Friday, February 11, 2011

Comic 859: Parentethical

[I ordered a package from ebay and instead of the Megan real doll I ordered, it contained a bobcat called "Bobcat" with the following guest review in its mouth. Weird, right? -Ed.]

So. I’ve been watching this blog for months now, and I’ve never felt the need to do a guest review.

Guess what? THERE IS A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING.

Now, when I checked the comic, at first I thought something had gone horribly wrong (or perhaps, given that I couldn’t see a comic, horribly right). Horror dawned upon me as I realized that this was no glitch. I was seeing exactly what Randall wanted me to see.

There is no art. Complain as much as you like about the charts and graphs, but they at least take time. Complain about badly delivered jokes told by interchangeable stick figures, but at least they function as a semblance of a comic. As much as we complain that he obviously drew something in a five minute panic before midnight, at least when he has five minutes he DRAWS SOMETHING. Since XKCD is a COMIC. I can’t say that the writing is worse than usual, but the complete lack of a stick figure or a graph is just plain INSULTING. This took 30 seconds to conceive and produce.

Randall clearly has no respect for his audience. You know, the audience whose dollars keep him fed, clothed and with night vision goggles with which to view Megan from outside the 500 yards of the restraining order (obligatory Megan joke, check). I think he did, once, but that’s debatable. And why should he? No matter what he churns out, no matter how banal, how humorless, how elitist, how lazy, his fans will sing his praises.

"GOOMH, Randall! I too am a loser who feels deeply unsettled by incomplete punctuation! How did you know that?"

Because YOU GOOMH ABOUT EVERYTHING. He could write a comic about medieval Occitan romantic poetry (not that he would, since it’s the evil LIBERAL ARTS) and the audience would say, "Hey, I’ve heard of Poetry! GOOMH, RANDALL!"

After this, I’m not even sure I’ll want to keep checking this blog. Folks, I keep thinking we’ve hit the bottom of the barrel, and then I realize that we left the barrel somewhere back at comic 400. We are now burrowing through the ground beneath the barrel. We have pierced the septic tank, kept digging through, and are now beneath the septic tank.

And yet, Randall keeps digging, even as gravity has its way with the contents of the septic tank right over his head. Do we REALLY want to keep following him? Can it GET worse than a comic told via the complete ABSENSE of a comic?

Also, in case Randall or anyone who is OCD enough to go "OMG, GOOMH, RANDALL" reads what I have to say . . . I close with this.

( { ( {({({({({({({(

Choke on it.

136 comments:

  1. OMG THIS COMIC WASNT ABOUT MEGAN HOW DARE YOU MAKE THE REVIEW ABOUT HER YOU FAAAAAAAAG

    Alrighty then, moving on...

    This week is the week that I just gave up. I used to like xkcd, then I stopped liking it. I wasn't sure whether it had suddenly become worse, or because my tastes had shifted. 859 clinches it; Randall is confirmedly spending less time than he used to and less time than he should be. This was a freaking sketch - maybe passable in the first hundred, which were primarily from sketchbooks, but now? You're supposed to be a professional, Randall! If you want to have an online sketchbook then MAKE AN ONLINE SKETCHBOOK.

    Oh, wait, xkcd is your online sketchbook now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The linguistics department at my university loves xkcd. Loves it. Xkcd posted on all the walls. Xkcd referenced cheekily by professors. And what was on the overhead projector for my first seminar of the day? This abomination. Forget GOOMH. Get Out Of My Department.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ironic, seeing as randy would despise an area of study as HORRIBLY IMPURE as "linguistics"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Was this comic supposed to read like a fortune cookie? It sort of comes across in the same tone as a fortune cookie fortune.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is just... awful. Beyond every use we've had for that word before, beyond every CONCEIVABLE use of the word, this comic is AWFUL.

    This is it. That fucking retarded fan base HAS to see XKCD for what it is now. Everyone take a deep breath; now let's dive into the forums for some comments.

    1. "holy shit I hate it when people do that."
    2. "DAMN YOUUUUUUUUU!"
    3. "(It's true."
    4. "Damn, I was hoping that the alt text would be a single ")"
    5. "Title and alt text are indeed broken."
    6. "Great. How am I supposed to fall asleep now? It's like nails on a chalkboard for my eyes."

    *Sigh*

    Wait! What's this?

    7. "I hate you so much Randall..."

