1589: Frankenstein

2015-10-13T02:01:25Z

141.101.103.215: /* Explanation */ Disambiguating

{{comic
| number = 1589
| date = October 12, 2015
| title = Frankenstein
| image = frankenstein.png
| titletext = "Wait, so in this version is Frankenstein also the doctor's name?" "No, he's just 'The Doctor'."
}}

==Explanation==
"{{w|Frankenstein|Frankenstein; or: A Modern Prometheus}}" is a novel by Mary Shelley published in 1818. In it, Victor Frankenstein is a human who creates a {{w|Frankenstein%27s_monster#Namelessness|monster}} (which is unnamed in the novel). In popular culture, "Frankenstein" is taken to be the name of the monster, not its creator. [[Randall]] is tired of hearing this error corrected, so he has created his own work of fiction, in which the monster is named Frankenstein. He rationalizes that it is now correct to call the monster Frankenstein, assuming that his comic strip is as authoritative as the original novel. "{{w|Canon (fiction)|Canonical}}" (rule, standard) means that this comic should be used as the authoritative work on the naming of the monster.

The {{w|Public_domain|copyright}} on Mary Shelley's novel has expired long ago, so it is perfectly legal to create works derived from the original story. It should be noted however, that Universal holds the copyright on the common [https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/24/how-universal-re-copyrighted-frankensteins-monster/ image of the monster] (green skin, flat top head, scar, bolts on the neck and protruding forehead). To qualify as a {{w|derivative work}} the story needs to be substantially different from the original. The monster believing in {{w|moon landing conspiracy theories}} would probably qualify. Additionally, the original Frankenstein's monster was seen by its creator as hideous and repulsive due to its physical appearance despite the project being a success. In Randall's version, he makes the same correlation by having Frankenstein claim the moon landings were faked which by inference produces the same results in The Doctor.

The title text raises the question of what the monster's creator is named in this version, since the name "Frankenstein" is instead given to the monster. The canonical answer is that the creator is simply "The Doctor", like the title character of the series {{w|Doctor_Who|"Doctor Who"}}. This might be a reference to similar pedantic nitpicking that occurs when that character is incorrectly referred to as "Doctor Who" rather than "The Doctor" which is in turn referenced in comic [[1221: Nomenclature]]. As it happens, people who make that mistake can also claim canonical support, in that some early episodes of the series list the character's name as "Doctor Who" in the credits.

==Transcript==
:[A text only panel. Between the last two lines is a lightning bolt.]
:Like many people, I'm tired of the nitpicking about Frankenstein's monster's name.
:Luckily, Frankenstein is public domain.
:Therefore, I present
:XKCD's
:'''''Frankenstein'''''
:(''The monster's name'')

:[Cueball is turning down a lever while looking at a monster with black hair that is lying on a bed under a bedsheet. There are two wires connecting to the neck of the monster.]
:Frankenstein: ''Graaar''!
:Cueball: Frankenstein is alive! I am a modern Prometheus!
:Frankenstein: ''Raaaar''!
:Cueball: To be clear, your name is ''Frankenstein'', canonically.
:Frankenstein: ''Graaaaar''!
:Frankenstein: ''The moon landings were faked''!
:Cueball: Wait, what?

:[Another text only panel. The first word is written between two curvy lines.]
:'''Fin.'''
:There.
:Feel free to call the monster "Frankenstein."
:If anyone tries to correct you, just explain that this comic is your canonical version.
:Thank you.

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]

Talk:1390: Research Ethics

2014-07-04T12:03:10Z

141.101.103.215:

I was expecting something else for a comic on July 4th. [[User:MrGameZone|0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101]] ([[User talk:MrGameZone|talk page]]) 05:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:Not every xkcd fan is from the US, Randall has to keep the comics global.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.210.242|108.162.210.242]] 06:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

''"Randall writes "what" twice, which is a classic optical illusion."'' So - did it he do this on purpose (I fail to see the connection with the subject), or is it just the explanation of why he missed the typo he made? [[User:Jkrstrt|Jkrstrt]] ([[User talk:Jkrstrt|talk]]) 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very deliberate. The illusion demonstrates what the brain chooses not to see. Facebook is making some content not visible to us as an experiment. There really is far less subtext to this than you think there is. There isn't some deep meaning. It was an experiment to see if we would see it. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.56.152|173.245.56.152]] 07:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

"Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's governing our lives". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:Then again, it's not really supposed to be governing our lives, is it? Any impact it has your life is because you gave it the permissions and information to do so, which was voluntary (by sharing your selfies and rants under their terms) and not mandated by an overreaching government. I agree that the text is sarcastic, but in a different way than you mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 10:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the title text as bitter sarcasm. And it plays in to the message in another comic, I don't know which, about someone being warned not to place his private information in the custody of another without strict limits on the power of that other. (I'm playing the world's tiniest violin" was the punch line on that one. Also used by The Kids In the Hall!)
The impact by those who manage and manipulate information is seldom clear and both it's motivation and it's impact on our decisions remains not only largely unnoticed in daily life but also unknowable. Just because we give control of information to another doesn't mean we agree to be either a lab rat or open to manipulation by them whether we recognize it or not. Whether it's someone trying to achieve power (government) or someone trying to earn a profit (business), the burden-of-proof should be on them that the effect is benign. I know this sounds a bit Ayn Randian, a person whose politics I deeply distrust, but even scary people can get things right some of the time.[[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog

The title text is an oblique reference to the implications of recent SCOTUS ruling on corporations having similar rights as people (albeit to do with religion, as opposed to privacy), no?
The SCOTUS ruling follows a US Supreme Court decision in the late 19th century that "A corporation is a person". Ironically, the justification for this ruling was based on a law clerk's note in the margin of a previous decision stating that the said previous decision could create the situation where a corporation has the same rights as a person. The decision at hand was to decide the validity of a presidential election and the the Supreme Court took the notes made by the clerk as law. it's clear the court knew what it's ruling meant, but it's not clear what the courts motivation was for accepting the clerks notes as if it had been an already rendered decision![[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 11:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)ExternalMonolog

This comic has some relationship to http://xkcd.com/1150/.

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1589: Frankenstein

Talk:1390: Research Ethics