1032: "Networking"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: 1032: "Networking"

Postby SirMustapha » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:07 pm UTC

dassdrow wrote:if posting content represents a person jumping in the lake then you're comments = you jumping in the lake also as you're comments are another form of content.


Yes, exactly. I never denied that.

dassdrow wrote:you're analogy if it is to be accurate, then requires everyone to jump in the lake because they have seen a lake with at least one person in it.


What? No, definitely not! I am "jumping into the lake" (i.e. criticising) because I chose to, but people may choose not to jump and it's their right. People who don't jump won't get wet (well, in practice I could criticise people who are saying nothing, but that would be silly), people who choose to jump will. I reckon that, and I have no problem in getting myself wet; but jumping in and complaining about the wetness is a silly attitude.

I honestly don't understand why you say "everyone should jump because they saw someone else do it". This is just not true.

dassdrow wrote:people = content they have published, water level = the amount related content, wetness= amount of bad critisim, coldness= bad reaction to bad critisism
there fore you're analogy should be " If you step in a lake, other people might to join you and the water will rise and you should expect to get more wet. however you may not expect someone will splash you as this might make you too cold and you may wish get dried off.


In other words, you're having the attitude of the artist complaining "criticism is too bad and I wish it wouldn't happen like that, so that I could post whatever I want without anyone complaining". No. Life is not like that. Criticism happens, and trying to do anything against it is futile. You may think it's sad, but it's still true.

jpk wrote:Ah. Evidence of good taste. O senhor gosta dos livros de Saramago? Muito bem.


Obrigado. Ele sim, eu considero um escritor digno de inveja.

jpk wrote:I suppose I'm not talking about laws, but usage. The intent of the critic, as a writer, is typically to say something. Why bother to simply say what has already been said in the original work, and to attach a value judgement to it? I can't think of anyone worth reading who takes that approach.


Okay, that's fair enough. Not much I can do about that other than disagree, but you have a strong point.

jpk wrote:Honesty is an excellent policy, in my view, but it does not substitute for insight. If you honestly dislike a work and can't see clearly why, or explain why, there's no point in saying anything about it.


Hopefully I haven't done that here. I don't like saying things in which I don't have any conviction. I have seen it the other way around, though: many threads have a post or two saying "I don't know why, but I laughed!". Hell, that's not taste, that's desperation.

jpk wrote:As many have noticed, there's nothing very interesting in anything you have to say on the subject. "Bah, that sucked" is a Beavis and Butthead joke, not a critical judgement, and that's about the extent of your commentary on any given comic.


Okay, I do that, I confess. But this only started to happen after I saw even my most "insightful" posts get kneejerk replies of the "if you don't like it, don't read it then!" and the "if you know so much better, where is YOUR webcomic?" kind. So I figure it's better to post something short and blunt, and elaborate when someone replies intelligently. This is happening right here.

jpk wrote:So much for insight. As for honesty, I don't believe that anyone could possibly hate a particular comic as consistenly as you claim to and still bother to read it as regularly as you do, so I think you're fronting.


Eh. I think I reached the point in which stopping to read xkcd is just as worthwhile as continuing. Loading up the page and reading the comic takes such a negligible portion of time and effort that I think it takes more effort to decide "no, I won't read it today". And besides, reading xkcd is completely different and unlike anything else I do with my time. For better or worse, it's a bit of variety.

jpk wrote:But the problem with this theory is that there's nothing shocking about your criticism. It's pedestrian, contrarian, and predictable. About as shocking, interesting, or palatable as a bowl of cold oatmeal.


Well, you do have some higher standards. But back when I was a raving fan, I used to think that the very possibility that anyone could think "xkcd sucks" was very shocking. And when I found a blog that was dedicated to that, I was, well, shocked. And I still see many fans repeating this kind of attitude. In other words, I have solid reason to think that my posts are shocking for a fair amount of people.

If I got more intelligent and elaborate responses more often, I'd be hard pressed to flesh out my thoughts further. And I enjoy being hard pressed. Replying to this post was very humbling. I hope I don't sound disdainful or sarcastic saying this.

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1032: "Networking"

Postby J Thomas » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:45 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
jpk wrote:I suppose I'm not talking about laws, but usage. The intent of the critic, as a writer, is typically to say something. Why bother to simply say what has already been said in the original work, and to attach a value judgement to it? I can't think of anyone worth reading who takes that approach.


Okay, that's fair enough. Not much I can do about that other than disagree, but you have a strong point.


You could possibly agree. That is something else you could do about it.

jpk wrote:Honesty is an excellent policy, in my view, but it does not substitute for insight. If you honestly dislike a work and can't see clearly why, or explain why, there's no point in saying anything about it.


