I got the joke, but I will never have an Erdos number (I’m not in the mathematical field). It’s something I can only imagine being cool enough to have. Does that mean I have an Erdos number of i?
I discovered today (thanks to that xkcd comic) that I have an Erdos number of 3 thanks to a publication from my grad school days in Bozeman. (I’m not a mathematician.)
Getting an obscure joke feels like being in a special little club.
Well, the convention would be infinity. However, if you’re in any sort of field which involves regular co-authorship of some sort we’d like to count, I imagine, if we look out far enough, you do have a finite Erdos number, just a very large one.
So then, by posting in this thread, I have a 4, right 
A bunch of the stuff, I get. It’s just not funny. I think that a good counterpoint to this webcomic is Gary Larson’s Far Side comics. Sometimes about equally obscure things, but they also bordered on the absurd.
The point of telling a joke is to make someone laugh. An overly obscure joke is a failed joke. This isn’t to say that everyone should get a joke, but when your aim is to try and be as obscure as possible, then you’re doing it wrong (damn, I’ve been typing “you’re doing it wrong” a lot these days.)
Kanye, being literally the only person in the world to not get the gay fish joke was funny because everyone else got it and because Kanye thinks so highly of himself.
Practically every xkcd strip should be precluded with Keyboard Cat.
What’s the evidence that the author of XKCD is trying to be obscure, rather than that he’s trying to write for a particular audience?
You have just explained the existence of Mensa.
You don’t need to be a mathematician; I got an Erdos number of 5 by publishing a few Computer Science papers with my supervisor, who has a 4.
What tripe. :rolleyes:
Sometimes, an author is writing for a specific audience. When I write for people who are going to referee soccer, I don’t expect any joke I may use to be something that non-referees would understand. Indeed, I may well craft the joke so that it is obscure to those who are not “in” on the issue. That doesn’t make it a “bad” joke; on the contrary, it makes it a very “good” joke, and possibly more effective, circumstances depending.
If I tell a joke that is funny only for my friend, who has shared some experience with me, and is beyond comprehension for anyone who hasn’t shared that experience, that doesn’t make the joke unfunny. My friend might have laughed uproariously at it. But if I were to then try to force everyone else to listen to the joke, so that they could be left without understanding, while my friend and I laugh our asses off, then I’m simply being a prick. :smack:
If you don’t “get” xkcd, then don’t read it. It’s not “for” you. Frankly, if the only jokes you get are the ones everyone else laughs at, I feel sorry for you, because it’s pretty clear you either haven’t got much intelligence (you are missing out on jokes that require higher levels of thinking, or higher levels of information) or haven’t got much experience with anything out of the most base ordinary.
You’re wrong, this is the funniest XKCD comic evar!
XKCD isn’t trying to be obscure, it’s a comic for nerds.
I greatly admire and often quite enjoy xkcd. However, I do think it sometimes substitutes mere geeky reference-dropping for an actual joke; there are many xkcds which elicit, at least from me, nothing more than just “Oh, yeah, that is a thing”.
This is my favorite:
And, of course, this reminds me of something…can’t quite put my finger on it:
I feel pretty much the same way about it. XKCD is often howlingly funny, but other times it just seems to be a crude drawing related to some obscure science term the author found after hitting “Random Page” on Wikipedia.
There’s certainly nothing wrong with writing to an audience, but “in” jokes tend to be bad jokes as well. Then again, it could very well be that the decay of the joke has to do with the explanation and the nature of it being an “in” joke to begin with.
Xkcd has its moments, and there are some funny things and ideas that it’s brought up, but exclusivity for exclusivity’s sake isn’t to be confused with humor.
Yes. Feel sorry for me. Clearly, I’m a dolt and I find banana peel gags to be the pinnacle of comedy.
I’m not sure if I have a finite Erdos number. I’ve had hundreds of articles, books, and papers published, but I have very rarely had co-authors – and I didn’t do anything on pure math. Someday, though, I’ll have to chase that down…
The Average Person wouldn’t be a published author, so they’d have no Erdos number.
It’s not one of those deals where you have to have met/shaken hands with/been in a movie with someone. Erdos numbers are based on co-authored published papers.
I think he writes what he, personally, finds to be funny. It just so happens that a lot of people find a lot of his comics to be amusing. I very much doubt he’s writing stuff hoping that his readers won’t get it.
Well, you would only be a “dolt” if you fulfilled the conditions I stated, namely, you only find funny jokes everyone laughs at. Which I brought up to point out that there are plenty of jokes that involve having some “in” knowledge, since you appeared to be positing that a “joke” is not a “good” joke if it can’t be understood without having “in” knowledge.
I almost started a thread about this, but wasn’t sure it warranted a whole thread. A friend of mine put forth this theory:
The fastest way to get an answer to a question isn’t posting a question, but instead posting a statement. He said that on the internet there are people who will help you out, but many/most won’t go out of their way to do any research.
HOWEVER, if you post a statement, you will get many more who will go to great lengths to prove you wrong.
I don’t know if he is right, but his theory made me laugh (and reminded me of this comic). (OK, the beer helped the laughter.)
Though I think credited movie roles are rather rarer than co-authored published papers, no?