I don’t like this comparison, just because Munroe seems like a Pretty Cool Dude ™. Also, his work is usually not comparable to fridge magnets. Munroe actually strikes me as being more in the mold of “The Far Side” without quite approaching the same level of comedic genius.
Inman, who I sometimes enjoy, isn’t bad as much as he could be better. It’s always disappointing when that happens. I think that he hasn’t quite learned to rise above his critics, however. He still has the insecurity of someone who has a fledgling fanbase, which leads to him being an utter douchebag sometimes. He certainly is guilty of using some of his power for ill where he could be using it for good (misogyny, rape jokes, etc.) but I’m not going to bash him for being “lowbrow”. Fart jokes are fun sometimes.
I dunno, I’m always conflicted about enjoying the work of someone who generates or repeats rape jokes, and there’s a part of me that has just gone with “take the good, and reject the bad unless it becomes mostly bad,” as a personal philosophy. I used to be far stricter, but it’s incredibly draining, and it makes me a crankier person overall. I feel like I’m enough of an asshole without having a good reason. I just ended up feeling like it was doing myself a disservice with no gain to anyone else. None of this has any bearing, of course, on how or whether other people should or should not enjoy things, but I can’t pretend I don’t get a chuckle out of Inman now and then. I think the BB post, Let’s Put the Guilt Back in Guilty Pleasures, applies here, for me.
I’m not saying that that makes him a good person or a good cartoonist, just that he seems to have reached the point that in some places, he’s almost as ubiquitous as Monroe. People put XKCD comics in message boards not just because he says smart things, but because he is good at illustrating what a lot of other people think in a simple way. XKCD is also packaged well for message boards because of the minimalist style and single line of panels. The Oatmeal works well with Facebook, as it has the sort of Buzzfeed list style and the ‘everything is awesome’ attitude, along with eye-catching and over the top headlines, which often focus on the reader. He’s also always doing crazy stuff like funding a museum for the internet’s hero. Basically, I’m just saying that they both resonate with people in different ways, and they’ve both been very effective at it.
As far as the misogyny etc. is concerned, he is quite lowbrow and enjoys crude jokes that mock everyone. Part of the point seems to be that he’s depicting a wacky world where he has an anthropomorphic dog and can stack prostitutes like building blocks. His god is a lobster that lives behind Saturn. While he’s pretty slim and runs marathons in real life, in this world he’s often obese. You’re offended by one of his jokes? Apparently you think that this is all real, so you must be an idiot.
The problem is, it’s basically a white guy argument. None of this means anything to him, so everyone else should take it in good humour. It must be difficult to deal with criticism from the public, as you’ll always find someone who’s concerned about your crude jokes. In some ways it’s not surprising that he occasionally ridicules criticism he should listen to, especially when you can argue that they just missed the joke. Still, the jokes about himself bounce off; he’s obviously not obese, so it’s a joke at the expense of obese people. Jokes about prostitutes and rape jokes are more likely to stick, as those people are already objectified by society.
I agree with everything else you’ve written; I don’t think he’s managed to keep his head like others have on becoming famous, but also his style is much more likely to offend than Randall Monroe’s. If you look at a fairly similar style like Monty Python, there’s pretty much worse of everything (of course it’s a lot older, but there’s the same refusal to take anyone seriously, and some of that ridicule has dated poorly).
That’s a part of video game culture I don’t understand. The shouting that results when someone, somewhere, criticises a video game. Sure, you’re a fan, but if you can’t appreciate the not-so-good-things about the things you love … please, for the love of Mike, don’t go GGer on anyone.
Yeah I never got that. And despite what recent articles seem to be saying its nothing new. I remember being confused and aggravated by the “gamer” identity when it first started to coalesce in the 90’s. I find that edge of it even more frustrating though because video game fans (gamer identity or not) have been vehemently arguing for a long time that games are (or should be considered) art. Which they are of course, but that view is directly at odds with a fandom based approach that rejects criticism of any sort, discussions of relative quality, or the existence of differing opinions. But both those things are coming from the same place and it just confuses the hell out of me. Its art if I agree with you, and its vitally important that it be protected and promoted. But if I disagree with you its just A GAME GOD! And it doesn’t matter?
Its bonkers. But I really think its just a webernets heightened version of pre-existing fandom tendencies. IT is good because its the sort of thing I like, and not because of anything specific about it. An attack on IT is thereby an attack on all things of that sort and the people who like that sort of thing.
NOTE: gamergate discussion are off-topic (cross-link to a new thread, that’d be cool), let’s keep this to “The Oatmeal” in general. AND REASONS WHY IT SUCKS, IN PARTICULAR!
