assume for a moment you DO know what "illiterate" actually means, to form one interpretation of what you've said. If this is the case, you've simply used it incorrectly. Illiteracy has absolutely nothing to do with knowing what verbal habits you lack.

    And in the same way, let's now assume that's not what you mean. Let's assume that it was a random disconnected thought, in which case it's a damn nonsequitur and you really need to learn to organize your thoughts better.

    And now for the most plausible assumption, that you don't know what "illiterate" actually means. You seem to think it has something to do with me disagreeing with you, which simply isn't the case. The ironic thing is I tend to be more literate than you do; I am much better able to analyze artistic works, I'm a better writer, I have a larger vocabulary and more experience writing, and I actually know what the word "illiterate" means.

    Perhaps you could give it up with the random nonsequiturs, bad inferrences, and poor accusations, and actually form a couple valid criticisms before I start feeling responsible for your well-being.

    ReplyDelete
  60. illiterate, adj.
    2. having or demonstrating very little or no education.

    cf. you.

    though I am curious why you think you have more experience writing than me. or, for that matter, a larger vocabulary. both claims are pretty dubious, though you do seem like the type of person who thinks that anyone who doesn't use "big words" doesn't know how to, so the "vocabulary" one makes sense (it just further demonstrates that you are, in fact, an illiterate fuckhead).

    ReplyDelete
  61. Woo! I got a thought out of Rob that actually took effort to form. This is good, I encourage it, and I would be delighted if I were to be irrefutably shown my errors.

    I think, though, it would be in good practice for you to explain exactly why you think I'm illiterate; simply putting my name and the word "illiterate" in the same sentence doesn't quite express enough information for me to understand why you think that.

    I get the impression that I have more writing experience than you simply because I do it better. My thoughts are better organized than yours, generally, my meanings are clearer, generally, and I'm also an arrogant presumptuous prick who doesn't form a fully accurate opinion of someone I disagree with, favoring instead a caricature that's easier to mock. You do the same, but I'm legitimately more clever than you at it.

    I also assume I have a higher vocabulary than you simply because I use it and you don't. Which, from my perspective, is very valid: writing is a very good medium of expression, and I want to do it as well as I can. I enjoy using lots of different words to help with the rhythm of what I'm saying or to form vivid imagery or to express an idea very accurately. I just enjoy writing very very much so I'm going to do it to the best of my ability, and, like humans do, I assume others would do the same.

    So perhaps if you look at what I'm saying and dismiss me without a thought instead of with a thought I might seem illiterate since we're at a disagreement; after all, you're unquestionably right and I'm unquestionably wrong, and there's no need to challenge your ideas at all because there's absolutely no chance you can be wrong and your ideas are immutable anyway; but only from that (invalid) perspective can such a conclusion be valid (in the broader scheme of things such a conclusion is obviously invalid but whatever).

    But, in real life, I'm not actually illiterate. I just don't agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. look, I'm sure you do very well in your tenth grade english class. no doubt your teacher gives you As on all of your opinion essays and you've got the five paragraph essay down fucking pat. unfortunately this does not change the fact that you are, not to put too fine a point on it, an illiterate fuckhead.

    normally I'd say that one day you'd learn that "using big words" is not the same thing as "writing well" or "communicating accurately," but you probably won't.

    you are an illiterate fuckhead because you don't know common words and conventions, and blame others for your ignorance. you are an illiterate fuckhead because you think that your incredibly flawed interpretation of the comics is not only the correct one, but derived by "[taking] it at face value with little bias and few assumptions." you're an illiterate fuckhead because you actually believe your 10th grade english teacher when she tells you that you're a really good writer. you are an illiterate fuckhead because you seriously believe that you are a good writer.

    and you're an illiterate fuckhead because you assume the reason i am calling you an illiterate fuckhead is because i disagree with you. many people disagree with me, and i do not make a habit of calling them illiterate fuckheads. indeed, i have had many perfectly polite conversations over disagreements. you fail to consider that maybe i am calling you an illiterate fuckhead because you comport yourself in the manner of an illiterate fuckhead.

    but keep telling yourself that the reason i don't like you is because you're "challenging my ideas" and speaking truth to power or whatever. so long as it helps you sleep at night. but if you are at all interested in living in the real world instead of a fantasy realm where you are actually clever and insightful, it may be worth considering, however, that the entirety of my philosophical beliefs are best summed up with the phrase: "everyone is always wrong about everything."

    ReplyDelete
  63. Shit, watch out guys; he used immutable in a sentence.

    He's got a vocabulary and he knows how to use it (potentially with some copious usage of Google).

    ReplyDelete
  64. @Mr Pitchfork: "I would be delighted if I were to be irrefutably shown my errors."

    I did just this a few posts back, but you didn't acknowledge it. You'll only reply when Rob calls you an illiterate fuckhead. Probably because you secretly realize it is the truth. Or because you're a troll and prefer throwing swears and accusations of idiocy back and forth rather than discussing the matter at hand, which is this piece of shit webcomic.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Really, a bad writer is more likely to use big words (and conversely, writing with a lot of big words is more likely to be bad writing) because many people start writing with the assumption that big words=good writing and take some time and maturity to realize this isn't the case.

    ReplyDelete
  66. yeah, it took many years of writing to get this lazy in comment sections and IM conversations

    ReplyDelete
  67. http://dreamersoften.blogspot.com/

    When are you going to graduate high school and stop writing this mastubatory bullshit?

    ReplyDelete
  68. This comic seems to have broken xkcdexplained. Holy shit.

    ReplyDelete
  69. how surprising, someone on xkcdsucks doesn't like my blog! no one could have predicted this response. i wish i knew what to do

    ReplyDelete
  70. I wholly endorse giving Pitchfork a good roasting. He needs to chill the fuck out.

    Or turn 16, whichever comes first.

    Captcha: derst. Herst derst

    ReplyDelete
  71. Mr. Pitchfork wishes he was half as good as William Monty Hughes.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Stop being so fucking emo "rob"

    ReplyDelete
  73. Wednesday! Wednesday! Wednesday!
    Rob vs. Pitchfork! Big ass vs. Big words!
    Only on XKCD sucks!

    Make your bets HERE!

