We’re going to try a little experiment here… We’re running two reviews (independently submitted, as it happens) of the same comic, Will Eisner’s John Law by Gary Chaloner.
Compare. Contrast. Discuss.
We’re going to try a little experiment here… We’re running two reviews (independently submitted, as it happens) of the same comic, Will Eisner’s John Law by Gary Chaloner.
Compare. Contrast. Discuss.
Comments are closed.
So, did this “experiment,” start when two people some how thought they were doing the same story?
(Still, this is a cool thing. There should be more dueling reveiwers.)
So, did this “experiment,” start when two people some how thought they were doing the same story?
Pretty much.
(Still, this is a cool thing. There should be more dueling reveiwers.)
Do you really think I should give reviewers swords? That sounds dangerous.
I was kind of hoping it’d lead to some discussion of what people like to see in reviews and what they hate…
A big difference is that Andrew does a great job of looking at Chaloner’s treatment of John Law in the greater context of Will Eisner’s work on the Spirit and other characters. I have only read a scattering of Eisner’s work and so could look at Chaloner’s John Law only in the context of what I read on my computer screen.
I like to see reveiwers with swords being used in reveiws.
But in seriousness, I found both the reveiws interesting and engaging, Xaviar Xerexes more so because of the deeper analysis. However, I found Gary Chaloner’s reveiw to be more helpful at first as it had the broader and (slightly,) lighter tone. So, they were both good. I like hyperlinking used as in text referencing, it’s definitly one of the best features about online essays. In non electronic essays I perfer the Horrocksian method, so I was also impressed by Xerexes use of images as well as hyperlinking.
So, yeah, maybe give the reveiwers pistols?