Webcomic Above V: The Response Thread

[Tenma]

There was no place for it. Now there is!

[Tenma]

Subject: Webcomic Above V: The Comics Strike Back!

Burnsauce!

Okay, I accept that not everyone is going to like my comic. That said, I feel the need to clarify some things.

Treading Ground is a slice of life comic revolving around the relationship of a fully grown man and a sixteen year old girl... so yeah, this isn't for everyone.

Fully-grown is an odd choice of term to use. Nate is only 21. They're 4 and a half years apart. You make him sound 35.

There is a lot of offensive material in Treading Ground and unsurprisingly this is where I have issue with the whole thing, but it isn't for the reason you may think, I am not a prude. The reason I take issue is because it isn't very well done, and its shallow, all done for nothing more than pure shock value. The main story, for instance, revolves around a 16 year old girl who wants to have sex with an older man that just moved into the neighborhood, but needs to overcome their "Just friends" relationship in order to do it. This is a difficult conflict to invest in because there is no foreseeable good in the resolution of this conflict, and thus no meaning... unless the point was for her to learn to change her slutty ways but Treading Ground rarely indicates that this is the direction it wants to take based on common dialogue and story arcs.

This is probably the most baseless section of your review. Done for nothing more than pure shock value? I'd love to see where your evidence of this is. The idea of the thread is to review the comic, not question the motivations of the author.

The main character acts mature enough around her to influence her behavior this way, sure, but every time these scenes occur the sexual tension is so blunt that it obscures the progress, and suggests that the fate of these two will end up being something less than legal.

Illegal actions in a webcomic? Golly!

Blunt is the keyword here, I suppose, because that term applies to all the shock value to be seen. Take the mentally handicapped coworker Purvous, who clearly exists for nothing more than cheap laughs and is written with just as much depth. This is the worst portrayal of a mentally handicapped person I have ever seen, and I don't mean in a offensive way, I mean a stupid way. Its freakin' retarded. Like, remember that episode of South Park where Cartman entered the Special Olympics? That's what I'm talking about, I mean Purvous doesn't say "Duh, Der" every five seconds, but he might as well, and since when was being cross eyed a mental handicap?
Like, does anyone out there really think this is how someone like this would act simply out of being aroused? That implies that the experience is super rare... why? Because of the handicap? Again, thats retarded. I'm not offended, I'm not disgusted, I'm not even surprised (the result of the one dimensional cast ), I'm just disappointed. In other words Treading Grounds is one of those comics where the "Mature" rating is an ironic one.

I hate to get in the way of your self-righteous fury here, but Purvous is entirely based on a bagger I worked with in real life named Ervin. Almost every single one of Purvous's lines in the main comic are taken from things Ervin has actually said. (Yes, including "AH WANNA MAKE A BABY!") Currently, the only one that wasn't was "BINGO?!" which was the catch phrase of a different mentally challenged kid my brother knew.

If you're ever in South Carolina, let me know. I'll introduce you to Ervin and you can tell him to his face, crossed eyes and all, how "stupid" and "retarded" you think he is, and how you feel he's just there for "shock value." (Mind you, if you do say that to Ervin, he will probably just ask you where your girlfriend is at and offer you three dollars for her.)

I worry about making the wrong impression when I write Purvous, but TG is a reality-based comic, and people like Purvous are part of reality. They make life a little less drab and boring. Ervin is an amazing guy, and working with him was a blast. He is a completely unfiltered individual, and he knows how awesome he is. If you've never spent any time around someone like him, you're poorer for not having had the experience.

So, I believe I thoroughly explained how that shock stuff didn't sway me, so then, do I hate Treading Ground. Hmm, no, not really, and this is because there is actually a good deal of very funny jokes to enjoy in the rare moments where the comic gets itself out of the gutter (more often than not on an aside), funny enough to get me to chuckle audibly, and unless you're KC Green that is rare... and then it'll go into a story arc about the main character being inexplicably aroused at work for a few hours. Thanks Treading Grounds I now know this character much more than I ever wanted to.