    ReplyDelete
  74. rob would win by eating pitchfork and assimilating his rage into a new, fatter, angrier rob

    He is the Hulk plus the Blob

    ReplyDelete
  75. I'm starting to find it ironic that people who pride themselves on being able to use "big words" decide to use the phrase "big words." It's almost submitting to the fact that they're actually hacks who can't. Big is such a broad term. Hippopotamus is a big word. So is indescribable. I would however punch someone in the face if they say that they're a literary genius for using those words.

    Then there are strikingly small words, small enough to simply fall off the radar. However, still they are uncommon enough to avoid our common vocabulary. Ail, ether, drek, wry, wrought, sect, easel, acrid, spire, lapel, addle, stoic etc. (I know better words exist, ask my unfilled 4 letter blanks during crosswords, point is few people would use these words).

    I'm not even finished yet. There are words that are common, but may have various, more complex usages. Reel, articulate, heralded, set, love, stroke, wake.

    Finally, in my list of words which may/may not be "big" but are complex and unused are the scientific. People who say that using these terms makes them a good communicator/englishman also need to be punched in the face. Periosteum, Myosin, Zygote, Anthropometric, chromatin, thorax, occipital, lumbar, tubercle. (AND THOUSANDS MORE...)

    Really, it's a stupid misleading convention. However, it works for the lazy, so I won't complain. Although, for those who pride themselves on using big words, perhaps y'all should look into a word a little "bigger" than "big."

    ReplyDelete
  76. What are the odds for $10 on humanity losing?

    ReplyDelete
  77. 2:1. No way in hell is it winning.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Yay xkcdsucks, for still being awesome. webcomics.me has had no content for like 10 days, and we are still getting consistent rage at every xkcd here. Awesome.

    As for this xkcd: I didn't rage at it. I didnt have nay emotional response. I thought, 'eh, i get it' then checked here.

    ReplyDelete
  79. @6:21, at least Tim has the good decency not to post his retarded drivel (as opposed to "Roberto.")

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Though you do seem like the type of person who thinks that anyone who doesn't use 'big words' doesn't know how to"

    He's William Faulkner?

    "I'm starting to find it ironic that people who pride themselves on being able to use "big words" decide to use the phrase 'big words.'"

    My vocabulary consists entirely of elephantine words.

    ReplyDelete
  81. If this young man expresses himself in terms too deep for me, why what a singularly deep young man this deep young man must be!

    ReplyDelete
  82. @ThePirateKing Where? Do you mean your posts or do you mean blog posts?

    And am I supposed to write a list of every blog entry I post on and constantly check for replies? I have no idea what you're talking about and why you expect me to be so absolutely obsessive.

    If you're going to deliberately lie about my habits, perhaps I should live up to your willful delusions.

    I also find it amusing that you guys consistently either aim for basic insults or purposefully misinterpret my statements or put words in my mouth when you can't think of anything else to say.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Angriest rants! Angriest rants!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Mr Pitchfork fails to deliver. :(

    ReplyDelete
  85. @Mr Pitchfork: Anger is a sign of love. The only way to get noticed is to piss off someone, so keep it up. =P Also, if you claim to be a writer than pay up -- Rob's got his "masturbatory blog" as evidence, where is yours?

    Also: I thought everyone had established that "using big words" was only appropriate for ironic imitations of the aristocracy, and otherwise marked you as "That guy" who likes to tell you the words he knows. Here are my words, let me show them to you.

    Re latest XKCD comic: mm mm mm mm MM MM MMM!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Rob, I just noticed in your profile that you used to do a blog with someone I know (SlothPaladin)! Small world. Or internet.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Just a question:

    Does anyone ACTUALLY sit on the ground in a fetal position when they're thinking about someone they're in love with? That's fucking weird and creepy...

    ReplyDelete
  88. @Anon 737: You would, too, if you were a faceless void-creature.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Or if you're in a massively distressful situation and hoping that This Person might turn up, because This Person provides you emotional comfort with their presence because you love them.

    Unsurprising that none of you quite understand the emotion.

    @Ravenzomg I don't write about myself. It's boring and unnecessary; if someone wants to learn about me then they can just talk to me. I write about other things, and I don't need a blog in order to write. My local hard drive works just fine as a storage medium.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Oh also, @Ravenzomg

    Yup; pissing people off is pretty much what I'm here for. Glad to see my work is appreciated (or, rather, acknowledged. Whatever.)!

    @November 10, 2010 7:07 PM
    What am I supposed to deliver? I only had a couple shipments of fuckass scheduled, I apologize if your name was dropped from the roster.

    ReplyDelete
  91. ....missing the point. Where is your WRITING? Not your masturbatory blog -- that is Rob's schtick. Who you are isn't the issue here unless you're taking ad hominems seriously, but your LITERACY is the question [not seriously, of course, but you went and raised the stakes to higher literacy], which can very easily be swatted away if you have an actual piece of writing to show for yourself. Not necessarily a masturbatory blog, but short stories, etc. Since you are "a better writer" [c.f. you], I would presume that you do, indeed, write, and have, indeed, written something beyond posts on random threads. I'm not claiming to be a writer [hell, apparently I actually mistyped "than/then" up there], but YOU claim to be a better writer than Rob. Rob has a [masturbatory] blog. What do you have?

    ReplyDelete
  92. oh, and pre-emtively, "my [...] hard drive" is a ridiculous answer if you want to actually support your being a writer. I have a crappy 40 000 word story about a post-apocalyptic world effected by trans-dimensional demons, but nobody sees that and nobody really gives a shit about it. Not even me. Granted, this is the internet -- so you can just secede from the argument ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  93. Not alot, but lack of production isn't evidence of lack of skill, just lack of motivation. If I had any patience I could write good fiction, rousing speeches, informative papers or news articles. I've never really specialized and I haven't committed myself enough to write a book or omnius of short works, but I do, obviously, communicate effectively. I have rhythm and style. Hopefully I piss people off by posting here (which is the point, really).

    I have ability but little to show for it, and I suppose that's a problem; I lack credibility.

    But I've written so much here already that there should be evidence enough of my ability for you to judge whether I'm better at writing or not (Unless you're going to argue that writing medium actually matters, in which case I refuse to participate any further in discussion with you).

    ReplyDelete
  94. If I had any patience I could cure cancer, create crops that grow on thin air to solve the problem of world hunger and invent a method to travel back in time.

