Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

xkcdexplained.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#61

Post by KirinDave »

Semiapies wrote: post #54
Alex3917 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The explanations of the jokes are funny because they're not funny. You see, you'd normally expect explanations of jokes to be funny. But these explanations are not funny. That's what makes the whole thing funny.

"You see, you'd normally expect explanations of jokes to be funny." Who would expect that? It's a old cliche that explaining a joke isn't funny or entertaining. I certainly wasn't expecting humor when I looked at it. (Nor did I find any, but then, the "it's funny because it's not funny" shtick is right up there with "Bill Clinton is a horny guy, amirite?" jokes in Dated Gag Heaven.)

Well, there is an interesting effect. Some of the jokes in XKCD are so bad that explaining them dryly has the unintended consequence of making them funnier. For example, http://bit.ly/UiiM5.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#62

Post by protomyth »

KirinDave wrote: post #35
protomyth wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do wonder what leaps in logic get you from a stick figure's black hat to "Hasidic Jew’s black hat". Not only did those two posts forget the funny, they might actually create trouble for the xkcd (politically correct activist + google search + no understanding of humor or satire = pain in the ass). Stupider things have happened.

Okay, so you could ignore the obvious resemblance to the Hasidic Jew Hat ( http://bit.ly/29cFxJ ), I suppose. But then what about "Brown Thighs? = Eww." What is wrong with brown thighs? At some point I have to question if they guy is doing it subtly on purpose or just completely oblivious, and neither is good. P.S. We didn't "forget the funny." We went searching for it, and these descriptions are what we came up with…

The hat also resembles all manner of Safari hats and is pretty close to a stick figure representation of the black hat conference.

Ok, you went searching for the funny and never found it. Look, even in satire, implying someone is a racist is bad (I really hope this is satire and the "At some point" sentence is not actually serious).

As for the eww, check the forum http://bit.ly/4rD9cU for an explanation.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#63

Post by Semiapies »

KirinDave wrote: post #61
Semiapies wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You see, you'd normally expect explanations of jokes to be funny." Who would expect that? It's a old cliche that explaining a joke isn't funny or entertaining. I certainly wasn't expecting humor when I looked at it. (Nor did I find any, but then, the "it's funny because it's not funny" shtick is right up there with "Bill Clinton is a horny guy, amirite?" jokes in Dated Gag Heaven.)

Well, there is an interesting effect. Some of the jokes in XKCD are so bad that explaining them dryly has the unintended consequence of making them funnier. For example, http://bit.ly/UiiM5 .

Not really. It's just "unfunny" and "uninteresting description of unfunny".

Now, if there were an additional level of description, something could be salvaged.

"The writer of the explanation characterizes a 'full rugby uniform' as lacking any trousers, belt, or shoes to invoke homophobic stereotypes about the English."

...Meh, maybe not even that would help.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#64

Post by tptacek »

protomyth wrote: post #62
KirinDave wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, so you could ignore the obvious resemblance to the Hasidic Jew Hat ( http://bit.ly/29cFxJ ), I suppose. But then what about "Brown Thighs? = Eww." What is wrong with brown thighs? At some point I have to question if they guy is doing it subtly on purpose or just completely oblivious, and neither is good. P.S. We didn't "forget the funny." We went searching for it, and these descriptions are what we came up with…

The hat also resembles all manner of Safari hats and is pretty close to a stick figure representation of the black hat conference. Ok, you went searching for the funny and never found it. Look, even in satire, implying someone is a racist is bad (I really hope this is satire and the "At some point" sentence is not actually serious). As for the eww, check the forum http://bit.ly/4rD9cU for an explanation.

"Even in satire, implying someone is a racist is bad".

This bodes ill for The Producers, doesn't it?

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#65

Post by 3n »

Semiapies wrote: post #63
KirinDave wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, there is an interesting effect. Some of the jokes in XKCD are so bad that explaining them dryly has the unintended consequence of making them funnier. For example, http://bit.ly/UiiM5 .

Not really. It's just "unfunny" and "uninteresting description of unfunny". Now, if there were an additional level of description, something could be salvaged. "The writer of the explanation characterizes a 'full rugby uniform' as lacking any trousers, belt, or shoes to invoke homophobic stereotypes about the English." ...Meh, maybe not even that would help.

wow dude you are pretty hilarious.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#66

Post by derefr »

KirinDave wrote: post #44
likpok wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marmaduke Explained has the benefit that Marmaduke is worse. It lacks the basic fundamentals of a joke in many cases. For what it's worth, XKCD does not have this. It may or may not be funny, but it is not awful.

XKCD certainly has its share of completely punchless entries ( http://bit.ly/4E2Uv0 ), especially in the first year. It sort of amazes me that so many people can be fans of discomfort humor and missed-context humor (like in "The Office" or "Parcs and Rec") and yet when it is applied to something friendly to them they flip out. We all agree the outrage over this silliness is part of the fun in this project. You could…

Am I the only one who doesn't enjoy discomfort/missed-context humor no matter the subject/participants? I always just feel embarrassed and ashamed that I can do nothing to help the fictional character out of their predestined impasse, and angry at the author for putting me in such a situation.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#67

Post by protomyth »

tptacek wrote: post #64
protomyth wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hat also resembles all manner of Safari hats and is pretty close to a stick figure representation of the black hat conference. Ok, you went searching for the funny and never found it. Look, even in satire, implying someone is a racist is bad (I really hope this is satire and the "At some point" sentence is not actually serious). As for the eww, check the forum http://bit.ly/4rD9cU for an explanation.

"Even in satire, implying someone is a racist is bad". This bodes ill for The Producers, doesn't it?

Goodwin by indirection it is :)

I suppose the exception would be people who are admitted racists.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#68

Post by NathanKP »

Steve0 wrote: post #5

Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but the frog dies in the process. Mark Twain

I agree. To my way of thinking if someone doesn't understand XKCD and laugh at it the first time they see it they aren't going to find it funny after an explanation.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#70

Post by billswift »

Steve0 wrote: post #5

Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but the frog dies in the process. Mark Twain

The explanation of a joke can be a joke itself - witness several of the "explanations". While I like XKCD, they aren't ALL successful either.
Post reply on HN