XKCD Isn't Funny - #1984 - Misinterpretation

I really don't mean to be snarky or sardonic when I say this, but it is a little incongruous for this comic to be so sarcastic when it's trying to tell off poor communicators. One of the most important features of a good communicator is friendliness; it makes the target more open to the message. This is why salespeople are supposed to smile all the time.

Notice how I said it makes the target more open. This is because people can be resistant to certain kinds of messages for various reasons. If someone is personally invested in an ideology of one kind or another, it can be impossible to persuade them to change their mind, because it's important to them that their ideology is the right one.

For example, in the 50s, there was a very small cult of people called The Seekers (not to be confused with the band of the same name) who believed everyone on Earth would die in a huge flood, and they'd be taken by spaceship to another planet on a specific date. As you would in such a situation, they sold all of their possessions and left their marriages. Then the flood didn't happen. The interesting thing is that before the flood didn't happen, the cult didn't really try to spread their message, but after the flood didn't happen, they suddenly started trying to convert everyone they could. This is because they literally could not alter their beliefs, if they did, they'd have to come to terms with the fact that they just ruined their lives for nothing. They had such a stake in the game that they couldn't start rooting for the other team.

The source for that piece of information is Art Of Propaganda by Anthony Pratkanis and Elliot Aronson, and you can go and read that and find even more ways that the human brain can be resistant to certain kinds of messages. Especially political ones!

My point in all this is to say that there are people who are literally looking for ways to discredit certain arguments. For example, back when I was 14 and even more of an idiot than I am now, I was very into a certain political trend at the time; let's not get into specifics because it's very embarrassing. And during that (VERY BAD) time period in my life, there was a post I saw on tumblr that compared something to how if you boil a frog slowly it doesn't notice. And because I was invested in having a certain worldview, I did a very silly thing and responded with "the frog thing isn't real", as if that was actually a refutation of the post. That's also why you get weird people who make super semantic arguments when you try to make a point on Twitter. They, like myself in a past life, have programmed their brains* to focus on trying to dismantle arguments that go against their worldview.

By the way if you're wondering the end result of that past life, there was a really cute girl I was into and I annoyed her so much with my dumbassery that she blocked me and never spoke to me again even though I'm like 90% sure she was also into at one point.

I guess my point, my 'thesis statement' if you will, is that yes, communication does require two people, and sometimes the other person is being a dick and it's okay to blame them for not getting the message.


*I was gonna link there to the philosopher who said "Your mind is software. Program it. Your body is a shell. Change it. Death is a disease. Cure it. Extinction is approaching. Fight it." but it turns out it's just the tagline to a tabletop RPG called Eclipse Phase but it's still a really good quote so check them out I guess?

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1990 - Driving Cars & #1993 - Fatal Crash Rate

This review is going to be a little bit more vitriolic than I usually am, just because this kind of content really gets under my skin. (Please note that I am NOT saying that Randall should not have made this comic, I'm only talking about my reaction to it.)

I'm going to get a little bit abstract here, but bear with me. I'm not smart enough to know the word for this, but look at these comics through the lens of their function, what they do. Not what they're intended to do, ignore that for now, but what does a reader experience when they read this. I imagine for most people, all it will do is make them afraid. And, in my opinion, needlessly afraid.

Now, statistically, yeah, driving causes a lot of deaths. But that 'a lot' is only 'a lot' relative to other things. Compared to heart disease it's jack nothing. You're more likely to die from suicide. There's only a million deaths worldwide per year. That's WORLDWIDE. The odds of you, you the person reading this, dying in any given car crash is astronomically low.

All this is to say that the comic is essentially fear-mongering. And that is incredibly spiteful of me to say, but Randall has a large audience and it's callous of him to post things that only scare and worry people. These aren't awareness things, the last one isn't even the push for self-driving cars that it could be. And yes they're presumably Randall's honest feelings and yes he has a right to say it and all that but it's very lame that he was unable or unwilling to make a comic that expressed those feelings as his personal phobia rather than as something that is easily generalized to the reader.