    Seriously, man, that was LAME. Also: since when you need credibility to write on the internet? There's Blogger, there's Wordpress, there's deviantART, you can make your whole own site...

    Stop bullshitting and backpedalling, man. That's low. Too low even for Rob, let alone you!

    ReplyDelete
  95. I'll counter that if you think writing medium is meaningless, you're missing the point I'm trying to make -- the medium matters in that it can restrict style, and THIS medium is like the sphincter of written bowel eruptions. I offered you any medium of your choice -- EXCEPTING forums/threads. Because this medium, while a medium of writing, restricts by its very form what and how you can effectively communicate moreso than pretty well everything -- communicating effectively on a forum/thread is, by it's relation to the utter cess and meaningless drivel that borders it, rendered effectively null.

    Call it pedantic, but you said you were a better WRITER -- not a better communicator. Citing your posts is "communication"; forum/thread posts simply are not "writing" in a meaningful sense because of the dynamic form you are forced to take, unless you're going on monopolistic rants without any input, in which case no one listens to/cares about you.

    So no, medium doesn't matter SO LONG AS IT ISN'T THIS ONE. Because saying you're "communicat[ing] effectively" here is like standing in a pit of snakes and saying you're mammalian. Sure it's true, but it's just not particularly meaningful unless you're like... with a platypus. Or a platypus yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I see. In that case I'll secede from the argument, because I find it neither necessary nor useful to prove myself to you guys.

    ReplyDelete
  97. That is, you guys as opposed to other guys.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Also, I am not in any way representative of the XKCDsucks community, so, like, you can argue with Rob til' cows go sour if you really want.

    Or write a crappy poem about vampires and AIDS; that would appease me, but maybe not Rob. If you could work in the word "anticoagulation" probably, though.

    And last but not least: This site is not for you if you want to actually influence opinions. ...Neither is the internet, really, but this site in particular: Basically just people yelling really loudly, who yell the same thing [usually] 3 times a week. Yelling "Rob is not Carl, bring back our Overlord!" is just like tuning, except more meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Oh, unless you have links. People love links like their left hand.

    ReplyDelete
  100. You want me to show you some writing
    After me and this guy were fighting
    Instead I wrote this
    (signed with a kiss):
    A limerick that's not that exciting.

    ReplyDelete
  101. AKA Tha Schust-
    "My vocabulary consists entirely of elephantine words."

    you mean pachydermic verbiage. HA HA I KNOWS BIG WORDS! I R ALMOST AS SMART AS MR PICHFORK!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Though your florid prose does teem
    With many words that seem
    Quite keen and one could deem
    Them quite acquiescent
    To an ever more excrescent
    Talk, your legacy's now meme.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I was going to write a poem actually demonstrating my real poetry/lyric writing style (which is offensively unconventional verse structures and lots of convention betrayal) but halfway through the first line I realized I wasn't really inspired to do anything good.

    So maybe later.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Mr Pitchfork, I'm curious: if you "find it neither necessary nor useful" to prove your credentials, why did you bring them up in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Uninspired writing only really works in long-form writing to bridge the inspired pillars [in theory to be fleshed by inspiration later], so take your time =P. I've always preferred the warm, fuzzy restrictions of the Sonnet, personally. They say your preferred style says something deep about you, but maybe I'm just kinky like that.

    Also, Machine of Death: Still going strong, Munroe's story excepted.

    ReplyDelete
  106. I had hoped it would help me go on with a degree of plausibility.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Am I the only one saddened by the fact that my habits of frenchspacing are only in vain?

    ReplyDelete
  108. I'm not sure if you read 8-bit Theater, but if you don't, something happened on the comic's forums involving an argument about global warming. One of the posters brought up his "two relevant degrees" on the subject matter. He (or she) didn't elaborate, didn't say what these degrees were, just said that this should give him (or her) some more respectability and weight in the argument. Instead, he (or she) kind of lost credibility in the debate, because it sounded like he (or she) had just pulled some credentials out of his (or her) ass.

    I bring this up because this, to a lesser scale, is exactly what you did. "I have no proof of this, but I think I'm better than you, therefore I'm right and you're wrong." I'm sorry if I made you sound like a strawman, but your argument would actually have been more plausible if you hadn't mentioned your unverified writing skills, and just stuck to your points.

    Of course, if my original theory is correct, and you are a troll, then all of this information is useless. And here I am, trying to correct a complete stranger on the internet. What does that make me?

    Also, yes. Yes you are.

    ReplyDelete
  109. @Pitchfork 6:50

    I was referring to my post at 2:38.
    "Like I said before, there are a lot of ways you can interpret it because barely any effort was put into it. That doesn't make it at all decent. It just makes it unclear as to what Randall's original intention with this comic was, if he even had one."

    You seem to be clinging to the idiotic notion that this comic (or any piece of artwork, for that matter) has a single interpretation. People even debate the interpretation of great artwork.

    So you're saying "Rob's interpretation of this comic is wrong, but MY interpretation is right!", when really neither of them are any more valid, and neither of them make the comic any less shitty.

    There is artwork which is intended to make you think, to pose a question to which there can be many answers. That can be very good.

    This comic is not that kind of artwork. This comic is some shit Randall scribbled down in five minutes in a fit of emo rage. It is not deep, it is just so poorly communicated that you can make any interpretation of it you like and have it be equally supported by the comic.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Are you saying that the creator of a piece has no say in its intention?

    (I feel like people are about to thrust things in my mouth. Perhaps I should put on a protective mask.)

    ReplyDelete
  111. @Pitchfork 9:24

    You are the only one saddened. The xkcd sucks comments section is not fine art. It's a crude, angry, utilitarian spew 'n' stew.

    Besides, your typesetting quirks are preserved in HTML: it's your browser that condenses them into a single space. Fuckwit.

    ReplyDelete
  112. A creator has total say in intention. But I'm not talking about intention, and I don't think Randall made his intentions very clear anyway. They have zero say in the interpretation. You put something out there and people will interpret it the way they want it to.

