SpringLoaded12 wrote:Thus I can only conclude that not only do you dislike xkcd and Randall, but also that you have never liked them. That being said--I have asked before, but I feel the need to ask again--why do you read xkcd?
Well, it's not true that I never liked it. Thing is, my perceptions changed, and one thing that really killed xkcd for me is realising that Randall really puts himself
into his comics very often; it was funnier when it seemed he was just pulling our leg, coming up with absurd little concepts (fear of raptors, ball pits, kits, Megan, etc.) just for the sake of comedy, but with every strip it becomes more evident that Randall is just making a comic about himself. And then the spell was broken, and all the flaws began to appear: the awful dialogues, the uninteresting ideas, the lack of imagination, the lack of grasp on humour, the self-indulgent "nerdiness", the increasingly more "high school" mathematics and so on.
The reason why I still come here is that I just can't let go; I've delved way
too deep into this webcomic, and I just can't pull myself out of it. Basically I want to see how far Randall can go before he loses it. And again: it is not a horrible pain and an unbearable torture
to read xkcd. It occupies very little time and I've already got used to most of Randall's flaws. Thing is, occasionally, stuff like THIS truly make my brain hurt... and that's sort of an added thrill.
SpringLoaded12 wrote:And as a footnote, to Mr. Burke: Though many readers tend to assume that any female brunette xkcd stick figure is Megan, this has never been confirmed by Randall and this strip does not refer to her as Megan at all. In short, it's not Megan.
Who knows? As I've said, xkcd is more often than not a very unsubtle self-insert, and the "very smart brunette who is often called Megan
and whose vagina was explicitly shown on comic 631" is so recurrent and so often seen, that it's very
hard to get rid of the nasty idea that Megan is Randall's fantasy toy woman. Randall seems not to know where to draw the line between his published works and his personal stuff; he has said, for example, that "Beret guy" is based on someone he knows (I would be horrified to know someone with such inconsistent, random personality), so why should we act like "Megan" is 100% fictional?
SpringLoaded12 wrote:Instead, it seems to me that the strip depicts two people who are both depressed and are thinking of each other being depressed. Another, albeit less interesting way to show this would be one panel showing the depressed guy thinking of the depressed girl and another panel showing the depressed girl thinking of the depressed guy.
I honestly don't know why that example you gave is "less interesting" than the actual comic -- it is exactly the same thing. The comic as it is may
evoke "recursion", but without any kind of purpose; that is, it's an entirely bland, pointless, meaningless choice. It expresses nothing. Your "less interesting" example is exactly what this comic is.