Websnark

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 6, 2005 3:14 PM

Eric, it's your website, your game, your rules. Other people don't want to play, they can take their ball and go home. Thanks for taking a stand for people showing respect to each other in public places. :) We need more folks in the world to step up and say, "Hey, we're not tolerating that here, go home."

Comment from: RKMilholland posted at April 6, 2005 3:17 PM

I'm kinda busy - could you call yourself a fascist for me? I'll repay you later.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 6, 2005 3:19 PM

Seems reasonable to me. Although, you know, if this isn't a schoolyard then it can't possibly be on the REAL internet...

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 6, 2005 3:22 PM

Y'know, a friend of mine just finished the Internet. He says the last bossfight is a real *^$@#!. I think I might buy the game guide before I get to that point.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 6, 2005 3:25 PM

I prefer to play in God mode.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at April 6, 2005 3:25 PM

"Hey, we're not tolerating that here, go home."

In a way, it was less the people than the specific conversation. Sometimes, they go down bad alleys. Mean alleys. Things happen. People die.

On the other hand -- delicious cupcakes!

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 6, 2005 3:28 PM

Sorry - I'm in a silly mood today. Too much "lime in the Coke you nut" in my diet.

Christopher - I was hoping you'd be on today, too - is your comic updating on a regular enough schedule that I should move it back to my "updates on a regular schedule" pile? I'm almost afraid I'll jinx it if I move it. I'm loving the iPod strips, and not just 'cause my iPod told me to :)

Comment from: Wednesday posted at April 6, 2005 3:28 PM

Man. How did you get the cupcakes to look and taste exactly like popcorn and Diet Coke with Lime?

You really are an awesome fascist.

Comment from: RADeobald posted at April 6, 2005 3:29 PM

All told, I think you have a pretty cool policy on this sort of thing Eric. Kudos!

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 6, 2005 3:30 PM

In a way, it was less the people than the specific conversation.

Well, sure, anyone can come back, they just can't play that particular game here.

Hmmm... cupcakes or Easter candy?

Comment from: Reave posted at April 6, 2005 3:30 PM

I feel somewhat bad for starting this, but at the same time, I am pleased that I held up my integrity as an angry ragamuffin. And that I didn't throw the first punch - an unusual feat for me, since I'm a fairly disagreeable fellow. If I were a Skeletor villain, I would be Ang-Or: Stabber of a Thousand Faces!

Also, I can't believe we went THIS long without a relating anything to nazism.

So... Eric... did you know that HITLER HIMSELF ate cupcakes? Really makes you think...

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 6, 2005 3:32 PM

In that instance, I really think you had a right to do what you did (not that you wouldn't have had a right otherwise, since this is, after all, your site). I was amazed at just how quickly the conversation started to deteriorate, though given the controversy the conversation was centered around, what happened was probably inevitable.

Here's hoping that less things like that happen. Debate = good. Fighting = not good.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 6, 2005 3:34 PM

Also, just for the record, when I said "you" above, I meant Eric. (Once again, comments got in while I was typing. I need to learn to compose my posts more quickly. QUICKLY.)

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 6, 2005 3:36 PM

Awww... I gotta go in from recess and play "good employee" now :( Maybe if I'm good I can come out after work and play before bedtime. :) Bye all!

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 6, 2005 3:37 PM

Christopher - I was hoping you'd be on today, too - is your comic updating on a regular enough schedule that I should move it back to my "updates on a regular schedule" pile? I'm almost afraid I'll jinx it if I move it.

Dependable, I am not. :)

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at April 6, 2005 3:58 PM

This is certainly one of the more levelheaded forum-ish things I've posted on.

You know, this talk of fascism and cupcakes reminds me of an old, obscure song by Pop O' Pies called Fascists Eat Doughnuts. Anyone remember it?

Comment from: Montykins posted at April 6, 2005 4:11 PM

Sorry about that.

Comment from: Mitch Clem posted at April 6, 2005 4:12 PM

I wrote a lengthy diatribe about this very phenomenon today that I think you might get a kick out of:

check it out

Comment from: Miles Gloriosus posted at April 6, 2005 4:38 PM

Well said, Mitch.

I think there is a reason, though, why so many reviews tend to be positive. Webcomics still very much are in a 'word-of-mouth' situation. Even most people who review webcomics don't take themselves as seriously as most critics, journalists or professional reviewers. They're just guys who read a lot of webcomics and have something to say about 'em. These folks would rather talk about comics they thought were good, try to boost their numbers, then waste breath on comics that they didn't think were worth reading.

Another problem is that people are afraid of just the phenominon that smacked Will G in the face. Webcomics are more than entertainment media, they are communities. Serious forumgoers form real links with their fellow posters, and like any solid community, they resist attack from outside. As the community is based around the work of an artist, an attack on that artist is an attack on the community, and each of it's members individually. It didn't help Will that he criticized the pvp and pa communities explicitly.

Of course, the other part of the problem is that people online are assholes. You know, generally speaking.

Except for you folks here. Y'all aight.

Comment from: Brandon E. posted at April 6, 2005 4:56 PM

I agree with your post Mitch, but I think part of the problem was that William G. responded. I am not attacking him. I understand that it started because of some trolls and flamers who can't believe someone would have a different opinion then them. However, I think that when William reacted with hostility it spurred them on. We already know that the flamers have poor internet etiquitte and aren't going to back down from a fight. I think that had William simply ignored the stupid comments they would have grown bored and the flamers would have faded away.

I understand that it is difficult to avoid the instinct to defend your honor. But the honor you spare during the time between your defensive post, and the flamers rerebuttal is far less then what you lose by continuing the argument.

I am not saying the "conflict" was purely William G's fault. It was the fault of those who disagree with a review, and then resorted to personal attack. However, it would have been on a much smaller scale had William refused to engage them.

I think that this is largely why such flame wars are avoided here. Eric's upfront attitude towards criticism tells a lot of trolls that it isn't worth their time. I'm sure it helps that he reviews only what he reads, so the negative reviews are rarer, and less harsh, but I think that his "You had me and lost me" and his latest criticism of Sluggy Freelance had the potential to be a flame war, but it didn't develop because of his policy towards personal criticism.

Comment from: iconoclast posted at April 6, 2005 5:27 PM

brandon e.: i agree that william g. made what might be called a "tactical error". i think he had every right to defend his review, but that doing so was inviting further flames. sometimes it's better just to stand back and let others debate your work.

Comment from: dreamshade posted at April 6, 2005 5:29 PM

Does this mean that the Snark has jumped the shark?

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 6, 2005 6:03 PM

I think the issue stems from whether we considering it a valid review or a blog opinion.

Personally, I listen to critics whose taste is similar to mine in what they're critiquing and ignore those that don't until they come and shove it in my face.

Why would I listen to someone who hates Ska about what's a good Ska band to listen to? (Which was much more interesting on first type as 'Skat' band)

(Turns Tangent 45 degrees)

But I'm certainly not going to call names, cause cat fights and be a big nasty poopy head on Eric's site. I like it too much and I want to hang here!

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 6, 2005 6:10 PM

"Why would I listen to someone who hates Ska about what's a good Ska band to listen to? (Which was much more interesting on first type as 'Skat' band)"

Why would you want to listen to ska in general?