    The more poorly you communicate a message, the easier it is for others to totally misinterpret that message. To quote Lord Randall himself, "communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness." I guess you could replace "cleverness" with "depth" to better fit the context but the idea is the same.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I wish you would write an XKCD review, Mr Pitchfork. It would be splendid, I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "Rob, I just noticed in your profile that you used to do a blog with someone I know (SlothPaladin)! Small world. Or internet."

    yeah, he's a good real-world friend of mine. that was the first major stop motion project we tried to do, but it ended up falling through due to being far too ambitious.

    we live and learn, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Hey, I'm a writer, too. I write fanfiction about hot, barely legal guys having sex with each other. It's- it's not as bad as it sounds? Maybe??? Actually I take my writing seriously to a perhaps ridiculous degree. I spent, like, forever researching ancient Egypt, because my current story takes place in ancient Egypt.

    /stuff nobody cares about

    Anyways, this comic was freaking abysmal.

    In conclusion, I know the word "abysmal."

    ReplyDelete
  116. also, I'd just like to point out that the worst kind of writer is the kind who thinks "yeah I totally could write something awesome if I ever got around to it." the guy who is barely capable of stringing sentences together is better than him.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Even the guy who wrote Eye of Argon?

    ReplyDelete
  118. The guy who wrote Eye of Argon had a sense of style and rhythm, if ridiculously exaggerated and florid. Which is why it's so horrible; he has just enough skill for you to comprehend just how bad the writing is.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Mr Pitchfork, I can't help but think of you as the Internet version of Amanda McKittrick Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  120. "Are you saying that the creator of a piece has no say in its intention?"

    You are a moron to come to that conclusion.

    "(I feel like people are about to thrust things in my mouth. Perhaps I should put on a protective mask.)"

    That mask won't save you.

    ReplyDelete
  121. So today, about fifteen minutes ago, I felt hungry, so I went into the kitchen and made myself a sandwich. A wonderful sandwich it was, with finest smoked leg ham on a bed of sliced swiss cheese with the freshest, most delicious lettuce and tomato money can buy. I looked upon this creation with pride, and proclaimed: "This sandwich, it must be my greatest creation, my masterpiece!" As befitting such a grand work in the art of sandwichry, I took it on a plate to my computer, and typing "xkcdsucks.blogspot.com", settled into my usual deluge of xkcd hate. After all, the ultimate mark of love for one's sandwich is to partake of its delights in tandem with other, lesser pleasures.

    However, something seemed different about the slew of hateful posts. I couldn't put my finger on it, hard as I tried. Most of the strange feeling came from a poster known as "Mr Pitchfork". As I unwittingly closed in on the horrible, horrible reality that lay just beneath the surface, I lifted my beautiful, beautiful sandwich to my mouth and narrowed my eyes, trying to scan out the source of the enigma.

    All of a sudden, I saw the horrible, horrible truth. The mysterious poster, "Dr Pitchfork", had created a monster. A great mass of verbosity threatening to suck me in through my screen and send me to a final, ridiculously wordy end. As I saw this, I recoiled from the screen, but I was too late. The multisyllabic mass leapt out of the screen, threatening to drown me in its dark, sticky tendrils of ancient words used only rarely since the times of old. There was no escape.

    I tried to flee, sandwich clutched to my chest, but it was too big, it blocked all of the possible escape routes. In the end, I did the only thing I could do. The creature was born out of an abomination to the art of writing, and only through true art could it once more be banished. With tears in my eyes, I held the sandwich up to my face, and looked at it for the last time. Then I placed it on the ground.

    Upon touching the mighty sandwich, the creature gave out a great roar, made of a thousand voices screaming in unison. The sandwich was drawn into the dark depths, which dispersed like so much mist in the sunshine. The beast was gone, along with my sandwich. My victory came at a terrible price, and even now I wonder whether the sacrifice was worth it in the end.

    And thus, you, "Dr Pitchfork", with your unneccesary use of multiple polysyllabic words, are responsible for the untimely demise of my sandwich, and for that, I will never forgive you.

    ReplyDelete
  122. This one touch a sore spot, Rob?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Wow... looks like someone needs to read some Marshall McLuhan...

    ReplyDelete
  124. Not that I would normally waste my time evangelizing to the cockroaches of this sorry apology for a blag, the decayed corpse of Xkcd's atheroma, its primary parasite having long departed. Even he (I shudder at assigning such a loathsome creature a human gender), who I believed to be the least intelligent lifeform in existence, had the sense to leave. But not you. Hmm. Fascinating.

    So I shall be brief. Never in my long years of meticulously tracing Roberto's feces (that which is propelled from his mouth and propagated through his various blags), have I ever read him use a semi-colon.

    "Discuss", such as you can


    -William Monty Hughes, esq
    IQ 224
    "Cogito Ergo Sum" By this logic, Roberto does not exist. It's Cartesian Foolism.

    Sir Mr Pitchpork, I salute you.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Well, see? Now you woke him up! ARE YOU HAPPY GUYS? HUH?!

    ReplyDelete
  126. Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

    -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man without a Country

    ReplyDelete
  127. Do you have something against travsvestite hermaphrodites? (How does that even work anyway?).

    Anyway, like I said before, read some Marshall McLuhan.

    ReplyDelete
  128. @Ravenzomg

    Quote in video form:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbOFYWbVVz8#t=m44s

    ReplyDelete
  129. Semicolons aren't bad; they're just usually used by pretentious douchebags trying to look smart with punctuation instead of flowery language.

    ReplyDelete
  130. @Angus:
    That was actually pretty entertaining.

    @Pitchfork
    There's a lot wrong in your claims and what you're saying in general, but this in particular stood out to me:
    "my real poetry/lyric writing style (which is offensively unconventional verse structures and lots of convention betrayal)"

    If you have to preemptively defend your writing style, it's probably not any good.

    As for your claims that you're a great writer because you do well in relevant classes, well, let me assure you that that pretty much means nothing. Teachers praise average writing ability because so many students, even at the college level, are downright awful at it. Run-on sentences, punctuation issues, misspellings...sometimes I've reviewed papers and wondered, "How in the world did your high school writing classes fail you this badly?"

    There's another problem with your notion that a good school writer makes a good real writer. I, for example, am a pretty good technical writer. I'm very capable at producing documentation, reviews, test plans, reports...pretty much anything that's useful in a technical job. That's all based on what I learned in school. However, actual creative writing is significantly different. Much as I like to think that my skills transfer, it's one of those things that only time will tell.