    Is this hope? No... no, never mind. It's someone merely kidding (unfortunately, not kidding on the square) about hating Randy. Let us continue...

    8. "One of my biggest pet peeves. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS TO US."

    9. ") That's better, I didn't last 10 minutes"

    10. ) There you go; good night everyone."

    11. Honestly, guys, I seriously don't see what's such a big deal about this (after all, it's not like we're "evolutionarily programmed to expect flawless closing syntax There's [i]nothing wrong with this at"

    12. *twitch*

    13. FUCK YOU, RANDALL. I'M NEVER READING xkcd AGAIN. I prefer the lower case spelling of xkcd.)"

    14. \\;(}.+{^]];DROP_TABLE

    There. I fixed it."

    Fuck it. This is taking too much time. Every single post that refers to the comic is someone basically screaming "GOOMH" or using the 'joke' itself in their post to show how clever and witty they are by ripping from Randy.

    Long story short: fuck all of you. Short story long: I really am quite blessed that nobody likes xkcd. At least, if they do, then they either do not like it openly or they merely just don't discuss it with others. I really, seriously, TRULY feel sorry for anyone who has to deal with people on a tri-weekly basis that thinks the latest thing Randy has shat out is the pinnacle of humor and surpasses all his previous comics. I pray for these people to have a slow, painful, xkcd-related death in which they realize the error of their ways and weep, knowing that they MUST die in a manner so vile for their idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I liked this comic a lot. It really does look broken when (there's no closing parenthesis. And I am serious. You people are unable to complain that there is no joke because there is a joke. You wouldn't dare.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ anonymous at 5:31
    I never claimed there wasn't a joke. I said that the writing was on par (which isn't much). I said that this was incredibly lazy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comic will probably bring lots of new people to this site. I can't imagine how many will be googling "xkcd sucks", this weekend.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anon 5:31: We don't need to make up fake complaints here. Why would we pretend there isn't an attempt at a joke, when there clearly is? It's much easier and more accurate to just say it was a bad joke, slathered in GOOMH bait, with no effort put in.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comic was putrid trash to me. After I read it, I thought maybe the xkcd forumees will bash Randall about it, and he might listen and start to get his shit together.

    But no, the great Randall can do no wrong. And you know that half the people posting on the forum have never once cared about an open parenthesis, but they're all just saying they have to be part of the ocd/geek/programmer clique.

    Fuck, I have extremely mild ocd (cabinets have to close a certain way, I check my alarm clock 5 times before I go to bed to make sure it's set at the right time), but even I don't give a shit about something so mundane about this. Even grammar nazi's wouldn't act like they're whole day is ruined if they saw this.

    The sad reality is that the xkcd fans keeping taking in this shit, so there's no reason for Randall to do better. Why bust your ass making a good comic when you'll make the same amount of money making a bad one?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Even grammar nazi's wouldn't act like they're whole day is ruined if they saw this."

    As a grammar nazi, my whole day was ruined by this line.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Opps sorry, meant to right th-hair.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have to confess I... smiled when I saw this comic. Does that make me a bad person?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thinking it's amusing isn't a crime. The crime is that XKCD is a webcomic and there is no art element.

    ReplyDelete
  15. i thought it was amusing.
    if only it was a pictoblog, 0/10 as a comic

    ReplyDelete
  16. the thing is, even as a pictoblog this falls short, on account of not having a picto. this is, at best, a tweet.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I only got an effect out of the 'comic' because I am a programmer, and I get compiler errors all the time because of mismatched parentheses.

    And then I didn't care.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm just waiting for a T-Shirt with a single open parentheses to show up in the store.

    ReplyDelete
  19. jackasses at the forums are just lapping this shit up. of course it's a load of bullshit that anyone thinks this is "funny cos it's true"; i doubt anyone would be pissing themselves with glee at a comic going "don't you hate looking at gross things" and a picture of a huge turd.

    although it would be an improvement.

    no, the assholes pretending to find this funny are patting themselves on the back for being programmers and self-diagnosed assburgers.

    i've made a little edit which expresses how i feel about today's abomination:

    http://img265.imageshack.us/i/todaysxkcd.jpg/

    ReplyDelete
  20. "i doubt anyone would be pissing themselves with glee at a comic going "don't you hate looking at gross things" and a picture of a huge turd."

