Is Scott for real?

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 16:02

You know, Scott, if one of your rabid fans comes over to my house with a shotgun, there's going to be hell to pay in civil court!

I'm just saying!

Have fun in your world! I'll have fun in mine!

Thanks!

Joey
www.moderntales.com

• Array

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 16:04

It's "Kristofer."

• Array

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 16:06

Sorry.

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

[quote:13477fea4b="Airsick_Moth"]It's "Kristofer."

• Array

by Uncle Ghastly - 12/12/2005 - 16:15

[quote:dbdfde26e0="Kurtz"]
Yeah, Tangent is right. I could really care less if any of you lived or died.
Died would be prefereable I think.

You're all such a bunch of assholes.

You seem kinda angry there Scott.

Now trust me, Uncle Ghastly's gotten his panties in a bunch now and then riding the Drama Llama to Boohoo-ville too so I know where you're coming from. Many a sling and arrow I've had slung and arrowed at me in my time. I eventually came to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter. I'm at the age now where if it's not fun I really don't want to be doing it. The internet is fun for me. Webcomics are fun for me. Posting on BBSs and Blogs and FARK is fun for me. Now sometimes during all this fun things might get a little heated and people say things about me that I don't particularily care for or agree about. Well that happens. If the tally at the end of the day is more fun than not it's all good.

So people want to write about webcomic drama. Big deal. So people want to write about how webcomics are a proud tradition passed down from the acient Incans and they should be treated with the respect and reverence befitting their sacred heritage. Go for it. So people want to say Uncle Ghastly is a loud mouthed know-it-all meanie who couldn't find talent if it crawled out of his ass and slapped him across the face with it's dick. Yippie.

Sometimes Scott you just gotta dismiss the stuff online that pisses you off as nothing more than text on your computer monitor. Don't give it any power and it can't hurt you.

Diving into a drama frenzy doesn't usually make things better and will usually just make you more aggrivated than you were when you started off. This I know from experience.

Of course if internet drama is what gets your rocks off, well then hey, have at it. It has it's moments of fun. It can be a great distraction.

I guess what I'm really saying here is, at the end of the day don't give too much stock to the opinions of people who haven't sat down to a drink with you. Yeah, every once in awhile something will sting a bit but if you don't pick at it it will heal much faster.

• Array

by Uncle Ghastly - 12/12/2005 - 16:17

[quote:312ed17c96="joeymanley"]You're parched?!? Try staying up all night screaming POOPY at Scott Kurtz and Kristopher Straub!

I had that same dream only I looked down and realized I was in my boxers.

• Array

by Xaviar Xerexes - 12/12/2005 - 16:19

[quote:85452d2006="joeymanley"]

You know, Scott, if one of your rabid fans comes over to my house with a shotgun, there's going to be hell to pay in civil court!

I'm just saying!

Have fun in your world! I'll have fun in mine!

Thanks!

Joey
www.moderntales.com

Wow, this has turned into one fierce thread. Since I don't even have time to write this post I won't venture any opinions, but just wanted to note that while I don't really think Scott or Joey mean anything "serious" by the quoted posts above, I really encourage everyone to try to stay on the civil side of discussion. And to really stay away from anything that smacks of threats, etc - that's not necessary to make your point and isn't something I'm going to tolerate here.

Alrighty then...

P.S. Except for when people call, Kristofer "Kristopher" - I mean that's just not right!

• Array

by EricMillikin - 12/12/2005 - 16:29

[quote:8565494531="Kurtz"]I could really care less if any of you lived or died.
Died would be prefereable I think.

You're all such a bunch of assholes.

Wow Kurtz, that is so radical. Most people blog about things they actually care about, but you've totally gone over the edge and are blogging about what you don't care about? Bravo, brother! What could you do for an encore? I mean, besides visiting a message board you don't care about to tell all the people whom you don't care about how much you don't care about whether they care whether you don't care? That's fucking mind blowing! And then to top it off by the entire time playing the role of the lovable country bumpkin who can't spell any word with more than two syllables when in fact you're really a genius performance artist? Again, bravo! If you can keep this up, you might just have a real future as an artist.

• Array

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 16:30

[quote:8d14fbcb28="Kurtz"][quote:8d14fbcb28="EricMillikin"][quote:8d14fbcb28="Kurtz"]Man, it must be so cool to be you guys on the cusp of the critical review revolution. You're really making a difference out there, taking the shots at the "kings" of this community.
I haven't read this whole thread, so maybe I'm missing some context on this but Kurtz is absolutely right. It doesn't make you a big shot just because you can launch clumsy attacks at the Kingz of Webcomix. So whoever was taking cheap shots at Derek Kirk Kim, Cat Garza, Roger Langridge, Jason Turner, Drew Weing and Merlin Goodbrey, just knock it the fuck off. That's totally uncalled for and you're totally hurting comics.
Yeah, Tangent is right. I could really care less if any of you lived or died.
Died would be prefereable I think.