I'd also like to point out that at least in my state of Rhode Island, high schoolers have to first take an unbearably boring driving class for like seven hours a day for two weeks, then drive with a legal adult who can drive for two hundred hours, then take a drivers' test. And that only gets you the restricted licence which doesn't let you drive with more than one underage passenger or after dark for (if I'm remembering correctly) nine months. And THEN you get your real licence. (Some of the fine details might be slightly off, it's been a while.) Other states probably have different laws, but no, not everyone on the road did a single test. And even IF that's all you have to do, you presumably have to have PRACTICED driving to get to that point. AND if someone does get into a crash, their licence can be taken away for being a bad driver so they don't get into another crash!

Oh yeah. Neither of the comics are jokes nor do they provide any valuable insight into anything. The second comic in particular seems to be based on wild conjecture. As that second link says, most car deaths occur between the ages of 15 and 44, but Randall's first chart has his current age of 33 as a low point of probability.

In conclusion, the best part of these comics is that one of them is numbered 1990, which is the year my favorite album came out.

How Dara Ó Briain uses the audience to set up a joke

Dara Ó Briain is somewhat unique among standup comedians in how much he interacts with the audience. Not just attacking people Dice-style or sparring with hecklers, he'll actually have full conversations with random people in the front row, or call out for answers to a question.

An important thing to note is that Dara does have solid improvisational skills. Check out about twenty-eight minutes into his 2008 special Talks Funny where he's able to almost seamlessly set up and deliver a multi-part bit based off of a woman unexpectedly shouting out "Energy!". But improvisation can be risky; unless you're Ross Noble, you need solid prepared bits to maintain a full standup set. Here's how he uses the audience to seem more improvisational than he actually is to help the show feel spontaneous and fun.

The part of Craic Dealer shown above (it starts at about fifty-eight minutes in for those of you reading after that video inevitably gets taken down for copyright infringement) starts with about two minutes of setup. The two pieces of technology chosen (computer, refrigerator) keep the audience thinking in a certain axis of technology (modern, electrical). If someone really wanted to be an asshole (NOTE: you shouldn't, hecklers suck), they could totally jump in with a suggestion like "lightning rod" or "not using lead pipes".

It's important to remember that this is his last show on this tour. He's had a few months to hone the details of the rehearsed parts, and he's done this bit multiple times. So when he responds to "microwave!" with "A microwave is the simplest machine you could think of!?", that's probably a prepared line he's used for other people who've shouted it out. And again, that isn't a knock on Dara, that's what comedians are supposed to do, they are supposed to have techniques to make a show funny.

Also notice how he subtly dismisses "kettle" after listing it as a good suggestion by focusing instead on "toaster". And when he asks for a "simple, non-electrical machine we use every day", there's really only one answer to that, which is naturally the one he's prepared for. To my ears it sounds like someone also shouted out "golf club", which again doesn't work in the bit.

By preparing the audience to think in certain ways and then selecting the answers that work best, Dara is able to make the show seem more free form than it actually is, and the show is better as a result.

(Dara if by any chance you're reading this, stop now)

This is one of the reasons I was disappointed with his most recent special, Crowd Tickler, which unlike his four earlier specials, contains no audience interaction in the beginning and very little throughout. (Only four times by my count, three of which are just different members of the audience saying "Yes." to something Dara says.) Maybe he's just low energy from having to host Mock The Week for sixteen worthless seasons.

XKCD - #1952 - Backpack Decisions & Questionable Content - #3676 - Put It On A Jazz Drive

When I was a kid, I didn't really understand how jokes worked. I didn't really understand how anything else worked either, but that's beside the point. I think it's a fairly universal thing for kids, when they get a laugh out of someone, to tell the same joke over again to see if they can get the same laugh. I've heard a few different people with children talk about things like this happening. And then the next stage, when that doesn't work, is somehow making the punchline 'bigger'. "To get to the other side!" becomes "To get to every side everywhere!", and so on. 

Just in general, kids don't understand the 'more is less' idea. You can see this in Hyperbole And A Half's "The Scariest Story", where the idea of 'a closet' quickly becomes 'THREE HUNDRED CLOSETS'. I remember specifically from my own childhood, after I first saw the Spongebob episode "Graveyard Shift" for the first time (and keep in mind I was like, five) I tried telling my own scary story, which took the idea of 'the lights will flicker on and off and etc' and turned that into 'and the lights will go up and down the wall and turn red' or something to that effect. 