    I actually had a good ol' chortle at this, so thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jon Levi said..."I have to confess I... smiled when I saw this comic. Does that make me a bad person?"

    Being amused by something because it struck a chord with you isn't wrong. Trying to suggest that this is a well made comic would be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Like a moss and a fungus, I'm lichen this @#$.

    ReplyDelete
  23. LEAHCIM YDEGEZS, BITCHFebruary 11, 2011 at 10:51 PM

    ...

    And I thought Wednesday's comic was bad. But, I guess this just further affirms my 0.1% chance theory that xkcd has been hacked.




    But, really, this is just astoundingly bad. Morbidly bad.




    GOD FUCK IT RANDALL, THERE ARE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY DAY THAT DEPEND ON YOU FOR FUNNY. AND WHAT DO YOU GIVE THEM? SHIT. THAT IS WHAT. YOU HAD ME CONVINCED WITH 858 THAT YOU COULDN'T GET ANY LOWER. AND I WAS WRONG. I WAS WRONG, YOU PUTRID ASSHOLE. WHAT THE GODDAMN HELL ARE YOU, PICASSO? ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE A POINT? NO YOU AREN'T, BASTARD. YOU JUST THINK THAT IT'S COMPLETELY OKAY TO DO THIS. I HATE YOU. I ABSOLUTELY GODDAMN FUCKING HATE YOU.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This is it, I'm outta here. Thank you, Randall, for some good chuckles in the past. But it has been way too long that visiting xkcd gave me as much as a mere grin. Thank you again, for pointing me to Questionable Content, which I really enjoy reading M-to-F.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I agree with the final post of xkcdexplained.
    Sometimes you gotta know when to give up.
    This comic was the last straw.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why is there an open parentheses in the comic? Since it's only ONE FUCKING SENTENCE, why would it be a parenthetical statement?

    ReplyDelete
  27. It absolutely sickens me that people like Snooki, Sarah Palin, and Randall Munroe are able to put no effort into anything, and yet thousands of people line up to tell them that everything they shit out is made of diamonds.

    If I still have any faith in humanity, it's quickly dissipating with every new comic.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Anon 12:32, just FYI, Questionable Content is almost as soul-crushingly awful as xkcd. The only reason it just about elevates itself into mere inadequacy is the fact that the art, at least, is competent.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 5:49 the difference is snooki and sarah palin are widely hated

    ReplyDelete
  30. What the fuck do you do with the rest of your week Randy?

    ReplyDelete
  31. he thinks about women lactating, obviously

    about 40-50% of the time anyway

    ReplyDelete
  32. FUCK YOU RANDALL! You owe me comics three times a week. I don't care if they're not good, but I want them to be hard to draw because I PAY FOR THIS SHIT (well, not me, but I guess people who buy merchandising do...)

    The fact that you are able to have a fun life and a lot of leisure time when I spend 8 hours a day scrubbing the shit off the floor of the Taco Bell bathroom makes me bitter and angry.

    ReplyDelete
  33. and the fact that the floor of said bathroom is more amusing, artistic and intelligent than xkcd

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comic isn't worth the effort. I'll talk about other things instead.

    It's incredible how xkcd isn't spawning a plethora of mockeries like Penny Arcade did(creating the "Two Gamers on a Couch" sub-genre). If it's THIS easy to make profit with a comic featuring nothing but crudely drawn stick figures and nerd references, I'm surprised we don't have millions of "hjtl" and "aptg" around the web. The only thing stopping me is my sense of ethics, by the way. I wouldn't be able to obviously steal people of their time and money like Randall does.

    And, talking about fandom, this is why I don't hate xkcd openly. I know people who like xkcd and I just don't care. Because, in truth, people don't THINK xkcd is good. They BELIEVE xkcd is good. Only blind faith is able to explain how people look at this... TEXT THINGY and consider it a good comic. It's both an insult to comics and goodness!

    ...but what I meant to say was that you can't argue with pure belief, so what's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I bet you don't even anything about Sarah Palin. You probably just believe whatever the headlines on Yahoo news say, you mindless sheep.

    ReplyDelete
  36. oh you son of a bitch.
    )})})})})})})} ) } )

    ReplyDelete
  37. Did anyone notice that the title bar when you load the xkcd says:

    xkcd: (

    ReplyDelete
  38. anon@8:13: maybe a better editor would help you correct for your deficiencies as a programmer?

