[NGTM-1R]

Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)

On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.

[Mongoose]

But again, you're trying to compare the lengthy dissection of a full-length novel versus that of a ten-second three-panel joke.  Surely you'll agree that there's a massive difference of depth/scale there.

[General Battuta]

Well I think XKCD is about as fluffy as (and only slightly less of a phenomenon than) Twilight, and we're happy to watch that get ripped apart page by page for it's hilarious failings. All's fair in love and war and mocking things on the Internet!

Personally, when something hits a critical mass of being recognized and cited, I like to have a countervailing opinion on it so I can dissect it, look smart, and get babes. (And semikidding aside, I really do think it's fairly weak, I'm just not all that passionate about it either way.)

[NGTM-1R]

But again, you're trying to compare the lengthy dissection of a full-length novel versus that of a ten-second three-panel joke.  Surely you'll agree that there's a massive difference of depth/scale there.

Considering the novel(s) and writers in question and that it's done in one-scene-or-less chunks, no, not really. The Slacktivites have been known to create stick figure comics to illustrate Fred's points or the basic impossiblities of behavior from the novel that aren't much more involved than XKCD. (Really, they're fun people if they'll just stay on-topic.)

Actually, I'd argue XKCD is much deeper than the average material evaluated in a Left Behind Monday; most of the reason you get good mileage out of LB and LB The Movie and Tribulation Force is because you can learn a lot by its sheer incompetence on every level rather than any sort of depth of story or plot.

(And for the record, I still like XKCD, I'm merely speaking as someone with long experience with various forms of criticism.)

[Mongoose]

I think all this conversation is doing is reminding me of why I loathe criticism in a professional-esque sense.

[karajorma]

Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)

On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.

Dissection isn't the issue, it's what he decided to dissect. Many jokes revolve around the idea of something that is impractical but amusing to consider. To spend paragraphs analysing why it isn't practical is pointless. Both the author and the audience understand it isn't practical already. You're not actually exposing any new information with your dissection. It's not really a valid criticism of the work. You're simply showing that you don't understand how humour actually works.

And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.

[StarSlayer]

It may well apply to HLP General Discussion =P

http://xkcd.com/810/

Thats treading down a dangerous path, see if you make spambots good productive members of the internet, they'll soon realize most of humanity are a bunch of dicks.  Then it's only a hop, skip and a jump away from...

[Qent]

Or they'll start discussing the merits and shortcomings of xkcd.

[Dilmah G]

And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.

I agree.

    . . . the plan outlined in #810 simply wouldn't work. The "constructive" nature of a particular comment is far too subjective, even for a person, to judge another poster by their appraisal of it. If you're only letting comments get posted that have received that sort of approval, then you're essentially letting the hoards of bots be your moderating team, an awful idea if there ever was one. (And as a one-time forum owner, I can promise you that bots are FAR more numerous than legitimate posters).

    So, we have three possible outcomes:
    1) Bots rate all comments as constructive. Posts continue through as though unmoderated, and significantly more spam makes it through than a captcha would allow.
    2) Bots rate all comments as not constructive. The board grinds to a halt as all comments, regardless of their quality, are discarded before making it to the message board.
    3) Bots rate roughly half of the comments as constructive, and half as not constructive. The rating system fails, as all comments receive roughly the same rating (the hundreds of bots outweigh the few real users and render their ratings essentially meaningless). Comments are either posted or blocked as a fluke, and enough spam gets through to make it worthwhile. Again, a captcha would be more effective.

This is just taking the piss. And whilst you're entitled to do that, as kara says, it just makes you a pathetic wanker.

[General Battuta]

Yeah, I disagree with that kind of in-depth dissection of the joke as impractical (no rly?)

On the contrary, in-depth dissection is the only sort of dissection that's of any interest to dissector or dissectee, because you can actually learn crap from it. I read a blog that in-depth dissects about ten pages a Monday of the Left Behind novels for that very reason.

Dissection isn't the issue, it's what he decided to dissect. Many jokes revolve around the idea of something that is impractical but amusing to consider. To spend paragraphs analysing why it isn't practical is pointless. Both the author and the audience understand it isn't practical already. You're not actually exposing any new information with your dissection. It's not really a valid criticism of the work. You're simply showing that you don't understand how humour actually works.

And at that point it becomes clear that this isn't an unbiased critique. There is obviously an axe to grind here. Which brings us back to him being a pathetic wanker.