(note that I am kidding)

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 6, 2005 6:12 PM

*opens mouth* *closes mouth* *hands TheNintenGenius a cookie*

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 6, 2005 6:16 PM

More importantly, what the heck is ska? And emo - everyone's talking about emo - what the heck is emo? Does it have something to do with singing about large flightless birds? And what category is Flogging Molly? (they're kinda nifty.)

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 6, 2005 6:24 PM

Ska is Reggae before you hit the barbiturates.

Emo is what happens to Punk when you wallow.

:)

Comment from: Phil Kahn posted at April 6, 2005 6:34 PM

Allright. As a fellow in the criticism game, I feel I need to speak up here.

Mitch is completely right. We need a guy or gal out there who can bring the Dark Snark as often as he does the Nice Snark. I would step up to that plate, but I don't fit the bill. I make comics, so I'm not on the outside. I'm on the inside. Although on the border of the inside, because few people read mine.

I just started public criticism. I'm not even a week and a half old. Snarking is fun, and I find I'm able to do it on a daily basis. I'm told I'm a good writer (or at least, entertaining to read). I'm doing this because Eric said there should be more people doing it, and it inspired me. Also it's pretty early in the criticism game, so I'm trying to get a foothold in.

Anyway, I do plan on making negative criticism. I plan on it absolutely. If I find a comic, try it, and don't like it, I'll say why if it moves me enough to do so. Of course I say that now...

I used to write reviews for the BuzzBugle. I was assigned to do a bunch of reviews of well-known, good comics (in order for us to get linked by them). I had a good enough time writing fluff back-pat reviews of these comics that already had huge followings. And then I was assigned to review Cazorthade, for the explicit purpose of writing a bad review.

So I read it. The entire damned thing, disliking it about 92% of the way. There were a few good jokes here and there, but overall it was lackluster art and humor based mostly on what I figured were in-jokes with his group of friends, because I certainly wasn't laughing. When it got time to write the review, I couldn't think of what to say.

I didn't end up writing the review at all. Because it occoured to me: what's the point of writing a bad review? Webcomics are prodominently free. People come and go. Many readers are fickle as it stands. So what, I tell everyone "Don't read it, it sucks nuts!" Would they read my bad review and think to themselves, "Gee. I'm glad I didn't spend my no-dollars on that comic." or "Wow. Good thing I didn't take 10 minutes out of my busy schedule to look it over myself and make my own judgement."

I'm getting slightly off-track. Reviews are in my mind, done on products for commerical consumption. They're important for things you spend money on, because a bad review could save you that hard earned dollar. But most webcomics are free. And warning people not to spend nothing on stuff is damned silly. Besides, even bad press is good press. If I go on and on about how much I think something sucks, it'll only garner them more attention.

Criticisms are asessments on artistic endeavours. We know that. And those are way, way harder to do. I'm not the best. My criticism experience is pretty limited, and my vocabulary is pretty lame. I'll take some criticism classes while I'm in college and get better. That's all there is to it. And where I am right now, I'm still doing positive snarks. Because I'm getting into the habit before I start the negative snarks. Also I need to gather the gumption, because I'll need to be prepared for flames.

William G's article... I'll say that it's definitely honest. And he has every right to say he hates Penny Arcade and PvP if he wants to. And he doesn't deserve the backlash. But I do want to point out that I think his criticism style is a bit scathing for my tastes. And that's really all I feel about it.

So that's my two cents.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 6, 2005 6:35 PM

While I really love Chris' definitions (I really need to start reading Ubersoft again one of these days), I feel I should give somewhat better (though hopefully no less amusing) definitions.

Ska has been through so many iterations through the years (starting in the late 70s) that it's almost too much work to talk about it all. The modern incarnation of ska can usually be summed up as "what happens when a bunch of frat boys add a shitty horn section to their shitty rock band."

As for emo, emo evolved from punk/hardcore but it's about as far removed from punk as you can get these days. Think "really, really mopey and low-key with surges in VOLUME and ANGST because dude emo is short for emotional ya dig?"

Comment from: Hazelip posted at April 6, 2005 6:44 PM

Nothing hits the spot like a good dose of the mob mentality! When do y'all walk into the ocean together clutching your PA and PVP comics to your chests?

Comment from: Phy posted at April 6, 2005 6:59 PM

I have no problme with negative criticism.

I have a bit of a problem with a relative lack of criticism that ultimately comes down to a sloppy "I just don't like this or that" attitude without putting in the work or thought to explain why or why not. That's not criticism, that's opinion.

I have a definite problem with anybody that can't take honest criticism without attacking each and every contrary opinion.

I have a huge problem (and zero tolerance) for bullies, especially in the written format. When said critic sees negative comments about his work and replies with personal attacks, well, he deserves what he gets.

To me, a critic is one whose interest is in sharing and learning. Yesterday's critic seemed more interested in baiting than learning. I didn't see any inclination toward mutual dialogue going on there, just a "my way or the highway" pose.

Anybody claiming to be a critic and creating a work of any sort that is in the "call it the way I see it" vein needs to be open to that sort of candor in return or take up another hobby.

Knitting, say.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 6, 2005 6:59 PM

OK, that's it. I'm going to have to write my own essay about webcomic criticism. God help us all...

I'm not going to keep discussing it here, though, because I think we're on the verge of picking the scab that got the other thread closed up in the first place.

Comment from: coldcut posted at April 6, 2005 7:10 PM

So, just because this seems related: is there any chance of Websnark getting any forums anytime soon?

I ask this because it sometimes seems like interesting points are brought up that don't get their full measure and just disappear down into the archives.

Blog comment forms just aren't great mediums to facilitate discussion, and I would think that Websnark has grown to the point that it might be ready for this sort of discussion.

Comment from: Phil Kahn posted at April 6, 2005 7:13 PM

You might be right, coldcut. Personally, I think it might lose some of the charm.

Comment from: Miles Gloriosus posted at April 6, 2005 7:54 PM

I agree with Phil... I'm not a huge fan of forums. The idea of a forum seems good, but in practice, they seem to act as beacons of negative energy, forming great swirling sinkholes of putrescence in the internet world.

Comments are even handed, don't discriminate against new posters, and are by their nature much easier to keep on topic. Besides, this way, the comments are permanently preserved and linked to individual snarks, making them easy to locate.

Although I agree, a forum would better serve discussion.

Meh.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at April 6, 2005 8:08 PM

Hey, Mitch has a great tangent... let's run far with it.

I think another problem is that the webcomics world is incredibly catty. Quite a few artists, not just their fans, play out their little vendettas and make serious criticism difficult. I know I've braced myself for four months because I ran an article that contained a paragraph that was blatantly negative about Chris Crosby. I figure someone is going to come after me for that sooner or later.

Very few people seem willing to take criticism, buttressed by the sycophants who lavish praise on their work. This does not promote a strong critical environment.

There's also the simple time factor. Let's take the instance of me with Superosity (since I've made it known in this post that I don't like it). If necessary, I could sift through 6+ years of archives and have specific complaints about the entire run. But seriously, that's quite onerous, especially since I'm not paid to do that. If I'm going to spend that much time on a comic, then I want to enjoy myself. I wouldn't enjoy myself by reading over 1,500 Superosity strips, so I'm not going to have the material I need to properly complain about it.

I could, in theory, read selected batches of strips and form opinions based on that. But we saw how well that idea went over already. Of course, that idea is quite similar to how critics review television shows - nobody sits through an entire season of a show in a short time frame. Nobody seems to complain there.

Negative criticism is needed. But first, we need to come up with a solid method for plunging through strips that people can agree upon, someone willing to take all the attacks unapologetically, and someone who isn't already involved in the little squabbles of the community.

