guys! John Campbell (you know! john campbell!) is doing his hourly comics again! For some reason my brain kept telling me that he does them in February but no, my brain is stupid, he does them in January. Like past years, he is encouraging people to make their own hourly comics on February 1st, and I am going to try to do that this year. Last year I said I would try but then I didn't. This year I will try harder. If any of you make them, put them up on the forum he sets up and give us a link.
So far the comics look pretty good, though today's had a lot of disconnected stuff. We'll see how they go.
I think last year my computer was broken horribly on February 1st, that might be my excuse. But it won't happen again!
Monday, January 4, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Comic 683: Science: It's Boring, Bitches
But why on earth do people think it is interesting? it's not like anyone ever tries to make Science look awesome, like, make it look like it involves flying sharks, so that little girls want to do it. It's not like anyone sells shirts with that exact idea. Or a shirt that says "Science: It Works, Bitches" or "Stand Back: I'm going to try SCIENCE" or anything else that would make something think science is exciting! It's not like those shirts advertise by showing pictures of people with exciting looking liquids doing exciting science! Not to mention gettin' all the hottt chicks!
So it's not like anyone out there is actually promoting the idea that science is somehow fun. seriously, where the hell do people get ideas like that? Here we are at xkcd, which only tries to make science look boring all the time, and lead to boring results or stuff like that. It certainly doesn't talk about physicists gettin' hott threesome action. Or hott lesbian action. SO WHERE THE FUCK ARE PEOPLE GETTING THE IDEA THAT SCIENCE IS FUN? Why do people think science is something cool, when it is just boring? these things are a mystery to me.
Luckily, there are some sources out there that try to say, no, science is not as fun as in movies. These brave souls push BACK against those who would make you think science is all fun, all the time. For example, this PHD Comic is like that. And this FoxTrot. And this video compilation - on digg's front page a few weeks ago! Heck, even this obscure webcomic called xkcd did that one time (alas, only panel 1 is relevant here).
So thank god that a few brave souls noticed that Hey, movies are sometimes silly with how they portray things!
And let's hope xkcd continues to be a good soldier in the fight against making things look cooler than they actually are.
-------------------
Wait, didn't we just get a "movies are hilariously unrealistic" comic?
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Where's Your Webcomic?
Hello, my name is Rob, and I am utterly incapable of producing anything creative at all. This is why I criticize things! You see, critics cannot write anything of their own. All they are capable of doing is write negative reviews of things. This invalidates all of their negative reviews! (Positive reviews are, of course, unaffected by this.) It makes it very difficult to be a critic, because you have to write a best-selling novel in order to criticize fiction, a smash hit film in order to be a film critic, a platinum album in order to write music reviews, and, of course, a successful webcomic in order to write webcomics reviews. So why don't we all just focus on that, if we hate it so much? OH RIGHT it's because we are incapable of producing anything.
Not every cuddlefish who makes this attack demands that we make our webcomic as successful as Randall's, of course. Some seem like they would be content if only we produced something--I think the implication being that you are only capable of either writing or criticizing; never both. I guess that means that if only we were to produce something--anything!--this blog would immediately go away.
I will start with the assumption that none of us produces anything creative, because it is easily dismissed. This is not true! Several regulars create their own webcomics. I write morose microfiction on my blog nearly every day. Some others write fiction of their own, and I expect there are other artists I'm not aware of in our midst.
With that said, let's continue: do critics need to be experts in the field they are criticizing? (Spoiler alert: no, no they don't.)
That is certainly a question! Unfortunately, the skill required to read something is not the same as the skill required to write it. Ditto art, music, film, et cetera. The job of the entertainer is to entertain an audience. If a member of the audience did not like it, the entertainer has failed in this regard. This does not automatically make their art a failure, but it does mean that the person who failed to be entertained is entitled to express why it is they disliked it. Even--no, especially--if they are not experts in the field. Most of us are not.