I find it kinda interesting how when you do 'scary' too much, it stops being scary and becomes funny. Like, 'the killer with a hook for a hand' is scary, but then if you make it 'the killer with a hook for a hand and a skull face and he leaves a trail of blood with every footstep' suddenly that becomes a cartoon. Conversely, if you do 'funny' too much, it stops being funny and just becomes dumb, or, on occasion, a little bit creepy. 

I understand that in the two comics above, the exaggeration is part of the joke. I understand that. But the exaggeration is taken to such a degree that I can only think that these characters as depicted would not be functional people. And yes, I am taking the joke seriously, but only because of how the jokes are presented. 

In the XKCD, Randall is framing the comic to be #relatable. The first-person caption, the fact that the stick figure is standing in a store instead of shopping online, the way the graph underneath lists common things like laptops instead of Randall-specific things like 'hosting server' or etc. These things are meant to make the reader put themselves in the stick figure's/Randall's shoes. We are meant to be laughing with him, not at him. 

In the Questionable Content, we are viewing a moment in a story. This story includes a recollection of a suicide, discussions of war by a veteran who lost all her squadmates, a near-death from drinking, etc etc. My point is that Questionable Content, although it may be generally comedic, has Serious Moments. And in order to take these Serious Moments seriously, there needs to be basic order and logic. Sure we can have super science cardigans and all that; but nobody is going to spontaneously learn to levitate, the laws of physics still apply to everyone, etc. If someone is punched in panel one, they should have a bruise in panel two. Logic needs to apply.

In short, because of the context and presentation that these two comics have, the silly one-off gags that could be funny instead become worrying. Like, Emily just described herself as having vivid long-term hallucinations that she can't distinguish from reality. That's a problem! That's a big big problem! She works at a coffee shop with boiling liquid all day! I understand her thing is that she's unrepentantly weird, but there's a difference between enjoying weird food and literally being unable to tell what's real and what isn't. I know it's just a one-off gag, but now for every strip Emily appears in, I'll be thinking "Why has she not gone on meds yet that's what they're FOR.".

The XKCD comic is less unnerving since we don't have as much of an established universe, but it's still troubling. Again, I understand, exaggeration, comic effect; but the comic does not lend itself as framed to cartoonish hyperbole. Look at the art, it's a detailed drawing of a standard shopping aisle. And the guy is going over concerns that a person would probably actually have when buying a backpack. That makes the comic seem more grounded in reality. 

A better image would be the guy literally digging through a massive pile of backpacks, with the narration like "That one doesn't have pockets, that one's not waterproof, none of these are good enough, none of these are good enough", and then the caption could be "I've spent more time trying to find the right backpack then I spent trying to find the right college." I'd still think it was a weird choice for a comic, yknow, like, seriously, it's just a backpack; but it wouldn't be worth a write-up. 

On an entirely unrelated note, I don't know to what extent any of you are invested in me as a person beyond the #content I produce. Which is totally understandable if you aren't, really, I'm just a guy. But on the off chance you've been wondering why I took that break back in 2015 (back when I thought one paragraph out of four counted as 'reviewing the comic'), please feel free to check out the first thirty minutes or so of the latest episode of my dumb podcast (autoplaying sound warning if you click the link), where all is revealed, possibly to an uncomfortable degree. 

In conclusion, I dyed my hair again.

XKCD Is Good Sometimes - #1928 - Seven Years

If I was a total pedantic asshole, I might be tempted to make some kind of semi-joke review about how this comic isn't funny. And that's like, technically true, but Futurama had "The Luck Of The Fryrish", The Simpsons had "Lisa's Substitute", XKCD can have "Seven Years".

I'm aware as I write this that I don't have the exact right words for it, but there's a phrase that I've come up with to describe things like this, and it's "This thing has stuff in it.". Like, Mulholland Dr. has stuff in it. 2001 has stuff in it. Finnegans Wake has probably too much stuff in it. (This blog, I hope, has some stuff in it somewhere.)