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 6, 2005 8:15 PM

Forums have two things comments don't: 1) the ability to email me when a response is posted so I don't have to remember where I posted and where I didn't, and 2) the ability to edit the comments when I make a stupid typo. As such, I'm for forums.

TheNintenGenius wrote:

As for emo, emo evolved from punk/hardcore but it's about as far removed from punk as you can get these days. Think "really, really mopey and low-key with surges in VOLUME and ANGST because dude emo is short for emotional ya dig?"

So would that make Nickleback and Staind emo? Or are they just pissed off?

Christopher B. Write wrote:

Dependable, I am not. :)

I might take my chances and move the link anyway. If the posting suddenly stops, it's my fault ;)

Dreamshade wrote:

Does this mean that the Snark has jumped the shark?

Naah, but it does mean we've probably moved from phase 4 of the life cycle of a mailing list to phase 5.

Did anyone notice two different artists posted "jump the shark" jokes last week on the same day?

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at April 6, 2005 8:44 PM

Oh, and I can't believe I forgot, but great "Thunderbirds Are Go!" reference. I only wish I could remember the name of the MTV series that spoofed on that show.

Comment from: Grumblin posted at April 6, 2005 8:53 PM

Hmmm.. a forum for Websnark just ...doesn't feel right..

The charm of this is that it is a weblog where you can comment on your own merit, or simply read it, and pass on.

Besides the already mentioned Negativity Magnet effect of a forum, especially in the whole recent roohah, it would place comments away from the actual snarks, which would take away part of the flavour of the whole thing.

Plus that it'd be a headache to moderate..

On a Tangent: Eric, your latest action has made you eligible to membership of the Illustrious Regiment of Morbid Omnipotent Demonic Scum.

Membership fee is the pound of flesh nearest to your heart. Bring your own bottle of rum and live chicken for the intiti... celebratory BBQ. ;)

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 6, 2005 9:06 PM

*ahem* I don't insult the music you guys like. :P Ska is essentially the Ramones with a brass section. Like it or not as you choose but don't introduce it as a bad thing - let people make their own choices from neutral information.

In fact, I think that stands for reviews too. You can say "A web comic has this this and this. I think the first this is good, the second is bad and the third is well.. just plain weird."

And I think the ability to point out the features (or proper term) and THEN give your opinions with WHYs attached so people can go forth with your opinions in mind to form their own is what makes a good critic.

While, in the end, your opinions will make the review good, or bad, you still leave room for people to make their own choices. And I think that Eric does this and it's one of the reasons I trust him and his reviews so much.

Comment from: coldcut posted at April 6, 2005 11:48 PM

I know what y'all mean about the forums. I was sort of reluctant to ask. But part of the reason I suggested it is that we don't have any way to suggest topics or otherwise bring up issues.

Something else to ponder is that a websnark forum might actually be a better way of separating webcomic wheat from chaff than a few dedicated reviewers at this stage. Websnark isn't really about reviewing in my mind, it's about pointing out interesting developments in the genre. That's why it seems exempt from this little dust up: the Esteemed Snarker isn't writing reviews, he's writing about process.

Comment from: Patrick Harris posted at April 6, 2005 11:54 PM

Hell, I approve of ending a debate as early as the first comment from a poster who previously said "I'm leaving this debate because you [whatever], so ending it when you did seems incredibly justified.

By the way, I thoroughly applaud your decision not to delete comments.

Comment from: sinless posted at April 7, 2005 12:04 AM

I thought Emo is everywhere because 'Goth' is passe and angst is eternal.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at April 7, 2005 12:04 AM

I my experience, deleting comments only allows the person whose comments were deleted to pretend that they were never acting like an ass in the first place.

Comment from: Fu-Child posted at April 7, 2005 12:08 AM

When do y'all walk into the ocean together clutching your PA and PVP comics to your chests?

Its a weekly thing.

Comment from: Tangent posted at April 7, 2005 12:23 AM

*sniff sniff* Just because I like the lemon sandwich creme cookies does *not* mean I'm growing out of control! I can cut back anytime I want! Honest! *sniff*

Rob, tangentially silly

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at April 7, 2005 12:50 AM

I suppose a fascist Heil Snarky illustration for this sort of incident would just be in poor taste...but if you ever think you need one--!

Comment from: Prodigal posted at April 7, 2005 1:03 AM

Given that I'm currently in a play set in Germany in 1942-43, I would dearly love to see one. But then, I'm weird like that.

Comment from: jp is just a guy posted at April 7, 2005 1:07 AM

Hi. I've never commented here before, but something that I feel confident enough in my knowledge of (not grammar, no, never grammar) is being discussed, so...

Hokay. Emo originated in the Washington, D.C./Dischord Records hardcore scene during the mid-eighties. Hardcore was dying a slow, painful death and a lot of the kids in the scene were dissatisfied with the simplistic anti-government/anti-authority/anti-whatever messages of the songs, so some of them started writing songs that were more inwardly-focused and complex. Some of the first bands were Embrace, Dag Nasty (sorta), and the almighty Rites of Spring.

(Technically, most of these early bands were more screamo [really just emo but screamier] than emo, but whaddya expect from kids with such a strong hardcore ethic?)

Anyways, it blossomed from there, got softer, poppier, co-opted by The Man, and now we have Straylight Run. Not a good thing IMO, but it happens to every genre eventually.

Mr. Wright is basically correct about ska. First Wave ska (Jamaican, 1950s through late '60s, fast and jumpy) evolved into rocksteady (slower and slinkier) evolved into reggae. Second Wave ska was mostly an English thing in the late '70s and early '80s. Fourth Wave happened in the mid '90s, mostly in America, mostly on the coasts (although the midwest still represented with bands like Mustard Plug and The Skoidats) and has mostly fizzled out these days (and a sad thing too, I really miss Moon Ska Records).

Sorry about the length, I get like this when I actually know something.

Comment from: okaynowa posted at April 7, 2005 1:24 AM

I love ska (go Johnny Socko!), but I love Propagandhi's song "Ska Sucks" even more ;). On a historical tangent to JP's excellent lesson, the DC/DisChord scene was also the birthplace of Fugazi, which still fights the Man by playing $5 shows in Reno Park every now and then. (Sorry to ramble on, but as a former DC resident, I love seeing my heroes get mentioned.)

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 7, 2005 1:26 AM

The Rites of Spring kicked serious ass. But classic emo and modern emo are very different beasts.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 7, 2005 1:31 AM

You're dead on, JP. I really can't say anything else that wouldn't just be beating a dead horse.

The only thing I can say is to kirabug: no, Nickelback and Staind aren't emo; rather they fall into the same post-grunge category as practically every other rock band after Kurt Cobain bit the big one. (Though it's sad how very few of said post-grunge bands were actually influenced by Nirvana. Nirvana might've accidentally kicked off the grunge craze but they never really belonged "in the scene" so to speak. That's another story, though.)

Comment from: William_G posted at April 7, 2005 1:36 AM

I'm not going to keep discussing it here, though, because I think we're on the verge of picking the scab that got the other thread closed up in the first place.

Thanks for making note of that.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 7, 2005 1:37 AM

okaynowa now has my respect, on a side note. There is no better anti-ska anthem than that song. (Hell, out of the modern punk bands, they're one of the few bright spots in the first place.)