    ReplyDelete
  39. "sheeple", 814. The correct term is "sheeple".

    ReplyDelete
  40. THIS SHIT IS GENIUS AND YOU ALL SUCK

    THE PARENTHESIS IS NOT MEANT TO BE LEFT OPEN LIKE THAT

    ITS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A SECOND ONE
    TO CLOSE IT
    LIKE A CIRCLE
    OR AN OVAL
    YOU ALL JUST DON'T GET IT

    ReplyDelete
  41. I love how there are ABSOLUTELY NO ATTEMPTS at humor here. Not even, say, a eighth-hearted one (which is most of xkcd. This is just... an observation. A false one at that, too.

    Yeah, Randall just isn't even bothering any more. More likely than not, he looked at a random piece of paper, said "hey, this will work", and scanned it in.
    AND IT WORKED.

    my brain hurts now. D:

    ReplyDelete
  42. There's a typo in your title, Rob. The post has nothing to do with any ethical concerns of the parents of xkcd readers, although I admit that that *would* make an interesting blog post, probably.

    Also, Pa(ren)thetical would have been super funny.

    ReplyDelete
  43. There we go, fixed his comic: http://i733.photobucket.com/albums/ww336/talligan/xkcdsucks.png

    I'll take cash Randy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bizmit, Questionable Content has something xkcd will never have... CHARACTERS.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Ian:

    No, it's still shit. Don't try to "repair" xkcd comics. That's like trying to fix a dam with earplugs.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It was made more as an attempt to troll the xkcd fora but still :p your criticism is well received and I enjoyed the civil engineering analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Pro Mole: "...but what I meant to say was that you can't argue with pure belief, so what's the point?"

    I see where you're going with this, but I'm not 100% behind you. I don't have a problem with people liking XKCD. I have a problem with people saying it's good. There's no accounting for taste. I watch some pretty terrible things, and I enjoy them anyways. I read shit from the Star Wars expanded universe. I'm not under the delusion that any of it is well written, or well thought out. But I enjoy it anyways. And that's okay.

    You say people "believe" that XKCD is good, rather than "think" it's good, I interpret it a little differently. They have either thought about the quality of the comics, or they haven't.

    If they haven't considered the quality, and don't really care if it's high or low quality. If they just want to read it, maybe chuckle maybe not, and move on. That's fine. If these people try to send me an XKCD or something, I usually just respond with "I don't like XKCD actually, I think it's pretty poorly written/drawn/thought up." Usually the response is "Oh okay." and that's that.

    When people try to tell me it's a "good" comic, I have an issue with it. When people of this disposition send me or talk to me about XKCD, I again respond with "I don't like XKCD actually, I think it's pretty poorly written/drawn/thought up." THEY are the ones who are going to start arguing with me, at which point that's my queue to put them in their place. When XKCD comes up, I'll ALWAYS say I think it's a poorly written comic, and then I let the person decide if they want to start this conversation, or not. Most people don't care to, some people do.

    I suppose the third type of people (The ones I just realized you are probably talking about) are the ones who "think" it's good, but don't seem to listen to you when you explain reasons why it's not good. Nor will they try to defend their statements with fact or evidence. They'll just keep asserting it was good, make circular arguments, make straw man arguments, etc. I could see why you wouldn't want to argue with these people. But I like to smoke these people out, so I can call them fucking morons to their face. If there is one thing I hate, it's people who are unwilling to defend a position they take, or accept that they might be wrong, but start the argument anyways. They're the morons who inevitably, after I give up trying because they have the argument generating capacity of a 5 year old, try to act like they were right all along, and are much better for it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You know what's funny? Back when I liked Xkcd (oh so long ago) I had heard of Xkcd sucks and so I decided to give it a look-see, because I was convinced that it was one of the greatest comics ever made and I was curious what nonsensical, poorly written posts you guys made.

    I read my first one and was like, "Well! That was just plain silly. I was right, they are all fools over there. I will continue to enjoy this comic, thank you very much."

    Then just a few comics later Randy spat out some shit of a comic and I was like, "Ugh, this was just awful. You know, come to think of it, that blog post was pretty funny. I wonder what they have to say about it?"

