Red Hal wrote:That's more like it. Wit, panache, a reference to xkcdsucks and a stubborn refusal to grasp the point that sometimes the image merely illustrates the alt-text. Keep 'em coming!
"Reference to xkcdsucks"? You're not talking about me
there, are you? I never referenced it.
Also, "the image merely illustrates the alt-text" is about the most negative kind of review a webcomic could ever get, and not
a justification of style. That's sort of like some fanboy of some phony pseudo-rock-band countering the criticism by saying "the singer holds the guitar not to play it, but only to look cool".
But even as a "mere illustration" the artwork (in the words of the great George Starostin) sucks donkey's ass: it is too rushed and informal to work as a "diagram", and is too ugly, simplistic and what-the-fuck-is-that to be, well, anything else
. Seriously, what the fuck
. Graphics like that are sort of apt when you scribble on your napkin when you're in a pub getting drunk out of your mind to make a quick, passing joke that everyone will forget five minutes later. And not only that: the horrible, atrocious artwork illustrates a comic about plastic bags. Plastic bags
. If I had to prepare a stand-up comic routine in 3 minutes for an audience of a thousand, I'd certainly find a more interesting topic than that
-- and even if I didn't, I'd find something funnier to say than that alt-text.
Besides, did you notice how many words
are in that comic? There is, literally, more writing than artwork in the comic.
Is there any
level, any aspect in which today's comic is NOT a failure? ... oh, I know! There are no randomly-out-of-place words in it.WATER