I need to listen to a lot more of the classic DC/Dischord acts. I really like Fugazi (tried 13 Songs once, was completely hooked from there on out) but I really need to listen to the afformentioned Rites of Spring and Minor Threat. Granted, I do have Black Flag's Damaged, but I know that doesn't count. (Yeah, good ol' Hank Rollins was a DC boy but Black Flag had the west coast hardcore sound going for them and existed before Hank became their lead singer anyway.)

Comment from: ANT Link posted at April 7, 2005 2:10 AM

Couple things.

One, there already is a Websnark forum of sorts. Or did you all forget about the Snarkoleptics? ( http://www.livejournal.com/community/snarkoleptics/ )

Second; do any of you here read A Modest Destiny on Squidi.net? He's already written about wanting to do reviews of webcomics that would serve as constructive criticism for them, but he's hesitant to do so because he's experienced the backlash that comes from going against the biggies (Penny Arcade and PVP, especially the former) bigtime, and he's still suffering in some ways as a result. Still, he talked about doing just what Phil Kahn mentioned, and he meets the requirements as put down by 32 Footsteps:

Negative criticism is needed. But first, we need to come up with a solid method for plunging through strips that people can agree upon, someone willing to take all the attacks unapologetically, and someone who isn't already involved in the little squabbles of the community.

Well, except maybe for that first one. Anyways, his essay on this subject can be read here: http://www.squidi.net/blog/2005/blog05.01.php#01.09 I encourage those who are seriously interested in the idea of biting, but constructive, webcomic criticism to take a look. I think it's a worthwhile pursuit.

Comment from: Phil Kahn posted at April 7, 2005 2:37 AM

I read Squidi's plea. He's right also. And more importantly, he touches on the most terrifying part of criticism in webcomics. The webcomic in question really does have the power. And Kurtz and Gabe are not afraid to use it.

Comment from: elvedril posted at April 7, 2005 5:39 AM

I have to admit I don't see the need for negative reviews of webcomics. Like somebody already said it's not like you're saving your reader any money, they're not paying for the comics anyway and if they don't like it they won't read it.

So what would it accomplish? Could you give an artist constructive criticism? Yeah sure, but it probably would work better if you carefully worded an email which the creator would be more likely to read. After all there's no need for the whole world to see your suggestion.

My worry is that negative reviews seem to tempt their writers with the possibility of writing a personal attack in the guise of a review. Something that some artists respond to by initiating a fanboy attack in the form of a link. If there's a good reason to risk that temptation to start another pointless internet feud thenthe review makes sense, but so far I haven't thought of one.

Comment from: Hazelip posted at April 7, 2005 5:51 AM

Elvedril, if you think the only opinions that should be shared should only be positive ones, you just go move your happy ass to Sesame Street and leave the sharing of real opinions to the rest of us.

Next thing you know, you'll be accusing negative reviewers of being "just jealous you can't do it" as does every other fanboy. Also a good reason NOT to have fora.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at April 7, 2005 8:23 AM

Wait... I thought reggae was a couple centuries old, and based on traditional Jamaican music. From what I heard, ska descended from reggae, not the other way around.

Also, seems a bit odd to say that ska is like punk with a horns section... I've actually listened to "Little Bitch" by The Specials, not just played it on DDR. Punk and ska did not get along for the longest time.

As for why make a negative review... quite simply, because they are needed. People do invest time into reading comics and want to know if it's worth it. It shouldn't simply be a question of whether or not you have to pay for it (I'd hate to see a professional reviewer take the stance of "don't criticize what's free"; they get so many bennies it hurts at times). It's just a question of whether or not it's good.

Try to keep the economics out of criticism; the former invariably corrupts the latter.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at April 7, 2005 8:33 AM

Hazelip -- be sure to debate the opinion, not the debator. That way lies madness and sports metaphors.

As for defending the negative... I've made the distinction before between doing critical commentary and reviewing. Websnark's a little of both, but by design leans towards the former. When you're reviewing, however, you have to be straight, and that means negative.

In critical commentary, it means you need to point out the unfortunate developments with the fortunate. Otherwise, you swiftly lose value.

Comment from: Chris Anthony posted at April 7, 2005 9:01 AM

I feel that a paraphrase of Roger Ebert may be in order here:

"A review is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it."

This is, granted, more true of movies than it is of reviews, but I think it still stands. Two reviews can present exactly the same view of what's being reviewed - positive, negative, or neutral - but it isn't the view that's going to compel the reader; it's the presentation. (Which review is more likely to make you buy the album: "Dude, the lyrics ****ing suck, but the singer and guitar totally wail!" or "The lyrics are substandard even for the genre, but the same is not true of the vocalist, who does her level best to bypass the lyrics' shortcomings. Likewise, the guitarists, lead and bass, bring both technical skill and powerful emotion to the stage.")

It is clearly possible to write a negative review without bashing the subject matter, and it is likewise possible to write a positive review without going to fanboy extremes. The fact that a reviewer might let his reviews slip into subject-bashing doesn't mean that negative reviews should be avoided; it just means that, as in everything else, moderation and presentation are key. (That's the ever-present danger of the reviewer, as I understand it - the temptation to just say "Christ, this sucks" or "holy ****, this is awesome".)

(Incidentally, this shouldn't be construed as itself being a review of any of the reviewers involved in this discussion. I certainly don't mean it as one.)

As an aside, elvedril, I think you're missing a larger picture. Money is not the only thing I spend - time and patience also go on that list, off the top of my head - and a review serves to guide all of my expenditures, not just those that are fiscal. If a reviewer whom I trust tells me to avoid a certain comic strip, say, then while it might not save me any money (assuming that the strip is, in fact, free to read - and they aren't all), it does save me time and patience which I might otherwise have spent reading something that I didn't like.

It's also worth noting that "a reviewer whom I trust" is not necessarily the same thing as "a reviewer who usually agrees with me". As an example, I happen to know that Eric Burns likes Superosity. Personally, I can't stand it - for reasons I won't go into here - but I can trust that if Eric compares something favorably to Superosity, I'm probably not going to like that, either. Our tastes don't necessarily coincide, but I can rely on Eric to inform my decisions nonetheless.

Comment from: Phalanx posted at April 7, 2005 11:12 AM

*pokes head tentatively into the discussion*

If its worth anything, I've had several people request for reviews at Webcomic Finds privately. Even when I warned them I'd be uncompromisingly honest., they were cool with it. Some even said it'd be a good thing to be negative.

And then there was the review I just did of Bilaran Wars.

You can see for yourself it was not a positive one, to put it mildly. But I wasn't rude about it (or at least I think I wasn't). Imagine my surprise when the creator involved actually showed up and thanked me for being honest and it was very helpful feedback.

So I don't think negative reviewing is the problem. It's how you support your arguments, and how you come across presenting it. Naturally if the reviewer sounds biased, if s/he's not, then expect backlash.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 7, 2005 11:17 AM

Negative reviews are a must. For one thing, I've always been frustrated when trying to find decent review sites for webcomics as nobody ever seems to want to say anything negative about whatever it is they're reviewing. This has resulted in quite a bit of wasted time and frustration on my part going through the archives of comics that just plain didn't interest me. I realize I'm not paying for the privelege of reading these comics (any ISP fees and such notwithstanding), but that doesn't make my frustration any less real.