    In the same way, your doing better than others in school really has no implications for your actual writing ability, creative or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Shoot, I knew I forgot something in my last post.

    Semicolons are fantastic. I use them like crazy, not because I think they're "better" than other punctuation, but because they allow me to join two similar thoughts with just the right amount of a pause. Pacing is very important in any kind of writing, and semicolons allow one to fine-tune their pacing.

    ReplyDelete
  132. I went to XKCD, I saw this comic, my first thought was:
    "What the fucking fuck is this shit."

    ...that is my review. 0/5

    ReplyDelete
  133. "(I feel like people are about to thrust things in my mouth. Perhaps I should put on a protective mask.)"

    You seem to assume that a mask would curb my thrusting. In fact, it would make me want to thrust all the more.

    ReplyDelete
  134. It takes more talent to write well using common words than it takes to memorize polysyllabic words and use them all the time.

    If you have a point that's developed enough, you won't bother to mask it in pretentious wording. Just say it. Using "big words" only shows that you're afraid to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "Semicolons aren't bad; they're just usually used by pretentious douchebags trying to look smart with punctuation instead of flowery language."

    I use semicolons and I freely admit I'm a dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I use semicolons; I freely admit I'm a dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  137. @Angus:
    "As befitting such a grand work in the art of sandwichry, I took it on a plate to my computer, and typing "xkcdsucks.blogspot.com", settled into my usual deluge of xkcd hate."

    Can't you just type "x"? Firefox should know how to handle the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Woo, looks like I have a lot of work to do.

    "Besides, your typesetting quirks are preserved in HTML: it's your browser that condenses them into a single space. Fuckwit."

    No shit, Shelob. When did I ever say anything different?

    Wait, you're saying that since they're preserved in HTML they're viewable by everyone on this website?

    But then you mention the reality of the situation, which is that rendering engines tend to ignore multiple spaces in HTML, which means that USING FRENCHSPACING IS IN VAIN LIKE I HAD SAID ORIGINALLY WHAT IS GOING ON IN YOUR HEAD

    "A creator has total say in intention. But I'm not talking about intention, and I don't think Randall made his intentions very clear anyway. They have zero say in the interpretation. You put something out there and people will interpret it the way they want it to.

    The more poorly you communicate a message, the easier it is for others to totally misinterpret that message. To quote Lord Randall himself, "communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness." I guess you could replace "cleverness" with "depth" to better fit the context but the idea is the same."

    This seems valid enough.

    "I wish you would write an XKCD review, Mr Pitchfork. It would be splendid, I'm sure."

    XKCD can be amusing sometimes but tends to just be "well I guess that's it then". It's worth it to put it in your RSS reader, but I wouldn't check up on it all the time.

    End review.

    "You are a moron to come to that conclusion."

    That's a ridiculous unfounded statement.

    "And thus, you, "Dr Pitchfork", with your unneccesary use of multiple polysyllabic words, are responsible for the untimely demise of my sandwich, and for that, I will never forgive you."

    I'm not a doctor, firstly. Deuxily, which is now a word, I use "big words [sic]" because it comes naturally to me. It's just how I communicate. There's really nothing wrong with it and anyone who criticizes me for it only does so because they can't find anything better to piss themselves about.

    ReplyDelete
  139. "Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

    -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man without a Country"

    Well I guess that confirms my suspicions that Kurt Vonnegut is both boring AND stupid.

    "If you have to preemptively defend your writing style, it's probably not any good.

    As for your claims that you're a great writer because you do well in relevant classes, well, let me assure you that that pretty much means nothing. Teachers praise average writing ability because so many students, even at the college level, are downright awful at it. Run-on sentences, punctuation issues, misspellings...sometimes I've reviewed papers and wondered, "How in the world did your high school writing classes fail you this badly?"

    There's another problem with your notion that a good school writer makes a good real writer. I, for example, am a pretty good technical writer. I'm very capable at producing documentation, reviews, test plans, reports...pretty much anything that's useful in a technical job. That's all based on what I learned in school. However, actual creative writing is significantly different. Much as I like to think that my skills transfer, it's one of those things that only time will tell.

    In the same way, your doing better than others in school really has no implications for your actual writing ability, creative or otherwise."

    First, how is a statement of my writing style an attempted defense of it? I honestly don't get where the hell that came from.

    Secondly, count the number of times I mentioned or implied anything about schools in anything I've written here (barring this post). What? The number is zero? Well what are you on about then!

    "It takes more talent to write well using common words than it takes to memorize polysyllabic words and use them all the time.

    If you have a point that's developed enough, you won't bother to mask it in pretentious wording. Just say it. Using "big words" only shows that you're afraid to speak."

    I covered this already but I feel that all you hobbyless fuckwits will ignore it in a fit of blind rage, so I'm going to say it again: it's just the way I write. Quit crying about it. I'm not going to force myself to write in unnatural ways just because you're all so drenched in your own urine and tears that your clothes are beginning to stretch and the smell won't ever come out.

    And I'm seriously trying to understand why people think I've ever cited myself as using "big words [sic]". I haven't.

    I hope that covers everybody, and if I ignored you then piss off. I can't (read: won't) indulge everybody so if you have a beef with me just cry to your mom about it.

    ReplyDelete
  140. "Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

    -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man without a Country"

    Well I guess that confirms my suspicions that Kurt Vonnegut is both boring AND stupid.

    "If you have to preemptively defend your writing style, it's probably not any good.

    As for your claims that you're a great writer because you do well in relevant classes, well, let me assure you that that pretty much means nothing. Teachers praise average writing ability because so many students, even at the college level, are downright awful at it. Run-on sentences, punctuation issues, misspellings...sometimes I've reviewed papers and wondered, "How in the world did your high school writing classes fail you this badly?"

    There's another problem with your notion that a good school writer makes a good real writer. I, for example, am a pretty good technical writer. I'm very capable at producing documentation, reviews, test plans, reports...pretty much anything that's useful in a technical job. That's all based on what I learned in school. However, actual creative writing is significantly different. Much as I like to think that my skills transfer, it's one of those things that only time will tell.

    In the same way, your doing better than others in school really has no implications for your actual writing ability, creative or otherwise."

    First, how is a statement of my writing style an attempted defense of it? I honestly don't get where the hell that came from.

