Friday, January 20, 2012

Comics 1004-1006: Worse Than SOPA

Here are two shitty one-sentence reviews and one actual review for you!

1004. I think this is Randy's way of saying he thinks he's finally outgrown superhero comics.

1005. This is not a comic.

1006. Every time I call Randy on bullshit like this some cuddlefish is all like "so, the strawmanner has become the strawmanned," even though I do not make "strawman arguments" (I just hurl "unnecessarily hostile invective" at Randy). But this is probably one of the best examples of his strawman smugness yet. See how he has created a fictional character to say something annoying, just so he can say something smug about him. And see how his smugness also isn't actually very accurate: an unlikeable character doesn't make a movie any less believable (cf. Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf?). And the dialog offered isn't exceptionally unbelievable (by XKCD standards, anyway), either. Annoying, sure. But unbelievable?

I always like to pretend that these comics are the result of some serious staircase wit on Randy's part--he was subjected to someone who said something that vaguely resembles what his strawmen say in the comics, and much later he thought of something witty to say. Of course, by the time he actually thought up a response, the original comment has been run through his brain so many times it's nothing more than a hideous caricature of what it once was--not something an actual human would say, but something that, in Randy's mind, the Other might utter.

Of course, the point here isn't to be accurate, but to be an AMAZING ZING at the strawman. "Ha ha, you are unlikeable!" Which, of course he is--he's a Randall Munroe character.

69 comments:

  1. wow, a well written review for once

    ReplyDelete
  2. according to the forums there is some sort of black hat guy 'comic' thing behind the black panel in 1005. it's the usual smug bullshit about 'we' (computer people) being better than 'you' (the pleb providing the 'living' referred to)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rob I am still waiting on reviews for 998 and 999. Get off your fucking ass and do them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Laughing my ass off. Some guy on Omegle is shitting bricks because I told him Randy raped my teenaged daughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And what exactly is funny about that?

      Delete
  5. Of course rape in general is nothing to laugh at, especially Randy raping an underaged and defenseless girl.

    Edit: The captcha is spergo. I think we all know what blogspot is talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why doesn't this blog link to the comics in question or just include the strips with the "reviews"? I hate giving Randy the traffic by just navigating to the site myself. I think it would be better to steal his bandwidth by hotlinking the images of the strips directly. Or, at the very least, it would be funny if some portion of the traffic to his site came directly from this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i get this question a lot! the answer is mostly that i am lazy.

      Delete
  7. Here's the black hat bonus panel thing from 1005: http://imgur.com/kGEOB

    ReplyDelete
  8. you stupid fat Rob, you forgot to mention the art in 1006, i mean, GOATEE ANYONE

    ReplyDelete
  9. 11:35, Internet janitors are the most self-overrated type of janitor. But Randall manages to portray them as even more annoying than they are.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's interesting how 1006 looks with the positions of the two characters switched over. Kinda like this

    Captcha: help im stuck in a captcha factory. Yeah, that one again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In response to your review of 1004: Sooo superhero comics are automatically immature, is what you're saying? Kinda harsh, really. Also, he's clearly referring to the films, so... yeah, what? Kinda a weak criticism, especially when there are obviously better ones you coulda gone with.

    In response to your review of 1005: Yes, fair point.

    In response to your review of 1006: How fortunate you are that when you imagine Randy as being pissed off with some guy, coming up with a zinger later, and imagining this "unlikeable" chap as a 2D caricature, you aren't, yourself, presenting Randy as a caricature. I mean, that would make you some kind of hypocrite. Let's just pretend you were aware that you were doing this and that,therefore, it was alright because it was ironic or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good point. People here keep saying "oh, xkcd is awful, that Randy guy? He uses strawmen all the time" and yet... they make a ridiculous caricature of him so they can attack that and have some fun. Just don't expect an intelligent answer to these observations and you'll be OK.

      Delete
  12. Rob is a hipster, everything he does is ironic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I GOT HIPS BUT I'M NOT A HIPSTER

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I GOT HITS BUT I'M NOT A HITLER

      Delete
    2. I GOT SUED BUT I'M NOT A SEWER

      Delete
    3. Another one of theseJanuary 23, 2012 at 6:24 AM

      I GOT A MUM BUT I'M NOT A MUMMER

      Delete
  14. 8:27, far be it from me to defend the fat bastard, but Rob's prequel was to something which actually happened.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guys after cutting up chili peppers never put your hand down your pants. Not even if you think you've washed your hands really well. Fuck me I've tried to wash it off but it's still burning.

    in b4 stick your dick in / invite the dick of your boyfriend/girlfriend and share the pain

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's really hot. Sometimes I would make a sub put Icy Hot on his dick.