If at the very least we had some more critical voices in webcomic review, it would help seperate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. If several reviewers say that comic X is not worth their time (in a literate, critical, intelligent fashion), that would imply to me that I'd probably be better off not reading it. With the review climate as it stands, however, most reviewers would try to focus on whatever's positive about said comic and thus I'd waste my time again. Obviously, I don't mean negative as in "GODDAMNIT THIS SUCKS WHY DID I READ IT AAAARRRRHRAHGRHAGHGHGRAGHGRHRHGGRHGH" but by actually supporting your comments and such.

If I had a knack for criticism (and better overall knowledge of comic art), I'd probably try reviewing webcomics myself and I'd make absolutely no bones about webcomics I found that were not quite up to my standards of funny. I've always been far better at creative writing than critical analysis, though, so I'll just let those that can do it, do it and leave me to doing what I do.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 7, 2005 11:55 AM

From the other side of it... negative reviews are only useful when they're useful.

The only reviews I've ever had (or that I know about, anyway) have been either negative or the equivalent of "meh..." Negative reviews are never fun, but they are inevitable. It's the price you pay for putting your stuff out there and letting other people see it. Making a webcomic (or engaging in any other kind of artistic endeavour) is like climbing a tall tree and walking out on a limb... and regardless of who you are, it's only a matter of time before a critic will climb up after you and start hacking at the branch.

But getting a negative review isn't always a wake-up call, nor is it always a sign that you're doing something wrong. It's a sign that someone *thinks* you are -- maybe a large number of someones -- but in the end you're the one doing it, and you get to decide whether or not it was done right. So in that respect, a negative review is nothing more than an indicator of how much of a struggle it's going to be to do it your way AND have your way accepted. If the negative review reflects the opinion of a lot of people... well, that means it's going to be hard.

If you're not happy with the way your work is going, a negative review can be an opportunity to pinpoint why you are dissatisfied with what you're doing and figure out how to fix it. If you *are* happy with the way your work is going, it can serve as a way to determine what your target audience is -- if the reviewer seems to fall into your target audience, or has influence over your target audience, well, there will be a struggle there.

Negative reviews can be many things: useful, annoying, enlightening, insulting, informative, derogatory, inevitable... but I don't agree that negative reviews are a *must*. The only thing that is a *must* for webcomics is that there are people willing to make webcomics.

Comment from: ANT Link posted at April 7, 2005 12:22 PM

I think it boils down to a matter of two purposes that reviews can serve.

One is the purpose we've mostly been discussing; the one that lets readers of a review know whether the subject of the review is worth their time, patience and sometimes money. Depending on how popular certain review sites/reviewers become, this could be a very useful service for proclaimed webcomics fans.

The second purpose is to let webcomic creators see how their work is viewed from a critical, outside perspective, and to let them see what they're doing that works, what they're doing that could be better, what they're doing that they should stop immediately etc etc. In the webcomics world there seem to be two precedents regarding these kinds of reviews. What has become known as the PA/PvP response, to attack the writer of said review; the other is the one mentioned above, where some webcartoonists have sincerely thanked the reviewer for offering their critical eye. Basically, it seems this purpose only matters to webcartoonists if they treat their creation seriously, whether as a hobby or an art form, or maybe even a business. Essentially, for people that want to get better at making their webcomic. In this perspective, it's easy to see why PA and PvP types may respond negatively or condescendingly to negative reviews; having succeeded financially to the extent they have, they probably no longer have any desire to improve the artistic side of their work. They may still enjoy drawing and making the comics, but they're a business for them now, and they're not going to change what's worked for them so far, so what are they going to do with a negative review? They already have enough readers that it's doubtful they would ever consider trying to improve their craft, so questions of personal attacks against reviewers aside, it seems most likely that these kinds of creators would, or perhaps should, just ignore any negative criticism directed towards their work, no matter how thoughtful or accurate it may be.

I guess from a creator side, it's primarily a question of what you want to do with your webcomic and how negative or positive reviews can help or hinder that goal.

Does this mean we shouldn't review the webcomic giants like PA and PvP at all? I couldn't tell you that, although I do think that those with reasoned opinions and a desire to speak them should be able to do so (ideally) without the attacks that fans of those comics have become known for. But perhaps for our purposes as readers, we should focus on reviewing smaller or lesser-known webcomics that may still be struggling to fulfill their potential, who will likely embrace any kind of constructive feedback that helps them improve.

As they say, it all depends on how you look at it.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 7, 2005 12:28 PM

There is nothing wrong with saying you don't like a webcomic, but there is something wrong with saying a webcomic is bad. WEbcomics, much like books and music are subjective. While I think the vast majority would think a stick figure saying poopy over and over every single day isn't funny, I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't people who thought it the greatest thing ever.

There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't like this because." "I don't think this works because." (But in active voice instead of passive) ESPECIALLY when you offer helpful opinions and feedback. "Mmm. While it's obvious she REALLY likes green, she could maybe use a few different colours on that website. It's a great BACKGROUND colour, but some varience would make the whole site better!" is a negative comment. ("The site colours suck, change them") BUT it's expressed in a positive way.. and that's the difference between an attack and a good review.

In my never humble opinion a review should help the person you're reviewing as much as it does potential readers.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 7, 2005 12:35 PM

Why would you call it the "PA/PvP response?" To my knowledge neither Gabe nor Tycho has said *anything* about the review. Their *fans*, maybe, but you were talking about webcomic creators.

Basically, it seems this purpose only matters to webcartoonists if they treat their creation seriously, whether as a hobby or an art form, or maybe even a business.

I'm not sure what you mean here, other than to suggest that web cartoonists who aren't grateful for negative reviews are somehow less committed to what they do.

In this perspective, it's easy to see why PA and PvP types may respond negatively or condescendingly to negative reviews; having succeeded financially to the extent they have, they probably no longer have any desire to improve the artistic side of their work.

I think that's an unfair assumption to make. All you have to do is read Scott's recent posts on Pvponline.com concerning the wacom tablet to see that he wants to be able to do *more* with his art.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 7, 2005 12:36 PM

As far as Ska/Punk goes.. Ska was actually around before Punk and the 'happy bouncy' Punk (music wise) developed from Ska.. and then Hardcore (Sex Pistols, etc) developed from that.

I don't actually expect anyone to like the music I like, I just ask you treat it with the same respect I treat your tastes. ^_^ I don't like most "goth" music. (Or whatever its called - I'm sooooo out of touch!) But I can certainly see the attraction it holds.

Comment from: apb posted at April 7, 2005 12:39 PM

ANT_Link: I think it's interesting that you suggested Squidi as the archetype of a good critical reviewer. His personal biases are always very clear [trying to frame things politely and mildly], and that's the exact opposite of what I want in a good critical review. I want someone who can put their biases aside and discuss content/art/toolkit.

Phalanx, on the other hand, that was a clear, unbiased, well-considered review. If I were to ever start a webcomic, I'd be sending it to you for feedback early on.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 7, 2005 12:40 PM

As far as Ska/Punk goes.. Ska was actually around before Punk and the 'happy bouncy' Punk (music wise) developed from Ska.. and then Hardcore (Sex Pistols, etc) developed from that.

...the Sex Pistols were hardly hardcore...

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at April 7, 2005 12:42 PM

All essays, of any stripe, come down to two basic requirements.

You must have a thesis.

You must support that thesis with examples.

People have said that I don't do "negative reviews," but as has been pointed out, the only snarks currently permanently linked on the front page of this site are to three negative critiques. In all three of the "You had me, but you lost me" cases, the backlash was minimal. In two of those cases, the webcartoonist in question acknowledged that they'd read the essay, can understand parts and disagree with others, and can at least understand where I got my opinion from.

