Webcomic Hate

[Guildmaster Van]

I'm dying of envy

[Turnsky]

I just hate you all!

Yeah I said it! Jealous!?

not until you carve Dawg's name onto your forehead.

[Yeahduff]

That's simply how it works. Act like a juvenile and people will dismiss you like one, whether you're right or not.

Time for free speech and gonzo to pack it's bags and go home then
Growing up is for people who want to die already.

Yep. TOTALLY a free speech issue.

The advantage to wanting to die already, you can tell when people are clouding the issue.

Sullivan can feel free to say what he wishes, and I'll feel free to not be particularly interested.

John Solomon didn't do this for the popularity. He did it for the lulz. If Solomon was after popularity he would have used his real alias, and he wouldn't have reacted to people the way he has. We now know his identity as a SA goon, but he purposefully took another name in order to establish anonymity so he could address people without people trying to pick apart his background to question his critic (As they so often do)

Cowardly.

Chugworth Academy, The Wotch, VG Cats, PvP, Ctrl Alt Del, Zap!, God Mode, even Comic Genesis's wannabe comic index among others - the man and his crew consistently pick through crap. Someone had to do it. Someone has to do it.

This ain't a service being provided. I don't need to be told Penny Arcade sucks, I have eyes. As you say, for the lulz. Let's not pretend this is anything other than some bored kid being petulant.

Interesting you'd bring up LCD. That's who this brand of criticism is for.

I suppose it's me being gone for so long, but who the hell is this Solomon?!

Yeah, I hadn't heard of him either. *shrug*

[Guildmaster Van]

Cowardly.

Faggotry. Two right, three down.

[Komiyan]

Is cowardly really the word for someone who doesn't use their real name online? I have a friend who does this, because his real name is so distinctive, there isn't anyone else called that apart from his family. My real name's stuck on the net now, but I purposefully keep my whois information out of date so that my address and phonenumber aren't online anywhere. That's not necessarily cowardly, it's just caution.

Van- I do found it hilarious that you're defending him in one breath and using 4chan phrases in the other

[IVstudios]

Just because there is a list of predictions about what people will call him doesn't make them untrue.

Though "Cowardly" does seem a might strong a word for something like this, he's not exactly being brave either.

[Yeahduff]

Cowardly.

Faggotry. Two right, three down.

If lots of people say it independent of each other, it must not be true, I guess.

Psuedonyms aren't necessarily cowardly. But if you're creating one for the criticism wing of your online persona so you can say naughty words at other people's work with impunity then you sure are walking like a duck.

Lol at critics lazily dismissing criticism.

[Guildmaster Van]

This is example of the stupidity Solomon and kin talk about.

I want you to explain to me WHY a critic cannot be Anonymous. Justify this shit.
Why? Tell me. Is it because being able to criticize someone back makes you feel better? Is it because you want to discredit the critique by peering into the background of the author? Is it because you somehow got the ridiculous notion that everyone is supposed to be on a fair and level playing field?

That question is rhetorical. I know the answer - it's a combination of all three or more.

The point of anonymity is the ensure that its the message and not the person that is important. Not knowing Solomon's identity helped his cause. For all we knew, the man could have been a very angry Scott McCloud. There was even a rumor he's Josh Lesnick. Or he could have been some random obscure person that never posted on the internet before this. Or Osama bin Laden. His identity does not matter - only his words do. And this is what you fuckers forget - it's about the message, not your bullshit of discrediting someone because they are saying things you don't like.

Tell me, how do you feel about journalists with anonymous sources? I bet you think they're cowards, too, for blowing whistles and not fessing up publicly. It's the same principle.

This kind of shit, combined with your comment about "juvenile language", has convinced me you're nothing but a sopping wet, sandy pussy, Yeahduff. Your balls called - they said they want their scrotum back.

[IVstudios]

Oy

[Yeahduff]

This is example of the stupidity Solomon and kin talk about.

I want you to explain to me WHY a critic cannot be Anonymous. Justify this shit.
Why? Tell me. Is it because being able to criticize someone back makes you feel better? Is it because you want to discredit the critique by peering into the background of the author? Is it because you somehow got the ridiculous notion that everyone is supposed to be on a fair and level playing field?

That question is rhetorical. I know the answer - it's a combination of all three or more.

The point of anonymity is the ensure that its the message and not the person that is important. Not knowing Solomon's identity helped his cause. For all we knew, the man could have been a very angry Scott McCloud. There was even a rumor he's Josh Lesnick. Or he could have been some random obscure person that never posted on the internet before this. Or Osama bin Laden. His identity does not matter - only his words do. And this is what you fuckers forget - it's about the message, not your bullshit of discrediting someone because they are saying things you don't like.

Tell me, how do you feel about journalists with anonymous sources? I bet you think they're cowards, too, for blowing whistles and not fessing up publicly. It's the same principle.

This kind of shit, combined with your comment about "juvenile language", has convinced me you're nothing but a sopping wet, sandy pussy, Yeahduff. Your balls called - they said they want their scrotum back.