      Delete
  16. Dicksmash McIroncockJanuary 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM

    You can't say dick on this blog. Get out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You just did, dick.

      Delete
    2. Are you three years old, dick?

      Delete
    3. Your dick is three years old, dick.

      Delete
    4. My dick is in a three year old, dick.

      Delete
    5. My dick is in three thread year olds at once, dick.

      Delete
  17. Superhero comics are not imature! At least not all of them...

    ReplyDelete
  18. An entire blog dedicated to complaining about XKCD...?

    .....

    .....

    You people have waaaaaay too much spare time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It gets worse, my friend. I have created an ENTIRE BLOG dedicated to complaining about you.

      http://cuddlefishsuck.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    2. I have a room in my house dedicated to complaining about Anon's post at 9:44.

      You are all welcome to visit it.

      Delete
    3. And it's not even true that we have too much free time. Most of us are extremely busy, and devote what little free time we have to the blog, as a labour of love. The fact that you would dismiss such a thing out of hand just, well it just hurts me.

      Delete
  19. Dicksmash McIroncockJanuary 21, 2012 at 9:49 PM

    12:49, Michael = dumbfucks

    Captcha: trannes
    I wouldn't go that far.

    ReplyDelete
  20. so, the strawmanner has become the strawmanned

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is the first comic in a while that I've actually laughed at - sometimes it's nice to see a nice snappy retort and not the usual over-intellectualised or meme-based stuff. The difficulty most people seem to have is that they can't grasp that "believe" isn't being used in the literal context; it's a pun: when a critic reviews a show and says the characters aren't believable, they mean things such as the dialogue is poor, the protagonist is unlikeable, etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah that's not remotely true. when a critic says that the characters aren't believable, he means that they do not behave in a way that makes them think "these are fully developed characters." poor dialogue can contribute, of course, but usually due to Randall Munroe-style stiltedness--words that no actual human would ever utter, like "do me without a condom."

      other things include characters having unbelievable motivations or doing things that make no sense, given their characterization. sometimes they're just Mary Sues. but no critic has ever complained that a character is unbelievable because he is unlikeable.

      unlikeable characters can be unbelievable, of course, and sometimes when a character is unbelievable it makes them unlikeable, but the reverse is not true.

      believability in a film is an actual thing. it implies that the viewer could not maintain the suspension of disbelief when watching the film. that is what a critic means when they say a character is unbelievable: that that character shattered their suspension of disbelief.

      Delete
    2. So, 1:48, what you're saying is that this strip isn't demonstrating an incorrect observation on bad movies but a subtle observation on bad critics? And, in fact, the huge essay by the character on the left is a pimped-out Chekov Uzi even though a penknife would have done?

      Prima: I am so a violent crimelord who has like totally built his empire around selling banned narcotics. I swear, if they made my life into a movie, no-one would believe it.

      Secunda: Yeah, though mostly because of the Valley girl colloquialisms and the unlikeable main character.

      Delete
    3. Just curious, Rob, when did Randall use the words ""do me without a condom"? Thanks.

      Delete
  22. Sustainable sustainable 1007, sustainable sustainable sustainable. Sustainable, sustainable sustainable sustainable, sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable.

    The future is here.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 1007 is kinda meh - just a combination of Randy's normal use of google as data and comic 605. Still, it made me grin for a moment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. In regards to 1007, I am getting so very sick of graph comics. Especially since all this amounts to is Randy trying to flaunt his OH SO CLEVER social observations in a way that appeals to nerds.

    I use the term "nerd" here very loosely, as the Wikipedia definition is "a derogatory slang term for an intellectual but socially-impaired, perhaps obsessive person who spends inordinate amounts of time on unpopular or obscure pursuits, usually relevant to topics of fiction or fantasy as opposed to relating to the natural world, to the exclusion of more mainstream activities." Whereas most of xkcd's fanbase aren't intellectual and, in the context of internet culture, xkcd is fairly mainstream now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah, the word "nerd" has long since gone from generally referring to intelligent people who are into obscure things and now specifically refers to a certain subset of pursuits which are seen as stereotypically nerdy.

      Delete
    2. At least it isn't John Green's definition of nerdy which, from what I've observed, is just "anyone interested in anything" with the resultant Green-worshipping communities being nothing more than hipster teenagers and young adults desperately trying to appear special and unique.

      God, I hate the word "nerd" these days. Not to mention everyone who calls themselves "a nerd" or "nerdy" or "a geek" just because they read shitty esoteric literature and watch Doctor Who. And xkcd.

      Delete
  25. 11:27, What social observations are being made by 1007? We have limited resources, and we will reach those limits scarily soon? I'm pretty sure no one, especially Randy, believes that's clever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the word "sustainable" has resultantly become increasingly popular in pretty much any context you can think of. Not only in regards to resources. Haven't you noticed? Even Randall noticed.