You're all such a bunch of assholes.
Yes, once again Scott, you've nailed it on the head. We critics and reviewers are assholes. Complete, unadulturated assholes. (Which is why we are writing about poop, no doubt. :roll: )

Little things like holding people accountable for what they say, wanting to expound on comics we find enjoyable rather than letting comics flourish on that old-fashioned method, word-of-mouth... meh, whatever.

Do you know what's the most important thing about comics? Having fun. This works on two sides: for the cartoonist to have fun, and for the audience to have fun. And if one of those are lacking... well, it's pretty much a waste of time now, isn't it.

(Though I'm sure I'd have an audience at my throats if a cartoonist quit a popular comic if they went and said "Guys? I just realized Tangent's post over there was right... I'm not enjoying this comic any longer so I'm quitting. Bye, guys. You can blame him." But hey, that's just me poking fun at myself. Not to mention I've just recently finished building up the zombie repulsion traps, and could use a good test run... never know when the killer army of zombies is going to arise and wipe civilization from the Earth, after all! :shock: )

I know you don't want to know why I started up Tangents. Too bad. I'm going to expound anyway. I started it because I love comics (not that way, Ghastly. Tsk, really. Here, have a shot of scotch and keep yourself amused over there...) So I decided to share that joy of comics by writing about them.

I like to think that Joey Manley has a love for web comics as well, else he'd not have started Modern Tales. And yes, it was a business matter, but it was a business concerning something he loves.

So. You're listed among the top five troublemakers of web comics. You know something? I'd be damn proud to be on that list. And you've shown a love for the medium. PvP isn't JUST a business. It's doing something you love, damn it. And that's probably why you're so defensive about it.

And if it ends up you were grousing on your blog and you were actually tickled about Joey's inclusion of you among the Troublemakers... well, could you kindly add in something to these posts like (by the way, you do realize I'm being sarcastic about this) or the like?

Ghastly! Damn it man, that was a new bottle of scotch. I wanted some of that...

• Array

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 16:42

Which, of course, is why we need to imagine that the general public can make use of a ten-page-long postulate on cartoonist intent in a given panel. For the fun of it.

• Array

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 16:45

Pshah. When's the last time you SAW a ten-page-long postulate on ONE panel? Tsk.

• Array

by Uncle Ghastly - 12/12/2005 - 16:47

[quote:2ca822b5ae="Airsick_Moth"]

Which, of course, is why we need to imagine that the general public can make use of a ten-page-long postulate on cartoonist intent in a given panel. For the fun of it.

You know, when you've surfed your way onto websites whose url ends in .jp you quickly come to realize that people will masturbate to just about anything.

• Array

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 16:49

Who's to say that reading those things isn't fun? If you don't like'em, don't read'em! Those of us who like'em, will read them! Where's the harm here? What's the threat? What are you afraid of?

Just FYI, to those following along at home, we're switching topics again. There's a subthread here about a past installment of my column at Comicon.com (which is a chatty, gossipy, in-no-way-intellectually-challenging bit of fluff with a few barbs stuck in it -- for fun!) and another subthread about the evils of High Criticism when applied to webcomics. Since my column can't possibly be described as "a ten-page-long postulate on cartoonist intent," I can only imagine that this is the case, anyway. Though none on the anti-criticism front have named the name of the beast, I'm fairly certain that this subthread was occasioned by the recent rebirth of the Webcomics Examiner, at http://www.webcomicsreview.com/ and, specifically, their announcement of the "Best Webcomics of 2005 selected by the Webcomics Examiner Advisory Board." I am in no way associated with the Examiner, except that I give them free hosting, because Joe Zabel is a friend of mine, and I helped them jumpstart a few technical items (like their RSS feed, and their more recent WordPress installation). Note that I have also offered to provide Comixpedia with free hosting as well (especially back when they were crashing a lot).

Joey
www.moderntales.com

• Array

by Uncle Ghastly - 12/12/2005 - 16:49

[quote:8482095f36="Tangent"]Pshah. When's the last time you SAW a ten-page-long postulate on ONE panel? Tsk.

Well I was in this bar once in Bangkok an I saw this...

Oh... postulate...

• Array

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 17:09

But... see, you're saying "it's this fun thing for the people who like to read it! It's over here out of the way, stop getting all upset!" And I don't have a problem with it if that's the case. But then others are saying "the Examiner is an awesome jumping-on point for the general public! We're helping increase webcomic awareness!" Which is it? It can't be in-depth academia AND a primer for new audiences.

It's the difference between Roger Ebert and a lit professor teaching a graduate course. I'm sure Ebert could easily write a scholarly paper, but he knows his audience. His reviews are for the public -- and I compare Eric Burns to him. Lengthy, detailed criticism like Webcomics Examiner wants to be the lit professor, but validates itself by saying "but the public can really use this and it's helping webcomics!" It can't be both.

• Array

by RemusShepherd - 12/12/2005 - 17:12

You know, I'm new in the webcomics 'community'. And I probably shouldn't even enter this thread. But when one is bored at work, ya know...