I've said negative things about PvP before. But it's always been in the cosm of what I think Kurtz did right. I've never had backlash from PvP fans.

I have had some... interesting mail from Penny Arcade fans (a very small subsection of them, I would add), but it didn't have anything to do with my opinion of Penny Arcade.

One reason why I'm adamant that Websnark isn't a review site is because I don't go spend time with webcomics I don't enjoy reading. To review, you have to do this. However, I do express opinions and critiques, and some of those simply aren't positive. But my reputation is that I'm unremittingly positive because the majority of what I say is. I'm more interested in highlighting when someone gets it right.

I agree with everyone here that we need more reviews and critiques. Hand in hand with that is the need for negative ones. However, I think a site wholly devoted to the negative ultimately becomes just another rant site, designed to draw in people who enjoy watching things burn.

On the other side of the equation is the potential to become a cheerleader. That doesn't help anyone either.

It's a tightrope. No doubt about that.

Man, this whole comment was worthless, wasn't it? But then, I use font tags, so....

Comment from: Steve C. posted at April 7, 2005 12:53 PM

I found Squidi's writing lacking any attempt at objectivity. Additionally, I can't believe he still maintains a grudge over some silly forum icons from 2-3 years ago. /shrug.

Comment from: Phy posted at April 7, 2005 1:22 PM

I've been thinking about critical reviews that I respect, and they are neither positive nor negative, they're what they are. If something works, they say so. If something doesn't work, they say so. They say if they liked an element or didn't, but they clearly tell you what the element is so that you can make up your own mind.

I frankly adore Roger Ebert's writing, and generally follow his tastes. However, he has never liked the sort of "trick ending" film that wowed me. He was especially hard on _The Usual Suspects_, a film that blew me out of the water despite numerous flaws. However, despite Mr. Ebert not liking it at all, I was still able to get a solid overall feeling for the film from Roger and I was able to dig out the factual nuggets without embracing his personal distaste. That's what real critical reviews are supposed to do.

On the other hand, anybody can blog their opinion and the value that provides is soley based on the credibility of the person writing the piece. If they're some unknown jamoke, I don't for a moment feel compelled to take anything they say seriously if there is no actual critical review involved. Anytime you're dealing with pure opinion, I reserve the right to embrace or ignore it in any degree without any justification.

That's why I make the distinction between a critic (one who has actually written a review with some meat and degree of objectivity) and a blogger (one who has cobbled together some opinion where the primary component is subjectivity).

Peter Chattaway has a film blog that contains a great deal of objectivity mingled with some subjectivity. His actual published reviews are almost completely objective, and the subjective elements are typically clearly denoted. As such, he enjoys my respect.

That's why I'm not as settled with this "positive" and "negative" terminology - if aspects of a review are reflections of true worth and not slanted opinion being passed off as something objective, I'm willing to accept that what we're talking about is "what works" and "what doesn't work" because we're dealing more with objective observation and not subjective preference.

Comment from: ANT Link posted at April 7, 2005 1:39 PM

Chris: You're right, I inadvertently mixed up who I was referring to when I said the PA/PvP response. I meant to refer to them as a kind of response that only hugely popular webcomics can pull off, the kind where even if Gabe or Tycho don't respond to a review, their fans will anyway, and end up attacking the reviewer. It may have been unfair to lump the PA guys with Scott Kurtz, who actually did personally respond, but I also remember the effects that PA had on the aforementioned Squidi, where while he may not have written a bad review, Gabe made him out to be a bad guy in the topic in question, and effectively cancelled out much chance of popular or financial success, not to mention spawned personal attacks that linger even now. So in my mind, it seems that I had unwittingly equated both PA and PvP as examples of not just comics, but institutions, and that was my mistake. Especially because as Eric has rightly pointed out, he has indeed said negative things about PvP without any backlash from fans, even if it was in the midst of otherwise positive positions. Anyways, I basically wanted to explain a type of response, not actual responses from those comics, although it seems I may have confused the two. My apologies.

"Basically, it seems this purpose only matters to webcartoonists if they treat their creation seriously, whether as a hobby or an art form, or maybe even a business.

I'm not sure what you mean here, other than to suggest that web cartoonists who aren't grateful for negative reviews are somehow less committed to what they do. "

Let's see if I can explain myself better. It's definitely not that I think that cartoonists who may not be appreciative of negative reviews are less commited to what they do. It's that I think criticism of the elements of a webcomic's artistic construction, like story, characterization, pacing, themes, subtext, dialogue, etc, may not be relevant to cartoonists who have already found their niche and have lots of readers and/or money. Basically, the idea that what the creators of a popular webcomic are commited to doing may have nothing to do with the subject of a critical review of that webcomic. For example, and while this may be an unfair example; think of Garfield. There are many, many negative things that can be said about it in regards to it's construction. But they don't matter to Jim Davis in the slightest, because he's not doing it for constructive reasons. Now, I don't mean to put the creators of big comics like PA and PvP in the same boat as a purely commericial creator like Jim Davis, but I think the idea may be the same; the idea that a review of the artistic, or perhaps literary is the better word, components of a webcomic may simply not have any relevance for the creator of that comic because he/she's already doing exactly what they want to do with it. I'm not saying this is actually the case, but I am saying it could be. I hope this explanantion works better.

As for your point about Scott Kurtz showing definite signs of wanting to improve from the Wacom tablet entries, I agree. It's clear he does want to improve his drawing skills and expand his range. For that matter, I also think Gabe's art at PA has improved even after they've hit it big, and I think it's going to. But this is another point I may have been unclear on. When I say art, I don't mean the drawings. I mean the literary type of components I mentioned above. And while Kurtz has also shown interest in changes in those areas too, as witnessed by the recent Brent giving up caffeine (though it seems to have been short-lived; is he drinking it again now or what?) and the whole PvP merging with Powerplay storyline we're still finishing. PA, on the other hand, will likely never improve in the areas of literary artistic construction, nor do I think it really has to. PA IS the archetype of a strip that's found it's groove and thrives in it. It does exactly what it sets out to do, which is make us laugh. And that's cool. But in the context of constructive reviews, how could it be helped by them? Some people have had suggestions, but because G&T like it the way it is, and the fans like it the way it is, it's pretty clear things aren't going to change for PA's groove anytime soon. So in that case, I say it's more worth a reviewer's time to look at comics that can still change and grow to become more than they once were, like the typical Websnark example Cerebus. Again, I hope that clears up what I was trying to say.

apb: While I do think Squidi would be a good man for the job, I don't believe he's the archetype of a good reviewer. For one thing, while I think he COULD write great, constructive reviews, he hasn't done so yet, so there's nothing to point to to say one way or the other.

Steve C.: I think it's a typical misconception that Squidi still harbors a grudge forum icons, but I can't blame you for having it if you haven't read both sides of the story. And for what it's worth, the essays he has on the site now are all blogs and as such, are not really meant to be objective. As I said just now, he hasn't yet written anything that could be considered a real review, and may never will for that matter, but until he does, I think it's jumping the gun to think that his blog style would be the same as his review style.

Phy: You make a good point. We should make a distinction between an honest and objective review with negative points and a review whose purpose IS to be negative, or at least one whose tone is overwhelmingly so.

Comment from: Minerve06 posted at April 7, 2005 1:46 PM

Well, first-time poster here... Not a bad time to begin...

