34: Flowers

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
(Redirected from 34)
Jump to: navigation, search
Original title: Wednesday's Drawing - Flowers
This is actually pencil on paper, just inverted and coloredOriginal caption: Original drawing is pencil on graph paper.Bonus points if you can identify the flowers. 'cause I sure can't.
Title text: This is actually pencil on paper, just inverted and colored

Original caption: Original drawing is pencil on graph paper.
Bonus points if you can identify the flowers. 'cause I sure can't.


This was the thirtieth comic originally posted to LiveJournal. The previous one was 30: Donner, and the next one was 29: Hitler.

This is a drawing of flowers made by Randall. According to the title text and the original caption on the LiveJournal post, he originally drew the flowers with a pencil on a white sheet of paper. Then, he used the invert feature of a photo-editing program to reverse it from black-on-white to white-on-black and colored to the flowers. The image below gives a good approximation of what the original drawing might have looked like. He also says the flowers are based on his imagination and aren't a real species.

  • An inverted and monochrome version of the comic, made to mimic the original.


[A sketch of flowers, drawn in green, red, and yellow on a black background.]

comment.png add a comment! ⋅ comment.png add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ Icons-mini-action refresh blue.gif refresh comments!


Instructions for photoshop editing is quite irrelevant here, I think. The comic itself is just a drawing of flowers, and hardly needs much explanation (if any). –St.nerol (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct. I'm working on this comic because you did not;)--Dgbrt (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Shit, shit, shit... as Randall would say, but finally I could upload my edit. It's still not complete.--Dgbrt (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
As I remember it, I removed the "explanation" that was, which wasn't popular. So I just let it be... ––St.nerol (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Check the history, your edit was reverted. When you have problems with some pages do not only tell us what's wrong, just try to give an better explanation. Without a new solution these discussions are meaningless. Everybody is doing mistakes, but the magical word is UPDATE not DELETE.--Dgbrt (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I know it was reverted, that's what I meant. I will improve stuff when I have time and knowledge to do so. Sometimes I will also delete stuff. It's a balance to strike, and often quick decisions, but my intention is always to make the wiki better. ––St.nerol (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Dgbrt, I did not remove content, I removed redundancy. One sentence about graph paper instead of three. Clearer, shorter wording about botany and picture editing, but no less informative. - Frankie (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Frankie, you did remove the incomplete tag. We still have to review pages like this. But your enhancements are welcome!--Dgbrt (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, the title text is just an explanation, it isn't a reference to anything... You guys really try to squeeze stuff out of nothing 20:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont see how the title text could be a reference to anything, maybe because of the two words "this is" ?... I'm really not convinced. I would be okay if the sentence began with "This is *not*". 23:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed and removed. --Kynde (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The red flowers kind of look like trillium erectum. Just saying. 1234231587678 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)