The thing is, I'm approaching this as a READER, okay? And as a reader, I get reviews of comics by word of mouth from my friends. And for years I have been told, by friends in the gaming industry who have met Scott Kurtz in person, that he is an asshole. (*)

That, and that alone, is enough reason for me to not read his comic. I've read individual PvP strips people have passed me, but never bothered to dig into the archives or check it on any regular basis.

Scott, your attitude costs you readers. A business-savvy person like yourself must realize that. I don't have any problem with your rant of 12/7, but other rants in the past as well as posts like your recent one here are not good marketing.

Just wanted to remind you of that.

(* -- after some consideration, I'm using the same word Scott used to refer to us. If it comes across as too uncivil for this board, feel free to delete my post. I'm not under any delusion that my words mean anything to anyone, anyway. :) )

• Array

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 17:13

My perspective on the Examiner is definitely not the same as, say, William G's. Since I don't work on the project, I can't speak for them -- so I'll shut up and let them speak for themselves! When the thread veers back over to my gossip column, I'll pop back in for some more barking ...

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

• Array

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 17:19

[quote:86ce8215b4="RemusShepherd"]The thing is, I'm approaching this as a READER, okay? And as a reader, I get reviews of comics by word of mouth from my friends.
Whoa, you're doing it all wrong. If you're a reader, you're supposed to learn about comics from reviews, not comics.

• Array

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 17:25

No, he's doing it right -- he's definitely getting reviews, or at least he says he is. They're just word-of-mouth rather than written.

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

• Array

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 17:28

It's a step in the right direction, but who knows what you end up with when it's not done by professionals?

• Array

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 17:30

Can't argue with that! Some loon at my former dayjob once recommended PUPKIN to me! I shit you not! He wasn't even a "comics person."

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

• Array

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 17:31

And what's wrong with Pupkin? I mean, once you've had three or four tequilas, it actually starts sounding funny. Or was that some other comic I'm thinking of...

• Array

by Uncle Ghastly - 12/12/2005 - 17:32

[quote:c6d52e8bb1="joeymanley"]

No, he's doing it right -- he's definitely getting reviews, or at least he says he is. They're just word-of-mouth rather than written.

And reviews are like sex. Sometimes it's better to get it from mouth than in writing.

[quote:c6d52e8bb1="Airsick_Moth"]It's a step in the right direction, but who knows what you end up with when it's not done by professionals?

By golly, just like sex.

• Array

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 17:32

PUPKIN is strong, strong medicine to be recommending haphazardly, out in the wild! Only a professional should be permitted to administer a dosage!

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

• Array

by Michael_Harker - 12/12/2005 - 18:57

Man, Joey, William G, you guys are lucky. I've always wanted to be personally insulted by Scott Kurtz. It seems like such a...validating...thing to have happen to you.

Anyway guys, knock it off. Come on. Seriously.

• Array

Hating on Comix

by EricMillikin - 12/12/2005 - 19:14

[quote:a87ed234b9="Ghastly"]And reviews are like sex. Sometimes it's better to get it from mouth than in writing.

Sounds like you've either experienced some horrible oral sex, or some amazing love letters.

P.S. Joey Manley hates comix.

• Array

RE: Hating on Comix

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 19:19

I don't hate all comics, though I do have to admit, the last time I went to the Comedy Club here in Louisville, I heckled one right-wing homophobic performer so badly that they actually escorted me from the premesis (I should have known better than to go there on "military appreciation night" -- it was all like some lowgrade version of Spike TV). Richard Pryor was a genius, though, as was Steve Martin during his stand-up days. And those are just comics I've seen in person. I also have a lot of Lenny Bruce albums -- er, admittedly, I don't really see what the big deal was about him, either ... I sort of inherited those from an old relationship.

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

• Array

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 19:21

[quote:c6826929e8="Michael_Harker"]Man, Joey, William G, you guys are lucky. I've always wanted to be personally insulted by Scott Kurtz. It seems like such a...validating...thing to have happen to you.

Anyway guys, knock it off. Come on. Seriously.
Meh. Scott is good, but he's nothing compared to my brother. When he started on an insult spree... paint would peel from the house, the window panes would start to liquify, and you'd end up with 2nd degree burns on your ears.

Damn I miss him.

• Array

RE: Hating on Comix

by Uncle Ghastly - 12/12/2005 - 19:21

That's funny because there was this time I was doing my "dumb redneck" routine in a comedy club down in Louiseville and this... hey!

• Array

by Joe Zabel - 12/12/2005 - 19:39

Joey wrote, "My perspective on the Examiner is definitely not the same as, say, William G's. Since I don't work on the project, I can't speak for them -- so I'll shut up and let them speak for themselves!"

I appreciate criticism of The Examiner and always try to put it in perspective to help build a better magazine. I don't see anything here that really calls for a defense, but Kris Straub's perception of the magazine is a bit different than mine.