Hopefully I haven't done that here. I don't like saying things in which I don't have any conviction. I have seen it the other way around, though: many threads have a post or two saying "I don't know why, but I laughed!". Hell, that's not taste, that's desperation.


It looks to me like you are using his argument. They don't say anything new about the work but only attach a value judgement to it, and you think that's bad. It might turn out after you think it over, that you do agree with him.

jpk wrote:As many have noticed, there's nothing very interesting in anything you have to say on the subject. "Bah, that sucked" is a Beavis and Butthead joke, not a critical judgement, and that's about the extent of your commentary on any given comic.


Okay, I do that, I confess. But this only started to happen after I saw even my most "insightful" posts get kneejerk replies of the "if you don't like it, don't read it then!" and the "if you know so much better, where is YOUR webcomic?" kind. So I figure it's better to post something short and blunt, and elaborate when someone replies intelligently. This is happening right here.


I want to encourage you to rethink this one too. If your art is interesting intelligent criticism, but you decide to present stupid dull criticism until somebody interesting and smart responds....

You are more likely to get good responses when you post good art. The more bad art you publish, the more likely that the people you'd like to get responses from will stop reading your work.

You have an advantage over Randall in that you neither have nor need a business plan. If Randall finds that his audience will not support him unless at least half his strips defend My Little Pony, then he must defend My Little Pony or get a job. But the worst that happens if your audience doesn't like what you write is they stop reading it. You have little to lose. So give it your best shot. Don't give up just because the majority of responses are unsophisticated.

On the other hand, there's a proverb that goes, "If it is not worth doing at all, then it is not worth doing well." If what you are doing is not worth doing, then you might as well do it badly. Do you think that's the case?

jpk wrote:So much for insight. As for honesty, I don't believe that anyone could possibly hate a particular comic as consistenly as you claim to and still bother to read it as regularly as you do, so I think you're fronting.


Eh. I think I reached the point in which stopping to read xkcd is just as worthwhile as continuing. Loading up the page and reading the comic takes such a negligible portion of time and effort that I think it takes more effort to decide "no, I won't read it today". And besides, reading xkcd is completely different and unlike anything else I do with my time. For better or worse, it's a bit of variety.


I suggest you look at other comics too. Work out some sort of search engine trick to find comics that you might like, I have the impression you might not want any of the many comics about lesbian demons, or catgirls and furry elves living a D&D game. If you try a new comic every day then you'll get a bit *more* variety and when you find one that's good enough you might be ready to quit this one.

jpk wrote:But the problem with this theory is that there's nothing shocking about your criticism. It's pedestrian, contrarian, and predictable. About as shocking, interesting, or palatable as a bowl of cold oatmeal.


Well, you do have some higher standards. But back when I was a raving fan, I used to think that the very possibility that anyone could think "xkcd sucks" was very shocking. And when I found a blog that was dedicated to that, I was, well, shocked. And I still see many fans repeating this kind of attitude. In other words, I have solid reason to think that my posts are shocking for a fair amount of people.

If I got more intelligent and elaborate responses more often, I'd be hard pressed to flesh out my thoughts further. And I enjoy being hard pressed. Replying to this post was very humbling. I hope I don't sound disdainful or sarcastic saying this.


The trouble is, once we get past the esthetic reaction -- I liked it/I hated it -- how much more is worth saying? Some people say the unexamined life is not worth living. Is the unexamined joke worth laughing at? I say yes, it is.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1032: "Networking"

Postby jpk » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:10 am UTC

SirMustapha wrote:
jpk wrote:Ah. Evidence of good taste. O senhor gosta dos livros de Saramago? Muito bem.


Obrigado. Ele sim, eu considero um escritor digno de inveja.


Certo que sim.
He's the reason I know what Portuguese I do know - I learned enough to read the untranslated work. Can't speak or write very well, due to a lack of opportunity for conversation, but I've been told my translations are pretty reasonable.

jpk wrote:I suppose I'm not talking about laws, but usage. The intent of the critic, as a writer, is typically to say something. Why bother to simply say what has already been said in the original work, and to attach a value judgement to it? I can't think of anyone worth reading who takes that approach.


Okay, that's fair enough. Not much I can do about that other than disagree, but you have a strong point.


But not one strong enough to agree with? Oh, well...

jpk wrote:Honesty is an excellent policy, in my view, but it does not substitute for insight. If you honestly dislike a work and can't see clearly why, or explain why, there's no point in saying anything about it.


Hopefully I haven't done that here. I don't like saying things in which I don't have any conviction. I have seen it the other way around, though: many threads have a post or two saying "I don't know why, but I laughed!". Hell, that's not taste, that's desperation.