    I investigated, laughed at whatever Carl had written, then other shit comics came to mind and so I looked up the posts for those as well. I have never once- not ONCE- in the past couple hundred comics looked back and thought of converting once more to a lover of it. Fuck you Randall.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "ABSENSE"

    Fucking idiots everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anon 1:13: was the same for me. I came here planning on trying to argue though, as I always do. I figured they didn't know what they were talking about, and I would show them. I lost that argument pretty soundly, so here I am.

    I later realized why. Unlike me, who was a consumer of XKCD and had not ever thought about quality until that very moment; the people here had been looking at the quality of comics EVERY time a new one came out! I was arrogant, and figured my instincts were sharp enough to win the argument. It was naive of me to think I could best a group of people who had straight up put more thought into the subject than I had. Humbling, to say the least.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 1:14 did you chuckle at 858 by any chance?

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Jasper: do I hear an echo?

    ReplyDelete
  53. " There's a typo in your title, Rob. The post has nothing to do with any ethical concerns of the parents of xkcd readers, although I admit that that *would* make an interesting blog post, probably."

    sadly, it's not a typo. it's a combination House of Leaves reference and attempt to troll people, but nobody has bit, and I am sad. (politely correcting a spelling error does not count as biting, and even then you are the only one.)

    I was hoping for hordes of cuddlefish to be like "OMG YOU'RE SO DUMB YOU CAN'T EVEN SPELL" but alas

    ReplyDelete
  54. obedient cuddlefishFebruary 12, 2011 at 6:21 PM

    OMG YOUR SO DUMB YOU CAN'T EVEN SPELL

    ReplyDelete
  55. OMG UR SO DUMB U CANT EVEN SPEEL

    ReplyDelete
  56. So you didn't get that I was being super sarcastic when I "politely corrected" your spelling error. Ha! Super trolled!

    Gonna find out what strange House of Leaves stuff you're talking about now.

    ReplyDelete
  57. no, I gave you some credit for not being a moron. my mistake

    ReplyDelete
  58. I loved this "comic", even if it wasn't a comic.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Why the fuck do I keep coming here? Why do I keep bouncing between here and xkcd hoping to be entertained? You are all, each and every one of you, completely fucking devoid of humour or interest, just like those fucking xkcd cumsluts begging to suck Randy off.

    I wish you would all fuck off and do something else rather than constantly disappointing my ridiculous optimism.

    I fucking hate you all.

    Assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  60. that's right

    unleash your anger

    strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey toward the dork side will be complete

    ReplyDelete
  61. I agree. I should never have written this review.

    I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I know why I keep coming here (and to XKCD itself): it's like a train wreck in progress. It's horrible, but you just can't look away.

    ReplyDelete
  63. It's a train wreck that will NEVER FUCKING END.

    I would call you a weaselcunt Rob, but I doubt even weasels would fuck you.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Yeah, I don't apologize for my work, Bobcat @ 10:19.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Ignore the asshole at 11:09. I really do apologize. I think it only fair I do.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I guess I have to do this now, just to prove I really do apologize.

    Sorry guys.

    ReplyDelete
  67. um, no, you people are here to entertain me

    ReplyDelete
  68. i've been saying that since i took over the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  69. I thought we were all just here to entertain ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  70. I'll start responding to all your trolls in the future then.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Rob, would you care for some delicious cake?

    ReplyDelete
  72. hey Rinnon you never saw my masterpiece from your discussion of the up-until-then laziest xkcd ever, the archimedes non-sequiter one, and after you put all those paragraphs of effort into describing it I thought I'd share my interpretation for you now.

    http://oi53.tinypic.com/2j5lyd4.jpg

    Enjoy!

    ReplyDelete
  73. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Without a doubt, a vastly superior piece. Not only does it establish context with the situation (In this case, a Prof is lecturing a student body about the works of great Philosophers) the shock value is greatly improved over the original as well. If Randal really wants XKCD to succeed, he'll look long and hard at what you've created for inspiration. Kudos. =D

    ReplyDelete
  75. about xkcd fans, i'm gonna throw something out there for your consideration. it's based on limited personal experience but maybe it's not unique.

    because of my major in university, i knew dozens of people who enjoyed xkcd. they introduced me to it. all these years later, they still like it, as do the younger generations.

    not a single person in this group, with the exception of myself, has ever read ANOTHER webcomic. neither had i, back when i liked xkcd. it was always more about being nerdy than being a comic.

    in this case you can sort of understand. it's like a girl who has only ever had sex with randy, and since it was enjoyable some of the time, he must be the best sexer ever.

    once you get to know ryan north and anthony clark, biblically or otherwise, you can't keep up the pretense. even if you're only interested in quickies, kris straub puts randy to shame.