The way I see it is, The Examiner is a forum for reviews that are as sophisticated as the audience is. For comparison purposes, consider this passage from a Michael Phillips review of Pride and Prejudice for The Chicago Tribune: "While this "Pride & Prejudice" bustles along to a crisp but not frantic rhythm, thanks to editor Paul Tothill, the real payoff comes in the complex long takes and gliding camerawork. When the camera scurries after this or that domestic crisis in the Bennet home, or the guests at a manor bash thrown by Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods), Darcy's sweet-natured comrade, the effect is pleasurably intoxicating. At one point, Wright's camera snakes its way along the outside of the Bennet home, eavesdropping on one conversation after another. The effect isn't showy—it took some doing, but it comes off without any conscious dazzle."

It's the rare Examiner review that can be as perceptive and eloquent as Phillips is about the relationship between technical details and storytelling qualities. But we don't intend to stop trying!

As for Roger Ebert, here's his take on the same scene: "All of these characters meet and circle each other at a ball in the village Assembly Hall, and the camera circles them. The sequence feels like one unbroken shot, and has the same elegance as Visconti's long single take as he follows the prince through the ballrooms in "The Leopard." We see the characters interacting, we see Lizzie avoiding Collins and enticing Darcy, we understand the politics of these romances, and we are swept up in the intoxication of the dance. In a later scene as Lizzie and Darcy dance together everyone else somehow vanishes (in their eyes, certainly), and they are left alone within the love they feel."

Once again a terrific job of interweaving the technical observation with an appreciation of the story. I especially like his observation about the Lizzie and Darcy dancing and everyone else vanishing. I had forgotten that scene from the film. By the way, everybody, Pride and Prejudice is awesome! Don't miss it!

• Array

Routine

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 19:43

[quote:ddd46be632="Ghastly"]That's funny because there was this time I was doing my "dumb redneck" routine in a comedy club down in Louiseville and this... hey!
Routine? What routine? *innocents*

Teasing ya, Ghastly. :D

Back to the topic on hand, ANYONE can write reviews or critiques on comics. However, I personally think that those reviewers who have actually dabbled in writing comics before make better critics than those who have no actual knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes.

This is where Scott Kurtz and I disagree. He feels that if there *is* a critical community, it needs to be separate from the webcomic community. Thus his criticism of Eric Burns when Eric started up Gossamer Commons. (Eric's been doing this a half year or more longer than I have, but even so I must say he's a far superior writer of reviews and critiques than I've proven to be. So what if he has a couple comics now? Why does that lessen his ability as a critic? Why does my NOT having a web comic at this time IMPROVE my ability as one? (It doesn't, obviously enough.))

How many of the critics out there have had no prior comicking experience outside of being a reader? Not that many. How many of those write regular reviews (as in at least two a week)? And who are they?

After all, I need to read other good-quality web critics if I'm going to have a chance of improving my own writing. :P

• Array

Re: Routine

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 20:21

[quote:3753e7c7b6="Tangent"]Back to the topic on hand, ANYONE can write reviews or critiques on comics. However, I personally think that those reviewers who have actually dabbled in writing comics before make better critics than those who have no actual knowledge of what goes on behind the scenes.

In other words, movie critics should all be actors? The issue is legitimacy. If Tom Hanks starts reviewing Nicole Kidman's movies, his "insider experience" doesn't make him a better reviewer. I would still prefer a trained critic to actor insight.

Criticism is from a school of thinking. Criticism is done with a thesis, a hypothesis, supporting evidence, pros and cons, compare and contrast. An opinion piece doesn't automatically become an important facet of the discourse surrounding a body of work by virtue of someone writing it.

So I guess the question is, what is being attempted here? How do the webcomic critics define the value of their reviews? Even within this own thread there's differences of opinion among the very reviewers that make up this vanguard of webcomic discourse!

William G believes that in-depth analysis should serve as a helpful launching point for a general public, while Joe Zabel says the Examiner "is a forum for reviews that are as sophisticated as the audience is." I don't think the webcomic audience is that sophisticated. (And if it is, webcomics are doomed to having a tiny, well-read audience.)

Tangent, you're saying that prior webcartoonist experience makes a person a better reviewer? Are automotive engineers better race car drivers?

• Array

RE: Re: Routine

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 20:35

Kris, I do believe you are taking this argument too far.

Take a step back and look at what you're talking about.

You are talking about WEB COMICS. We are talking a medium in which anyone can set up a comic strip without training, without taking classes, without any real help. Did Scott Kurtz take classes in college about becoming a Web Cartoonist? Did you? What qualifies YOU to be a Web Cartoonist?

The fact you create one.

What qualifies me to be a Web Comic Critic? Well actually, I do have a Bachelor's in English Literature. Considering the majority of movie critics, book critics, and the like are JOURNALIST majors (and that can be an associate's degree in Journalism, I did look into that field when pursuing an undergraduate degree)... well I suppose I'm actually more qualified to be a critic than over half of the newspaper critics out there.

