Balesk Baj, Timeburner wrote:I find it baffling that you are complaining about Randall's small mention of Minecraft in this comic and you're not complaining on the topic of the comic itself.
Eh, the topic is completely bland and absolutely
unsurprising, and Randall doesn't show any new twist to it at all; but if I complain about that, the reaction will be violent and ignorant anyway. The only interesting spin given on the story is the 20 nearly identical panels. Humour through repetition can be great, and I don't think Randall has ever tried that. It's the only fresh and interesting thing in the whole comic.
Balesk Baj, Timeburner wrote:But what I find stranger is that you usually don't bash comics containing scientific, mathematical, or programming elements that normal people usually don't know
Eh, that's the whole schtick of xkcd, right? I don't have anything against Randall finding his own niche, really.
Balesk Baj, Timeburner wrote:and when you do, you usually:
a.) complain on small, unimportant stuff in it,
b.) point out that Randall's overall presentation of the comic is sloppy, or
c.) say that Randall only posts obscure nerdy topics to gain more attention and to make himself (and us XKCD fans) feel smarter.
Ok, first, I don't agree that the small things are unimportant. When it comes to art, the small things can have a truly huge
impact on the finished product -- a badly lighted scene on a film, a poorly recorded instrument on a song, and a stale "off-joke" in a comic? Those things may be small, but not at all unimportant. I hate the "Minecraft" reference. Why is this such a crime? A lot of people complain that Family Guy
often just references pop culture items for comedic effect, instead of creating actual substance
. Randall is doing the exact same thing
here, only with nerd culture items. The joke there is that scientists like to play games in their spare time. It could be any
game, it could be a generic game, it could be Tetris
or anything. But no: Randall has to go for something absolutely topical, something that will attract attention to the reference itself
and not to its effect on the joke! It's detracting, it's jarring, and it's nothing but cheap, obnoxious pandering! It has absolute potential for ruining anything
, and it doesn't add any value to the comic. It is small, it is just a detail, but art is made of details
. Ignoring the details is one of the most destructive attitudes one can have towards art.
As for the "overall presentation," well, are you willing to argue that the presentation is not important? I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously someone who argues that. A great presentation greatly enhances the effect of a joke, while a bad presentation can muffle the effect to the point of killing it. Besides, I'm not even complaining about the proper sloppiness of the presentation here, but for Randall's sloppiness as the editor and publisher of his own work. Occasional mistakes can be forgiven, but in the last few months, the amount of errors in xkcd was staggering, and are characteristic of an artist who doesn't care about his work enough to proof read it
. The "double yellow" thing was minor enough to be passable, but the "green jelly" on the second panel anticipated the joke!
No sleep-deprived sloppy editor would have forgiven that. Randall had the attitude of an artist that doesn't care, and that doesn't deserve respect, plain and simple.
As for the attention whoring, this topic has been nearly exhausted already, and it's completely off-topic here. I'll pass that one.