    ReplyDelete
  76. it's a plausible theory to explain some, but not all. I knew plenty of other webcomics when I liked xkcd, incl. Dinosaur Comics. it is possible that I simply didn't know enough of them yet, I suppose, though I think it had more to do with the fact that I was susceptible to Randy's constant GOOMH-bait. I am not so much anymore, because Randy has driven me to a pathological hatred of nerds, but it is definitely the case that I am outside of the target audience because I hate Randy, not the other way around.

    also chiggy chugga are you related to chuggy g

    ReplyDelete
  77. "in this case you can sort of understand. it's like a girl who has only ever had sex with randy, and since it was enjoyable some of the time, he must be the best sexer ever."

    I agree it's harder without something to compare to...

    But it's more like a girl who only ever had sex with Randy, and when they first got together it was pretty good, and he was really into it. But then as the years went on, she found that he just wasn't as energetic or as pleasing as he once was. The spark had definitely gone out. Maybe he was bored of her? Maybe he was just out of new things to try? They still did it like 3 times a week, but it just wasn't the same as it once was. He wasn't trying his best to please her, it was like he was just there out of duty.

    So, even without having read other Webcomics, the comparison to older comics is still pretty telling, when you actually take a few minutes to look.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Does anyone think at some point if we get deep enough below the barrel that we could tunnel through into and then out of another barrel on the other side, or would this comic disintegrate in the earths molten core?

    ReplyDelete
  79. It is definitely true though that xkcd fans don't read it as a webcomic. All the people I know who follow it just appreciate that it's nerdy and makes references to things they know about, not that it looks like shit or doesn't know how to structure a joke.

    A guy once said to me that he'd love to see a movie based on it, and I asked if the film would just be an hour and a half of a stick figure telling people they're wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  80. i think i maybe made a post or something once (?) about how xkcd is interesting culturally or some shit, on account of how it's not a comic and it isn't good but it still has such a loyal following

    ReplyDelete
  81. This comic was basically a tweet.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Yeah, this comic was a tweet.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned this, but this comic felt like a tweet more than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Randall should have written this on twitter, not made a comic based on it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. 5:19, 5:23, 5:24, 5:25 = samefag

    ReplyDelete
  86. i definitely agree that my 'theory' only explains some xkcd fans, not all.

    hey, get this. a very small number of people pointed out in the xkcd forums that '(' is a really, really stupid comic, and that being severely bothered by unmatched parentheses is indicative of mental illness or obnoxiousness.

    a few of the replies basically said, well, mozart was bothered by unresolved tension in music.

    do you see what we're dealing with here?

    ReplyDelete
  87. I can confirm Chiggy's theory. I actually used to like Real Life Comics. Yes, despite the copy-paste art, monotonous four-panel format, TWO author-insert characters, and a 'story' consisting mainly of banter, gaming references, and the occasional sci-fi parody. But it was my first webcomic - I had nothing to compare it to.

    XKCD wasn't long after that, and definitely the second one that I read on a regular basis. In my case I actually enjoyed the nerd clique thing, frequently making references to it in my maths class. But if I was just reading it alone I don't think it would have held my interest for long.

    Since I feel like making this post educational, let this be a lesson to immerse yourself in a new genre. Don't just look at one work.

    ReplyDelete
  88. xkcd is so tired. This blog should be about how great a few other webcomics are and not about how much xkcd sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  89. The weather gets worse when I try to visit. I didn't think anything of it at first, because it's still winter and of course the pass is bad sometimes, so instead I just sent her my apologies and promised the next weekend. But just as I'd pack up the winds would pick up and I'd lose power and the radio would be reporting the passes closed again.

    This happened a few times before I caught on. I'd start checking the weather in advance, and it would be reporting clear and dry. The weather only got bad when I started planning a trip. So I tried to catch it off guard, leave without any planning or preparation, only to find myself stuck on the freeway for hours, stranded in a little truck stop town with nowhere to be and nothing to do.

    So I stopped making promises, and she started asking why I couldn't tell her when I'd be by to visit. I didn't know what to say. She wouldn't believe the weather was cursed, she wanted me to keep trying, and so I did, and so I kept getting stranded, and I came to know the little nowhere towns and the little greasy spoons I'd find myself eating at, wishing I were somewhere else.