Eric Burns? I know that he at the very least has a Bachelors in English, and I suspect a Master's Degree (but I'm not positive on that bit).

But education does not make the man (or woman). (It can help. Yes, it can help. But it doesn't make him or her.) Just because a person has a Master's Degree in Education and a Teacher's Certificate doesn't mean that person will make a good teacher. Just because someone has a PhD in History doesn't mean they'll make a decent History Professor. There are plenty of people with plenty of education out there working in fields completely unrelated to their education.

However, I will submit that an automotive engineer with good driving skills would indeed make a very good race car driver, because they would have a fuller understanding of their vehicles limitations and be able to work on getting the absolute maximum out of their car without completely destroying it. If they also had the driving skills.

And yes, I honestly do believe that prior webcartoonist experience makes a better webcomic reviewer, because those people with that prior knowledge have more understanding of just how much effort goes into creating a comic. What goes into plotting it out. Scripting it. Working on feasable dialog. And so forth down the line.

But feel free to deny this logical interpretation of the facts.

• Array

RE: Re: Routine

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 20:44

I'm with Kristofer (see? I did it right!) on the prior-experience-in-the-field thing. Actually, I don't think that that has any bearing at all. Look at other forms of art. I happen to be familiar with literature, so we'll go there for examples. Some artists are very engaging critics (Virginia Woolf, for example, whose socio/political/literary critique "A Room of One's Own" -- something she dashed off as a speech to a women's college one day -- is read by at least as many people -- possibly more people -- than any of her actual, you know, fictional works). Most artists who try to write deeply and seriously about their field, though, just end up crafting little dogmatic lockboxes for their fellow artists, and themselves (Bertolt Brecht, for example, who, by the time he had finished defining every single legitimate effect he could imagine in playwrighting, giving it a name, an appropriate use, and a set of rules, had become a sad little robot putting out scripts-to-order, like those fiction-writing-machines people make on webpages, where you feed them little bits of words and phrases, and they make a "story").

So, yeah, it doesn't make any difference at all. What matters is whether or not you're a good critic. Your status as an artist has no more to do with it than the color of your hair. The one difference, though, is that it can actually be dangerous to their own artistic work, for some artists, anyway, to think like critics (as in the Brecht example).

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

• Array

Re: RE: Re: Routine

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 20:55

[quote:fa795b32e3="Tangent"]Kris, I do believe you are taking this argument too far.

Take a step back and look at what you're talking about.

You are talking about WEB COMICS. We are talking a medium in which anyone can set up a comic strip without training, without taking classes, without any real help. Did Scott Kurtz take classes in college about becoming a Web Cartoonist? Did you? What qualifies YOU to be a Web Cartoonist?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but now it seems like webcomics reviewers are allowed to change the parameters of the argument when it suits them. Have you read this piece by Eric Burns, about the nature of webcomics criticism? In it, he makes no bones about the importance of this incredible new artform we're all witnessing the birth of. He writes, "But twenty years from now, it will be a fait accompli. And it will be interpreted scholastically. And the trends that have come from it will be dissected, developed, and debated. This is what Academia will talk about. This is what schools of art will teach. These are the lessons that will come from the stuff we're actually doing right now."

He continues: "So, by the by, are Eric Burns and Wednesday White. Both over there, and juuuuuust maybe over here, too. Right now, we get to do foundational work in a whole new medium. This is a critic's dream.

And through our criticism, our critiques, our reviews, our essays and our interpretations, new generations are going to discover the work in question anew. And that means Scott Kurtz and PvP are going to be cited too.

So yeah, maybe the short term benefits seem small. But what the critical work says now becomes the foundation for conventional wisdom, scholarship, and the very evolution of art itself in the future."

So webcomics criticism is Very, Very Important. But now you're saying that, by what degree or training am I a webcartoonist? Admittedly, none. So by what degree of training are you a reviewer? Admittedly, none. But how is it that this incredibly important discourse is being written by amateurs? How is it even possible to have that discourse regarding something so admittedly amateur?

Which is it? Is it the groundwork for decades of future artistic criticism and discussion, or is it just a bunch of guys doodling and writing for fun? You're using one argument for validation, and the other for defense. It can't be both.

Wait, what? If they also had the driving skills? That was my whole point. I'm saying that you need critical experience to be a good critic. You're telling me that a webcartoonist is in fact a better reviewer -- provided that they are good reviewers too.

I maintain that building something and using it are two very different things. Have you ever seen user interface done by engineers, versus designers? Ultimately the two have to work together, but user interface design done by an engineer is kludgy, ugly, counter-intuitive, and very powerful. Because they design for themselves. A designer is needed to extrapolate -- "no, the average user doesn't know this, doesn't understand this progression. It must be simplified."

It's not mutually exclusive, but the reason we're not using command prompts for everything in Windows XP is because professional designers stepped in. Knowledge doesn't automatically mean usability.

Yes, because saying something is logical makes it logical.