What I mean by "has stuff in it" is something between "This work of art* conveys an idea in a way that is arguably more impactful than if it was outright said." and "This work of art conveys an idea that is at best difficult to put into words.", with maybe a splash of "This work of art teaches the viewer something.". It's kinda like how impressionistic paintings don't make sense up close, element-for-element, but if you back away the seperate elements combine and it's a picture of a swan. Except the elements might make sense and instead of a picture it's a sense of dread or joy or amusement. I know I'm not doing the best job at explaining this concept I have, but keep in mind I'm trying to get across an idea about "Art", that thing that after thousands of years of argument been best described by the phrase "Art is what artists do" or, if you like, "Art defines itself". It's something like 'montage' or 'juxtaposition' or 'the way that music can make a scene seem more important' but on a larger scale, one step up on the rung. Basically like, 'can a liberal arts student overanalyze it in a paper?', and 'was the art intentionally made in a way that it could be analyzed in such a way?'.

So, if all that made sense beyond my own pretensions, here's why I think that this comic has stuff in it.

Y'know, putting aside the obvious actual emotions that went into this comic (emotions are usually a form of stuff), it's just a well-done depiction of a situation that I hope I'm never placed in. I have a friend who had a brief AIDS scare, and I couldn't fuckin sleep, man. That lasted for less than a week before the test came back negative. Cancer is a scary scary thing and it's bad and it has lasted as a feature in Randall's life for (as the title says) seven years. I had trouble dealing with the possibility of something similar for less than seven days. It's easy for you or me to semi-jokingly quote "Fuck cancer" or to look at panel six and call it maybe a little blunt or poorly done, but to quote Mark Prindle:

The mental torment is real. When your life falls apart, it's difficult to (a) envision how you could possibly build a new one in its place, and (b) muster up the strength and energy to actually do so. [...] I can vouch for the fact that when one considers one's life and art to be intertwined, one can only work through the pain by using it as inspiration -- even if that means displaying your failings to the world in all their unpleasance and embarrassingness.

The message of this comic is not necessarily a new one - I thought of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind and Grave Of The Fireflies** after reading it - but it is the first time I've seen the message made from such a personal experience. And for the record, it's a good message, and it's a message that's hard to remember in trying times. And the personal experience related does make the delivery more powerful, although I'm aware that to analyze what is essentially just Randall's life as if it were only a story is to belittle it slightly.

The message, at least by my reading, is hard for me to put into words, and I hope it's understandable that again, it's because these are Big Concepts. Yknow, like real respected philosopher people talk about. I don't want to further belittle this incredibly good, well-meaning, if-you-make-fun-of-it-you're-an-asshole comic by trying to inject my personal ideas or politics into it either.

By putting the scenes of vacations and recreation against the more dramatic scenes, Randall forces us to reconcile them together. We get a 'fun' panel as number three, which is really quick. It's almost jarring, especially if you follow XKCD and already know what's happening. And then in panel five, we get a 'cancer' panel and a 'fun' panel at the same time, yknow, for a given value of 'fun'. We, as viewers, are forced to figure out how someone can enjoy parts of their life and do things when their wife is suffering from cancer... which is exactly what Randall had to figure out. By continuing this pattern, Randall hammers home the need for humor, levity, and fun when dealing with a stressful situation. Because the alternative is an absence of those things, just sorrow all the time. And that's no way to live or to die.

In the last panel, I think the message maybe shifts to be a little bit more broad, at least by how I'm reading it. We have to enjoy the time we have while we have it. We are all going to die, and it's better to die with happy memories than with sad ones. As one of only three 'state rock song's goes:

"Do you realize that everyone you know someday will die? And instead of saying all of your goodbyes, let them know you realize that life goes fast, it's hard to make the good things last..."

And as the aforementioned Eternal Sunshine goes:

Clementine: "This is it, Joel. It's gonna be gone soon."
Joel: "I know."
Clementine: "What do we do?"
Joel: "Enjoy it."***

And, from a short story that some will think I'm quoting ironically or as a joke but I'm really not:

"It's like summer," he said. "We know it won't last forever. We know one day the leaves will fall from the trees and winter will come. I could spend my life worrying about the coming winter or I could enjoy every precious day of sunshine. I can walk. I can talk. I can think. It's still summer and I want to savour every last day."

And that message/idea maybe needs a handful of asterisks for people in different kinds of situations, and for a whole thing about hedonism & escapism and productivity & devaluing a person down to their labor, etc; but let's not get into that cause that's a whole other thing.

