Talk:1141: Two Years
There are no words to convey how awesome you guys are. Thank you.
Also, great Portal reference.
22.214.171.124 07:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Flip cancer. Lost my mother-in-law to it and now my dad is undergoing chemo for stage IV lung cancer.
- Seconded. This strip hits close to home, even years after the fact. And given that of my parents and grandparents only one grandmother was not yet diagnosed with any type of cancer, both frequentist and Bayesian statisticians probably agree I should be cautious myself. 126.96.36.199 20:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC) madd
Did anyone else think the second to last panel was a couple who were sitting close to ground zero of a nuclear bomb? It took several glances to finally see a tree instead of a mushroom cloud. Sayno2quat (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- When I first saw that panel from my peripheral vision, I also thought it was a mushroom cloud.CityZen (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it - on my monitor, before scrolling, I only swa the upper half of what looked indeed like a mushroom cloud. 188.8.131.52 19:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) madd
- Agreed; the mushroom cloud was my first impression, too. And I hazard the guess that it was intentional: it's an apt metaphor of how your world seems to explode... -- IronyChef (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, "partner" is slightly less awkward, but I think using "Cueball/Megan" instead of "Randall/Randall's partner" would be most consistent.CityZen (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- +1 on s/Randall/Cueball/g (and s/(girlfriend|partner|wife)/Megan/gi) with an explanation that the comic very likely depicts real-world events in Randall's and (real-world) Megan's life. Though it might be tributary to make the inferential leap, I think would be entirely "unscientific" to do so (which is so unRandall...) It also reinforces the notion that this happens to many, many more couples: Randall and Megan are not unique in what they are experiencing, though Randall does an excellent job of illustrating just what they're going through. (And yes, I could just go and change it myself, but wanted to discuss beforehand.) -- IronyChef (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Crying out about social injustice is the adult version of screaming "Ouch!" when a parent grabs a child's arm to get their attention. Democracy is not do-what-you-want-to. Democracy is having a discussion and then acting upon the results of that discussion. There have been many discussions about having Randall in comics. The result was that whenever Randall decides to place himself in a comic, that we should honor that. So, instead of using a generic character he put himself and his wife into the comic. So, we honor that. We do not know the name of his wife, Randall is a very private person, we respect his privacy and only go by the information he gives out, and we don't make wild speculations, this is why we don't refer to her by (any) name; it's the most respectful thing we can do.
- I believe those other comic is rather general, where this particular one has enough set of facts that specific to Randall's case. That said, I agree with you that consistency is good, having the character called Cueball and Megan and explicitly said that those represent Randall and his wife probably better. Arifsaha (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- My two cents: As Arifsaha said, those other comics are general. Each is one scene demonstrating one situation or discussion, so Cueball/Megan could be any couple going through cancer treatments. In this case, quantity does matter in determining the significance of "evidence that this is Randall". There are so many scenes here that it's clear a very specific and personal story is being shared.
- Also, the title text usually is from Randall's perspective (obviously there are exceptions, but when the text is realistic, it's a safe assumption). Here it says "she", not "my wife", indicating that the person being referenced has already been introduced (i.e. is in the comic). Further linking the Randall text with the characters is the fact that it directly references the panel 5 scene, rather than: "related ideas that are not in the comic" (933/996), simple objective explanation (931), or a reference to a previous strip (881). So unless you want to argue that the title text is intended to be Cueball addressing the readers and not Randall, it seems like this is all about Randall & his wife. - jerodast (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- As CityZen said above, consistency is good. It is not that we don't want to recognize Randall in the comic, but we probably want to recognize it in the way where we said that in this comic Cueball and Megan represent Randall and his wife. I imagine it is possible that a reader see other comic and start questioning why the characters were called Cueball and Megan in the other comic but called Randall and his wife in this comic. I believe it will be easier to simply consistently label the character Cueball and Megan, then explicitly and clearly said and explain that in this particular comic, Cueball and Megan represent Randall and his wife. Arifsaha (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Cueball and Megan do not represent Randall and his wife. Cueball and Megan are the everyman/woman (and usually not even that but the geekiest kind of every(wo)man). Now, if Randall were building a story arc that spanned 1000 comics I would believe that this was Cueball and Megan, in character, standing in for Randall's real life experience. But the fact is, Randall clearly marks when he intentionally has multiple comics that build directly upon each other, see Category:Comic series. If xkcd were a story driven web comic we'd have to point out that Cueball and Megan have been married several times, as well as been flirtatious with other characters, had children both in and out of wedlock. It's much more easily explained that this comic is Randall and his wife merely drawn "in the style of". Ignoring an unusually personal comic for the sake of consistent character naming seems absurd to me. lcarsos_a (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- Also there is an established precedent for Randall's appearance in comics - he appears as an unadorned stick figure in all of them, despite clearly being Randall. Just because he looks like Cueball doesn't mean we need to call Randall "Cueball but really he's Randall this time". If anything that's even more confusing. Randall and Cueball both appear in (different) comics, and they're drawn the same. I'm sure people can handle that. - jerodast (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given what we know from Randall's past two years, I would rather infer that comic 1024 was inspired by one of these activities as seen in panels 3 and 8. 184.108.40.206 19:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC) madd
Sooo... Because the clipboard-holding character in the first panel is a woman, we assume she's a nurse instead of a doctor?
- Seriously the clipboard-holding character is much more likely to be a doctor than a nurse if they are communicating actual results of medical tests.--220.127.116.11 03:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)Anonymous
Hey I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask questions, but I don't really get why the waiter says eww at the end? Thanks in advance! Love this site! -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- The waiter says "eww" at the end because, instead of celebrating a wedding anniversary (or similar) which is what he is expecting, the couple are celebrating a "biopsy-versary". It's the contrast between the mental image of what happens in a biopsy with the emotions of what is normally expected when celebrating an anniversary (eg wedding anniversary as opposed to cutting-a-hole-in-you anniversary).22.214.171.124 03:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's the equivalent of "yuck" and similar expressions of moderate gross-out. 126.96.36.199 09:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)