Submitted by Xaviar Xerexes on October 5, 2004 - 10:40
Alexander Danner has some posts up on his SPXPo experience. One thing I missed was meeting Alexander and Webcomics Examiner publisher Joe Zabel. I looked for both but since all three of us were wandering around the halls we didn't seem to run into each other. I should have tried to work out a meeting time - maybe next year.
Joe Zabel posted some photos he took - click here to view.
Submitted by Anonymous on September 29, 2004 - 17:30
Well, here's my pet peeve-- I see an advertisement for a webcomic, and it's all in color. Then I go to the webcomic, and it's in black and white.
Generally when this happens, I don't want to see any more, because I feel the artist/publisher has violated my trust.
Moral: If you have a black and white webcomic, advertise it with black and white artwork.
"What's your favorite webcomics romance?"
T Campbell asked this question of many webcartoonists. The answers were revealing.
Submitted by Eric Burns on August 26, 2004 - 18:27
Hi all! Name's Eric Burns, and I'm the guy who writes http://www.websnark.com. I thought I'd say hi, invite folks to come kick the tires, and the like.
There just aren't any rules for creating comics. Sometimes things work and sometimes they don't, and you can figure out principles to guide you in the use of these things, but there's never any rule that always works.
Submitted by Xaviar Xerexes on August 11, 2004 - 13:19
And is that a good thing or a bad thing :) - (I'm just looking at Mike_M's icon/avatar on Talkaboutcomics.com - I assume that's what he looks like.)
Webcomics Examiner, for which Mike_M writes is on to its third issue. Interesting stuff and nice to see that WE appears to be sticking around.
I just saw this thread over on the WE forums where Mike_M responds to a webcomic creator's request for a review. I think the tone of the reply is a little harsh but it's a fair point.
On the other hand I've always thought there was a value in publicizing when a webcomic is ready for review. Given the serialized nature and the put it up as its done approach many creators take with webcomics it's not easy to decide what to review, even when we're aware of the webcomic's existence to begin with. Joe Zabel is right that such publicity can be done with a press release. I hope the various means of community expression at Comixpedia provide a platform for webcomic creators to effectively let a large percentage of the "community" know what they're up to - including the editors and staff at Comixpedia.
I suppose what I'm leading up to here is a plea to keep thinking about ways Comixpedia can serve creators and readers well (even better?) as a place to find news about webcomic projects.
Submitted by Anonymous on August 9, 2004 - 00:01
August 9, 2004-- The Webcomics Examiner August issue premieres today with a new feature and a new writer.
Listed in our 'reviews' section is an inauspicious item, 'Snapshots' by the Examiner staff. This is a gateway to a page of short reviews covering a wider range of comics beyond those generally receiving feature-length treatment.
A new face on the reviewing front is Miguel Estrugo, best known for his comic series Alice Otter.
The Webcomics Examiner is a monthly forum of reviews, interviews, and critical articles evaluating webcomics as a fine art. The free-access website is at http://webcomicsreview.com.
The latest issue features an interview with The Circle Weave creator Indigo Kelleigh, and an animated cover by Melbourne artist Kirrily Schell. It includes critical reviews of 'Louis: Red Letter Day' by Metaphrog, 'Scary Go Round' by John Allison, 'Copper' by Kazu Kibuishi, 'Framed' by Damonk, 'Desert Rocks' by JJ Naas, and 'The Gods of Arr-Kelaan' by Chuck Rowles. The Snapshots column focuses on artists associated with the upcoming print anthology Flight.
Press contact: Joe Zabel,
Submitted by Phalanx on July 22, 2004 - 07:04
Here's an observation:
After the recent spate of discussion over the usefulness of webcomic reviews, some people have argued that webcomic reviews serve no purpose since (to borrow Alexander Danner's paraphrasing of the situation) "(most) webcomics are entirely free, reviews are rendered unnecessary".
If that's the case, then one would think reviews of pay comics would be more common, since they do actually serve a purpose in telling people about what they can't see for themselves straightaway.
But the fact is, there don't seem to be a lot of those kind of reviews out there. I've checked out a few review sites, including Korsil, Webcomics Examiner, Timewaster's Guide, Sequential Tart, Webcomics Fan and Comixpedia.
Of those, Sequential Tart seems to do the most reviews of pay comics, series like Gun Street Girl, Athena Voltaire, Fans!, Killroy and Tina, and Digger being a few who tend to pop up. In most sites there aren't any pay comics reviewed at all. Which seems like a pity, since there are a lot of good pay webcomics out there that IMHO, people ought to know about.
Here's a question:
Is because these comics are pay comics that reviewers shy away from them?
Or have they simply not heard of them at all?
Would complimentary subscriptions to reviewers make a difference?
(Ok, that was more than A question, but I can't count *grimaces* )
Anyone up for an answer?
Submitted by Anonymous on July 18, 2004 - 02:14
Not that I think the way you're doing it now is junk...
Have you guys considered going more "Magazine"-ey? Instead of having four or five new articles a week, why not have it all come out in one block-buster issue once a month?
Say the cover links to the contents page, where all of your editorials, reviews, interviews, and thesis papers on webcomics can read in one lengthy, tasty meal.
As for the developing news, you could have a blog sepcifically for that purpose.... since that seems to be how it's going now, anyway.
Whadda yah think?
In my last article, I wrote about the problems facing the designation of the "comics medium as art," and the value of changing that conception to one viewing the "comics medium as a language" – visual language (VL).