So! XKCD. We mock it regularly. It is pretty terrible these days. The regulars here--a diverse cast, all!--routinely dislike it. Routinely! And we derive pleasure from mocking it. Am I somehow more qualified to write about XKCD because I'm a writer than someone who doesn't write? Because they are quite capable of disliking it just as much as I am, and they might have a different perspective.
I can envision scenarios where being a writer would make me like something more, and situations where it would make me like something less. Similarly, mathematicians and scientists are often equipped to find things they like or dislike that I simply wouldn't notice in XKCD.
This particular cuddlefishism confuses me, I think because it is pretty much the textbook definition of an ad hominem argument--if I point out, for instance, that Randall is too wordy and that if he tightened up his dialogue he would produce a much sharper comic of higher quality, and some cuddlefish comes and says "yeah I don't see your webcomic," he is doing nothing but ignoring the argument by attacking some quality of mine--in this case, that I am not a popular webcomics artist. Does this somehow make Randall less excessively wordy? No, it does not. Does it somehow mean that his comic would not improve if he trimmed it down a bit? No, it does not.
And for the record, literally everything that I have ever written, including the terrible stuff that I don't let anyone see from middle school, is better than the average XKCD.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
GUYS it's carl here! look over on the left I made a WHOLE LITTLE AREA with links to these recent posts Rob made! that is so special. i hope he writes more. I also linked to them from the FAQ (the "lame" faq) in the answers to the relevant questions. Keep an eye on Rob guys, he is an up-and-comer on the blog.
Not every cuddlefish who makes this attack demands that we make our webcomic as successful as Randall's, of course. Some seem like they would be content if only we produced something--I think the implication being that you are only capable of either writing or criticizing; never both. I guess that means that if only we were to produce something--anything!--this blog would immediately go away.
I will start with the assumption that none of us produces anything creative, because it is easily dismissed. This is not true! Several regulars create their own webcomics. I write morose microfiction on my blog nearly every day. Some others write fiction of their own, and I expect there are other artists I'm not aware of in our midst.
With that said, let's continue: do critics need to be experts in the field they are criticizing? (Spoiler alert: no, no they don't.)
That is certainly a question! Unfortunately, the skill required to read something is not the same as the skill required to write it. Ditto art, music, film, et cetera. The job of the entertainer is to entertain an audience. If a member of the audience did not like it, the entertainer has failed in this regard. This does not automatically make their art a failure, but it does mean that the person who failed to be entertained is entitled to express why it is they disliked it. Even--no, especially--if they are not experts in the field. Most of us are not.
So! XKCD. We mock it regularly. It is pretty terrible these days. The regulars here--a diverse cast, all!--routinely dislike it. Routinely! And we derive pleasure from mocking it. Am I somehow more qualified to write about XKCD because I'm a writer than someone who doesn't write? Because they are quite capable of disliking it just as much as I am, and they might have a different perspective.
I can envision scenarios where being a writer would make me like something more, and situations where it would make me like something less. Similarly, mathematicians and scientists are often equipped to find things they like or dislike that I simply wouldn't notice in XKCD.
This particular cuddlefishism confuses me, I think because it is pretty much the textbook definition of an ad hominem argument--if I point out, for instance, that Randall is too wordy and that if he tightened up his dialogue he would produce a much sharper comic of higher quality, and some cuddlefish comes and says "yeah I don't see your webcomic," he is doing nothing but ignoring the argument by attacking some quality of mine--in this case, that I am not a popular webcomics artist. Does this somehow make Randall less excessively wordy? No, it does not. Does it somehow mean that his comic would not improve if he trimmed it down a bit? No, it does not.
And for the record, literally everything that I have ever written, including the terrible stuff that I don't let anyone see from middle school, is better than the average XKCD.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
GUYS it's carl here! look over on the left I made a WHOLE LITTLE AREA with links to these recent posts Rob made! that is so special. i hope he writes more. I also linked to them from the FAQ (the "lame" faq) in the answers to the relevant questions. Keep an eye on Rob guys, he is an up-and-comer on the blog.