If I had to make a criticism, the solar eclipse panel could have maybe been more detailed and artsy, yknow, to bring across the beauty of it, but like everything else I could complain about, it's just a nitpick. This is essentially a perfect comic that is not only engaging on both the visual and storytelling levels, but also important and good and full of stuff. And even if you disagree with the message, the presentation, etc; you have to at least respect Randall's willingness to put his life out here, and to put as much thought and work into it as he did.


*Yes I'm calling this XKCD art. XKCD has been art before and it will be art again.
**I've never seen Grave Of The Fireflies.
***Included in the script, but not the actual movie, is an extra bit said by Joel that continues from the last line given: "Say goodbye."

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1687 - World War III+ & #1688 - Map Age Guide

The problem I have with this type of joke, where a random topic is exaggerated, is that the joke starts and ends at the exaggeration. Yes, I get that that's the point, but nothing is tethering the joke to anything.

You can do Randy's style of exaggeration with almost anything. Fabric patterns: plaid, polka-dots, swastika. Mailing: envelopes, box, tank. Pets; cats, dogs, people. It's almost like satire, except it's satire on completely random topics that don't really have potential for being satired.

If this was actual satire, we would be learning something about something. In Candide, we learn that things aren't perfect and we shouldn't expect them to be (it was more shocking back in 18th-century France). In this comic, there isn't anything like that.

I don't need all my comedy to teach me something, but this way of presenting a joke lends itself best to jokes that are trying to make a point of some kind.

I'm not sure I'm articulating this properly. Feel even more free than usual to let me know if there's something I need to explain better.

While I appreciate the amount of effort that probably went into this, and that he even added fictional maps, I really don't see why this was needed. Unless I'm missing something and part of the joke is how no one needs to know the age of a map.

I feel like it would have been funny if there had been a single-panel buildup where we see Randy talking directly to the reader, saying something like "I know how many of you have trouble with your maps" and then we get the infographic. It'd make the expanse of the infographic into a joke in and of itself.

I would actually be really interested to know his reasoning behind making this, since it will be of pretty much no use to anyone ever. Everyone just uses Google now, you dingus!


Also! I don't know if you heard, but me and Jon Levi (of xkcd-sucks.blogspot.com and DiaBA fame) have started a podcast! It's about webcomics, on occasion, and it's called Panel Beat! Website here, and Twitter here. We're also on iTunes, if that's your speed! Check it out!!!!!!

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1685 - Patch & #1686 - Feel Old

I have a friend who has programmed for video games and does art commissions with Photoshop, and he didn't get the joke. This isn't just me not knowing computer stuff, this is Randy failing to sell an idea even to people who have years of experience in the field. (Admittedly not super hardcore experience, like he wasn't on the team that made Deep Blue or anything but still)

The joke, as explained to me by explainxkcd, is that GNU and Photoshop both have a tool called 'Patch'. So if you can't do something in GNU, take a screenshot and change the code text in Photoshop. That joke gets an "...I guess..." reaction from me.

Said joke could probably be depicted better. I'm not even referring to my usual whingeing about how things aren't explained enough, although, yes, this joke isn't explained enough; The picture is just of some random code. The caption could be under the source code for the Google homepage and it wouldn't make a difference.

I think this idea has some actual potential (here is where I get into the whingeing I mentioned earlier), show a guy working on code, getting frustrated, and he starts manually slicing it up in Paint. I still wouldn't find it that funny, but it would make the joke a lot more accessible - especially to the people that the joke is intended to be marketed towards.

So, what does it say about me that I'm reviewing this even though I'm one of those voters?

The title text, for those who can't read it, says "'How long are you going to keep this up?' 'Statistically, only four or five more decades.'" and I have lost any sympathy I had for Randy. This marks, by my count, the third time that he's made a "I do this a lot" noise on one of these 'time is passing' jokes. That is not just shitty, that is arrogantly shitty. That is him admitting that he knows he's in a rut and he's going to keep going anyway. 

In his analysis of the French New Wave, Lewis Criswell summarizes one of the movement's philosophies as "If you don't have anything new to say, why say anything?". (I could have used the entire title of Chumbawamba's The Boy Bands Have Won... as a quote there instead - you're welcome) 

In a way, saying something you've already said before is a way of saying nothing. No matter how many times a band rereleases an album, if they've only ever made the one album, they're only going to have the one album listed on their discography page on Wikipedia. And while the statement made by that album may be worth hearing again, this time in remastered surround sound, the statement still isn't a new one.

