Comic 764: An Anthropological Study of Nerds

Because this one's exploding, we'll give it its own post, ROB-STYLE. FUCK YEAH WOOOOO

[ALT TEXT: "Cue letters from anthropology majors complaining that this view of numerolinguistic development perpetuates a widespread myth. They get to write letters like that because when you're not getting a real science degree you have a lot of free time." After presumably receiving a lot of angry letters about his alt-text, he added a 'Zing!' at the end. -Ed.]

Let's all pause and take a moment to reflect on the fact that this comic's alt text has (so far!) provoked probably the most agreement this blog has ever seen regarding a comic/alt text. (Even 631, which brought out the "haha you are afraid of vaginas because you are either gay or 12 or both, whereas I, because I am straight and male and heterosexual and masculine, love all portrayals of vaginas, ever, because I am straight and male and never overcompensate for anything" trolls in force.)

Wasn't that fun?

Part of the reason it bothers me is that even if you assume that he's not bashing fine arts people (which isn't the worst assumption you could possibly make, since he doesn't ever really mention them)--people who are, with few exceptions, far busier than science people and therefore obviously vastly superior--he's still ignoring the fact that most social science people spend just as much time with reading, studying, research, lab work, etc. as hard science types. I could see an argument for non-social science types (English majors) having slightly less to do, on account of not having a lab. but they are still quite frequently very busy.

It's amusing that he is attacking people who are pedantic about their field. This is Randall "The Southern Half Of The Globe" Munroe. Randall "I Nitpick Over Electron-Labeling Conventions" Munroe. Randall "I Intentionally Bastardize The Wording Of Common Puzzles And Then Attack That Wording For Being Difficult To Understand" Munroe.

He is the KING of the fucking pedants, is what I'm saying. He, and his fans, are much more likely to email someone who gets a petty fact "wrong" than most other demographics--certainly much more so than the one he's attacking. And he doesn't limit himself to science facts, either. He's a pedant about everything, and, as pedants usually are, he's wrong about it just about every time.

An anthropology major or someone in a related field might email him about this one, it's true. But they're probably not going to email him about a completely unrelated field. Compare to, for instance, Randy himself. If he had not written this comic, but instead stumbled upon it, having read the Wiki articles he used to make it, he would probably have emailed the writer, saying that this view of neurolinguistic development perpetuates a widespread myth.

Randy is a physicist. His entire background in the humanities consists of "reading articles about it on Wikipedia and subsequently disparaging the experts in those fields who made the Wikipedia article he just read possible." And yet he disparages them on his comic even more frequently than I devour a thousand cheeseburgers in one terrible gulp with my horrible gaping maw.

Which is to say, a lot. (Because I am fat.)

Even the forums are coming down pretty hard on this one. Bets on how long until Randy either mysteriously changes the alt text or issues some sappy apology?

also fuck you carl
==================

OK now it's carl writing.

FUCK YOU right back, Rob! I'm glad you wrote this though, I didn't want to admit I may not have the time for this one. I'll let this be the official post on 764 because then i have less work to do, but we can't let this go without mentioning something else:

First it was comics about basic math (3x9, in this case)
Then it was comics about learning the difference between similies and metaphors.
Now it's comics about Sesame Street.
Am I the only one noticing a powerful trend towards appealing to children?

That will be all.

===================
Wait, no, carl again, back with updates. First off, to people reading this post in the future, read the comments. There's a huge amount of them but some really good discussions going on.

later update: It just occurred to me: when was the last time we had an xkcd character with eyes? I think it helps a lot. Just imagine how weird it would be without them. I think he should do this more often.

another update: Rob, i can't believe you forgot where "cuddlefish" got started! it was here. As you can see, it was Amanda's idea. It is interesting that while she constantly refuses to become a regular blogger on this site, she has given us by far our most lasting meme.

also: This is linked to in the comments but I want to make sure everyone sees it.

===================
Last update, added way after our original post insulting this comic:


Zing!

Comic 763: Problem Solving

Ha ha, people can be so stupid when it comes to their computers! It just makes a former physicist like you or me sick, how stupid some people can be. Figuring out solutions to their problems that aren't as efficient as possible? Ludicrous! [yes, i originally wrote "there" instead of "their" in a sentence mocking stupidity. enjoy, people.]


On the one hand, this comic is less annoying than the oft-heard concept online that people need to stop bugging us nerds for to help solve their problems. On the other hand, it's saying that even if other people solve their own problems, some people/comics will still make fun of them for it. So, non-xkcd readers are screwed either way. Ask for help, and we'll mock you for needing help. Solve the problem on your own, and we'll mock you for doing it wrong. Solve it right, and you'll just break even: "whatver, I could have done that."