• Array

RE: Re: RE: Re: Routine

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 20:59

I'll say something else. I think that there is a good defense for what you guys are doing. I mean, there has to be. There is value in discourse. But you guys are not presenting that defense, and I don't think have yet presented it. I'm not even sure if you are aware of that defense. But you need to find it!

You can't show up with a product/an essay/a review, claim that it's important and valuable, and put the onus on detractors to prove why it isn't.

• Array

RE: Re: Routine

by Joe Zabel - 12/12/2005 - 21:03

Kris wrote, "I don't think the webcomic audience is that sophisticated. (And if it is, webcomics are doomed to having a tiny, well-read audience.)"

I have trouble understanding your point. The one example I sited was a review from the Chicago Tribune. That's a major circulation newspaper the last time I looked! And the other example I quoted was Roger Ebert, who you yourself gave as an example of a good critic.

I think you're vastly underestimating the size of the sophisticated audience.

I agree with Joey, it doesn't make any difference at all what your background is otherwise, good critics are people who are good at criticism.

• Array

RE: Re: Routine

by Joe Zabel - 12/12/2005 - 21:06

BTW, it looks like Kris posted two longer responses that I didn't see before posting my response.

• Array

RE: Re: RE: Re: Routine

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 21:07

Okay. What makes a critic a critic?

Honestly? Contacts.

Yes, you heard me right. Contacts. Many critics in newspapers and the like get their positions because of contacts they made in college. An internship. A job recommendation. And so forth down the line. And these people are the ones who tell people what movies are hot, what books to read, what videos to rent.

You don't go to college with the intent of becoming a critic. In fact, outside of literature and movies, do you know who does the critiquing? People in the profession. It's called Peer Review and when a psychologist makes a point and writes a paper proving or trying to disprove something... it's other psychologists who end up reviewing that article and deciding if it will in fact make it into the Journals or not.

And in literature and movies... the "professional" (ie, not newspaper) critics who write the serious articles are... professors of literature, English students working toward a Master's degree, and other writers.

It's a rather tight-knit group, actually. Try researching a topic sometime. Say you want to research teaching techniques. The peer-reviewed articles are written by teachers and reviewed by teachers. Now you want to review a historical piece... it was written by a historian, and is reviewed by historians. But then, that's what Peer review is all about.

So... you could say those of us in the Web Comic Review Business, those of us who have prior experience in the field... are Peer Reviewers. But I suppose if you'd rather have Journalist Majors doing the reviews... ;)

• Array

Re: RE: Re: Routine

by Airsick_Moth - 12/12/2005 - 21:09

[quote:a6e3ceae57="joezabel"]I agree with Joey, it doesn't make any difference at all what your background is otherwise, good critics are people who are good at criticism.

I'm saying that being a webcartoonist doesn't make you a better critic. You have to be able to write criticisms to be a critic. As far as being a good critic and having webcartoonist experience, I'm saying that it would be more meaningful to the mainstreaming of webcomics if someone outside this community took notice and felt we were worthy of analysis. Of course we think we're important.

• Array

Re: RE: Re: Routine

by Joey Manley - 12/12/2005 - 21:12

Kris:

Since when do different critics, writing in different venues, about the same subject matter, have to agree with each other about why they're doing what they do? Like artists, critics all have different motivations, and different expectations of what they want to accomplish.

In other words, just because, say, Scott McCloud and Jerry Holkins don't agree on the nature and purpose of webcomics, that doesn't mean that all webcartoonists are insidious liars who are always changing the rules of the argument ... for that matter, I'll bet Kristofer Straub and, say, Dave Kellett aren't trying to accomplish exactly the same things with their webcomicking efforts.

Why should critics be obliged to toe One Party Line, then?

Joey
www.webcomicsnation.com

• Array

by Fabricari - 12/12/2005 - 21:48

Look. NOTHING gives me a hard on more than a buncha webcomic artists duking it out. Keeps a guy entertained while trudging through a miserable day in the cube farm.

Y'all make some great comics, but it ain't Moby Dick; it ain't Cerebus or Maus. Critics are great - I'm still waiting to for my comic to get trashed - they validate us. Debate/Drama is fun, nothing more. But for Aslan's sake, let's do something better with 2006.

Let's get the fuck out of the trenches, take this same aggressive attitude and aim it at some people who never read a web comic a day in their lives. We get it - webcomics are here to stay. And so are the critics, the fans, the sycophants and the megalomaniacs.

Why is it that this forum has more posts in a day when we're slinging shit? Why can't we be thet fired up for something more productive? When's the last time we all had a chat about a massive campaign to advertise webcomics - or a big ass printed anthology to hand out at cons to get people to read our shit?

OK, I'm talking to everyone except Ghastly, you're fucking hilarious just the way you are. Carry on.

• Array

by Chris Crosby - 12/12/2005 - 22:17

PUPKIN is so damn awesome. I don't see what makes PUPKIN worse than a comic about a rodent holocaust.

