Re:XKCD Explained, One Strip at a Time
by Alex3917 on Thursday October 29, 2009 @03:16PM
(#910642)
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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
"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.)
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.
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.
Except they aren't very funny, and in quite a few cases completely wrong.