This may be the ultimate example of this thread’s title: A comic poking fun at Paul Krugman.
That Dilbert seems a bit off. It’s obviously meant to be Krugman, but that’s not the sort of opinion he’d have, taken to extremes, and regardless, it doesn’t seem like much of a punch-line. And also Adams forgot to color in his tie in the first panel.
Not exactly untrod ground, but I really like the art.
Hey, look, it’s exactly like this Penny Arcade, only it took him three weeks and a bunch more panels and non-humorous dialogue to get there.
Well, nothing wrong with a better set-up at the expense of length. These are jokes, not computer code – though I suppose even coders worry about readability vs. length.
If you can convey the same information, the shorter setup is the superior one. Three-panel comics are considered harder to do than four-panels, and mastering the single-panel is a very rare accomplishment.
The hejibits one conveys more information, so it takes more panels. If you haven’t played the game, you still won’t understand why Joel is the one getting picked on in either strip, but you’ll understand the drama of the scenario a little better. Plus, repetition is valuable, since it establishes the pattern, making it funnier when it gets broken.
I know Penny Arcade trumped Tim Buckley on a Puzzle Quest strip one time, but there’s nothing formally purer about a three paneler vs a four paneler, or a one paneler vs a three. I know brevity is a big deal to writing teachers, but there are some good reasons to flout that convention.
I have mastered the no panel. Witness:
I have to add that any artist who uses hide as a sound effect is, well, come on.
That’s an emote, not a sound effect.
(I should add I’m not the artist of the strip. I admit that it’s odd I’m spending more than a single post defending it.)
Okay, as an emote then.
And despite that, is still a worse comic. It’s more difficult to understand and less funny. Not only do the 10 panels allow/force him to be more sloppy with the imagery and pacing, its harder to follow and dilutes the point.
Does it? I see exactly the same info: one character can parade around with impunity, while the other is detected for the slightest misstep. All he adds to that is several panels of action that isn’t necessary to the gag, plus funny faces that I’m reasonably sure were pulled directly from rage comics.
10 panel one is superior. Love Ellie’s expressions and she’s acting more the way she acts in the game. First panel makes it more accessible than the pennyarcade one.
Nah, I’m pretty sure the one face is from Hark, A Vagrant’s Shetland Pony.
In any case, I agree that the shorter PA one is superior. It’s really a very small joke, and extending the setup doesn’t add to it. If you have even a passing familiarity with the game, or with stealth games in general, you know what the punchline is going to be by the 3rd panel. So, there’s no buildup of tension to heighten the eventual punchline. So, the extended setup is wasted. The author recognizes this by making the visuals in the setup panels “silly”, in order to justify their existence. But again, by making each panel it’s own visual punchline, the effect of the actual punchline is diminished.
Furthermore, the extended sequence gives the author time to break his own internal logic: to hoist himself on his own petard, as it were. When the man shouts “Ellie!”, this breaks the logic being referenced in the game: the idea that any noise he makes triggers retribution while Ellie is preternaturally ignored. In this manner, cause and effect relationship of the noise->death breaks down. Without any prior knowledge of the intended punchline, we would be equally justified in assuming that these monsters have a particular affinity for trees, and the the destruction of a leaf, not the noise that it made, is the source of their violence.
Hmm. The more I over-analyse it, the worse it gets.
hide
Fair points about the logic. At least the noses look like noses?