But that must be because I'm not one of those uppity Joe College certified COMICAL CRITICS, with their high-class insanely-long ten-page writerings showcasing their so-called "opinions" of things they have read with their upturned judgemental eyeballs. DEATH TO THEM ALL! (Except Websnark 'cause he say nice thing about me.)

• Array

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 22:26

Tsk. Just because I don't give out blowjobs... *drops dead*

• Array

by John - 12/12/2005 - 22:27

woops. Double post.

• Array

by John - 12/12/2005 - 22:28

[quote:6360c56e84="Airsick_Moth"]Whoa, you're doing it all wrong. If you're a reader, you're supposed to learn about comics from reviews, not comics.Your right. Reviews are meaningless (kinda funny saying that on a site with reviews) for the general public. After all, it's MUCH easier to read an archive of hundreds of pages worth of comics, then it is to read a a ten page review (not that I've ever seen or read a ten page review).

Reviews can be good. I wrote one last month, it was a fairly negative one but I tried to present the facts of the comic, as well as my opinion. And whenever I drew a conclusion, I tried to back it up with links to appropriate pages. I did my best to make it so someone who hadn't read the comic, could see what it was like in my review, and decide for themselves whether or not they agree or disagree with my points. If they disagreed, they could decide if they wanted to check it out.

Is it better to read the comic for yourself and decide? Hell yeah. Is it easier or even reasonable to do this with every comic you might want to check out? Hell no.

For example I've been disregarding Eric Burns' reviews on Girl Genius. Last night I caught up with Girl Genius 101 and I'm kicking myself for not listening to Eric sooner. Had I listened to him sooner, I could have been getting the 4 volumes of GG for Christmas. I don't always agree with Eric's reviews, I don't always read them. Same with the reviews here at Comixpedia. But people listening to reviews, that aint a bad thing. Although I can see why comic creators (as well as other creators) would rather readers just judge their works for themselves. After all, the reader might disagree with the review, but never know it because they never gave the comic a go. But that can't happen all the time.

[quote:6360c56e84="Airsick_Moth"]It's a step in the right direction, but who knows what you end up with when it's not done by professionals?I've yet to see anyone claim to be professionals (except possibly the webcomics examiner, but I don't go to that website). You seem to think reviews must be done in order to present webcomics to the rest of the world. And as such, they must be done by professionals, otherwise they're meaningless. I'm guessing you'd like to eventually be able to make a living from Starslip Crisis, and you see that being much easier if webcomics are accepted by the mainstream media. But not everyone is working towards that goal. And to say anyone's efforts who aren't working to that goal are pointless, is really arrogant (no you haven't said any of this outright, at least not here. But I'm reading between the sarcastic lines ;) Sorry if I misinterpretted. After all, I thought Scott was being satirical with his blog post).

[quote:6360c56e84="Airsick_Moth"]In other words, movie critics should all be actors? The issue is legitimacy.See, this is where I disagree. Anyone can write a review, it's up to each individual person whether or not they pay attention to the review (I'm much more likely to read a review by Eric Burns, then say, someone like me). If everyone stopped paying attention to reviewers who make webcomics, that'd be fine. If no-one, but those currently paying attention, ever paid attention to reviewers who make webcomics, that would also be fine. No-one's being hurt by webcomic creators reviewing comics. Pay attention, don't pay attention. But I think you need to get over this issue (I've seen you make the same comment in a few places now over the last month or two).

You seem to think the webcomic "industry/community" should ape other "industries/communities" such as the film or book ones. I don't think you're ever going to be able to get webcomic creators/reviewers to shut up, no matter how many times you explain your opinion. And at the moment, there's very little to no difference between me (an amateur hobbyist) and Howard Tayler (whose about as professional in webcomics as we currently get). One day I could become a Howard Tayler, or I might always be a me. But I'm also unlikely to stop reviewing webcomics (although the form I make the reviews is likely to change over the years, perhaps one day basically to "I like this comic. Check it out"). And that's dangerous to how you want the webcomics "industry" to become. Because it will hold back us aping the film industry, it'll always cause us to have a little bit of amateurism in the industry, no matter how professional it might become. And I get that point of view. But I don't think you'll ever be able to do anything about it, I think it's a lost cause.

Me, I personally believe that the webcomics community will never change much beyond how we are now. Instead of us aping the film industry, I believe eventually the film industry will ape us. Webcomics came about when the internet came to be (obviously). And I believe the internet destroyed any hope for any more professional entertainment industries to be born. Instead I believe one day everything will become as amateur as webcomics. I currently only read two magazines. Comixpedia, and Deep-Magic. And I believe all magazines and newspapers will become like them. I also believe that books will become a field of amateurs, as the e-book format gains acceptance and eventual dominance. I believe cartoons will "fall down" to the level of the CAD animation series. I think the television and movie industries will be the longest to hold out as professional ones, but eventually they'll also join the rest and become the realm of amateurs. Some might think this will be great. It means that everyone will be on an equal footing (as we are now with webcomics, excluding the talent of those creating the webcomic of course, as that definitely isn't equal). Some might see it as terrible because it means the Robert Jordans, the Tolkiens and the Steven Kings will be unable to distinguish themselves from the masses. Well I disagree with that, as with webcomics we've clearly got the top-rung comics (Blank Label Comics) and the bottom rung comics (such as Oyer, Something Different or me with my whole 5 readers ;)). Already I see very little difference between Six With Flinteye and Thud!. And that's dangerous for current top-rung authors, and those who want to reach that level. It will be harder for the Kevin J Anderson's to make 1 million dollars per book (like he did with the last two Dune books), it will be a spreading of wealth, with those who otherwise wouldn't make anything, making a little bit (or making nothing, depending on how bad they truly are), and those who might be making a huge amount, only making a lot.