Here's where the analogy breaks down: Randy isn't literally putting out the same comic over and over. He's doing it figuratively. What he's doing is closer to what we music folk call 'Garrixing' - ripping off yourself by making several songs that have basically the same progression, direction, point, structure, etc. These songs contribute little to nothing to any conversation that they're a part of and are therefore a net drain on those who consume them. These songs take up consumers time, money, and iPod space, and in return the consumer gets something that they have essentially heard before. 

Now, to be fair, Randy is not selling these individual comics. However, he still makes his living off of the interest generated by them. I find it to be self evident that knowingly reproducing content that you are giving to people that pay your salary is kind of a dick move. 

But even beyond that, by not creating or contributing to any discussions, Randy is stagnating artistically. Doing that knowingly goes beyond just being a dick move. Art is how we learn about ourselves. That's why angsty teenagers quote song lyrics all the time - the philosophies of the lyricist are being transferred into them. When Randy knowingly withholds from creating new art (yes, I'm calling XKCD art), he's not just putting off the next Time, he is removing from the pool of knowledge someone can gain from reading XKCD.

To put it in a slightly less antagonistic way, we've moved beyond Windows 95, right? We placed that brick in the ever-taller building of human progress and we built upon it. What Randy is doing is using the same brick over and over, and even though it may be an incredibly minor brick in the scheme of things, we can do better, damn it. 

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1662 - Jack and Jill & #1663 - Garden

Before we start: My friend Lightning released a new album the other day! It's called Golden Age and it's all 90s rave themed so if that's up your alley definitely give it a listen or two!

I'm really digging my decision to do double reviews sometimes. I'm not going to make it an everytime thing, but I like how when I have very little to say about a comic other than it's wrong, I can have a kinda short review but add a longer review on top of it so that I don't feel like I'm ripping my audience off.

This comic is wrong. You build wells at the top of hills so they don't fill up with runoff from higher ground, plus you carry the heavy bucket full of water downhill instead of uphill every time you get water. Randy is a goddamn city slicker who wouldn't know how to plow a field if his wife was a tractor.

Woo! On to the next one!

So, this is the first XKCD since the comic started to be delayed by three whole days. It had so much buildup that it ended up counting as Friday and Monday's comic, breaking Randy's technically perfect upload streak. Was it worth the wait?

Well, I can definitely appreciate the effort that Randy put into this. This has interactivity and randomness and stuff! ...unfortunately, it really just feels like a slightly more sophisticated version of one of those mid-2000s simulator flash games, or a more artsy version of the Plants Vs Zombies 'zen garden' minigame.

I also really don't see what it has to do with April Fool's Day. In the multiple delay status updates, the comic was referred to as 'the April 1st comic' rather than 'the Friday comic' or 'the latest comic' or just 'the comic'. I understand that the last two April Fool's comics were both interactive, but that's not really a prank or a joke (as in, more of a joke than a comic is already supposed to be, like that time Dinosaur Comics swapped out the dinosaurs with gifs of other webcomic characters that constantly switched with each other).

So, not saying that Randy should have done the work on the comic sooner, since I totally understand missing deadlines and underestimating how long something will take, BUT since the comic isn't actually holiday-themed in any tangible way, couldn't he just have done a quick filler-type comic for Friday and then finished working out the bugs at his leisure?

Now, the comic obviously isn't supposed to be funny, but does it accomplish what it set out to do? Not really. Like, it's neat, but also kinda screensaver-y, you dig? It's not unpleasant to look at, but I'd never seek it out (unless by 'screensaver' you're thinking of the pipe animation thing because that was the fucking bomb).

This last point is likely a more subjective one, but I think relaxation tool things are more relaxing if you have more of an influence on what the screen's displaying. In this comic, you control the lamps, and everything comes from how you place them. You don't plant the seeds or control how fast they grow or how fast the wind is blowing. Compare that to Silk or Neonflames, which, even though you don't completely control the finished result, you're given several controls that give you a good idea of how it'll look. Good on Randy for doing something new, but this really feels like XKCD's Chinese Democracy: a lot of buildup for nothing that impressive.