Man, if I made a Van card, I'd be shouting "Bingo" by the end of the first paragraph.

We're having a conversation. You can either stay on task and actually address my concerns, or you can behave like a child. Whichever. I got nothing better to do.

The actual identity of the critic doesn't matter, and I couldn't give less of a fuck who this Sullivan guy is. But when you go into the business of character assassination, you'd better be willing to put your reputation on the line. To do otherwise, quite simply, is cowardly, which runs about paralell with the bullshit deflection tactics it seems these people employ. This "I'm going to point out the shortcomings of the work of others but damn my own critics" type thing.

This has nothing to do with whistleblowers, who do the right thing knowing they have their jobs or lives at stake. This is about people standing by their opinions, despite people maybe saying not nice things about them.

No idea what you're so upset about. Guess you can't take criticism.

Now excuse me while I clean out my vagina.

[KWill]

The point of anonymity is the ensure that its the message and not the person that is important. Not knowing Solomon's identity helped his cause. For all we knew, the man could have been a very angry Scott McCloud.

What cause is that? I'd certainly care this <---------------> much more if it actually was McCloud instead of Joe Random. Scott McCloud voicing juveninle criticism is someone that knows about webcomics voicing juvenile criticism, not some random jerk with internet access.

[Tystarr]

Whats with all the animosity?
I'm just a lil peeved at this John Solomon dude for tearing apart someone's creation just because he can. Theres nothing positive coming out of his tirades and its detrimental to webcomics. Its a shame when people hate just to hate. Wheres the love?

[Komiyan]

Whats with all the animosity?
I'm just a lil peeved at this John Solomon dude for tearing apart someone's creation just because he can. Theres nothing positive coming out of his tirades and its detrimental to webcomics. Its a shame when people hate just to hate. Wheres the love?

Well, being positive about everything ever is ALSO detrimental to webcomics. Raising mediocre things to wonderful heights lowers everyone else's bar and reflects badly on the medium as a whole. Sometimes someone's 'creation' needs crit and they need to step off their cloud.

Of course, I'm not saying ranting and raving is the way forward, necessarily. What's the most useful is constructive, useful criticism, and artists openminded and smart enough to hear it and implement it. However, as is the way of the world, this happy medium gets ignored in favour of the loudmouths either going LOVE IT or HATE IT.

But, this medium does occur, you just have to look for it in the right places. Solomon's blog will never be that place, love it or hate it, it's just a comedy blog.

[Redtech]

Whats with all the animosity?
I'm just a lil peeved at this John Solomon dude for tearing apart someone's creation just because he can. Theres nothing positive coming out of his tirades and its detrimental to webcomics. Its a shame when people hate just to hate. Wheres the love?

I found the love.

Well I think that regardless of opinion, the very fact that the blog is dead, yet he can garner so much attention over at least 2 threads here tells me that he's the winner here. I seem to be beoming a believer in the humans=sentient flesh idealogy, so at the end of the day, I reckon it's not Solomon's flames that are important, it's the response. Loads of people spend huge amounts of time tearing into other people's stuff, it's the sign of being popular and successful!

But there is an inherant FEAR about the very threat of his gaze which is frankly disturbing. The points and issues he does pull out are often valid. I do agree that some webcomics portray women in a disgusting light and are never brought to town and for the love of Baal, if there's a white cartoonist who's never met a black person before, they shouldn't base us on Fiddy Cent! It's the fact that he chose to bury it in litres of vitriol and as always "one person's crappy animu is another person's Akira".

At the end of the day, artists are under NO obligation to listen, pay head or even care about reviews! I could write a thousand word essay on why Twisted Comix sucks long dong slong, or even why it's the best thing since rum chocolate and it doesn't really matter ultimately, does it? He's hateful, so what?

EDIT: Anyways, what's more important is what actually works vs what failed in a work.

[Guildmaster Van]

Man, if I made a Van card, I'd be shouting "Bingo" by the end of the first paragraph.

We're having a conversation. You can either stay on task and actually address my concerns, or you can behave like a child. Whichever. I got nothing better to do.

The actual identity of the critic doesn't matter, and I couldn't give less of a fuck who this Sullivan guy is. But when you go into the business of character assassination, you'd better be willing to put your reputation on the line. To do otherwise, quite simply, is cowardly, which runs about paralell with the bullshit deflection tactics it seems these people employ. This "I'm going to point out the shortcomings of the work of others but damn my own critics" type thing.

This has nothing to do with whistleblowers, who do the right thing knowing they have their jobs or lives at stake. This is about people standing by their opinions, despite people maybe saying not nice things about them.

No idea what you're so upset about. Guess you can't take criticism.

Now excuse me while I clean out my vagina.

I think you forgot these

[Eve Z.]

all assholes should die and go to hell.

[Turnsky]

Whats with all the animosity?
I'm just a lil peeved at this John Solomon dude for tearing apart someone's creation just because he can. Theres nothing positive coming out of his tirades and its detrimental to webcomics. Its a shame when people hate just to hate. Wheres the love?

