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

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#71

Post by Sapient »

Alex3917 wrote: post #28
mquander wrote: post #4

I think XKCD is sophomoric, but this is largely just of godawful quality. The blonde girl calls megan’s boyfriend and convinces him to make some delicious nachos. However, he doesn’t know that the blonde girl’s real motive was to kill megan’s wifi signal with the microwave he uses because they were playing a first person shooter video game against each other over the internet, and the blonde girl wanted to kill her.…

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.

Except they aren't very funny, and in quite a few cases completely wrong.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#72

Post by billswift »

derefr wrote: post #66
KirinDave wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why I dislike so many "comedies". Too many rely on a character acting like an idiot; it's too easy to empathize with them.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#73

Post by JacobAldridge »

Well, this has finally motivated me to buy the XKCD Volume 0 book (http://store.xkcd.com/).

It will be a birthday present to me from my wife, so I used her credit card. I had previously been concerned that purchasing it from her and for me would have required me to explain every, single comic. Now I can send here this link instead.

She can also tell her friends she bought me "a subversive book on gender relations" rather than "a comic about that Linux thing".

I think for some reason I'm going to go and make her a sandwich.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#76

Post by unalone »

tptacek wrote: post #29
Raphomet wrote: post #2

Hey! It's like Marmaduke Explained ( http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/ ), but, in a subversive twist, the commentary is less funny than the comic. Postmodern!

Managing to make a satire of XKCD less funny than XKCD is itself a kind of perverse achievement, and I applaud them for that.

What I find funny is that Randall fell victim to exactly what he accused Jim Davis of a long time ago. Early XKCD was, if not necessarily brilliant, unexpected and often very clever in its jokes. I know one of its earliest influences was Achewood, which, for those of you who don't know, is the Webcomic To End All Webcomics, against which nothing but the best print comics compare. It was more effortless and came across as a comic trying to say something.

His nerd jokes were occasionally actually really good. When they weren't, they came across with the air of "Fuck you, I'm not putting these comics online for you." Occasionally he'd hit upon a nice riff with his heartbreak comics, too, and his whimsical outlook towards life was a lot more sincere and less forced. Then he homogenized, began repeating joke concepts, and started spitting out a lot of derivative work, with only the occasional truly clever idea. It's never gotten worse than mediocre, but it's very frequently mediocre.

I guess what I'm trying to say is all of you should read Achewood instead. The nerd jokes are better (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09232002), it's funnier than any comic I've ever read (it's the comic that topped Calvin and Hobbes after seventeen years on the top of my list), and it's a real start-up, selling monthly premium updates rather than relying on any advertising whatsoever.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#77

Post by blasdel »

jexe wrote: post #41

This guy is writing a blog explaining the comic XKCD using a dry, faintly sarcastic tone. Note: He seems to have issues with XKCD's apparent feminist slant.

No, he has issues with Randall's desperate nice guy affectations -- the obnoxious "ladies, I sure do love cunnilingus" vibe.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#78

Post by tptacek »

billswift wrote: post #72
derefr wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's why I dislike so many "comedies". Too many rely on a character acting like an idiot; it's too easy to empathize with them.

Yes, clearly. The Office: bad. XKCD: good. It's all so clear to me now.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#79

Post by eru »

unalone wrote: post #76
tptacek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Managing to make a satire of XKCD less funny than XKCD is itself a kind of perverse achievement, and I applaud them for that.

What I find funny is that Randall fell victim to exactly what he accused Jim Davis of a long time ago. Early XKCD was, if not necessarily brilliant, unexpected and often very clever in its jokes. I know one of its earliest influences was Achewood, which, for those of you who don't know, is the Webcomic To End All Webcomics, against which nothing but the best print comics compare. It was more effortless and came acros…

I mostly agree about XKCD. Though I did not find (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09232002) very funny. I will never let my family down by programming in Java.

Re: XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time

#80

Post by eru »

likpok wrote: post #30
KirinDave wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also some internal debate about if he is in fact an anti-semite or perhaps just insensitive to cultural issues in general: http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/post/227070875/a-man-wearing... http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/post/226266899/the-trick-her...

You guys assume a lot about Randall. Jew-hat? Seriously? Why not a generic black hat? The second explanation has the benefit in that "blackhats" are generally considered bad guys (descending from the old Hollywood western tradition of bad guys wearing black hats and good guys wearing black hats). You seem to like taking the worst possible interpretation of Randall possible.

And what do the neutral guys wear? Black hats?
Post reply on HN