    Secondly, count the number of times I mentioned or implied anything about schools in anything I've written here (barring this post). What? The number is zero? Well what are you on about then!

    "It takes more talent to write well using common words than it takes to memorize polysyllabic words and use them all the time.

    If you have a point that's developed enough, you won't bother to mask it in pretentious wording. Just say it. Using "big words" only shows that you're afraid to speak."

    I covered this already but I feel that all you hobbyless fuckwits will ignore it in a fit of blind rage, so I'm going to say it again: it's just the way I write. Quit crying about it. I'm not going to force myself to write in unnatural ways just because you're all so drenched in your own urine and tears that your clothes are beginning to stretch and the smell won't ever come out.

    And I'm seriously trying to understand why people think I've ever cited myself as using "big words [sic]". I haven't.

    I hope that covers everybody, and if I ignored you then piss off. I can't (read: won't) indulge everybody so if you have a beef with me just cry to your mom about it.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college.

    -Kurt Vonnegut, A Man without a Country"

    Well I guess that confirms my suspicions that Kurt Vonnegut is both boring AND stupid.

    "If you have to preemptively defend your writing style, it's probably not any good.

    As for your claims that you're a great writer because you do well in relevant classes, well, let me assure you that that pretty much means nothing. Teachers praise average writing ability because so many students, even at the college level, are downright awful at it. Run-on sentences, punctuation issues, misspellings...sometimes I've reviewed papers and wondered, "How in the world did your high school writing classes fail you this badly?"

    There's another problem with your notion that a good school writer makes a good real writer. I, for example, am a pretty good technical writer. I'm very capable at producing documentation, reviews, test plans, reports...pretty much anything that's useful in a technical job. That's all based on what I learned in school. However, actual creative writing is significantly different. Much as I like to think that my skills transfer, it's one of those things that only time will tell.

    In the same way, your doing better than others in school really has no implications for your actual writing ability, creative or otherwise."

    ReplyDelete
  142. First, how is a statement of my writing style an attempted defense of it? I honestly don't get where the hell that came from.

    Secondly, count the number of times I mentioned or implied anything about schools in anything I've written here (barring this post). What? The number is zero? Well what are you on about then!

    "It takes more talent to write well using common words than it takes to memorize polysyllabic words and use them all the time.

    If you have a point that's developed enough, you won't bother to mask it in pretentious wording. Just say it. Using "big words" only shows that you're afraid to speak."

    I covered this already but I feel that all you hobbyless fuckwits will ignore it in a fit of blind rage, so I'm going to say it again: it's just the way I write. Quit crying about it. I'm not going to force myself to write in unnatural ways just because you're all so drenched in your own urine and tears that your clothes are beginning to stretch and the smell won't ever come out.

    And I'm seriously trying to understand why people think I've ever cited myself as using "big words [sic]". I haven't.

    I hope that covers everybody, and if I ignored you then piss off. I can't (read: won't) indulge everybody so if you have a beef with me just cry to your mom about it.

    ReplyDelete
  143. No idea what bullshittery this is bugging out with, but I'll deal with it later. I'm busy pilfering the politician's meandering and unsincere mannerisms.

    ReplyDelete
  144. A statement about your writing style is fine, it's just that your wording was defensive. "my real poetry/lyric writing style (which is offensively unconventional verse structures and lots of convention betrayal)" SOUNDS like (the operative word being SOUNDS) "Ooh, ooh, lookit me, I'm so different! Yay for me! BOW DOWN BITCHES" I realize this is almost certainly not the impression you wished to convey (which is why I emphasized SOUNDS LIKE), but it's kind of the impression you gave anyway.

    And good luck trying to piss me off. You might succeed in real life, but this is the internet. If you say something that really gets on my tits, I can just lean back, breathe in a couple times, and think about an appropriate response (if one is called for).

    Also, show of hands: is anyone else convinced this is a gigantic trollshow, and we're just feeding an already stable blaze? (And if so, why the hell am I continuing to write these?)

    ReplyDelete
  145. Trolling AND spamming?

    Someone has just crossed the line.

    This sentence makes me want to punch somebody:
    "my real poetry/lyric writing style (which is offensively unconventional verse structures and lots of convention betrayal)"

    LOL I USE UNCONVENTIONAL WRITING STYLE I BREAK ALL THE RULES I AM SUCH A REBEL JUST LIKE ALL THE GREAT ARTISTS sounds like something an angsty highschool kid would say, or post on Livejournal.

    I have an opinion on breaking conventions. My opinion is that it's a terrible idea unless you're a master of your art form.

    Breaking rules is not a rebellious action if you don't take time to learn and understand the rules, because usually convention exists for a reason, which is to make your writing better. It's just stupid.

    And since you've admitted that most of your writing experience consists of posting on this blog, I am guessing you don't have sufficient writing experience to justify "unconventional verse structures and lots of convention betrayal".

    ReplyDelete
  146. It's amazing how many inches of space Mr. Pitchfork uses up without saying anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Oh, and to answer a comment on another thread that I forgot about: No, Mr Pitchfork, I don't think you're trolling just because you disagree with me. I can name several people on this very blog whom I have disagreed with, and I don't think are trolling (of course, I could be completely wrong). I think you're trolling because you have disagreed with the group on EVERY SINGLE POINT THAT HAS COME UP, and still refuse to give up and go somewhere else that isn't so blatantly hostile to your point of view.

    Let me make this quite clear: your point of view is perfectly fine. I like to think of myself as tolerant, and you can hold whatever opinions you please. It's just that the majority of the people on this blog have disagreed with you, and you still seem convince that it's because they (or we, depending on the point) are stupid and just haven't found the right answer yet (at least, that's how your arguments sound).

    As an addendum, saying that you're not a troll and believing that you're not a troll doesn't make you not a troll.

    ReplyDelete
  148. Hey, Mr Radcliffe says I'm a great writer and he even gave me an A+. So put that into your fucking fuckers and fucking piss and fuck fuck fuck. Your mom.




    Antidisestablishmentarianism.

    Mr Prickdork

    I covered this already but I feel that all you hobbyless fuckwits will ignore it in a fit of blind rage, so I'm going to say it again: it's just the way I write. Quit crying about it. I'm not going to force myself to write in unnatural ways just because you're all so drenched in your own urine and tears that your clothes are beginning to stretch and the smell won't ever come out.

