
XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time - KirinDave
http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/
======
tptacek
_Infinitesimal Jest: Towards A Intertextual Metanarrative Of Subtextual
Resonances Between XKCD and XKCD-Explained_

* It can and has been claimed by that the humor in XKCD is superficial, driven more by the dog-whistle power of recogition of cultural signs and signifiers than by a "true" or "significant" humor. Of course, an equally valid critical response questions the notion of "truth" and observes that the free play of signs and signifiers unmoored from a confining narrative core is a potent artistic force driving the work.

* A persistent debate between critical factions regarding XKCD is the question of whether those who claim XKCD is superficial don't understand the scientific and cultural references in the work, which debate is addressed by a direct recitation of those references in XKCD Explained.

* A common critical observation about XKCD that may not be obvious to the lay reader who does not closely track the comic is that it might be repetitive, which is to say that when the comics are stripped to their narrative kernel, many of the comics are essentially the same.

* Another common observation that may not be obvious to the lay reader is that it might be derivative, with comics repurposing the narrative and conceptual core of other, non-XKCD webcomics. This of course is an invalid critique, as XKCD exists intertextually with all other webcomics and is in fact enjoined to make use of and amplify the key ideas of those other comics.

* A more easily observable concern with XKCD is the relationship between the comic and gender, and in particular with sex, that concern being itself the observation of a subtext that implies that all references to sex are titillating to its audience, within which audience broad cultural norms have precluded actual experience with the reproductive act, and often contact with the opposite sex.

* Which of course drives us to the key concern with XKCD AND XKCD Sucks, which is that the authors of both works, being themselves bound to the norms of the media of English text, believe men are superior to women. Note the phallic symbolism of the letters "X" and "K", and the subordinate positions of the vaginal characters "C" and "D", the last of which represents (semiotically) the supressed but controlling desire of the male writer to maintain a pregnant state in the female reader.

~~~
detcader
You don't HAVE to use complicated words and sentences, you know. No one's
impressed. No one sensible, anyway. Your content may be relevant or even valid
but it's presented in an almost haughty lexicon.

Unless you're parodying something in which case WOOOSH

~~~
mhartl
The parent comment is a parody of self-important postmodernist "analysis".
(Note that the scare quotes, or "scare quotes", around the word "'analysis'",
are typical of our hegemonic, phallocentric culture.)

~~~
tptacek
I prefer to hold fast to the idea that this commenter actually believes that I
think the letters C and D are vaginal.

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

~~~
KirinDave
It is definitely inspired by Marmaduke Explained, and we love that blog. As
for the rest, we'll let the audience decide.

~~~
likpok
Marmaduke Explained has the benefit that Marmaduke is worse. It lacks the
basic fundamentals of a joke in many cases. For what it's worth, XKCD does not
have this. It may or may not be funny, but it is not awful.

~~~
KirinDave
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
probably apply this same joke to ANY webcomic if you have the right tone. If
you want to see someone doing it wrong, check xkcdsucks.

~~~
derefr
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.

~~~
billswift
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.

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

------
Steve0
Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog: you understand it better, but the
frog dies in the process. Mark Twain

~~~
KirinDave
The only valid response:
[http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/post/226264418/a-man-is-
alon...](http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/post/226264418/a-man-is-alone-in-a-
room-talking-to-himself-he)

~~~
decklin
You should do this one: <http://xkcd.com/33/>

~~~
jpwagner
"the androgynous figure has arbitrarily promised not to make humor out of
referring to itself any longer. given the assumption that the 'blank stare' is
funny, the promise has been broken and regret sets in."

------
jexe
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.

~~~
tptacek
Although deconstructionism forces us to concede that any "slant" in XKCD is
merely a textual artifact, and all critical perspectives on the work are
equally valid, it is nevertheless _more equally valid_ to conclude that XKCD's
gender politics may be more self-serving to the author than a legitimate (
_pace_ manocentric male-ocratic words like "legitimate") statement of empathy
or outrage over the station of the modern woman in today's technological
world.

~~~
eli
I think you're trying to make a joke, but if not, I have no idea how you
reached that conclusion.

~~~
jrp
He is using deconstructionist language on deconstructionism itself. This is
funny because it shows us that deconstructionism contradicts itself.

~~~
tptacek
"tptacek explained". Nice.

------
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.

------
mquander
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._

If you're going to write something scathing about how foolish thing X is, you
had better make damn well sure your writing is actually better than thing X.
This reads like a bright 12-year-old posted it (but not that bright.)