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1661 - Podium

I find it really ironic that Randy would make a joke with a political-style setup but no actual politics in it during an election year. Especially this election year of all years! For those reading this in the distant future, before the Singaporeans enslaved us all, we had elections, and the one that happened in 2016 was WILD. It was the one year that I think literally anyone could get away with making an easy political joke about what was going on.

If this was an intentional avoidance of making a topical joke, I actually have to give props to Randy, it would have been super easy for him to go the easy route and say "Trump is a foolish man", but he decided that he was going to make a joke that would still work years down the line.

I do think that it could have been better though. Setting aside my usual thing about how there could be multiple panels and more scenery to make the comic come alive more, it just seems un-politician to say "okay, brief tangent". It makes much more sense in the context of the comic if his whole campaign is actually based on finding out if it's 'podium' or 'lectern'. It's funnier, too. Instead of a politician improvising a new part of his campaign, he's going up on stage saying he'll fix terminology, an issue that maybe two people care about.


So, the other day I was talking with Rob, and he mentioned a friend of his who had once complained about 300 'not having enough political intrigue'. And I spent a few days mulling it over a little bit, since - as evidenced by this blog's existence - I tend to be someone who overthinks things, and I came to a conclusion: Criticizing a thing for not pandering to your specific tastes isn't valid criticism, BUT if you can say "oh, 300 totally missed a great opportunity to be smart on top of being an action movie by not adding in political intrigue like it could have", that is valid. (note: I haven't seen 300 so I don't know if the evidence stacks up for my hypothetical rephrased Rob's friend but it works as an example). But I'd like to hear your thoughts on this because I do have "man, I run an XKCD hateblog, that's my claim to fame" kinda bring-down thoughts every now and then and I feel like I was able to self-justify a little.

If you'll bear with me for another slight digression, you don't need to worry about this blog shutting down anytime soon. I feel like I am providing a kind of service, and there is a point to it, even if it isn't readily apparent. There's a Jonah Dempcy tweet that's stuck with me for a while, and it's "Bad critique is still good due to its ironic content. Bad critique ironically directs at the other what is meant for itself." Even if everything I've ever said on this blog is totally wrong, I'm still stimulating discussion and thought and stuff. Plus there turn out to be points to pointless things all the time, like Of Oz The Wizard probably seemed stupid in idea form, but then it turned out to be a super interesting way of relooking at the way we look at film and how pauses are used in dialogue and stuff.

By the way, watch Of Oz The Wizard.

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1625 - Substitutions 2

Imagine if I just copy-pasted Jon Levi's review of the first Substitutions comic but switched out most of the words with their first synonym in Word. I'd be making exactly the same point as that review, and anyone who read both reviews would essentially be getting the same information twice, but it'd mean I wouldn't have to think of anything original for another day.

That might be too mean. Really, the worst part of this comic is the bland, text-only presentation, not the duplicate joke. It wouldn't be so bad if it was like a Dinosaur Comics, where they'll kinda be listing things sometimes, but it'll be in dialogue form. Of course, if this was Dinosaur Comics, the list would be in the middle and it would lead to some other joke. (Dinosaur Comics is good)

I do actually like the "years/minutes" part. Especially because I know there's at least one XKCD fan who's blindly followed this list and will eventually forget the filter at a crucial moment and miss an important deadline.

Overall though, it's not even as good as the original. The original was a ripoff of a better comic too, but it had multiple jokes in it, and it was actually poking fun at things. In this one we get "expands > physically expands", and I don't get it. That's not fun, that's just redundant.

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1616 - Lunch

Just look at that. We have another "simple words" comic, and then above and underneath it, advertisements for that same joke over and over in book form.

I don't have a problem with running gags. Actually, I don't even have a problem with reused jokes normally. If you make a comic for more than ten years you're going to hit the same joke twice eventually, it's just something that happens. But this isn't a running gag or an accidentally reused joke. This is Randy blatantly retreading old ground, except instead of old ground it's a tired joke and instead of retreading it he's using it over and over again.

A running gag shouldn't just be a joke that's used more than once. A running gag should be a joke that gets placed in new contexts and done in different ways. Friends has some great examples of this, like with "we were on a break", which partially derives it's humor from the stubbornness of the characters (i.e. there is a reason they continue to bring it up, and it is in character for them to do so) and partially from the situations into which it is implemented, like the end of "The One With The Girl Who Hits Joey", where it's used in conjunction with another joke to form a third, separate joke.