I agree that it was pointless but don't agree that this makes him a pathetic wanker. Again, you would probably find a dissection of the improbabilities of vampire biology in Twilight hilarious (I would; what geek wouldn't?) That's missing the point, because Twilight is about being unable to have sex with hot people while really wanting to. It still appeals to us, because we don't like it.

[karajorma]

Yes but if Stephenie Meyer were to somehow write a decent Twilight book and the sites that spend all their time bashing her were to write a long rant about the quality of the paper it was published on, I'd call them on that too.

As I keep pointing out it is not the subject matter he has chosen to review with is influencing me. It is the fact that he obviously has decided he doesn't like the XKCD comic but yet keeps reviewing it, not in the hope that they will get better but in the hope that he can find something, anything, not matter how trivial or pointless to complain about that makes him a pathetic wanker.

[General Battuta]

This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.

Which 'he'? There are more than one of them.

I dunno, I think he is/they are pretty reasonable sounding.

#1. "If xkcd sucks so much why do you read it? Just skip it you turd, some of us like intelligent comedy and if you are such a stupid idiot that you don't get the jokes just leave it alone."

Ah, a common misconception here. I do not hate xkcd because the jokes go over my lowly plebeian head, rather, I hate them because they are not funny. I get the joke (or rather, often what the joke is supposed to be) and I don't like it. Usually. Basically the answer is that is pains me to see lousy humor, and, like genocide, I simply cannot ignore it and have the problem go away. See Rob's Explanation for a much more logical, less offensive answer to this question (and one with which I entirely agree)

#2. "Why are you criticizing such a brilliant comic when you can't do better yourself? LAME."

Also a good question. But the fact is that few movie reviewers are movie makers, few theater critics are directors or actors, and few book reviewers are authors. In any case, there are times when I could do better myself, and have offered Helpful Critique. See here, here, here.

Rob has provided a good answer to this question, too: right here.

#3. "Why are you so mean spirited and evil? What are you hoping to accomplish?"

I am hoping to either get Randall Munroe to shape up and make better comics, admit that he's lost his touch and stop, or make enough fans see the light that they stop visiting and Randall Munroe drifts slowly into obscurity like a shriveled leaf in an ocean of forgotten love. I'd also be more than happy if he switched from comic to Picto-Blog.

In the short term, I'm trying to have fun, analyze humor, and be a bastion of enlightenment for those people who see xkcd for the washed up shadow of its former self that it is.

#4. "Dude it's supposed to be a comic about math and relationships and stuff. So why do you criticize it for doing just what it pretends to do?"

I understand that xkcd is in theory "a webcomic of sarcasm, math, romance and language", in some order. Those categories are perfectly broad enough for a lot of diverse humor. The problem is when it becomes a webcomic of "python references, ****ty breakups, memes and charts" which I think are a bit too specific and feel repetitive quickly.

I don't think I ever say "lame, another joke about computers," I tend to say, "oh lame, another joke about meshing the line between humans and computers, whoop de do."

#5. "Aren't you just jealous?"

No, I would be jealous of him if he wrote good comics. I am jealous of Ryan North, who writes Dinosaur Comics. Once more, see Rob's more thoughtful, detailed answer if you would like a longer explanation.

#6. "Why are you picking on xkcd? Aren't there like ten thousand ****ty webcomics out there?"

Yes, there are, but few seem to have the popularity of xkcd. I could always find stupid things to critique, but for the most part, I wouldn't feel like I had accomplished anything (HEY GUYS THE SIMPSONS KINDA SUCKS NOW just thought you should know ok cool we all agree great). It is not so much how much xkcd sucks as how overrated it is - the blog was originally titled just "xkcd: overrated" though that has since been changed to the punchier "xkcd sucks." In short: No other comic seems to combine the same amount of popularity and crappiness. Most popular comics are good, and most bad comics every can agree are bad. XKCD manages to escape that, and I want to change that.

For a related discussion, see my essay here.

#7. "Why are you so freaking humorless?"

I dunno. Childhood accident? I am a Trained Humor Analyst and everyone else in the world seems to think that analyzing humor destroys it, so perhaps there is some answer there. I, of course, being an Trained Humor Analyst know that this silly idea is false. If you want to know what I think is funny, try the following webcomics -

Perry Bible Fellowship
Dinosaur Comics
Achewood
Chainsawsuit
Married To The Sea

#8. "Isn't the whole point of this blog stupid, because humor is entirely subjective?"