    I wanted nothing more than to give up, but she wouldn't understand, so I guess I'll just have to settle for failure.

    ReplyDelete
  90. oh boy, is this going to be a thing?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Right, I was 5:19. Don't know if the other three might've all been the same person but they definitely weren't me.

    Not that it matters. I'm anonymous. Doesn't reflect badly on me, there's not a "me" to reflect badly on. So hey!

    ReplyDelete
  92. are you going to delete this one like the other MASTERPIECE someone posted?

    ReplyDelete
  93. i am incapable of deleting comments. anyway why would i delete something i wrote? if they like it so much they want to share it with the community i'm not going to stop them

    ReplyDelete
  94. THE PETALS FALL TWICE

    felt right. She slowly licked and tickled his peeny, and, because she was so smart, combined the words in her head, like an expression explorer of old.

    Slickled, she thought. I'm slickling his peeny.

    No matter how brilliant her wordplay, the result was the same. Gary's peeny was now erect. It felt like a quality bar of peeny-scented soap in her hands. Without warning she gave it a swift headbutt, because men liked that. All men liked that.

    "Phwoa, Melinda. That's the good stuff. That's the stuff that makes me forget about my problems."

    Melissa derived satisfaction from this comment, despite the mangled pronunciation of her name. She could feel her horny level rising to 30% and her hooha was getting right slimy with the anticipation of participation.

    "Gary, me need sex now inside please." Damn! Melissa thought. I wish there was a better way to say that!

    Gary was only too eager to comply. He wrenched his peeny away from Melissa's grubby paws and thrust inside her hooha with a thunderous orgasm. She was pregnant, but that could be dealt with in the morning, provided she was still alive.

    "Outstanding stuff, Melanie," Gary chortled. "I know I could just go to sleep now, but I would like to continue satisfying you, sans peeny." Gary nudged downward and his peeny was nowhere to be seen.

    "What in have you mind eeeeee?"

    "Just sit back and relax, kitty cat."

    Melissa did just that, falling back onto the bed and stretching her "perfect 7" body, eager for Gary's attention. He started working his magic immediately and she felt an all-too-familiar heat rising from her breast. Gary was crouched over top and pooping all over her unbelievably average body.

    "Gary, so stinky."

    "That's just the poop, baby. Let it just work its magic."

    "I... I can't see anything."

    "That's because you're blind now, Mildred."

    ReplyDelete
  95. I vote for the second one.

    ReplyDelete
  96. thieving fuckers get everywhere man.

    ReplyDelete
  97. that's twice now! i didn't understand why they were posting a mediocre attempt at comedy in the first place, but there you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  98. "i didn't understand why they were posting a mediocre attempt at comedy in the first place, but there you have it."

    Irony.

    ReplyDelete
  99. it's like RAAAAAAAIN ON YOUR WEDDING DAY

    ReplyDelete
  100. The irony in that song is, of course, that nothing in it is ironic. Alanis is a genius.

    You are not.

    ReplyDelete
  101. oh, I see you don't understand. see, my mediocre attempts at comedy are amusing for me to produce, and produce. these people aren't producing this mediocre attempt, just pasting it. hence my confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Replication is the First Form of Creation, Rob. They clearly are trying to become you.

    Captcha: remediss. I'm not frozen, dancing is my remediss, remediss.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Can someone please explain 860 to me? I honestly don't get it. Unless they're so freaked out by their own bodies that they can't stand it?

    ReplyDelete
  104. 860: the skin under your fingernails is really gross. i've actually done that experiment and it is sort of gross.

    but it's not funny.

    ReplyDelete
  105. http://www.warehousecomic.com/comic_426.php

    ReplyDelete
  106. Anon9:39 - the warehouse comic version is about 326x better. thank you for making me aware of it.

    ReplyDelete
  107. "The skin under your fingernails, when viewed through a microscope, is incredibly gross. Seriously gross. So gross that it's funny."

