Skip to main content

Comment on The 2009 State of Webcomics Address by Tangent

I have to disagree about the “crappy” level of webcomics. In truth, if you go into a bookstore and pull out a book at random from the bookshelves you will likely find something that isn’t particularly well-written or all that interesting. I don’t care what section you go to; a lot of fiction, non-fiction, and what-have-you is of inferior quality, but managed to get printed because of the topic matter, the contacts that the writer had, or even just luck.
What’s more, I’m willing to bet that someone out there will consider that piece of writing you saw to actually be quite good and would be outraged that you considered that piece of writing to be verbal crap.
Heck, twenty years back I absolutely loved the writing of Anne McCaffrey. Today? I look at what she’s written and have far less enjoyment for her writing, seeing the flaws that are in it and McCaffrey’s failings as a writer. Twenty years ago I would have been outraged by someone saying “her stuff isn’t good” or I’d have ignored them. Tastes change over time.
It’s a shame about Bengo… and it’s also a shame about Kurtz being a bastard once again (though we all have that potential within us, even yours truly, the milquetoast of the webcomic reviewer scene). But Bengo is wrong about webcomics. Because if you compare the worse of webcomics with the worse of print comics, sure you’ll find webcomics are a bit worse… but you’d be surprised at just how wretched some of that print work actually is. If you compare the medium-quality print comics and the medium-quality webcomics, I suspect you’ll find there are far more medium-quality or better webcomics than print comics because of cost… and because the web has become the medium that cartoonists can more easily get their work out and have people read it.
I better cut this short. I’m starting to ramble. ^^;;
Take care
Rob H.