Difference between revisions of "Talk:2745: Obituary Editor"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 19: Line 19:
 
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.231|172.70.110.231]] 01:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 
[[Special:Contributions/172.70.110.231|172.70.110.231]] 01:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 
:Not specifically, as this concept arguably goes back thousands of years; see https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChessWithDeath for a list of examples. ''Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey'' was specifically parodying the game of chess with Death in Ingmar Bergman's ''The Seventh Seal'' (1957). --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.37|172.70.127.37]] 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 
:Not specifically, as this concept arguably goes back thousands of years; see https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChessWithDeath for a list of examples. ''Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey'' was specifically parodying the game of chess with Death in Ingmar Bergman's ''The Seventh Seal'' (1957). --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.127.37|172.70.127.37]] 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 +
 +
I'm not so sure about the interpretation of "no more obituaries"... I took that to mean the usual victory meaning the victor gets to live, as usual, and as such there will be no more obituaries FOR THE EDITOR, alone. Of course, the idea he won't die again at ALL, and is thus immortal, THAT'S new... [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 05:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:50, 5 March 2023

I think it's a shame the editor wasn't playing Twister with Death. --162.158.34.75 15:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think this comic is similar to 393: Ultimate Game. Anyone else agree? --Purah126 (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this the first xkcd character with they/them pronouns? ISaveXKCDpapers (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope! 145: Parody Week: Dinosaur Comics came first! 172.71.254.100 17:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Au contraire, mon ami. That comic only contains a discussion of the singular they and does not imply the existence of any character with they/them pronouns. In this comic, such a character is explicitly identified, that being the editor. ISaveXKCDpapers (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it's rather the much older use of "they" to avoid specifying gender when you don't know the person--to avoid saying "s/he" or whatever.198.41.238.11 03:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
One knows one's own gender more than anyone else, however. I think the suggestion here is that the this is a deliberate act by a "my pronouns are they/them" person, perhaps notable as being a particularly progressive characterisation by Randall (I don't think he's had trans/gender-fluid characters, before, to any obvious or identifiable degree, BICBW) and so if we presume that they're expressing their identity in such a blatent way then it might be worth a word or two about it).
Though I'm as happy to believe that this is an "introextrovert", in life happy to work behind the scenes, an otherwise invisible individual (save for regular and unavoidable interactions with work colleagues, who don't have any confusion about who they are dealing with) who just gets enjoyment from getting the job done, just knowing what 'power' (and concomitant responsibility) they have. Yet, once there is no way that the fuss will affect them, this is what their (post-)final act will be. It's relatively benign (in the grand scheme of such things, nothing like a Dead Hand device sparking full nuclear retaliation upon the world, or anything) and highlights the job at least as much as the person.
Or they're a trans-ally, deliberately making that point. Or this is an option built into the autoposting software, tickbox activated but the (even more unseen/un-selfpublicising) autoposter-author defaulted its output to the non-assuming pronouns. Or any one of a number of other explanations. It could just be Randall determined to not pin down such an irrelevent detail, either way, and never intending to spark a discussion on pronoun-use by accident. 172.70.90.100 13:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
These are very good points. --Purah126 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
It's kind of odd that the self-aggrandizing obituaries editor would omit their own name from their own self-written obituary. If they wanted to be memorialized by the rest of the human race, they probably should have mentioned their name. --172.70.127.37 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Why I think they're not looking for (direct, meaningful in their lifetime) fame, just putting the cat amongst the pigeons. They're not even laser-burning their name on the Moon, or similar, but (from this point on) anyone who does a degree of legwork (inversely proportional to how much they might already be aware of this individual, and their demise) can work it out, first-hand. And then the knowledge might memetically spread. Which would be a tribute and memorial in and of itself, far beyond the reach of just a single "I've died, will you remember me?" post anywhere.
Think of Perplex City's "Satoshi", perhaps? But the answer is the question-setter. 172.70.162.222 17:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this not a reference to Bill and Ted who challenged Death to a long set of games? 172.70.110.231 01:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Not specifically, as this concept arguably goes back thousands of years; see https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChessWithDeath for a list of examples. Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey was specifically parodying the game of chess with Death in Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal (1957). --172.70.127.37 16:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the interpretation of "no more obituaries"... I took that to mean the usual victory meaning the victor gets to live, as usual, and as such there will be no more obituaries FOR THE EDITOR, alone. Of course, the idea he won't die again at ALL, and is thus immortal, THAT'S new... NiceGuy1 (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)