I have to ask, which ones did make you laugh?

The art... well the anime influence is apparent and I actually don't think it is best for this comic, and this is for one reason. The faces are simplified, characterization being reserved for hair and clothing, and since this reduces the amount of lines on the face, it makes age very difficult to distinguish. In a story where the age gap between two characters is a major element, this is an issue because it forces the reader to remind himself consciously instead of permeating the scene naturally.

Again, he's 21 years old. Do you want me to put wrinkles on him?

I would argue that the age gap's insignificance is a major element. The contrast between the similarities in age and the opinion of some in society on the matter is striking. One of the things I wanted to elucidate was the abject silliness of a law that states that an 18-year-old can go to jail for having sex with a 17-year-old.

Also, the backgrounds need a lot of work because they almost always look completely flat, I mean look at this couch. That couch is painted on the wall. The characters improved and became cleaner with more vivid colors since Treading Grounds first launched, but this background issue has been there since the beginning and needs to be addressed.

I think this is a valid critique and I thank you for it. It's also unnecessarily harsh. There are plenty of comics that don't even bother with backgrounds. Some of mine are extremely detailed. And I would argue that the backgrounds should not have the same depth as the foreground. That's why they're called backgrounds.

Treading Ground is in your face for the sake of being in your face, and maybe there are some people that love that but I see nothing surprising or of any depth within and thus non subsistence with which to carry any impact with the shock. Like, if this comic were a person it would be Tom Greene. I hate Tom Greene, but the guy was a star so that means some people found him entertaining, and by that logic there are those that will get a kick out of Treading Ground's blunt raunchiness. I'm not happy that I have to give the comic this verdict because the writer at times shows the wit needed to be much more than that, but fails to rise above the gutter.

It ain't Clerks.

Have you even seen Clerks?

What was the part that was not "in your face for the sake of being in your face"? Was it when they were joking about the guy dying of self-fellatio? Or was it when Randall thrust that porn mag into the customer's face? I must have missed it somewhere.

Look, much like Clerks, this is a comic that is based on real life, from my own perspective. It's obvious from this review that our lives have been much different, and our expectations of what constitutes a realistic experience may therefore be different.

But in my life, this is the way things are. These are the conversations we have and the kinds of situations we get into. These are the relationships we sometimes have. If it's not up your alley, so be it, but I think you should keep in mind that there is a world outside your own perspective. This is one of the best reasons to read other peoples' stories.

[Kirb]

There really is no place for this.

[Bustertheclown]

Seems like a valid and well-reasoned critique to me. People who can't take a little scrutiny probably shouldn't put their work under a magnifying glass. You could argue and come up with flimsy defenses, or you could take this as an opportunity to understand how others might perceive your work. Frankly, you're lucky you got someone as conscientious as Serge, because I would have quit reading your strip halfway through, and given you a simple "meh."

[Tenma]

Seems like a valid and well-reasoned critique to me. People who can't take a little scrutiny probably shouldn't put their work under a magnifying glass. You could argue and come up with flimsy defenses, or you could take this as an opportunity to understand how others might perceive your work.

Here we go. OH NO HE RESPONDED HE MUST BE BITTER.

I understood him. I just didn't agree.

Frankly, you're lucky you got someone as conscientious as Serge, because I would have quit reading your strip halfway through, and given you a simple "meh."

Kind of like when I read your... comic? Odd art collection?

Look, I realize not everyone is going to like my comic, but I'm also not going to take criticism I feel is unwarranted or misplaced lying down, and I would encourage others not to, either.

[Yeahduff]

Don't really see what's wrong with a response. That's part of the critical process too. Let's just keep the ad hominim bullshit out of it, though, regardless of how it's spelled.