      Delete
    2. So the clever social observation is that people say sustainable more? You're gonna have to point out what part of that comic indicates Randall thinks he's "OH SO CLEVER" for noticing that, because I'm not seeing it. In fact, I think you could argue the opposite: he knew that observation by itself wasn't very noteworthy, so he rehashed 605 to make the "Sustainable is Unsustainable" joke.

      Delete
    3. Oh, man. Dude.

      Delete
    4. 2:24, couple of salient points:

      (1) You lack innate talent;

      (2) You lack life experience.

      Delete
  26. I agree that 1007 is just a dumb redo of 605, except 605 was actually kind of funny, whereas 1007 is just stupid as fuck.

    Plus, for such a stupid remark, you would need goatee guy (the next big star on the internet)

    Actually, come to think of it, you would need goatee guy for almost every xkcd comics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on, 1007 has a bigger graph! That is obviously funnier!

      Delete
  27. So there's something I noticed about XKCD. When I immediately read a new comic, I typically despise it. However, just now as I was going back over the last two month's worth of XKCDs I realized they aren't all bad. Some are actually kind of good, and the majority entertaining. I don't know, maybe it's just me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's just you lowering your expectations out of despair.

      Don't worry, it'll pass.

      Delete
    2. Yeah this would be like going back to the '80s and remarking that actually the governments of the UK and the USA didn't have that much disdain for the working man.

      Delete
  28. Anon 1:23, I beg to disagree. I didn't even remember 605 when I read 1007, so it works well as a standalone joke. It's a clever parody of the real observation that people say 'sustainable' too much, and it's even backed up with data. And the idea of people saying nothing but the word 'sustainable', is good absurdist humour (although Your Mileage May Vary). The fact is that the joke makes good use of observational and absurdist components.

    The only problem I find with 1007 is that it's in the wrong order. The 'punchline' is at the top of the page, and you have to look down to know what it all means.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That you don't remember 605 doesn't make it any less of a redo.

      Both are based on the idea of making a graph linear, and extrapolating the future based on the line. And both end up with an absurd result. And i say linear widely, since it's not even the case here, the graph is in power of 10.

      You could make that with basically anything, and get an absurd result. There's nothing quirky about it. I actually laughed at 605, which was at least more honest on the absurdity of the extrapolation.

      Delete
    2. It's still linear. Just not wrt the year.

      Delete
  29. Sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable

    Sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable

    Sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable

    Sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable

    Sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable

    Sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable sustainable

    Captcha: sustainable

    ReplyDelete
  30. hi Carl, i don't feel like reading the rest of the comments here so someone might have said something like this, but I used to really like xkcd and one day i saw your blog and read it and now i'm really starting to dislike it. i mean...the last few comics have been, pardon my french, fucking terrible. although some of his old humor is great i don't like the "i'm so cool look at me i know programming AND i do lots of sex ;) ;)" thing he's trying to convey. i mean, what is funny about this comic? and the next one? sustainable? seriously? "omg, usage has gone up, it is going to go up...FOREVER INTO INFINITY!" he already did this fucking joke, number 605, "extrapolating," and it was kinda funny then. ffs. just wanted to say im with you bro. randy needs to step up his game.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Who the hell is Carl? Fat Rob is the only person who lives here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. yeah whatever i read the old carl posts so just replace everything in that paragraph that says "carl" with "rob" thanks!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  33. @pernicious: this blog is so old that its parents have tired of it. We newbies who still value xkcriticism over discussion threads of meta-meta-callback-meta-meme humor just have to assimilate or branch off (c.f. xkcd-sucks.blogspot.com with a hyphen). The thesis is correct: xkcd sucks. Get over it fast and enjoy this blog or mull it over on your own first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you can't stand it, ignore it. Let those who want to enjoy it.

      Delete
  34. "... which wouldn't be possible if people hadn't been able to freely share my comics with each other all over the internet."

    Wha... what? This is fucking retarded. The only thing that would prevent people from sending stupid xkcd comics to each other would be if Munroe himself wanted to put a stop to it over SOPA. He... this isn't any good. He's desperately trying to fit in here. xkcd is about the last fucking thing that would be affected by SOPA.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Just so you know, there's no such thing as a "cuddlefish". It's a cuttlefish, and you use it often enough that you should REALLY FIGURE THAT OUT. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. did you ever consider that maybe 'cuddlefish' (used either to refer to any poster on xkcd sucks, specifically an anonymous poster who is an XKCD fan, or, more rarely, used to refer to XKCD fans in general) is a distinct term from 'cuttlefish' (a type of cephalopod)?

      Delete