Editing Talk:1424: En Garde

So, what's up. I expected an explanation for this. WHERE IS IT? {{unsigned ip|‎108.162.216.53|04:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)}}

:Remember to sign your posts with four tildes (~).
:The explanation will be up when it's up. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.72|108.162.216.72]] 04:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

:Someone, somewhere on Earth, has to be awake, see the comic, come to this page, and write something. Automatic explanations are a long way out of our technological reach. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.169|108.162.216.169]] 05:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

::For the record, the explainxkcd page for this comic was "Created by dgbrtBOT" with just boilerplate ([http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=1424:_En_Garde&oldid=76144]) at 04:02 22 September 2014 (UTC), and the first explanatory text was posted 1:15 later at 05:17.  [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me of [[1146|Honest]]. [[User:Cheeselover724|Cheeselover724]] ([[User talk:Cheeselover724|talk]]) 05:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


----

I've seen it. :) For me it describes how in a relationship one person (Fencer 1) wants to engage ("What are you thinking?") but the other person (Fencer 2) sees it as an attack and is guarded and unwilling to engage (hence they never raise their foil). As Fencer 2 says 'No matter how long we know each other', I'd guess that this an often repeated pattern and that they are destined to continue, because of Fencer 2's defensiveness and Fencer 1 always trying the direct approach. Perhaps they should play chess? :)

The 'Touch!' is Fencer 1 saying "well, if you don't play, I've won!", but it is hollow and 'Nope, I sighed and stared...' reminds me of how some people use silence / brevity of response to avoid talking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alogia (specifically "People can revert to alogia as a way of reverse psychology, or avoiding questions.").

It's a beautiful cartoon, so melancholic and kinda sad.

[[User:The4thv|The4thv]] ([[User talk:The4thv|talk]]) 06:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it 'touché' rather than 'touch' in the title-text? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.62.108|173.245.62.108]] 14:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Touché" is an acknowledgement by the person who has received a hit, not an assertion by his/her opponent.
A literal translation of "touché" is "touched" rather than "touch" so perhaps the use of English "touch!" is purposeful, a suggestion that the pair stop fencing and use physical touch to re-establish an open relationship.  In that sense, the second person declines to drop his/her defenses and "trumps" the call for intimacy with a passive-aggressive emotional gesture, and a meta-comment pointing out to the first person (and incidentally to us readers) that the gesture occurred and that it has "priority."  [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 16:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

----
To clarify, 'Touch' is the term used to indicate that a fencer has scored a valid hit on their opponent. 'Right-of-way' indicates who is awarded the point when both fencers score valid contact during the same unit of 'fencing time' (the length of time between a typical action or reaction in a match, determined by the individual tempo of a bout). I think that covers all of the jargon in this one.
[[Special:Contributions/173.245.52.215|173.245.52.215]] 18:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

---- 
Hmm, I don't see anything about the spoken term "touch!" here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_fencing   or here:  http://www.wikihow.com/Understand-Basic-Fencing-Terminology  or here:  http://www.memphisfencers.org/about/docs/termsheet.pdf
"Touché" is still an acknowledgement by the person who receives a touch, not a claim by his/her opponent.
"Pas de touche" ("no touch") is a correction by the opponent that a "touché" spoken by the recipient was in error.
Where can one find "touch!" as a spoken term in fencing? [[User:Taibhse|Taibhse]] ([[User talk:Taibhse|talk]]) 11:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
----

Looks like most of the fenching is explained, but the explanation is lacking a description of the dual conversation and most importantly; why is it funny?   [[Special:Contributions/199.27.128.209|199.27.128.209]] 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
::Yes - this one deserves more attention.  Of course XKCD doesn't always aim to be funny.  This seems to be more on the insightful side, with a creative mashup of relational conversation and fencing engagement patterns, but I'm still looking for a fuller explanation of the situation.  [[User:Nealmcb|Nealmcb]] ([[User talk:Nealmcb|talk]]) 13:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is such a good little observation.  XKCD is like MASH (the TV show) used to be - sometimes funny, sometimes poignant.  This one is the latter.  I had a girlfriend like that - I'd always answer straight away but she'd always pause.  She marvelled at how I'd immediately try to describe what was in my mind but she couldn't speak freely.  In hindsight, she'd been hurt more than she could admit and I could sense.  And like the cartoon, her sword generally wasn't raised but she was always en guard.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.249.220|108.162.249.220]] 10:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

i doubt that the person on the right is Black Hat, they dont have the hat, and they just sound angsty rather than like they're trying to piss of the fencing partner. if it is Black Hat then the other person is likely danish, and this is an ploy to confuse other fencers, or make them reflect and feel awkward like the pair in this strip seem to be.[[Special:Contributions/198.41.236.162|198.41.236.162]] 00:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)