Well, being positive about everything ever is ALSO detrimental to webcomics. Raising mediocre things to wonderful heights lowers everyone else's bar and reflects badly on the medium as a whole. Sometimes someone's 'creation' needs crit and they need to step off their cloud.

Of course, I'm not saying ranting and raving is the way forward, necessarily. What's the most useful is constructive, useful criticism, and artists openminded and smart enough to hear it and implement it. However, as is the way of the world, this happy medium gets ignored in favour of the loudmouths either going LOVE IT or HATE IT.

But, this medium does occur, you just have to look for it in the right places. Solomon's blog will never be that place, love it or hate it, it's just a comedy blog.

Hear Hear.

Truth be told, as people creating something in a very public foray, one hasta learn to take their fair share, good or bad, people are people, some will love it, some will hate it, others will ignore it. It's just the nature of people. Being told that "you suck" doesn't help much, being told "you suck, but this is where you suck most, and here's how you can suck less" works somewhat better.

i've had a griefer in the past (yes, little ol' me), who aparrently hates me more than my comic because of my comic, ranting about flaws in the comic (ones that existed back in the '04-05 period of the comic no less) that even i knew existed, i discovered his little 'review' quite by accident, apparently he bitched about it on deviantart once or twice, attacked an artist who made fanart for me, pissed off another by worshiping the ground she walked on whilst slagging me, that sorta thing. Now here's the kicker, he hates me to the point where he'll do himself harm just to make me stop the comic.. now remember, i haven't even talked to him, and he hasn't worked up the nerve to talk to me, and all i'm doing at this point, is laughing my head off. Why?... it might be snobbery on my part to find out my writing ability (or lack thereof back then, still somewhat dodgy now if you ask me.) being torn apart by some kid who writes gundam fanfics.

i dunno, the whole concept of being "torn apart at a literature level" by anybody seems somewhat amusing to me. Why? because of the simple fact somebody took the time to scrutinize something that for the most part, had to crawl before it could run, and with most webcomics, most of them can barely walk when it comes to writing. The honest questions people must ask is "Are webcomics art?" the answer for the most part would be "yes", but the question "are webcomics high literature?" might just be a different case entirely. i know the two terms are fairly interchangeable, but if you separate the two components of a webcomic, the art and the writing, folks might be able to see what the point is that i'm trying to get at.

An artist can Draw a Webcomic, a Writer can Write a Webcomic. But a good Artist/Writer are fairly few and far between.

[Yeahduff]

We should get the idea of "good for webcomics" out of our heads. No amount of the right kind of criticism is going to change the fact that this is largely a medium of amateurs. There's gonna be a lot of crap no matter what. You can only worry about making yourself better, and perhaps a few people you have contact with. And reaching out to strangers to try to make them see how they can be better might be well-meaning but is ultimately misguided, because not everyone can make Calvin and Hobbes and not everyone wants to.

[Wendybird]

I was pretty sure this thread was doomed when I saw it start. It's one thing when a writer/artist asks for feedback on the forums. That's a clear signal and a lot of the time they will get feedback and pay attention to it and use it. I tried to take the thread in that spirit, but Van, it's difficult to get ahold of your work (although mostly I downloaded it and then my computer ate it).

It's an interesting discussion, but I don't see it raising the quality of webcomics. If it could contribute just a little, the best way might be for someone (say, me) to say:

Hey, comickers. If you think maybe your writing could stand to be improved, open yourself to criticism and start your own thread over in Tips and Tricks. Interested people, go over there and be honest and constructive.

It's not really a new idea, it's just hard to make it work well. The forum does the best it can, being a forum. If I want real criticism, I'll go to one of my writer acquaintances, or that English professor I had who hangs out at my friend Will's house. He's cool. It's too bad not everyone has someone like that they can ask, and it's too bad a lot of people don't want to ask or hear the answers. But really, that, there's no good way to change.

Solomon is some of the more annoying literary criticism I've been exposed to, but if you enjoy that stuff, knock yourself out. Just don't point to it and say, "Everyone should read this because it is necessary to make good comics." There are a lot of places to get the same information, in forms that are less crude and irritating.

It's also not a dialogue, per se, which a lot of people are annoyed about because dialogue between editor/critic and writer/artist is the most productive. Solomon's work doesn't encourage real dialogue about improvement in the work he writes about. He prefers to be overly harsh and discouraging. Even if most of what he says is true, this is a form which is more useful as entertainment than as a learning tool. The best teachers encourage questions. And the best advice comes face-to-face and with an open mind.

[ShineDog]

Well, there are people who will never visit tips and tricks, there are people who cant draw and write and make no effort to improve. There are people who will deny and argue against any negative comment. There are people who are quite happy to churn out crap. Worse, there are people who will happily read crap.

In these cases, I find it is my GOD DAMNED DUTY to laugh at and mock these people, and god bless Solomon and Co for handily collating stuff for me to laugh at and mock.

Remember, Tim Buckley has the audacity to exist.

And again, the purpose of the blog is to insult shitty creators, its not trying to improve idiots like Buckley and Mooky.