OK. here's how it works. Obviously, different things are funny to different people. We all have different experiences and can relate to different things. Person A might laugh at a really great joke about the French Revolution and person B will have no idea what the point is because he never learned about the French Revolution. Or something. Anyway the point is there are clearly some things that people don't think are funny. I'm not talking about terminal diseases, where someone like Cyanide and Happiness makes a joke about it and people go "NOT FUNNY." I'm talking about plain old boring things. A man eats an apple. A yardsale gets rained out. A waiter is particularly friendly. Basically no one (Rob excluded of course) would laugh at those, right? There is something about those situations that is less funny than, say, a funny situation on Arrested Development (or whatever you happen to think is funny).

So there has to be some element of humor that is objective. If you can't agree with that, you are not going to like this blog, and you should probably leave. I'm not trying to be a dick (well, no more than usual) but it's just that we are a community that tries to discuss humor and get at the heart of it, and as a prerequisite, we think there is actually something to find. I don't think it's unreasonable, but then again, I don't think any of my opinions are unreasonable.

#9. "How long to you plan to continue this infantile blog?"

Until it stops being fun.

#10. "Aren't you predisposed to hate every xkcd because you write a blog that relies on them sucking?"

This is a very good question and a point I worry about a lot. I try as best as I can to be openminded, and not just say "eh that sucks" with no particular reason. I read the forums to see how people predisposed to like the comic think, and I encourage people who think I'm totally wrong to comment and explain why, and I have been known to admit that certain comics are better than I give them credit for.

And now I've paid more attention to this website in the last two days than I have in the last two years! And of course the debate has introduced a need for social consistency which guarantees I will go on about how XKCD sucks at future social engagements. It's lovely how debates polarize people. 

[perihelion]

So, in other words, we've been feeding a troll.  Good to know.

[General Battuta]

So, in other words, we've been feeding a troll.  Good to know.

People who express opinions that disagree with you are trolls? That's a dangerous line to cross.

On an XKCD fansite, maybe. But this isn't one.

If you're talking about the blogger, there's a proud tradition of people criticizing things to get them to change. Sometimes it even works.

[karajorma]

This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.

Evidently they're not the only people who need to have humour explained to them.

I've not bothered reading Twilight and probably never will so I made the point in a way that I had hoped was universal enough that it could be understood by everyone. Let me restate then.

If Stephenie Meyer were to somehow write a decent Twilight book and the site you mentioned STILL lambasted it, picking on trifling minutiae in lieu of the major flaws her books usually do have, then I would call the writer of that blog a pathetic wanker.

[perihelion]

But that's the whole point, Battuta.  It isn't criticism.  It's just ridicule.  Ridicule for its own sake.  Frequently, ridicule whilst deliberately missing the point of the work being ridiculed.

I do retract my troll comment, though.  That was out of line.

[General Battuta]

This isn't analogous, though. This is about content, not medium. They're not criticizing (mostly) the graphic design of his website.

Evidently they're not the only people who need to have humour explained to them.

I've not bothered reading Twilight and probably never will so I made the point in a way that I had hoped was universal enough that it could be understood by everyone. Let me restate then.

If Stephenie Meyer were to somehow write a decent Twilight book and the site you mentioned STILL lambasted it, picking on trifling minutiae in lieu of the major flaws her books usually do have, then I would call the writer of that blog a pathetic wanker.

I'm not sure I'd disagree that this blog probably goes overboard in its critiques at points, but I'm okay with that; I can shrug off its excesses because its value to me is as a wake-up call to reify all those vague senses of 'oh, that was a letdown' and 'huh this seems sophomoric/like it's trying too hard; what is wrong with this comic I insist on emailing to the dorm list every single week and making clever noises about at lunch?'. In a way it's compensation for the mechanisms XKCD deploys, like shotgunning concepts 'only nerds would get' to create a sense of inclusiveness and belonging and to conceal a lack of truly clever (see: Dresden Codak, Dinosaur Comics) 'geek humor'. Extremism one way, extremism the other, I'm happy to lean one way but not go all the way.

But that's the whole point, Battuta.  It isn't criticism.  It's just ridicule.  Ridicule for its own sake.  Frequently, ridicule whilst deliberately missing the point of the work being ridiculed.

I do retract my troll comment, though.  That was out of line.

The point of Twilight is to tell a veiled erotic story about contrained desire; the point of the Matrix sequels was to show some kind of weird kung fu Buddhist journey; the point of the Star Wars prequels was to show how the characters in the OT came to be, and to make buckets of cash. But that on its own, the ability to have a 'point' - in this case, to be funny - isn't proof from criticism. Criticism can miss the point and still hit home; criticism of Star Wars doesn't need to focus on its goal of showing the rise of Darth Vader, it can talk about how a fight scene makes no sense. Criticism slips into ridicule, sure, but as I said above, I'm okay with that; human cognition is such that the moment you hit opposition in an argument you immediately start scaling towards your chosen extrema, and everything escalates. It's almost inevitable.

