Now, now, now Kristopher. I'm glad you've been willing to actually explain and support the stands you make. I am dismayed at your constant defensiveness, but I can understand it. Have you ever been questioned before?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Let's get back to this:

I don't think my answers will ever satisfy you. I could say that two examples are pitchforkmedia.com and Time.comix, but you will tell me that it is still unclear.

I'm sorry to say that I do have tell you just that. Your answers don't satisfy me simply due to your continual evasivness: You're not providing me with any.

For example, what sort of evidence do you have that these critics are

1) Reviewing so they "can muse about how clever he is"
2) That the criticism "is written so that the critic can brag about how literate a writer he is"

You're implying that they're employing some sort false form of criticism for their own self-aggrandisement. But how do you know this? How do you know their motivations? What are you basing this opinion off of? Writing style? Andrew Arnold not reviewing the comics you like?

Parody and satire hinges on exaggeration. Modern Humor Authority is a magazine in which the flowery presentation supercedes any actual research. They treat opinion as fact. Is any actual critic guilty of this? No. Are they perhaps guilty of a little of it? Yes, I think a few are. And I exaggerate it to what is hopefully comedic effect. Unless, of course, they do it for me.

You once wrote a very negative review of PVP and Penny Arcade, shortly around the time you lambasted MHA for doing exploitatively negative reviews, just to stir up drama and get linked.

Your review, "It's About Webcomics: PVP vs. Penny Arcade," is no longer online. Others' rebuttals/criticisms of it are still around, though (1) (2) (3).

And I remember what I thought of it, too. The way that you "researched" it, and wrote it, is a good example of why Modern Humor Authority exists.

Kristofer Straub www.starslip.com

"MHA is not very clearly against commentary on webcomics."

Really? I'm afraid to tell you that it hasn't been clear at all. But now that you're here to make sure there's no more misconceptions about your intent, I think we can all rest easy.

"It's against commentary that only exists so that the author of said commentary can muse about how clever he is."

Could you provide us with some examples of this? Who does this exactly? I mean, obviously you're lampooning someone or something... As I've suggested before, if you have the courage to speak out on something, you should at least have the courage to back it up with evidence.

If not, this would suggest that you built your satirical material around a false premise. Which would be dishonest. And it comes across as either a somewhat cowardly method of attacking someone, or as pointless bullying. But I am doubtful you'd fall into this trap, being a long time worker of the satrical arts and all.

"And, ultimately, how criticism is still one lone person's opinion, however they may try to prop themselves up as experts."

This is indeed true. Even Roger Ebert is just stating his opinion. But, using Roger as our template, wouldn't you say that previous experience working in the medium as well as years of practicing criticism WOULD make one an expert? If not, why?

I'd like to know because that statement just sort of comes across as being dismissive for the sake of convenience rather than having a solid reason behind it.

I was going to suggest Fox News or CNN for the "self-congratulatory trash masquerading as journalism". See then everyone can just chuckle and say "Ahh, that NEVER gets old" and we all walk away happy.

Also, the balls in a vice thing. I'm sure you can amp that up to something more mind bogglingly painful. Perhaps "Christmas elves armed with golden mallets(candy striped handles of course) hammering away ceaselessly on your testicles"?

I would have said something a little more on topic and possibly taken sides but I was 3 points short of the "you must be this intelligent to get all thats being talked about in this thread". I was gonna leave then I saw the word balls and felt the need to throw something in here.

I'm a little confused, Kristofer.

Previously, the tone for MHA was very clearly against the idea of criticism/ commentary on webcomics, with it's portrayal of al critics as buffoons. The prose version of MHA was quite vehemently against it. However this comic is suggesting that it's now fine to comment on webcomics.

The message seems to be getting muddled a bit. Could you clear things up? Has there been a change of heart?