Re:XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time
by KirinDave on Thursday October 29, 2009 @02:33PM
(#910544)
It is definitely inspired by Marmaduke Explained, and we love that blog. As for the rest, we'll let the audience decide.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.