I don't think there's much meant by those posts beyond simple phatic communication. "I like this, you like this, we're a community, huzzah!". That's one point of a forum like this. Of course there's nothing of criticism in those posts, but there isn't meant to be. It's just to celebrate the existence of a Good Thing.
Now, if you want to debate that consensus, you are going to be expected to justify yourself. This disparity in the rules of evidence shouldn't surprise you. It's much like going to a Tea Party gathering and discussing the virtues of eliminating federal taxation. A pro-consensus view is not expected to justify itself. The value of debate, or the marginalized view, of the contrarian, is precisely that they force the consensus to justify itself, but the way they do this is by presenting opposing views and supporting them.
jpk wrote:As many have noticed, there's nothing very interesting in anything you have to say on the subject. "Bah, that sucked" is a Beavis and Butthead joke, not a critical judgement, and that's about the extent of your commentary on any given comic.


Okay, I do that, I confess. But this only started to happen after I saw even my most "insightful" posts get kneejerk replies of the "if you don't like it, don't read it then!" and the "if you know so much better, where is YOUR webcomic?" kind. So I figure it's better to post something short and blunt, and elaborate when someone replies intelligently. This is happening right here.



Well, I'm not really so concerned with deep criticism of Randall's work. Frankly, I don't think it really bears that much scrutiny. It's usually a simple bit of observational humor, sometimes with some absurdist elements, often from a geek-centric perspective, but generally pretty superficial: what you see is what you get. I enjoy it to the extent that it makes me chuckle, and then I go on with my life. In my daily work, I occasionally link to the Bobby Tables comic if I make mention of an SQL injection attack, but that's about as far as that goes.

jpk wrote:So much for insight. As for honesty, I don't believe that anyone could possibly hate a particular comic as consistenly as you claim to and still bother to read it as regularly as you do, so I think you're fronting.


Eh. I think I reached the point in which stopping to read xkcd is just as worthwhile as continuing. Loading up the page and reading the comic takes such a negligible portion of time and effort that I think it takes more effort to decide "no, I won't read it today". And besides, reading xkcd is completely different and unlike anything else I do with my time. For better or worse, it's a bit of variety.

You always have a choice. Deciding to look at and respond to a thing is a choice you make. As jthomas points out, there are many other comics to look at and talk about. For example, Dave Marshall has some fun stuff at inkystories.com
You could also make your own space to talk about the comics you choose to look at. I would bet that responses there would be more to your satisfaction, since that would be people coming to you specifically to engage with you, and not to engage in the mutual ratification that brings many people to this spot.


jpk wrote:But the problem with this theory is that there's nothing shocking about your criticism. It's pedestrian, contrarian, and predictable. About as shocking, interesting, or palatable as a bowl of cold oatmeal.


Well, you do have some higher standards. But back when I was a raving fan, I used to think that the very possibility that anyone could think "xkcd sucks" was very shocking. And when I found a blog that was dedicated to that, I was, well, shocked. And I still see many fans repeating this kind of attitude. In other words, I have solid reason to think that my posts are shocking for a fair amount of people.

If I got more intelligent and elaborate responses more often, I'd be hard pressed to flesh out my thoughts further. And I enjoy being hard pressed. Replying to this post was very humbling. I hope I don't sound disdainful or sarcastic saying this.
[/quote]

Sarcastic? No, not at all. To be honest, this is the first time I think I've really read you writing in dialog with someone, in interaction as opposed to reaction. It's a nice change of pace, and I hope to see more like this.


"back when I was a raving fan" - Do I detect a bit of convert's zeal in reverse here? :)

J Thomas
Everyone's a jerk. You. Me. This Jerk.^
Posts: 1190
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1032: "Networking"

Postby J Thomas » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:25 pm UTC

jpk wrote:Well, I'm not really so concerned with deep criticism of Randall's work. Frankly, I don't think it really bears that much scrutiny. It's usually a simple bit of observational humor, sometimes with some absurdist elements, often from a geek-centric perspective, but generally pretty superficial: what you see is what you get. I enjoy it to the extent that it makes me chuckle, and then I go on with my life. In my daily work, I occasionally link to the Bobby Tables comic if I make mention of an SQL injection attack, but that's about as far as that goes.


I usually very much like the statistics jokes. The ones with the anthropic principle, and Starbuck's Pebbles, and confirmation bias, and biased sampling.

http://xkcd.com/507/

I remember liking them *so much*. But when I tried looking at a bunch of old xkcd cartoons using the random feature, only a couple were that way out of hundreds. :( Oh well. I like a lot of the others too.
The Law of Fives is true. I see it everywhere I look for it.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 109 guests