I can't tell, though, if it's the same attitude espoused in this comic or the opposite one.

It is, i know, the same mindset that pisses me off about this thinkgeek shirt. Strangely, that's the second time in recent memory that I've said something to the effect of, "Yes, this xkcd is annoying, but not nearly as annoying as this thinkgeek shirt."

<thinkgeek rant>

I like thinkgeek, I like them a lot. They sell many many wonderful things. But sometimes - usually in their product descriptions, occasionally in their products, as in the examples above, they veer too hard into the "fake nerd" category, the marketing category that gives us gems like "let's make a pie tin in the shape of pi! because, you know, NERDS!" or maybe "if we take this unsellable product and either put an image from Portal on it or infuse it with the smell of bacon, everyone will want it! because, you know, nerds!" It pisses me off. It's not really their fault; they are trying to sell things and if they can get their customers to feel like not just thinkgeek customers but a whole seperate social group then I am sure that helps their business. So I guess the people I am really disappointed in are the fake nerds.

Has anyone run accross anyone else writing about this sort of thing, what I've taken to calling faux-nerdery? Surely there has been something.

[for what it's worth, a long-term xkcd trend has been to stop appealing to actual nerds and just appeal to faux-nerds. I actually think loving xkcd may be a central tenet of faux-nerd culture]

</thinkgeek rant>

lastly, is there a reason the alt-text says "six partitions, labelled c: through j:" ? Is that not 8 drives? I know my computer has C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J. Or is the implication that he misnamed them?

So this turned into far less of a post on xkcd and more of a general one. Oh well, if that is the way my muse inspires me.

=========

Guys! It's been almost 2 months since the xkcd blog updated! I wonder what's been happening.

Has Daisy Owl just given up, or am I missing something? There hasn't been an update in weeks, and the author finally took down that "guys I am back so I'll be making comics again" notice. Does anyone know what the deal is?

Lastly, i cannot wait for the Overcompensating book! That is all. I just want you all to know I am excited.

Comic 762: Sudo Make Me an Analogy

File this one under "conversations that might be funny in real life, but not staged as in a comic." The people are being clever - overly clever, in fact, with layers and layers of meanings piled on top of each other. It's possible that some people are clever enough to come up with lines like this in real life, in real time, but it's hard to believe, and when I see it in the comic, it just seems staged. It's not realistic.

The tricky thing is, as clever as this conversation is - and it is, especially the final line - even if it happened in real life exactly as we see it in the comic, it'll never be funny as a comic. Because readers (critical ones, that is) will see it and think "that's all well and good for characters, but they aren't acting like real people, they're acting like scripted characters." It's the reason I hate most of the alleged comedy in Shakespeare: It's all so layered and complicated that I stop hearing characters and just hear a writer, trying too hard.

And another thing: Is it just me, or is this another comic in quick succession that deals with distinctly pre-middle school academic material? Last time was basic multiplication tables, this time it's similes and metaphors, a distinction I vaguely recall a seventh grade teacher attempting to teach me.

How can you even be "bad at metaphors," the way the woman in panel 2 claims? How does that make sense?

Comic 761: In Too Deep

This is one of those comics with a lot of little problems but nothing big. Whether the little ones add up enough to seriously piss you off is, of course, up to you. You can imagine my own feelings. I guess the only logical and appropriate way to explain is to just list the problems:

--One, terrible use of space. Just terrible. The huge amount of white space makes the comic extremely off balance and irritating to read. Panel 5 could easily have come at the end of a row. Yes, it's true that more time has passed between panel 4 and 5 than between any other panels, but that's not really a problem. If you are going to separate the last one out like that - and you can, that's fine - you need to figure out a nicer way to do it. At the very very least, center it. Probably you should make it a bit wider too, and perhaps taller to match. You could also have the first two panels on one row, the 3rd and 4th below that, and the final panel below that.

A smaller width for this comic would have the additional advantage of letting the caption - which refers, of course, to the entire comic's action - take up the width of the whole comic.

--the towel on the stick figure looks really, really weird. I assume it is a towel, actually, I should probably point out that they also might be pants.

--Here, I'll switch to saying something nice. People have pointed out that it appears the cut-off #4 on the first panel's list says "bee eating contest." I find this line quite funny. I think if I had been editing this comic I would have said to make Bee Eating Contest the first problem, and get into the funny sorts of situations that would bring up. Snake bite is irrelevant enough to be weird but not inherently funny enough to make for a good comic.

