« The Colinments of Style: Hana-bi review | Main | Science fiction as Dixieland »

August 12, 2009


Surely you've been in the situation where something popular or acclaimed annoys or angers you and you have difficulty figuring out why. This seems like a situation where the various layers of annoyance are thick enough that it's worth discussing the comics on a case by case basis. Also, sometimes the author of the blog points out successful jokes on Munroe's part. It's not nearly as mean-spirited as it could be. That said, I also disagree with the premise that criticism, even public, overwhelmingly negative criticism is somehow sociopathic, and with the premise that a critical project is not only subservient to "real creativity" but is also useless. Of course, some criticism--like the usenet trolls Cadre discusses--is shitty. But lots of art is as well. And there's plenty of room for creativity in criticism--"critical theorists" like Walter Benjamin and Michel Foucault are considered by many to be among the best writers of the 20th century. You say that the energy spent on xkcd sucks would be better spent on "creating real stuff," but even more than "real stuff" (yay, another forgettable, mediocre webcomic) I'd like to see a blog intelligently and cogently drawing attention to great webcomics. I mean, consider how XKCD Sucks compares to, say, Adam Cadre's reviews. Did you see the hatchet job he did on American Beauty? Or, uh, Lanark? Not like I think these things deserve plaudits--far from it. But isn't it satisfying to hear someone smart explain why that shit is whack?

Nice read, i was speaking to a friend the other week about the same subject and gave him this article to visit.

The comments to this entry are closed.

All enterprises