So yeah, I get your desire for legitimacy by becoming like the movie or book industry. But I think you'll eventually be dissapointed (personal opinion). And even if webcomics does eventually become a professional industry, I don't think your helping it by scorning webcomic creators who write reviews. I just don't think enough (or any) people will listen to you, that don't already agree with you.

[quote:6360c56e84="Airsick_Moth"]So I guess the question is, what is being attempted here? How do the webcomic critics define the value of their reviews? Even within this own thread there's differences of opinion among the very reviewers that make up this vanguard of webcomic discourse!

William G believes that in-depth analysis should serve as a helpful launching point for a general public, while Joe Zabel says the Examiner "is a forum for reviews that are as sophisticated as the audience is." I don't think the webcomic audience is that sophisticated. (And if it is, webcomics are doomed to having a tiny, well-read audience.) And that's okay that they disagree. Not everyone doing webcomics or doing reviews on webcomics has to agree on who the audience is.

People disagree that there is such a thing as a webcomics community. Because it sounds like it's one entity that all has one opinion on particular subjects. I agree with them up to a point. There isn't a webcomics community. There is individual communities surrounding pieces of work. There's the Girl Genius community. There's the Blank Label Comics community. There's the websnark community. There's the Comic Genesis community. There's the comixpedia community. The reason that it feels like one big community, is because most people belong to more then one community, and with their continual movement in multiple communities, it feels like one giant community. But that doesn't mean everyone has to have the same opinion or goal. Some people think a particular article on a webcomis is for a sophisticated audience. Others think it's for those currently part of the webcomics community. While others believe it's for newcomers. That's fine, not everyone has to agree.

There is the writer's opinion, and then there are people linking to the article who have their own opinion. You can attack an opinion about the article, but you can't attack the article because of that opinion. And this is where you make a mistake. You seem to attack the article, because of a particular opinion on the article's purpose.

[quote:6360c56e84="Kris"]I don't think the webcomic audience is that sophisticated. (And if it is, webcomics are doomed to having a tiny, well-read audience.)Part of the webcomics audience probably is that sophisticated. I'd say it's a small part, but there is a part. Others, well we just like a well done boobies joke.

• Array

RE: Re: RE: Re: Routine

by Joe Zabel - 12/12/2005 - 22:30

I think in the essay Kris is referring to, Eric B. went over the top in aggrandizing the roll of the critic. I don't think big like he does; I'm much more of a pessimist.

Kris wrote: "I'll say something else. I think that there is a good defense for what you guys are doing. I mean, there has to be. There is value in discourse. But you guys are not presenting that defense, and I don't think have yet presented it. I'm not even sure if you are aware of that defense. But you need to find it!"

Well, we wrote and published a mission statement for The Examiner. What more are we supposed to do? Did you write a mission statement for Checkerboard Nightmare?

Kris again: "You can't show up with a product/an essay/a review, claim that it's important and valuable, and put the onus on detractors to prove why it isn't."

Our mission statement asserts that the boldest webcomics are important and valuable. The value of what we write about them is up to the reader to decide.

• Array

by Chris Crosby - 12/12/2005 - 22:31

Oh, and you can also continue living, only because you gave a positive review to my new favorite webcomic, Carson Fire's WINGER.

It's so good that I am now a Republican and will be voting for George W. Bush in the 2008 and 2012 elections. EIGHT MORE YEARS!

• Array

by Chris Crosby - 12/12/2005 - 22:37

By the way, for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of reading Rob Schneider's awesome attack ad against a critic who made a joke about DEUCE BIGALOW, it's located here in PDF form: http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/gossip/rob-schneider/index.php

(Seeing it mentioned here made me want to go read it again.)

• Array

by Tangent - 12/12/2005 - 22:37

*ressurects 3 minutes later* I LIIIIIIVE! Why do I have a sudden urge to eat brains?

Oh well, won't get any of those around here, I live 5 minutes from a high school... ;)

• Array

by Joe Zabel - 12/12/2005 - 22:39

"I've yet to see anyone claim to be professionals (except possibly the webcomics examiner, but I don't go to that website)."

The Examiner staff certainly don't claim to be professionals. Sorry to hear that you don't go to our site, John.

• Array