Xkcd dating formula
Xkcd dating formula
There is much to criticize about Questionable Content.Perhaps one might touch upon how the characterization that has driven the comic for years has suddenly gone stagnant and the “plot,” such as it is, has dissolved into directionless matchmaking.
Not that I was silent in the first place, but for the moment I will push aside this fact in the interest of a dramatic opening. Anything that makes this post more informative than simply reading the webcomics themselves? It is more along the lines of a “mind dump,” as though someone sat Tim down with paper and pencil, flashed images of comics in front of his eyes, and instructed him to scribble down his first reaction to each one. It is purposeless writing with nothing to offer the reader.
It actually discusses what works well in the comic and what doesn’t. Then comes xkcdsuckstravaganza, which you wouldn’t know was one of Carl’s if the handy little column to the left didn’t tell you.
It’s not a day-by-day analysis of the comic because it doesn’t a day-by-day analysis, discussing general trends is enough for Carl to make his points. Apparently Carl decided that his posts are too so instead he decided to do one Tim-style.
To that end, the sentence “hey, we are just clearing ground for the eventual Martin/Hanners relationship” goes unexplained and thus makes .
Saying random shit (such as the aforementioned “Jeff Jacks”) without a reason does not make you a critic or entertaining. If content were calories, your post would be word salad.
It begins with the comment “This one will be really short, mostly to piss off the folks who complain that my comments are too short.” Hilarious. Here’s the thing, Tim: mocking your audience is funny, mocking your audience’s criticism in lieu of responding to it makes you look like an idiot. For example, Andrew Hussie both mocks and Carl’s FAQs on xkcdsucks address arguments made by the audience. Nobody wants to hear your bullshit two-sentence reactions that address exactly nothing. I visited, and continue to visit, xkcdsucks because it always has interesting, well-argued criticism.
“I’m gonna do whatever I wanna do” is not an argument, and because you haven’t gained any respect in our eyes yet, having displayed no ability whatsoever to pen a critique, it makes you look like the douche you are. I will not continue to visit because it has none of that. Even your commenters are less intelligent on this new blog; they do not bother to discuss or debate, only hate on every webcomic blindly for obscure reasons.
But still, poor logic is better than no attempt at all, [I disagree.
QC is a long-form comic, not a gag-a-day, but he tries to be both.
-Ed.]The second critique faults the QC formula for forcing Hanners to step out of character.
Not only is this incorrect – if one were to follow Jeph’s twitter feed one would learn the precise reason the comic was made – it also suggests that the situation was forced and unrealistic because of the artist’s quest to create a comic with “day to day humor”.
Or perhaps there is discussion to be had about the author’s choice to redraw several comics for his recently published collection.