~~~
Alex3917
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.

~~~
Semiapies
"You see, you'd normally expect explanations of jokes to be funny."

Who would expect that? It's a old cliche that explaining a joke isn't funny or
entertaining. I certainly wasn't expecting humor when I looked at it.

(Nor did I find any, but then, the "it's funny because it's not funny" shtick
is right up there with "Bill Clinton is a horny guy, amirite?" jokes in Dated
Gag Heaven.)

~~~
KirinDave
Well, there is an interesting effect. Some of the jokes in XKCD are so bad
that explaining them dryly has the unintended consequence of making them
funnier. For example, <http://bit.ly/UiiM5>.

~~~
Semiapies
Not really. It's just "unfunny" and "uninteresting description of unfunny".

Now, if there were an additional level of description, something could be
salvaged.

"The writer of the explanation characterizes a 'full rugby uniform' as lacking
any trousers, belt, or shoes to invoke homophobic stereotypes about the
English."

...Meh, maybe not even that would help.

------
shawnyar217
Thoughts:

Anyone who doesn't get that graphing historical toilet usage times resulting
from tragically poor medical science against modern toilet usage times
resulting from pathetic laziness and/or extreme nerdiness regarding laptop
computers is hysterically brilliant and funny, needs to get a life or at least
go away and stop bothering people.

I don't know the guy, but judging from the hot girls modelling T-shirts on the
website, I'd take a guess that the author of XKCD is not a male hyper feminist
as the critic tried to claim. Hot girls don't go for male hyper feminists.
He's simply a confident male who has figured out that making smart girls happy
(thru fun comic strips starring smart girls) tends to get him laid. In this he
is no different from any man who tells a gal a joke to help her relax.

Criticizing a wildly popular work of art known for weaving complicated math
and science topics into quality jokes is dangerous to begin with. There is so
much danger that the reason you don't "get it" is because its over your head
and you don't know it. To then express the criticism with such poorly-written
captions is just sad.

XKCD forever.

~~~
Semiapies
Amusingly, there's an inversion of that last bit being played out - the
response to people not finding the "gag" of the explanations hilarious is that
the joke is just _so_ over folks' heads. We can't get the "real" joke!

 _The "real" joke is that, hey, this guy that people call "funny" occasionally
makes unfunny comics - and we can find unfunny ones from years back! No? Uh,
the "real" joke is that there_ is _no humor, so it's a joke. ...Or, um, would
you believe that the "real" joke is that people find our shtick dumb and
object, because they're just not_ cool _enough to give a thumbs-up to half-
assed attacks on things they like?_

------
MikeCapone
It pretty much just ends up sounding very condescending (especially down the
page).

------
detcader
Everyone just wants attention. At least xkcd puts some effort into it.

Everyone. just. wants. attention. It's that simple.

Invariably, unless I write this sentence, someone will accuse me of wanting
attention; don't.

------
jlees
I'm glad that Sheldon from _The Big Bang Theory_ is not alone in the world.

(Edit; Also, if you're going to over-explain the joke, at least over-explain
the alt text too!)

~~~
KirinDave
We debated this, but we wanted to do it IN the alt text, which turns out to be
a bit of a pain to do on tumblr.

------
seiji
This one is much better (and useful): <http://www.explainxkcd.com/>

~~~
wmf
Wow, so there are two blogs explaining xkcd and two xkcd hate blogs. That's
what I call success.

~~~
tptacek
I think (hope, actually) that you have the numbers in that sentence wrong.

------
luchak
I feel like this blog is an optical illusion where, if I stare long enough,
I'll see John Campbell.

Except I'm still not seeing it.

------
ramidarigaz
I've never seen a website where "next" is to the left, and "previous" is to
the right.

~~~
KirinDave
It's called "tumblr.com" and it's fairly popular.

------
diminonine
He also apparently thinks Munroe is a reverse misogynist. There's got to be a
proper word for that...

~~~
KirinDave
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/227070875/a-man-wearing-a-
hasidic-jews-black-hat-is)
[http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/post/226266899/the-trick-
her...](http://xkcdexplained.tumblr.com/post/226266899/the-trick-here-is-that-
youre-reading-out-loud-and)

~~~
likpok
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.

~~~
eru
And what do the neutral guys wear? Black hats?

------
dylanz
Ugh! I get the same feeling reading this as I do reading this:
<http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/>

------
mikefish
yeah, clear ripoff of explainxkcd.com. these guys aren't even original

------
Tichy
Some of these were really helpful.

------
pwmanagerdied
Surprisingly, I actually think this may be useful to explain some comics to
less-geeky friends who could still be able to appreciate them. Lot of them are
horribly ruined by the explanations, but some of them (Locke on Wordpress, for
one) would still be enjoyable, I think.