--It's another lame "what if a human mind was operated like a computer could be?" scenario. And the answer is: "it would lead to hilarious consequences, all of which would be hilarious!"

--dialog in the last panel. Both of them. There's no shock in the woman's voice - her question a about his preparedness isn't even until her second sentence - and her first sentence ("I'm here to pick you up") is one that in real life would be so obvious as to not need stating. Even "Wait - why aren't you dressed for our date?" would make more sense.

As to his dialog, "By LD 50" is needless nerdery. Toss it.

--Lastly, the art details. First, check out the classic example of xkcd floaty-head syndrome in panel 2 (did we ever come up with a name for this symptom? I have forgotten). But more importantly, notice that the hair changes between panels 3 and 4. Given the towel, the fact that he's preparing for a date, and the general mess that his hair is in, I assumed, as did many people, that the hair simply had been wet, perhaps in some kind of a shower, and then dried as the time went on. That's fine: Standard, presumably dry, xkcd hair is just to have nothing. By switching to that, the comic was, I assume, trying to show that time had passed. Good! That's a clever way to do so, without calling attention to it too much. I was almost shocked, actually, given how badly Randall usually does the telling and not the showing (see, for example, panel 5 of this very comic).

And then, as you probably know, something changed. Namely, the comic changed. Randall went and made some edits and reposted the "fixed" comic, never, as far as I know, admitting he has made a mistake (this has happened a few times with typos and such, usually updated on the sly and never admitting that things were any other way). Luckily, our own Ann Apolis saved a copy of the original that you can see above. The new one is, of course, on the xkcd site linked to through the image above.

Obviously, having to go back and update any comic is not a good sign - it's a sign of hasty work, not checked before it was published. But in this case, I think there's an even weirder problem, which is that the comic was better before.

Think about it - there are, in the revised comic, two options:
--Lots of time passed, and his hair is just always like that
(this is odd because almost no male characters in xkcd have ever had hair, and when they did, it was for a specific and clear reason, usually to identify them as unique)
--No time passed, and his hair is still wet
(this is odd, because the humor of the comic is supposed to come from the fact that he has wasted a lot of time on doing the wrong sort of research)

See, when I say things like "there are things about xkcd that are objectively wrong," this is what I mean. The way he's constructed his comic has clear and identifiable problems. It's not like it's impossible for him to do it right - after all, he did it right first, before he changed it. Yes, some people were confused by "what happened to his hair??" but those people should have thought harder.

Comic 760: When You're In A Hole, Stop Digging

ain't nothing a nerd likes more than Lord of the Rings. And sure, there have been parodies of it before, and sure, people have poked fun at it before, especially when the movies came out and were good in some ways but very silly in others. But - in all those jokes (maybe you even made some of your own!) - has anyone ever wondered what if the dwarves in moria had gotten stuck in a deep hole? Think about it.

With 1000+ pages of LotR, I have a hard time believing this is the best joke Randall could have made. Or even an above average one. If you disagree, can I remind you: the joke is they were stuck in a hole. Because you know, if you are stuck in a hole with all your hole digging equipment, and the whole place is made of stone, why can't you carve some stairs in the walls of your hole? Like, carve hand and foot holds and climb out?

But I digress. What I was trying to say was, this doesn't strike me as the end result of "what's a funny joke about lord of the rings?" so much as the end result of "I'm going to turn to a random page in lord of the rings and try to make the best joke I can out of whatever I find there." And who knows, maybe this is the best joke that can be made out of the Dwarves unleashing the Balrog or whatever (maybe not, but let's pretend). In that case, the solution isn't to say "hey, this is the best I can do with this incredibly specific topic, sweet, let's post it" but to say "Well if this is the best I am going to get out of this particular lotr passage, I should really try a few more passages and see if they lead to anything better."

It feels, to take a new tack, like a Mystery Science theater 3000 joke. Read the first three panels in your best Ian McKellen voice, then switch to your best Tom Servo voice and add "So deep they were stuck in the hole, forever. The end, kids!" Mike (mike rules!) and Crow laugh quickly and the movie moves on, and you forget the mediocre joke because while watching it you also hear 400 other jokes making fun of it. This one doesn't stand out, but it's better than nothing, the only other choice the mst3k people have. Randall has more choice: if a joke isn't great, just keep writing until one is better. And if you can't think of any good jokes, get out of the webcomic business.