As I'm finding out from readers this morning, the setup of today's strip was already tackled -- and tackled funnier -- by the strip xkcd.
As a cartoonist, when you accidentally go to the same concept like that, my gut tells me the only intellectually honest thing to do is acknowledge the first cartoon as soon as you find out about it. It's bound to happen after 3,000 Sheldon strips, but it's an embarrassing bummer nonetheless.
My apologies to Randall Munroe, the creator of xkcd. You got there first, and you tackled the topic way funnier.
I beg to differ, Dave. I enjoyed YOUR version much more!
(Plus, there's just something Oh-So-Wonderful about a duck, standing on an old dude's head, making a commentary on the finer aspects of writing in the English language. :) )
.. didja catch that emoticon within the parentheses? BAM! Also, try ending a parenthetical statement with an 8. Turns into a sunglasses smiley every gosh-darn time, thereby requiring an awkward space AGAIN. YEESH.
I do like your version of this joke too. (And for the record, if the cute point is entirely inside the parentheses, I think the smiley goes in here :) ). If the humor expands beyond the parentheses, even if it ends right after, it goes outside (like this) :) . Always with spaces around it though, because otherwise (as partly alluded to above), any available smiley renderer will misinterpret it.
:)
Uh-oh, am I being that teenage girl who uses hearts to dot the lowercase i's and puts cute smileys everywhere? Okay, I'll try to stop. Ooh, there should be a font for that though! (no, no triple !!! -- oh that could be part of the font, all ! are !!! :D )
Ducks are useful for more than just determining if someone is a witch, namely adding a new twist on something. Although the setup is the same, the punch is different. No harm, no foul, braddah.
Personally, I am happy to see as many takes on this topic as possible, because it proves to me that I am not the only person who worries about this. I feel so much less silly knowing that.
I read both comics, and I vote that yours is better. The dialog is better and the drawing is *without question* better.
Personally, I don't see a problem. If the thought you want outside the regular text includes a smiley, put it in there.
Your duck is having issues because he doesn't like the look of it. He can solve his problem by using a different smiley.
The xkcd guy is having issues because he is confusing written text with written computer code. The rules for closure of symbols are different.
To help people out that are coders, think of the : or ; or whatever as an escape sequence for your smiley parenthesis, if it helps you sleep nights.
Personally it think yours is much funnier. (and i always use the smiley face emote as my closing parethensis :-)
You might as well be apologizing for not reading XKCD, which would just be silly. Its not like it has a copyright on all math or language related jokes anyway.
I made the xkcd connection as well, however, Gramps' line is just beautiful. I'm going to start using that in conversation. ( :) )
Dave,
I feeeeeel your pain. I freelance for a local paper that runs twice a week. It is owned by the same company the owns the daily paper in town. The daily paper ran a Harry Potter themed toon on Friday, and my Harry Potter themed toon (completed Wednesday) will run on Sunday. What's worse, the daily guy is syndicated by Cagle and it often appears that I steal his ideas. -BJ
As a devoted reader of both Sheldon and xkcd, I do say that both strips are pretty great :P
The question postulated in them, though, is one of those Great Mysteries of the Universe that begs to be pondered again and again by different people from different angles, so two similarly high-profile but very very VERY different authors toying with somewhat the same idea is, in my opinion, a good thing.
I realized that you were onto the same joke xkcd did a while back by the middle of the first panel, but I still enjoyed the strip. Plus, I found added fun in reading the version from each of you because I think that both are good examples of the voices of their respective strips, and I even got a little laugh out of the different aspects of the issue that bother Arthur and stick-Randall.
I agree that it's most honest to acknowledge xkcd doing it first, but I don't see it as a bummer. It made me recall the xkcd strip, and gave me an extra reason to enjoy yours.
*shrugs*
There are only so many jokes, there's no reason two or more people can't tackle the same one now and again.
Incidentally, the solution to the problem is to embrace alternative smilies.
:P
:D (This one I saw *hilariously* on a sign for a dentist. Yes, they call themselves a :Dentist office!)
^.^
C:
XD
8D (Very apropos)
And if you can't bring yourself to use odd smilies, there's the other convention for "smiling"...
::smiling::
:smile:
*grin*
*g*
LOL
ROFL
Internet English is a strong and powerful thing. Gotta love it :)
Personally, I'm with Gramps on this one.
Also, xkcd is a terribly derivative comic which rips off other comics ALL THE TIME so don't feel at all bad about accidentally stumbling across the same sort of thing that is really nothing novel anyway. I mean, there are postings on Usenet dating back *decades* about this, they're just not in comic form.
"xkcd is a terribly derivative comic which rips off other comics ALL THE TIME so don't feel at all bad about accidentally stumbling across the same sort of thing that is really nothing novel anyway."
Pretty much. Not only was your comic funnier, mr. kellett, but Randall Munroe has done this sort of thing countless times. He rips off other comics - most times in ways that seem pretty intentional, from popular comics that he admits to reading that aired only a few days before.
He has never once acknowledged such a thing. And again, anytime he makes a mistake in his comics, he simply changes the comic and doesn't say anything about it, denying accusations that arise.
However - acknowledgements to you for admitting this, especially when it was an accident.
That is all.
Emoticons are for wimps. >:-(
Personally, I've always had yet another trouble with the "Smiley within parenthesis" that neither you nor XKCD has touched on: " :)) " always makes me think of a fat dude with a double chin. I call it the "jabba smiley" effect.