    And I'm seriously trying to understand why people think I've ever cited myself as using "big words [sic]". I haven't.

    I hope that covers everybody, and if I ignored you then piss off. I can't (read: won't) indulge everybody so if you have a beef with me just cry to your mom about it.

    Mr Prickdork

    I covered this already but I feel that all you hobbyless fuckwits will ignore it in a fit of blind rage, so I'm going to say it again: it's just the way I write. Quit crying about it. I'm not going to force myself to write in unnatural ways just because you're all so drenched in your own urine and tears that your clothes are beginning to stretch and the smell won't ever come out.

    And I'm seriously trying to understand why people think I've ever cited myself as using "big words [sic]". I haven't.

    I hope that covers everybody, and if I ignored you then piss off. I can't (read: won't) indulge everybody so if you have a beef with me just cry to your mom about it.

    ReplyDelete
  149. I like the phrase 'convention betrayal'. It implies underhandedness and shock, like the writing starts off perfectly spelled and punctuated and then spirals off in a whirl of nonconformism so devastatingly innovative that the reader LITERALLY starts BLEEDING out of their EYES

    ReplyDelete
  150. pitchfork jr this isn't xbox-live(sucks)
    save your oneliners for your classmates.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away.

    ReplyDelete
  152. "Oh, and to answer a comment on another thread that I forgot about: No, Mr Pitchfork, I don't think you're trolling just because you disagree with me. I can name several people on this very blog whom I have disagreed with, and I don't think are trolling (of course, I could be completely wrong). I think you're trolling because you have disagreed with the group on EVERY SINGLE POINT THAT HAS COME UP, and still refuse to give up and go somewhere else that isn't so blatantly hostile to your point of view."

    -- This cracked me up. Is this the first sighting of a new species, Cuddlefish version 2.0 i.e. XKCDSuxFish?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Maybe if we ignore him he'll go away.

    Didn't work on me. Although I only really trolled one or two threads before realizing that yeah, XKCD is actually pretty awful. You guys didn't even need to do anything; the realization just automatically sets in eventually. I don't know what I was thinking in High School. Let's pretend I wasn't that nerd who printed off XKCD comics and showed them to all my friends saying "omg it's math and cool, plebeians!"

    I was worse than Rob when he came here and that is just awful.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Also, are the T-shirt ads on this site getting more sexual or is it just me?

    ReplyDelete
  155. @Mr Pitchfork

    "First, how is a statement of my writing style an attempted defense of it? I honestly don't get where the hell that came from."

    It's because you're "preparing" us for your style. It's like if you were about to introduce me to your friends, but before I meet them, you say, "Oh, and by the way...they think I own a car." You do that so that I go in with different expectations and behavior, because otherwise there might be problems. That's what this feels like.

    "Secondly, count the number of times I mentioned or implied anything about schools in anything I've written here (barring this post). What? The number is zero? Well what are you on about then!"

    Since you haven't written much on your own time, I can only assume your sense of talent came from feedback on writing assignments. If this is wrong, feel free to correct me.

    "hobbyless fuckwits"

    Hobbyless? I post on this blog at WORK. I pretty much get paid to do this. I can't speak for the others, but I have plenty of hobbies, and they take precedence over posting on blogs when I can do them. It's just that at work sometimes there's nothing else to do, so here I am.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Raven, those ads have always been oversexualized. Pay no atten - OHMIGODBOOBIES

    ReplyDelete
  157. UndercoverCuddlefishNovember 11, 2010 at 4:24 PM

    kurt vonnegut can lick my pocket weasel i will use a semicolon if i damn well please

    but yeah pitchpork is an idiot

    protip: if you already know how to read the lines the next step is to read what is between them

    ReplyDelete
  158. Dear Mr Pitchfork,

    I want to respond to your last comment:

    "And I'm seriously trying to understand why people think I've ever cited myself as using "big words [sic]". I haven't."

    Earlier in this comment thread you said:

    "The ironic thing is I tend to be more literate than you do; I am much better able to analyze artistic works, I'm a better writer, I have a larger vocabulary and more experience writing, and I actually know what the word "illiterate" means."

    I think that's where it comes from...

    How many words do you know, seriously? Because Rob knows A LOT of words, like hundreds, or maybe thousands!

    ReplyDelete
  159. "Can't you just type "x"? Firefox should know how to handle the rest. "

    True, but I just get in the habit of typing out full URLs if I know them. Just a little quirk, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Quenelles de BrochetNovember 11, 2010 at 4:26 PM

    I wish I had a larger vocabulary...

    In fact, I've been willing to enlarge my vocabulary for some time now, but thoses pills and pumps they sell on the internet don't really work...

    ReplyDelete
  161. UndercoverCuddlefishNovember 11, 2010 at 4:34 PM

    hey xkcdsucks community i am better than every single one of you in every single way and if any of you try to challenge that assertion i will derail the conversation endlessly and waste your time nyah nyah nyah

    ReplyDelete
  162. @4:34 - sucks to be you, we can derail our own conversations, and waste our own time! ha!

    ReplyDelete
  163. @Quenelles: Don't worry, some chicks totally dig small vocabularies, like, as long as you're still good with your hands.

    Captcha: Misti. That'll be my stripper name.

    ReplyDelete
  164. "You want me to show you some writing
    After me and this guy were fighting
    Instead I wrote this
    (signed with a kiss):
    A limerick that's not that exciting. "

    "After this guy and I were fighting."
    You wouldn't say "me was fighting" you'd say "I was fighting." It's also correct grammar to place yourself at the end of a list, hence, "this guy and I."

    So it seems a lot happened since last time I was here.

    ReplyDelete
  165. I actually thought this was about a guy imagining a girl who would be perfect for him, not knowing that there is a girl somewhere who is imagining a guy that's perfect for her who fits the description of the guy.

    ReplyDelete
  166. I thought of that too, but that's still incredibly whiny and emo.

    "There is only one person out there for me and they are probably as emotionally stunted and incapable of interaction as I am! So deep/profound."

    ReplyDelete
  167. It's just horrible co-dependant bullshit. I find it funny because Randall had his hang-up a few comics back about romanticizing 'young love', [807: Connected].

    If there was any over simplified way for me to describe 'young love' it'd be general co-dependance and deciding it's fate that you be together forever and ever and ever because you both share some basic traits and don't have an entirely terrible time sleeping with the other.

