[MP-Ryan]

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.

Critiquing humour is akin to explaining it - it removes the humourous element.  Considering that humour isn't even all that well understood (because it simultaneously relies on individual and collective consciousness), any critique is going to remove spontaneity.  Applying a critique to future revision causes it to become formulaic, and eventually it will reach a point where it is no longer entertaining.  It's an elusive beast, and retroactive critique accomplishes nothing OTHER than making the commentator (and anyone who agrees with him/her) smug.

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.

I'm not disputing that there is a great deal of very valid critique on Ms. Meyer's work out there - I'm asserting that not much originating HERE is valid because people don't actually know what they're talking about, having not read the subject matter in question, and therefore relying on what everyone else says.

As an aside, it is my critical opinion that any critical analysis of the Twilight novels must be done based on the collective works; while literary analysis is possible on each individual book, the theme is prevalent (and modified) throughout the series and requires a holistic overview of all four books together.  [By way of example:  I think the second novel is crap, but the series of the whole is a reasonable attempt at entertaining fiction based on an alternative use of a common fictional entity to address a somewhat underdeveloped thesis on teenage emotional and psychological development].

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.

You misunderstand me; I'm not referring to him as a pointless wanker alone.  I'm referring to anyone who spends so much time developing an inane and tiresome treatise, in excruciating detail, on why something is not funny to them as a general waste of bandwidth.  Satire as a device used in critique is fantastic, and literary critique of popular fiction or film is also quite valid; but there is a difference between dissecting populous works and nitpicking short humour to death.  Despite the fact that I find Will Ferrell's work to be tedious and distinctly unfunny, were a blogger to create a site dedicated to a non-satirical/amusing thrashing of his work I would have exactly the same opinion as I do here.  If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous.  This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.

[General Battuta]

I can pretty reliably point to something that's funny and at least take a stab at why I think it is. Sure, it kills the joke, but when the question is why something's not funny the joke is already dead. You can't make it funny again, but you can establish rules to obey. And comedians do certainly have rules.

[MP-Ryan]

I can pretty reliably point to something that's funny and at least take a stab at why I think it is. Sure, it kills the joke, but when the question is why something's not funny the joke is already dead. You can't make it funny again, but you can establish rules to obey. And comedians do certainly have rules.

Yes, but they operate based on the public conscious perception that they do NOT have rules.  Discussing the rules of humour breaks the perception barrier, and renders the product formulaic, obvious, and generally not the slightest bit amusing.

Much like this discussion has effectively rendered the original cartoon into an object of debate instead of humour.

And now I'm going back to XKCD to try to forget this debacle of a thread.

[General Battuta]

Debacle? It's seemed perfectly civil to me.

Deconstructive debate of any object usually, well, deconstructs it. But if it's not achieving its goal for a given party what else are they supposed to do?

If someone posts a thread about a game that looks awesome and then someone else posts about how it doesn't look awesome/wasn't awesome/will not be awesome for reasons X, and untangles the game's stated aims, sure, it's going to steal the magic of the game's trailer or whatever content came up. But that's how discussion goes; it renders things objects of debate instead of [original intent]. How much utility you lose is tied to how much you were extracting in the first place. The world's biggest Jar Jar Binks fan is going to suffer a lot more when he stumbles onto the Internet than you or I would.

Also, click heah for something I enjoy.

[Topgun]

Also, click heah for something I enjoy.

See, I personally do not find that funny. I mean there was a few parts that were a little cute, but I probably only smirked a little.

[General Battuta]

Also, click heah for something I enjoy.

See, I personally do not find that funny. I mean there was a few parts that were a little cute, but I probably only smirked a little.

webcomic tastes differ in internet SHOCKER

[iamzack]

this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP

[redsniper]

this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP

[MR_T3D]

this is the new dumbest serious discussion on HLP

[General Battuta]

u wanna fight

[karajorma]

If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous.  This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.

I was about to bring up this point myself.

I always hold comedians who decide to make fun of other comedians to a simple standard. You'd better be funnier than the person you're taking the mickey out of or it would be a better use of my time to simply ignore you and watch the other guy.

[General Battuta]

If you're critiquing humour, then your critique had better be humourous.  This blogger fails spectacularly in that regard.

I was about to bring up this point myself.