Phy, I entirely agree with you. I donÌt think the real question is whether a review should be positive or negative. ItÌs more, like, should it be objective or subjective? An objective review have to be negative if the reviewer feels like the comic heÌs reviewing has some problems but it also must be positive if he thinks it deserves it. The important point is that he MUST try to backup his opinions in some way.

On the other hand, a subjective reviewer (like a typical blogger) doesnÌt have to support all his opinions in a detailed way. He can just say the things the way he feels it. I think that kind of reviewer is more interesting if heÌs trying to do positive review, since the result is to promote webcomics in general. A guy who just wants to bitch a comic without giving any solid reason might be funny to read if heÌs a REAL good writer but face it, that doesnÌt help the community in any way.

So, if you want to do review that CAN (but donÌt have to) be negative, I think itÌs better to opt for some kind of objective review. At least, itÌs more helpful. Of course, you can also consider the possibility to do something mixed, because nothing is purely black or white, but again, I think itÌs more helpful to clearly label whatÌs suppose to be objective and whatÌs suppose to be subjective.

Comment from: jp is just a guy posted at April 7, 2005 2:05 PM

Ska was really only a factor in U.K. punk, mostly due to the many Jamaican immigrants living there. American punk descended mostly from the garage bands of the late '60s (in fact, the first uses of the word "punk" came from cats like Lester Bangs and Lenny Kaye writing about the garage bands). A good place way to catch p on some of these underappreciated yet awesome bands is to pick up Nuggets From Nuggets from Rhino Records, or catch Little Steven's Underground Garage on the radio.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 7, 2005 3:00 PM

Excuse me as my brain melts at the thought of the Sex Pistols being considered hardcore for a moment... OK, done.

I'm finding it fascinating how we're having simultaneous discussions about music history and webcomic criticism going. Only on a blog.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 7, 2005 3:46 PM

Compared to the bubblegum pop punk at the time, Sex Pistols was harder, faster and nastier.. and popularized and made what kind of punk accessible? Hmm. I think it was what was called "Hardcore Punk" back in the day. I will be the first to admit that I have no idea what it would be classified as today.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 7, 2005 4:05 PM

It was just called "Punk Rock" back in the day -- that was distintion enough. Punk Rock automatically meant harder, faster and nastier than the standard fare. "Hardcore" punk started to get used when bands came out that were harder and faster (though not necessarily nastier) than "baseline" punk. Bands like the Exploited, and GBH. Then "punk" was eventually dropped, and there was just "Hardcore" or "Crossover" when hardcore punk bands started incorporating metal-like sounds (DRI).

People can and will quibble about whether or not the bands I listed actually belong fully in any of those categories, but I think the progression is pretty accurate.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 7, 2005 4:10 PM

Wanted to follow up on that... I don't believe there was really anything that was recognized as "bubblegum pop punk" when the Sex Pistols were around. Punk was by definition not pop. Sure, the Buzzcocks were not quite as aggressive as the Sex Pistols, but they were all considered "Punk" and they were all considerably more aggressive than the mainstream, corporate stuff.

Comment from: William_G posted at April 7, 2005 4:40 PM

"Anarchy In The UK" is a fun little karaoke song, by the way.

Comment from: Grumblin posted at April 7, 2005 6:02 PM

Heh.. the past two decades I've heard the term "hardcore" used to describe anything the current Teen Angst incarnation sees as sufficiently obscure and noisome to royally piss off their parents, passing from two flavours of metal , through several flavours of gabber house, through several flavours of grunge/kiddiepunk.

the only two common denominator I've ever seen are that it starts with 15 yr olds picking up an instrument convinced that being able to play three powerchords through a sound processor is enough to be a successful band, gradually moving into post-teen intellectual snobbishness, with the added bonus of a whopping 5 power chords capability and a relatively stable drum section.

The other common denominator is that hardcore isn't Hardcore if it ever turns out to be popular. the Horror!!

Comment from: Wednesday posted at April 7, 2005 7:03 PM

You know who's hardcore?

Bubbles. Bubbles is hardcore. She can take the battle simulator all the way up to eleven.

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at April 7, 2005 7:47 PM

Weds gets an A+ for the Powerpuff Girls reference.

Comment from: AndrewWade posted at April 7, 2005 9:04 PM

Regarding the comments/forums tangent, I think www.evilavatar.com has worked out a pretty solid compromise.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 7, 2005 9:56 PM

Sounded more like a Spinal Tap reference to me.. Shows how out of the loop I am!

But "bubblegum pop" I meant how it sounded not that it charted the pop charts. *Shrug* I'll be the FIRST to admit I'm LOUSY at labelling music beyond "I like it," "I love it," and "Not really my thing."

And of course, the fact that I'm in Vancouver and more familiar with the 80's to mid 90s west coast punk scene than any other punk scene doesn't help in the least.

So I shall leave the discussion to those obviously more in the know. ^_^

Comment from: Joe Zabel posted at April 7, 2005 10:20 PM

I'm not particularly hot on the idea of reviews as a "thumbs up/thumbs down" consumer reports-type instrument. And I'm skeptical of the view that criticism is a high-minded method of lifting up the medium.

Rather, I think webcomics reviewing is worthwhile for its own sake. It is a medium for people to discuss ideas, to shock, entertain, and enlighten the reader.

Webcomics are, after all, the ultimate artform, mixing graphic art with wordsmithing, storytelling with design, technology with handcrafted intimacy. All the art theories ever invented apply in some way to webcomics, and justify being combined in new and unheard of ways.

Consider, for instance, the audience for webcomics. It is a global village beyond the wildest dreams of Marshal McCluhan, an exploding social phenomena that demands to be explored and understood.

In the debate that preceded the meltdown, Eric and Bill were trying to comprehend the shape and contour of this global village as expressed in the fandom of PvP, which Bill characterized as cult, and Eric characterized as mainstream. But that promising debate was completely lost in the backlash.

Score one for mob psychology, and zero for enlightened debate!

Comment from: kirabug posted at April 7, 2005 10:56 PM

Comcast hates me tonight. This might not post at all, it might post twice, my apologies in advance.

Re: ska & emo - we've confirmed what I suspected from the beginning, which is that I have no idea whatsoever what either one sounds like :) Guess I ought to tune away from the classic rock channel occasionally.

In regards to webcomic reviews, I figure if I want fair reviews to come back to me, I have to write fair reviews. That isn't to say that those who don't write comics don't have the authority to review, because they do - but I'd still prefer to see two things:

a) If I was the author, what issues would I like someone to (tactfully) point out for correction?

b) If I was the reader, what would I want to know before I started reading?

Comment from: William_G posted at April 8, 2005 1:09 AM

"I am an antichrist

I am an anarchist"

I guess I should make this my motto now?

Hahahaha! Sometimes you need to let absurdity take over...

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at April 8, 2005 1:24 AM

And to tie this all together? It is my belief that Webcomics are to comics as a whole what punk rock was to music in the late 70s and early 80s.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 8, 2005 1:52 AM

I'm not sure I'd go that extreme, but suddenly I want to have Bunny singing:

forlorn lists true contempt destruct dripping

red is it time to come clean wash away

everything hold the frame still life focus

ones intent to not be noticed lost in lies

You're a terribly influence on me Mr. Wright.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at April 8, 2005 5:32 AM

Regardless of everything else, I can think of one valuable reason to have bad reviews as well as good ones: If you only have good reviews, it crushes the distinction between between "I can't find a review of Webcomic X because no one has reviewed it yet" and "I can't find a review of Webcomic X because everyone hates it." If a reasonable amount of negative reviews exist in the ecosystem, the absence of reviews for a given comic seems less like an implicit condemnation.