    Not that I'm taking Randall's stance of "must hate everyone happier/more successful than me!", it just seems generally at odds with his own supposed views. 'course it doesn't surprise me at all.

    ReplyDelete
  168. OMG SHE KNOWS THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE. I BET NO TWO PEOPLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE MULTIVERSE EVER FELT SO CONNECTED.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Woo! He said he's not going to push himself to stick to a schedule! This may be a blessing in disguise, no? Maybe this is the beginning of Randall Munroe's Pictoblog. I think I'm too optimistic right now... XKCD has let me down before.

    ReplyDelete
  170. HOLY SHIT 818 IS OFFICIALLY THE WORST XKCD EVER!!!

    ...He didn't thank the guy who trolled the blag comments.

    ReplyDelete
  171. I'm busy and lazy, so I'll leave you with thits:
    ONCE AGAIN I'M JUST HERE TO GET ON YOUR TITS
    I'm not here for grammar or accuracy.
    I'm not here for you, but to please me.

    If you've got a beef with me, greagreagreagreagreat!
    Your complaints won't make me iririririririrate.
    You're pretty much gonna always grab the hook
    Even though I use the obviousest tricks in the book.

    Did you see that? How edgy! I used improper grammar.
    I'm so rebellious, punching conventions in the face with a hammer
    Because that's JUST EXACTLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO!
    You know who knows me more than I do? It's you!

    I know you're all tremendously good at nitpicking.
    But, honestly? All that really tends to be is dicking
    ... uh, around.
    I get that some of you can make a valid point or two
    But when it comes to bein' coo' you've got alot of work to do.

    I've got no idea if I've covered all available bases.
    Don't care, just here to put a sour look on your faces.
    If I'm a troll that's fine: I do live under a bridge.
    It's time for me to draw and get some juice from my fridge.

    PEACE OUT

    ReplyDelete
  172. And thus does Mr Pitchfork cement himself as this month's Angular Circles.

    You will be missed.

    ReplyDelete
  173. 818... I don't know what this means.

    Does this mean the comic is going to get EVEN WORSE?

    Or just that it's not going to update constantly?

    I just don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  174. I guess there will be no XKCD for a while, at least as we know it.

    ReplyDelete
  175. this sounds exceptionally promising

    ReplyDelete
  176. Huh, I thought this Xkcd was about the fact that Randy and Megan in this comic only exist in EACH OTHERS' IMAGINATIONS. It's all like meta and Escher and stuff, guys!

    ReplyDelete
  177. UndercoverCuddlefishNovember 11, 2010 at 9:58 PM

    i hope pitchpork is proud of his sonnet

    and what the fuck is an angular circles

    ReplyDelete
  178. Basically Randall waited too long, yet again, and couldn't even shit out a shitty comic so he decided to milk his family member's illness once again in the hopes of getting more sympathy e-mails from his sycophants.

    ReplyDelete
  179. it's cute because pitchfork dude was all "boo hoo hoo they're yelling at me" but then he was all "actually ha ha i made you do it so i'm the winner here" and he's really not

    ReplyDelete
  180. It's cute because your ability to manufacture history is somehow acceptable to you and your peers.

    ReplyDelete
  181. guys, I found some webcam footage of pitchfork:
    http://lol.i.trollyou.com/

    ReplyDelete
  182. UndercoverCuddlefishNovember 11, 2010 at 10:06 PM

    pitchpork posts too often and too defensively to be a real troll you guys

    you can tell his feelings are hurt because he feels the need to keep responding when the only proper response is none at all

    ReplyDelete
  183. UndercoverCuddlefishNovember 11, 2010 at 10:08 PM

    just kidding it was a precisely calculated move all along

    ReplyDelete
  184. Oh who am I kidding. I'm a depressed balding thirty-year-old rooming with a fat goth chick and the sexual tension between us is so large and unresolvable that the only thing I can think of to do is get purposefully bothered by people on the Internet.

    ReplyDelete
  185. ITT: People in glee at the suffering of others.

    Nice, turns me on.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Oh, who am I kidding. I'm a fifteen-year-old pseudointellectual so confused by my slight homosexual attraction to my friend that I have to be verbose on the internet because that's the only way I know how to relieve the frustration.

    ReplyDelete
  187. oh, and Pitchy, w/r/t your "I'm not going to stop using pretentious verbiage because that's just how I naturally talk:"

    first, think of the single least articulate individual you've ever encountered. do you ever wish they would learn to communicate better? that's just how they naturally talk.

    second, you can learn to write better--to change your "natural" pattern of communication from one that sucks to one that does not. one day you might even do that! you won't as long as you think that the way you communicate is effective and good, but one day you'll realize that the only thing you're doing is making everyone think you're an illiterate pseudo-intellectual fuckhead. once you do realize that, you'll hate who you used to be, of course, but there's no getting around that.

    ReplyDelete
  188. 818: sweet, sweet victory

    thank you, dying member of the Munroe family

    your sacrifice means more than you know

    ReplyDelete
  189. Also, Pitchfork seems to have missed my point some posts up. Surprising.

    Just because this is "how you write" doesn't make it good or even excusable. An illiterate fuckhead using 2s instead of "too" and "rite" instead of "right" will be endlessly mocked on a comment thread, and rightly so. Your comments are similarly irritating to read, just in a different way.

    Doesn't mean I don't understand what you're saying. Just saying you'd be better off using more simplified language and, again, I think that takes more skill anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Obviously Rob doesn't understand who I am at all. He seems to think that I haven't already undergone the personal evolution / former self loathing stage of my life already and it'd be damn useless to do it again.

    He also seems to think that nobody can understand me when obviously lots of people can. I don't need to change the way I speak; it actually does communicate effectively. This is why A VAST MULTITUDE of the PERSONAGES in this SYNDICATED JOURNALING ESTABLISHMENT'S COMMENT FORUM seem to actually know what I'm talking about.

    I guess I could mention that we're treading old ground paved with a bloody, chunky, and hairy paste likely composed of the remains of the infinitely flogged corpses of a thousand horses, but even THAT is old ground so I may as well just not.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Seriously, though.
    I like pretending I'm smart in hopes that Randall will have my babies.

    ReplyDelete