I always hold comedians who decide to make fun of other comedians to a simple standard. You'd better be funnier than the person you're taking the mickey out of or it would be a better use of my time to simply ignore you and watch the other guy.

But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!

(there is a great comeback here)

Anyway I've said more than once now that I don't necessarily disagree with points re: that site, so not sure why it keeps coming up. It's useful to me because it has a great URL that makes a point many people in the groupthink haven't considered. Useful for dorm listhosts, for one.

[The E]

Which makes metahumour very, very hard.

[redsniper]

But as we've just seen, humor is subjective!

(there is a great comeback here)

I'm sure this isn't what you meant but...

Oh yeah, well your face is subjective!

[NGTM-1R]

Oh yeah, well your face is subjective!

Only when it's not an image!

[Mongoose]

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.

But what happens if we feel that xkcd is fine how it is, and that it's the blogger that's the one who needs to change?

And man, not only do I get only about half of the references in that strip you linked, but its physical layout is absolutely atrocious.  That artist seriously needs to take some sort of sequential art class.

[General Battuta]

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.

But what happens if we feel that xkcd is fine how it is, and that it's the blogger that's the one who needs to change?

Are you saying people...have different...opinions!?

Spock! I need! Answers!

And man, not only do I get only about half of the references in that strip you linked, but its physical layout is absolutely atrocious.  That artist seriously needs to take some sort of sequential art class.

Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.

It actually reminds me of Mack's Kabuki in that respect. People go 'i r confused' but then it clicks and they're like 'oh!'

I have my problems with DC, actually I feel in some respects it's dwindled with time, but it's a cut above most, and it doesn't pander to its audience.

Of course I understand that by linking it I diminished the chance you would ever genuinely enjoy it on its own merits. Context can get people to react very differently to something than they might coming in neutral.

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.

Your posts keep getting edited. I did not see this until now. I don't have these same kind of strong feelings in this case; this doesn't feel to me categorically different than discussing the quality of a TV show or whatnot!

Arguments that it's a disposable bit of fluff humor walk into all the endless worship of the undergraduate masses.

[pecenipicek]

Ah, HLP, where telling someone "**** off ya git! I is RIGHT AN YOU IS NOT AND THATS THE END OF IT!" is often understood as a mating call, heralding the arrival of many, many interesting species of the common internet brainy guy.

Spoiler:

ah ****e, who am i kidding, we're all comedians inside. love seeing the arguments and counterarguments. As for the main topic, well, the comic was sorta funny, but i never really got into xkcd a lot, so nnnnnyeah... carry on then

[Mongoose]

Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.

I wouldn't say it was a dispositional error so much as I literally could not follow the comic in-sequence.  I had to look over it two or three times to figure out where the hell I was supposed to read next, and I'm still not entirely sure I was right.  At least in my book, that qualifies as getting cute for cuteness's sake, to the point where form overtakes function...and that's a bad thing. Granted, I'm not really a personal fan of sequential art as an entire medium, so there's likely some user error at work too.

(And yes, I'm aware that there was sort of an inherent bias in me reading it in the context of this conversation, but I do know that I wouldn't have understood several of the references regardless.)

[General Battuta]

Not so! Dresden Codak's layouts are carefully considered (which is probably part of why the guy updates, like, once a month.) Above all webcomics I've read it rewards repeat reading, too, because it is so rich with stuff to find. Right here, on another note, you let yourself slip into a dispositional error - you assumed the artist was incapable of classically clear layouts when dozens of his strips use them, but sometimes they're not right for the story at hand.

I wouldn't say it was a dispositional error so much as I literally could not follow the comic in-sequence.  I had to look over it two or three times to figure out where the hell I was supposed to read next, and I'm still not entirely sure I was right.

Yes! Yes!

At least in my book, that qualifies as getting cute for cuteness's sake, to the point where form overtakes function...and that's a bad thing.

No, no! You make Judith Butler sad! Information is stored in the form, form becomes content, the effort of pursuit can be leveraged to force the viewer to think about what they are seeing! Causality can be challenged!

Granted, I'm not really a personal fan of sequential art as an entire medium, so there's likely some user error at work too.

(And yes, I'm aware that there was sort of an inherent bias in me reading it in the context of this conversation, but I do know that I wouldn't have understood several of the references regardless.)

It is dense. The density is part of why it is so permissible to repeat reads. But then you have Nedroid, which makes no demands past that of absurdism!