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at April 8, 2005 5:51 AM

Oh, and about hardcore and punk: A couple of years ago, back when I drove, and worked, I was driving to work. A catchy little number came on the radio, and was eerily (if pleasantly) familiar. In fact, after a moment, I found myself singing along with it, before I had even actually identified it.

And then I did identify it: It was "Blank Generation," by Richard Hell and the Voidoids. It's a good thing I was almost to work at the time, because my brain had completely rebooted: I remembered hearing it when it first came out; and I remember that it was just an unlistenable blur of noise at the time.

That really was what the first buzz saw of punk sounded like: The music we listened to? It was just noise (and not in the avant-garde Sonic Youth and John Cage fashion either, except for Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music).

"Anarchy in the UK"? Noise. The Damned? Noise. Sham 69? Noise. The Mekons? Utter noise. At first. It really did take a little time for even adventurous ears to learn the vocabulary of sound necessary to make sense of punk; and at the same time, punk was rapidly learning to use the vocabulary of sound outside itself: Look at the immense stylistic variations in the Class of '77, within just a few years, for instance. By 1980 they had rediscovered or reinvented Pure Pop, Two-Tone Ska, Goth, Power Pop, even Country & Western and Motown.

But when it first broke big? It was all hardcore.

Comment from: Phy posted at April 8, 2005 11:33 AM

Speaking of what is and isn't criticism, Roger Ebert has something to say as a parenthetical thought encrypted toward the end of his review of _Sahara_ (of which he wrote " I enjoyed this movie on its own dumb level, which must mean (I am forced to conclude) in my own dumb way."

"I perceive that I have supplied mostly a description of what happens in the film, filtered through my own skewed amusement. Does that make this a real review?

"Funny you should ask. As it happens, I happened to be glancing at Gore Vidal's article about the critic Edmund Wilson in a 1993 issue of the New York Review of Books. There Vidal writes: "Great critics do not explicate a text; they describe it and then report on what they have described, if the description itself is not the criticism." In this case, I think the description itself is the criticism. Yes, I'm almost sure of it."

;)

Comment from: dreamshade posted at April 8, 2005 12:00 PM

"He's already written about wanting to do reviews of webcomics that would serve as constructive criticism for them, but he's hesitant to do so because he's experienced the backlash that comes from going against the biggies (Penny Arcade and PVP, especially the former) bigtime, and he's still suffering in some ways as a result"

So why write negative reviews of big comics? There are plenty of other comics to talk trash about.

It always bothered me that you're only allowed to write negative reviews of a comic that's already got an established audience; everyone is so afraid to write a negative review for something smaller because they're afraid of hurting people's feelings for picking on a little guy. So then when you finally do the negative review of the big comic, people tend to question your credibility, like you hate the comic just because it's popular.

Of course, the other reason to write bad reviews is because hate mail is always funny to read. After one extensive letter in response to a review, I'd like to think that one comic author graduated from Space to Spot just to spite me.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at April 8, 2005 12:29 PM

Dreamshade just mentioned my favorite part of being a critic - the nasty responses are often hilarious. My favorites include one person who could only think of using the word "gay" (which isn't even an insult) to attack me, using it 7 times in four grammatically-incorrect sentences; the one who told me that I didn't know how to love for hating one particular game; one who declared a review a "deep tragedy;" and one that accused me of not getting a game when I gave it an 8.5 on a ten-point scale.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 8, 2005 12:29 PM

Most don't have a problem with a negative *review*.. most have a problem with a trashtalking. It's walking the fine line between, that Eric's already explained at least once, that's the tricky bit. ^_^

Comment from: elvedril posted at April 8, 2005 6:00 PM

"Elvedril, if you think the only opinions that should be shared should only be positive ones, you just go move your happy ass to Sesame Street and leave the sharing of real opinions to the rest of us."

Hmm that's not what I meant at all, let me clarify. My point is that a reviewer should consider why they're writing the review. Then make sure that the review fits that goal.

There is still a place for negative reviews, they are just a lot harder to write than positive reviews. They're a little easier for an established writer who people trust rather than somebody they never heard of. Still the main problem is that negative reviews, unless they're written for a purpose, create the temptation to attack people. While that's legal and sometimes done on the internet, I think there's enough pointless arguing on forums and don't see a need to create more. People are pretty invested in comics, if you have a reason to publicly write something bad about something they love then do so. So I treat negative reviews, like anything that will possibly hurt somebody's feelings, as something that should be done carefully and consciously.

Comment from: miyaa posted at April 8, 2005 6:56 PM

I hate the whole Coke with lime shtick. Now I know why they usually serve this with rum.

Comment from: Shadowydreamer posted at April 8, 2005 8:08 PM

And as the 100th commentor - I have to wonder.. What's the longest comments for a 'snark before?

Comment from: vortexae posted at April 9, 2005 1:32 AM

kirabug - Comcast hated *everyone* last night. They were having a flaky DNS evening or something.

It particularly grieved me because I wanted to make an Alfredo sauce, and there was no recipe for such in all my cookbooks, and I COULDN'T GET TO ANY ONLINE RECIPE SITES. And missing the live webcast of a semilocal favorite band kinda bit, too.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at April 9, 2005 9:51 PM

(I'm only adding this to this already-bloated discussion because I genuinely haven't seen it mentioned before and I wonder if anyone else thinks it makes sense. I'm also not going to cry if no one answers because no one reads this far because Damn, that's a lotta comments)

I think I've figured out what gives a review the power to make me angry, as opposed to being something I just disagree with. The quickest, easiest way to turn me off in a review is to diverge from what I perceive as my "known facts"--obviously this could be simple getting-of-important-details-wrongs stuff, but the more common form is that your review does not take into account the existence of people with my opinion. It does not account for me. If it does not account for me, its credibility is severely damaged. This is pretty much what Eric said a while back, stated differently. He had said (about S*P) that if you're not reading it, you're stupid (this didn't piss me off, since I like it). He has now admitted that that statement is dumb, and, to me, the technical way to express its dumbness is that it doesn't account for everyone (and I just realized I'm heading straight for a "no accounting for taste" joke, so consider it made). The statement about S*P didn't account for people who had valid reasons to dislike the comic, happened not to enjoy the humor, etc. This is generally what a negative review is doing when it irks me; it defines the appeal of some creative work in a particular way that does not apply to me and is therefore positing a view of reality with a fundamental difference from mine, i.e., that people of my opinion do not exist. For instance, claiming that only slavish fans incapable of crossing Joss Whedon liked certain parts of Buffy which are unpopular in general is unlikely to prove an accurate statement and does a disservice to honest analysis. Another example, culled from my own shameful past, is wanting to assert that anyone who voted for Bush was a moron, when that obviously can't be true. That statement does not take into account large groups of people, and while taking them into account really ruins the potential to rant, it enhances (enhanced, in this case) my ability to understand the situation I'm criticising.

To oversimplify, asserting that something has only one appeal or that there is only one way to enjoy it, or conversely asserting that there is only one explanation for disliking something, limits the power of your argument. God knows I didn't enjoy sitting around trying to genuinely explore why people supported Bush, but I learned from it and grew up a little in the process. But not too much. Grownups suck.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: