mullitover wrote:It doesn't matter whether we are talking about the entire body of work or an individual work (just as it doesn't matter whether it is film, literature, or art), we are still talking about a very subjective aspect - humor.
No, I'm not talking about that. I am talking about the efficacy of a joke
, which is NOT subjective. It's statistical! I have ALREADY said that!
Do you really want your humor to be that formulaic?
No: Randall does. HE does his webcomic that way. It's not MY fault. If he wants to attempt new forms of humour, that would not
make his attempts necessarily good; he has to be good enough to pull it off right. The thing is, this comic is NOT a departure from his usual formula! It's exactly the same thing! He hasn't departed at all, just look at today's comic. It's the same thing: setup->punchline!
Also, what's the problem with a comic being formulaic? People use that formula because it's a good one, it's relatable, it's open for countless possibilities, but it doesn't mean it's necessarily "easy" to do. Breaking formulas just for the sake of it is a pretty stupid maneuvre, you know.
I like to be forced to think about, and sometimes even research the possibilities I might have missed. Even if most of the time it is just what it seems on the surface, there is always the chance that there will be more layers of goodness to discover.
Interestingly, that kind of thing hasn't happened for a very long time. For many months now, the only "research" that you're required to do is about 4chan memes, random items of pop culture and elementary level maths. Wow, so much awesome research to be done there.
The idea of seeking nerd-cred is just as subjective as everything else involved here. If by that you mean an attempt to seem smarter than a person really is, then I disagree that that is the case, based on the intelligence I've seen displayed in some of these interpretations and arguments.
Oh, yeah, me too. Stuff like
"I laughed. I don't know why, but I laughed!"
"I don't think I get the joke, but I'm still laughing!"
are fine examples of that.
Also, while GOOMH may be overused (I've never actually used the term myself) the frequency of its use does represent an element of this comic that transcends humor and that you don't seem to get... the connection to a certain zeitgeist that makes it easy to connect the comic (separate from it's humor) tangentially to elements of daily life and thought patterns.
to be like that. When I started reading the comic, I also
had that odd feeling of familiarity, when I was mentally going "wait, I thought only I
stepped on tiles following a certain pattern", which was what that expression originally meant, but what is it now? A comic has a glass of water in it, and somebody will go "Randall, get out of my head! I was JUST drinking water when I saw that comic!". The GOOMH thing has become a badge of coolness; anything
you can find to connect yourself with xkcd, even the most idiotic and obvious things, are worth mentioning.
People don't need this comic.
I disagree. xkcd fell like a glove in a community who needed some sort of voice. Nerdiness on the Internet was still quite niche and inexpressive, but when xkcd came along, gradually nerdiness became cool
. Not that xkcd STARTED that movement, but it certainly cathalysed it: suddenly the advanced maths and science, the passion of computers and technology, became associated with sex, heroic acts and an active social life. xkcd became much more than just a webcomic; it's a like a style of life arose with it. So I don't think it's too farfetched to say that there are many people who need
to like xkcd.