Friday, January 1, 2010
10 best xkcd comics 201-400
A million years ago, back in the first months of this blog, I wrote two posts, one each about about my favorite and my least favorite xkcd comics. I forget why I did this. The favorite one was to show that I liked a lot of comics; the least favorites may have been a necessary byproduct of having to sort through so much crap to get my 10 favorite.
ANYWAY the point is, I limited myself in both cases to the first 200 comics, which was then about half the total output of Randall Munroe. I figured I would get to the next 200 comics soon. WELL, it's far too late for that, but better late than never, and so here is my acclaimed follow-up to my acclaimed original, the 10 BEST XKCD COMICS, 201-400.
---------------------------
First, some notes: Unlike last time, I am a Trained Professional now, and so I am going to throw a little more commentary in there. And screw "no need to clutter the page with images," I am going to clutter the fuck out of this page. I'm leaving all the original alt-texts in, for uh, scholarly completeness? Let's get started!
On my first run through the comics, I found 16 stand out great comics (and, oddly, 16 stand out terrible comics. But I'll get to those in a few days). I narrowed it down surprisingly easily.
In chronological order:
I'm a sucker for self reference, and the idea of escaping to a fantasy world in order to play a game - The very thing you are doing in this world! - is great. The added detail that the characters would have to "whittle" dice and make sheets on "parchment" just shows how much effort they are putting into this pointless exercise. Pet peeve though: "Recursing" as a verb bothers me. It sounds like you are cursing, again, and the change from the softer "zh" sound in "recursion" to the "ss" in recursing annoys me to. "Hey! No recursion!" would have worked fine. OH WELL.
Totally a noodle incident, which is usually a cop out for humor, but I'm making an exception: This comic is clearly trying to make as crazy a noodle incident as possible - constantly adding in more crazy details, right up to the final word. And dammit, the details he chose were funny.
285
304
And Last,
385
From only a few weeks before I started this blog. This one got lots of links from feminist-type websites, and I think it carefully toes the line between making a great point well and making a good point badly. This comic is making a point about society and how it treats women in mathematics; in that sense, I think it is unlike any other xkcd. There are others that try to do this (like the one about being nice to furries) but they also try to make jokes; what's great about this is that it presents the double standard as the joke. In other words, rather than doing something funny, this comic holds up a mirror to us as says, you, you are being funny. In the sense of "stupid." Well done, Randall - it was tricky to pull off, so be careful before you try again.
---------------------------
WELL that brings us to the end of the list! Before you go, you can check out the honorable mentions:
GOOD, BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH: The 6 that I had to cut:
218
231
238 (I like the jagged text on "Saturday Night"; I think it does a good job of conveying the exact tone that the person on the other end of the line is making)
242
252
331
SO - tell me why you think I'm wrong - which of these comics suck, and which ones did I unfairly leave out?
(10 worst comics of 201-400 will come in a few days, *hopefully*)
ANYWAY the point is, I limited myself in both cases to the first 200 comics, which was then about half the total output of Randall Munroe. I figured I would get to the next 200 comics soon. WELL, it's far too late for that, but better late than never, and so here is my acclaimed follow-up to my acclaimed original, the 10 BEST XKCD COMICS, 201-400.
---------------------------
First, some notes: Unlike last time, I am a Trained Professional now, and so I am going to throw a little more commentary in there. And screw "no need to clutter the page with images," I am going to clutter the fuck out of this page. I'm leaving all the original alt-texts in, for uh, scholarly completeness? Let's get started!
On my first run through the comics, I found 16 stand out great comics (and, oddly, 16 stand out terrible comics. But I'll get to those in a few days). I narrowed it down surprisingly easily.
In chronological order:
202
I like it because he doesn't just complain that people are dumb, he gives us examples ("showing" in addition to "telling"). Of course they are made up, but they are funny: Both sides are total idiots, not just the side we all agree with. The extra effort of drawing in the video at the top is also a nice touch I don't think he'd do today. Contrast this comic with 481, which makes the same point ("youtube comments r dumb") but in such a terrible way.
244
236
This is just great. This is probably the best of the bunch. It's a great example of what I love in comedy, which is having to figure out for yourself exactly what conclusion the author is aiming for (I usually call this "making the jump in your head or something"). Part of the fun of reading this is the moment - no doubt very soon after you read it - where you go "OH, that way people will this he's all pervy." And the alt-text does this again, with an even better, darker joke.
244
254
262
Not sure I can explain this one, so I'll take a pass. Another comic that stands out just fine on its own, but with an alt-text that makes it just great.
285
I think this is one of the few xkcds that just gets better the more you think about it. The fact that "Citation Needed" is a sort of passive-aggressive form of protest on wikipedia, coupled with the fact that demanding a citation for a fact is actually a really good thing to do to a politician, AND another great alt-text makes this a great comic. Also, it's one of the first I ever read. In this case, minimalism works for Randall. That will not always be the case.
304
I love this one even more now. Given the "love is wonderful!" tone that xkcd began to embark on around comic 350 or so, this perfect subversion of the expected is lovely. It is so perfectly set up for you to think that these two quirky people have found quirky true love in a quirky way that you are all ready to just vomit all over them, and then you find out no, this relationship is over before it began. So satisfying! If this came out now, I would think it was an xkcd parody. The colors and shadows feel a little too "just practicing my photoshop skills"-ey but it still helps set the tone nicely.
325
This comic didn't earn its place here for mailing bobcats - If I am a sucker for self-reference, I am an anti-sucker for random humor - it got on the list for the feedback. I love how casual and descriptive the feedback is, and how it is almost all overwhelmingly positive. The title - a place xkcd rarely finds humor - adds to this nicely as well.
Sometimes I write that contrast is a good source of humor. The contrast between the violence and chaos of what happened to the Buyer and the neutral tone of his feedback leads to Komedy Gold (this is the first time I have used that phrase non-sarcastically).
Sometimes I write that contrast is a good source of humor. The contrast between the violence and chaos of what happened to the Buyer and the neutral tone of his feedback leads to Komedy Gold (this is the first time I have used that phrase non-sarcastically).
Another great subversion, AND another great contrast! This comic is full of lessons for us all. The lovey cutesy comic ends with a totally unexpected, non-cutesy visual punchline, thus avoiding pukes a-plenty, and the contrast of Love on top of the mattress and War below is also lovely. WELL DONE!
(i have to remember "pukes a-plenty", that is a great, Ryan North-type phrase)
update: well, looks like this is the one people disagree on, or at least, disagree the most with. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that one of these gets vehement opposition from the blog regulars. I should clarify: Yes, this is usually the sort of irritating "i love love!" that I hate in xkcd, but the fact that it ends with the Quirky Couple fighting (or rock 'em socking whatevering) in addition to their love nonsense is at least a bit of a change of pace. BUT NO MATTER, we must simply disagree on this comic and try to agree on (most of) the rest.
(i have to remember "pukes a-plenty", that is a great, Ryan North-type phrase)
update: well, looks like this is the one people disagree on, or at least, disagree the most with. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that one of these gets vehement opposition from the blog regulars. I should clarify: Yes, this is usually the sort of irritating "i love love!" that I hate in xkcd, but the fact that it ends with the Quirky Couple fighting (or rock 'em socking whatevering) in addition to their love nonsense is at least a bit of a change of pace. BUT NO MATTER, we must simply disagree on this comic and try to agree on (most of) the rest.
And Last,
385
---------------------------
WELL that brings us to the end of the list! Before you go, you can check out the honorable mentions:
GOOD, BUT NOT GOOD ENOUGH: The 6 that I had to cut:
218
231
238 (I like the jagged text on "Saturday Night"; I think it does a good job of conveying the exact tone that the person on the other end of the line is making)
242
252
331
SO - tell me why you think I'm wrong - which of these comics suck, and which ones did I unfairly leave out?
(10 worst comics of 201-400 will come in a few days, *hopefully*)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