    Well... Ok. I accept this.
    Mediocre comic then.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I have come to the conclusion that quality in works of fiction with no definitive sensory or emotional value is an illusion. Sure, you guys attack xkcd for being "bad". And according to your mode of thought I have prematurely evaluated most most xkcd comics and found them to be terrible. But then someone attacked your writing. And their point was valid. And then your work fell apart. I saw all such flaws instantaneously, in addition to those you had posited of xkcd. Then I realized that I could apply this to any such work with no strict metric- even, say, SMBC. A work of art can be admired: you can take a look at a painting and say that it is beautiful. You can listen to a symphony and marvel at its sublimity. You can play a game, and admit to it being engaging. But when you read a book, listen to a story, look at a webcomic- anything with a low enough sensory value- its properties all become subjective, and you find a way in to tear it apart. There is an infinite number of such theoretical aspects, and an infinite number of arguments one could make in return. It just has no basis in the human mind. There are certain curves which the mind is designed to appreciate, certain sounds it is designed to recognize, certain environmental or circumstantial stimuli it is supposed to countenance. But a collection of words or concepts on a page? That was never meant to happen. It just holds no physical value; all assigned parameters are arbitrary, and the world having seven billion people upon its back, there will always be someone who agrees.
    I am not an atheist. I am not agnostic. But I do believe that we were not created with this intent in mind. I do not know this for sure. How am I supposed to decipher the intentions of the god(s)? However, were we born with a definite capacity to regard an abstract work, there would be no question as to the quality of anything that currently exists: no room for debate. Twilight and possibly its sequels might still pass on account of sexual appeal, but xkcd would have long died. There would be no forums. No blog. No crowds of cuddlefish shouting their war cry of "Get out of my head, Randall!". Just a sad, pathetic comic. Sitting their. Unloved. Because of justice. Randall? He would be in the streets. Unless he finally learned a way to make an honest living? Who knows. Not I. Only that it is not the present.

    Harry Potter can suck it.

    -Leahcim Ydegezs

    ReplyDelete
  109. What does he mean by, look at the skin under our fingernails? That is a really unclear statement.

    ReplyDelete
  110. more humorous than 860 is imagining the wonderful goatsexkcd for it

    ReplyDelete
  111. @Anon 10:19 - " But then someone attacked your writing. And their point was valid. And then your work fell apart"

    Attacking the writing, and attacking the logic found in the writing, are pretty different things. If you think you've found a logical flaw in the criticism, the argument falls apart. If you've found a grammatical error, that doesn't mean a damn thing.

    The rest of your argument sounds like "All Art is Subjective," so why don't you go read this. It's a really excellent read actually:
    http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2010/02/but-its-all-subjective.html

    ReplyDelete
  112. So, I've been thinking. With all these Snorg Tees ads kicking around the internet, who would even bother looking up porn? I usually end up polishing myself off just visiting Urban Dictionary.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "this penny is really scratched"

    RANDALL.

    REPEAT AFTER ME

    I will show the reader, not tell them

    ReplyDelete
  114. 860 wasn't an abomination. I didn't really laugh, but I got the joke. It's great I didn't start my Monday off with rage. Though with it being Valentines day and me being single (no joke guys), that won't last long.

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Let's look at Randall's inernet history!"

    ReplyDelete
  116. I like to think that Randall has an Inner Net.

    ReplyDelete
  117. JustScott, spend the evening looking up Snorg Tees ads if you really feel down about being single.

    ReplyDelete
  118. If I get a brain aneurysm as a result of this comic strip, can I hold Randy responsible?February 14, 2011 at 8:40 PM

    I just gotta say, I have a severe case of OCD and this comic pisses me off 99% because of the total lack of fucking effort.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I'm pretty sure this last comic would have been better with 2 panels instead of 4...

    ReplyDelete
  120. For those of you who may be using Harry Potter as the 'metric' of excellent writing, and finding it falling short, allow me to recommend "The Blade Itself" as somewhat more engrossing and infinitely more violent fiction. Or, if you really just wanted quality, I've always enjoyed Plato's Meno. I'd read it in English though - the Greek is a tad ancient.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Meno is lame. Go for Theaetetus.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I'm pretty sure this last comic would have been better with one sentence and no pictures instead of a bunch of both...

    ReplyDelete
  123. I thought it was a funny LISP joke until I saw the alt-text.

    ReplyDelete
  124. "The Blade Itself" is a good book, so it's a shame that it's being recommended to everyone by a pompous cunt whose category for good fiction includes "infinite violence."

    ReplyDelete
  125. I quite liked Monday's comic, especially as I was expecting some sort of creepy Valentine's day stalkerfest.

    Randall did good.

    ReplyDelete