Skip to main content

Sequential Tart posts more webcomic reviews

Sequential Tart has a new batch of webcomic reviews (as well as other interesting things) in their latest edition. Checkerboard Nightmare, Sexy Losers and Sore Thumbs are some of the webcomics that get this month's 'Tart treatment.

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

Sexy Losers only gets a 6/10...
I wonder if it will generate as much mail as the posts here in the 'pedia.
=)

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

She also doesn't give much more than her opinion and how well SHE likes a comic. Not even an attempt at objectivity. Her reviews tell me absolutely nothing about a comic.

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

I'm sorry, are you delusional or mistaken? Heneley's LACK of concrete examples is her main flaw. She simply makes general statements without giving any example from the comic, pronounces her opinion, and moves on.

Also, giving ADVICE to cartoonists through reviews is extremely tacky and misplaced. It's a review, not an advice column.

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Ouch! 6/10?

I call shinanigans.

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

Uncle Ghastly's picture

Going throught the backlogue of reviews it just seems like Rebecca Henely is not one for giving rave reviews... unless it's Chobits.

So I guess it all makes sense in a weird sort of way.

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

Yeah, I personally hated the review of Diesel Sweeties. And I'm not even a fan of this comic, mind you.

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

I find quite a bit of useful info in Heneley's reviews of comics. She cites tons of concrete examples to illustrate her critiques.

She's generally pretty on-target with her criticism, too. The negatives she identifies in the current batch of reviews are things the cartoonists should take heed of and work to improve on.

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

OK, let's look at her review of Sexy Losers in particular.

Paragraph one: a quick synopsis of many storylines: concrete examples that give a quick idea of the general mood of the strip.

Paragraph two: offers opinion that the strip is "shock humor" based on previous storylines and one more concrete example: "a storyline about a girl trying to um ... got to use nice language here ... defecate in her boyfriends mouth?" Most reasonable people would agree with her based on the concrete examples so far.

Paragraph three: offers an insight about her preferences: doesn't tend to like sex humor, but likes Sexy Losers. Unless she's lying, this is not an unhelpful bit of information for the reader to know right up front.

Paragraph four: cites Madame X jokes (specific reference) as repetitive but funny.

Paragraph five: evaluates the art based on reasonable standards. It's much the same critique I would give Hard's art. It's good, but nothing about it distinguishes it from a lot of preceeding sex manga. And I have noticed the problem she identifies that he has with drawing male characters -- sometimes they do tend to look too similar. This may sound annoying to fans of Sexy Losers, but it's not a particularly scathing critique. "Concrete evidence" can only be found by examining the validity of her criticism. As far as I can tell, it's valid enough.

Paragraph six: Summarizes: good if you like shock humor (from her first conclusion, based on concrete examples); claims that guest strips are bad (no concrete examples given, seems to be an afterthought); defends Hard on misogyny charge by citing treatment of men (relatively concrete).

Her review of Sore Thumbs was tougher for me to read, because Chris is a friend of mine, and he tended to get treated worse than Hard. But I would still have to say that she cited tons of examples to back up her opinions, which is what a reviewer is supposed to do. She cites the characteristics of the cast, Chris' political gags, etc.

The fact that she does a good job of citing examples to back up her opinions doesn't mean that she's always *right* about everything... but I can cite too many concrete examples of her using concrete examples for anyone to reasonably claim otherwise.

By contrast, Meagan, you've only offered unsubstantiated opinion (that she doesn't cite concrete examples) and an insult ("are you delusional or mistaken?")

Re: Sequential tart posts more webcomic reviews

Personally, I'm enjoying Atkinson's reviews. She usually offers at least a few decent supporting arguments, and I very much enjoy her writing style. Her latest one on Kid Radd was perhaps her best one yet.

But I digress...

And now the description is wrong.

Gagnier thinks UCSA is an effective organization and a valuable resource to UCI. I don't always agree with some meetings that go on there, but in general it has been very helpful to our campus, said Gagnier. Diet Free Pills Barking Dogs Bulldog Puppies Hunting Dog Training Information Dog Breeds Dog Behavior Dog Training Equipment Obedience Training Dog Breeds With Pictures Dog Training Tips Gagnier thinks UCSA is an effective organization and a valuable resource to UCI. I don't always agree with some meetings that go on there, but in general it has been very helpful to our campus, said Gagnier.