What I hate most about Internet humor, after ‘random’ punchlines and speeches posing as jokes, is so-called ‘referential humor.’ I use the term not to refer to parodies and wink-nods, which can work in skilled hands, but to the kind of joke where the punchline consists wholly of the reference. These jokes are easily distinguished by a total lack of coherence to a reader unfamiliar with the referenced work, and I can think of few lazier things a writer can do. No thought is put in, no value added, only the hope that readers will see something they recognize and grin dumbly in a twisted pseudo-Pavlovian response. The only thing that infuriates me more than this practice is when it works.
Which is why I was unpleasantly surprised to see that this Dudley’s Dungeon strip had any positive votes at all. The XKCD strip referenced here (referencing another webcomic is a new low, but that’s a whole nother post) draws its humor from an absurd situation. Like most jokes, it’s funny because it presents something unexpected–both the bobcat in the package and the recipient’s understated response. But for the same reason, referencing it utterly destroys its appeal. A reference inherently involves recognition, something wholly contrary to the surprise upon which good absurdist humor relies. Take away the surprise, and you take away what made the joke entertaining in the first place.
Put another way, have you ever had a friend who liked to repeat a catchphrase he heard on TV? Did you appreciate it? Didn’t think so.
Writers, you have more important things to do than remind yourself that your readers like the same things you do. (If they didn’t, they probably wouldn’t bother with your work.) Readers, quit eating this shit up. The Internet is too big a place for you to settle for people who can’t come up with their own jokes. In conclusion, to rather hypocritically quote a Nameless Fairy, “Good comics make memes. Bad comics repeat them.”