A running gag is kinda like a meme, except the writers make the derivatives on their own. A good one ("we were on a break" or the Loss.jpg edits) is different every time, a bad one (XKCD's 'simple words' comics, the "*takes a deep breath* I lo-" meme) is basically just copying the original joke and changing an unimportant element of it so that the joke remains the same. They're like palate swaps, essentially plagiarism; although at least in the case of XKCD it's only self plagiarism.

I don't like doing the snarky insult bit. I don't think I'm good at it and I'm hoping that if Randy ever checks this blog out his reaction will be more "Oh, he has a point there" than "Christ, what an asshole". But I do have to say, that anyone who buys the Thing Explainer book is probably more easily entertained than someone who doesn't buy it.

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1565 - Back Seat

Anyone who needs a good art draw thing done for them should contact my good friend this guy since he has good rates and is pleasant to work with.

Phew, with that first sentence out of the way the rest of this review should be a piece of cake!

I understand exaggeration for comic effect is a thing, but it feels too abrupt here.

It reminds me of part of one of Dara O Briain's stand up sets, where he talks about how some midwives are really dumb but think they're smart. And he gets to how one dumb broad (read: "woman") thought that tears were better than cuts for pregnancy thing, and he follows that with "...in fact, some doctors prefer to use a bear."

Now, I love Dara O Briain, I think he is a top quality entertainer and all four of the shows he has out on DVD had me in stitches the whole way through. But that one joke didn't hit right for me because of how it wasn't phrased like "Yeah, in a couple years I bet they'll just have fuckin' bears getting women ready for pregnancy, right?". It was presented like he was making fun of something actually happening, when it should have been him bringing a train of logic to it's illogical conclusion.

I can totally see this joke working with a different setup (not as a Dara joke though, it strikes me as more Dylan Moran). But the setup would have to put the punchline in a point of reference. Like his friend had said the thing before disappearing for three hours, and the decaying raccoon is his imagined description of what's really going on.

This comic kinda hints at a similar background but doesn't follow through. A statement this broad should at least have some supporting evidence to it.

Also, the placement of the comic between "Protip:" and the rest of the comic stunts the flow a little, although I can see why he felt like "protip" should be read first.

At least this comic's better than Andrew Jackson Jihad's "Back Pack". What a godawful album that came from.

XKCD Isn't Funny - #1439 - RACK UNIT

This is the third comic in a row which I've liked or mostly liked, which my paranoid brain interprets as undeniable proof that Randy is actually listening to every piece of criticism I level at him. Which gives me an interesting question that I hadn't really truly deeply considered until now:

What if XKCD really does become regularly funny, like I've hoped?

Do I just go through the archives as "XKCDWasntFunny.blogspot.com"? Do I switch to a new webcomic? Would it be the final end of the great era of XKCD hate, like the ends of True Capitalist, Saturday morning cartoons, or The Beatles? Will the community simply dissolve, no longer bound by even my meager offerings, never again to heap praise upon my brilliant reviews and accidental puns?

I could probably keep going for a bit if XKCD really did start being consistantly funny, like the once a week when a comic was kinda crap, I could post about it, but what would really be the point. "Comedian can't always be hilarious and is sometimes only chuckle-worthy".

I mean look! That's a really good use of Black Hat, right there! Megan's resigned attitude works for the joke (mostly)! She's actually sitting on the chair for crying out loud!

Like, if XKCD becomes truly great, than I'm going to be sincerely happy, but it's going to have a bite to it. Because I legitimately enjoy writing these, I put some music on, get out a can of coke, run a draft, post, update on twitter, the next day I get home I read the comments. Lovely.

If this blog ends, I go back to my music and probably bring back my old dramatic readings, scraping by on three views a week and a comment every two months. I fade away into history, all my reviews condensed along with all the other XKCD hate blogs into a footnote in Randall Munroe's autobiography. Xeroxing Killer Cabbage Documents, I imagine it will be called. Peripubescent lying smucks won't even be considered for inclusion.

But even if that happens, I think it'll be a little while. After all, Randy's still enough of a prick to keep

up for almost two months after the book actually came out.

You don't see me putting up a special bulletin everytime I make a new song or compose the soundtrack to a free video game.