Managing to make a satire of XKCD less funny than XKCD is itself a kind of perverse achievement, and I applaud them for that.

What I find funny is that Randall fell victim to exactly what he accused Jim Davis of a long time ago. Early XKCD was, if not necessarily brilliant, unexpected and often very clever in its jokes. I know one of its earliest influences was Achewood, which, for those of you who don't know, is the Webcomic To End All Webcomics, against which nothing but the best print comics compare. It was more effortless and came across as a comic trying to say something.

His nerd jokes were occasionally actually really good. When they weren't, they came across with the air of "Fuck you, I'm not putting these comics online for you." Occasionally he'd hit upon a nice riff with his heartbreak comics, too, and his whimsical outlook towards life was a lot more sincere and less forced. Then he homogenized, began repeating joke concepts, and started spitting out a lot of derivative work, with only the occasional truly clever idea. It's never gotten worse than mediocre, but it's very frequently mediocre.

I guess what I'm trying to say is all of you should read Achewood instead. The nerd jokes are better (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09232002), it's funnier than any comic I've ever read (it's the comic that topped Calvin and Hobbes after seventeen years on the top of my list), and it's a real start-up, selling monthly premium updates rather than relying on any advertising whatsoever.

I mostly agree about XKCD. Though I did not find (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=09232002) very funny. I will never let my family down by programming in Java.

The problem with Achewood, and why it's never been a hit, is that you have to read from the first comic to really get into it. The humor is character-driven and very rich, and you don't get any of that without starting from the beginning. But in six panels it's making four or five jokes, which is pretty astounding.

Perhaps. I found that the artwork got more accomplished in the recent comics, so it's nicer to look at.

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

Yep, definitely not funny.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

If xkcd is "unfriendly" to you, xkcdsucks is actually pretty damn funny. Randall appears to have actual groupies, so it's hard to feel too bad for him, even if Carl and Aloria can be pretty mean.

Yeah, I just don't like making fun of the drawing style. "This just in stick figures are crude, etc. etc."