Unless the ridicule's aimed at me. Then of course I'm going to say it's a horrible injustice!

And missing the point is something critics, fans, and viewers do all the time. We make fun of the robot suit fight scene in The Matrix Revolutions because it makes no sense. The 'point' is to have an awesome robot fight scene that is awesome, in the same way the point of an XKCD strip is to be funny, but that doesn't necessarily inoculate it against mockery regarding the terms used to accomplish that aim.

Ridicule only becomes offensive when you're attached to the object being ridiculed. When you're not, it's just schadenfreude. That's not always fair, and it can be hurtful to someone who is attached, but that's a middle ground that has to be negotiated.

[General Battuta]

Ironically this debate is forcing me to reify an actual position on the issue of whether or not I like XKCD, which I never really had before except inasmuch as I liked being able to antagonize freshmen.

This jives nicely with this data set I'm analyzing about how firm political attitudes rarely exist in voters until they're forced to make a choice.

[MP-Ryan]

1.  Look, I happen to enjoy some of XKCDs jokes because I do find them genuinely funny.  In fact, two of them are decorating my cubicle at work.

2.  The POINT of humour is to be humourous, not be subjected to rigorous critical analysis.  Everyone enjoys humour differently.  I don't really give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about it, and if you sit down and critique how unfunny it is to you, it just makes you appear like a gigantic douchebag.  Not talking to anyone in particular here, just the "generic" you.  It's like the person who dissects how bad a stand-up comic is but continues to watch it - if you don't like it, just leave/switch off the TV.  You'll note that critical analysis of satirical work does not revolve around how humourous it is, but rather around the literary devices, prose, and tone it uses that makes it humourous to some people.  The more successful and accessible the satire, the greater the audience - BUT, the audience does not establish its greatness as a satirical or literary work.

3.  As likely the only, or one of very few, people who has actually read all four Twilight novels (on HLP) from cover to cover, I look at the infantile comments people make about how bad it is and am reminded of a popular statement:  "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt."  Stephanie Meyer is not a literary genius, by any stretch, but it's not the worst popular fiction I've ever read by a long stretch.  It would seem that the majority of criticism is being leveled by people who never actually bothered to read the complete story... which I would file under "Ignorant" on the critical analysis continuum.

In short:  Just STOP already.  It's not often that GD actually raises my ire by a significant level, but the sheer inanity of this discussion is making my head-shaking rate increase to a level that might have a negative impact on my health.

[General Battuta]

1.  Look, I happen to enjoy some of XKCDs jokes because I do find them genuinely funny.  In fact, two of them are decorating my cubicle at work.

Me too. I like some of it.

2.  The POINT of humour is to be humourous, not be subjected to rigorous critical analysis.  Everyone enjoys humour differently.  I don't really give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about it, and if you sit down and critique how unfunny it is to you, it just makes you appear like a gigantic douchebag.

I don't buy that. I think everybody agrees The Simpsons is less funny than it used to be. When this was still a divisive issue, sitting down and explaining why could have been illuminating, and maybe even helped reverse the decline. Simpsons critics have probably been accused of being gigantic douchebags, but in the end the consensus turned out to be in their favor.

I have never watched much TV so I have very little stake in the issue. But I did read io9's Futurama movie reviews, and they were another instance of analyzing humor and explaining where it sometimes failed.

3.  As likely the only, or one of very few, people who has actually read all four Twilight novels from cover to cover, I look at the infantile comments people make about how bad it is and am reminded of a popular statement:  "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool than speak up and remove all doubt."  Stephanie Meyer is not a literary genius, by any stretch, but it's not the worst popular fiction I've ever read by a long stretch.  It would seem that the majority of criticism is being leveled by people who never actually bothered to read the complete story... which I would file under "Ignorant" on the critical analysis continuum.

But there's plenty of criticism on, for example, the gender dynamics of Twilight which is quite informed, quite thoroughly non-infantile and quite nuanced. I know someone who did a paper on the first book both criticizing its treatment of control and praising its willingness to depict active female sexuality. And I'm not sure that ties in to the debate over this blog as the man clearly does read XKCD.

Calling him a pointless wanker is maybe fair, but it stands at odds with the reactions many of us would have, to, for example, lists ripping apart the Star Wars prequels on both the macro and micro level. I think a lot of us would appreciate those, but someone not interested in Star Wars would probably see it as geek masturbation.