[Yeahduff]

Must say that when calling someone out for insensitivity toward the mentally challenged, "retarded" is a rather ironic choice of words. Would say the criticism on the oversimplified drawing is on point, though. Every thing seems in place and logically should look good, but there's an unfinished quality to the work. Maybe more varied linework would help, I dunno.

[Tenma]

Don't really see what's wrong with a response. That's part of the critical process too. Let's just keep the ad hominim bullshit out of it, though, regardless of how it's spelled.

Agreed. (Also, glad to see this won't entirely be a case of 'resident boardies gang up on outsider.')

Must say that when calling someone out for insensitivity toward the mentally challenged, "retarded" is a rather ironic choice of words. Would say the criticism on the oversimplified drawing is on point, though. Every thing seems in place and logically should look good, but there's an unfinished quality to the work. Maybe more varied linework would help, I dunno.

That's definitely a goal of mine. One challenge I've faced is that I've never considered myself an artist, per se. I've never really been one to draw for fun. 90% of everything I have ever drawn has been for the comic, and as you can tell from the age of the comic combined with a total of around 100 strips, that's not much. I'm finally serious about comics now, so I'm working on that these days. I'm drawing every day (for the comic and otherwise) and experimenting with new techniques.

I've struggled with consistency in the past - in the early strips it often looks like a different artist did each comic, and sometimes you see that even across the individual panels. Once I feel comfortable with my level of consistency, I'll be able to work on getting the variety I'm looking for.

[SergeXIII]

Must say that when calling someone out for insensitivity toward the mentally challenged, "retarded" is a rather ironic choice of words. Would say the criticism on the oversimplified drawing is on point, though. Every thing seems in place and logically should look good, but there's an unfinished quality to the work. Maybe more varied linework would help, I dunno.

I was going for something that would ironically emphasize the use of mental handicaps here, but looking back I'm inclined to agree with you, it is out of place.

That said I stand by my verdict.

[Bustertheclown]

Seems like a valid and well-reasoned critique to me. People who can't take a little scrutiny probably shouldn't put their work under a magnifying glass. You could argue and come up with flimsy defenses, or you could take this as an opportunity to understand how others might perceive your work.

Here we go. OH NO HE RESPONDED HE MUST BE BITTER.

I understood him. I just didn't agree.

Frankly, you're lucky you got someone as conscientious as Serge, because I would have quit reading your strip halfway through, and given you a simple "meh."

Kind of like when I read your... comic? Odd art collection?

Look, I realize not everyone is going to like my comic, but I'm also not going to take criticism I feel is unwarranted or misplaced lying down, and I would encourage others not to, either.

Well, it's been awhile since I've written one of my word walls, so I guess I'm due. First of all, my mediocre online efforts have nothing to do with the conversation. I know what I have posted, and I stand by it and its lack of coherence, popularity, and overall quality. If it makes you feel better, attack my work all you want, but I won't respond beyond this, because I simply don't care.

Now, I didn't call you bitter, and I really don't think you are bitter. Yours is a pretty common reaction to a stern wringing of a critique, and I understand your defensive stance, truly. Everybody who puts any amount of effort into a project, and feels its good enough to show off is going to feel somehow protective of it. It's how you decide to protect your work that matters. Yeahduff, in his infinite wisdom, is right, of course; you do have every right to defend your work, and it is part of the critical process.

What isn't part of the critical process is making accusations that valid points are unwarranted or personal, while at the same time, leveling personal attacks the way of your critics. Peer review is one of the most valuable processes that an artist has at his disposal to make his work stronger. Like I've already stated, it's an opportunity to understand how others perceive your work, because it's a two-way street. Once that comic leaves your hands, and enters the wide world, it then belongs as much to the audience as it does to you. If others perceive your work as lacking or weak in some areas, then you should at least take that into account. You shouldn't stamp your feet, and call them meanies, or tell them that they just don't understand. Nothing I'd read in what Serge wrote, aside from the use of the word "retarded" (a word I'd argue in the defense of, but that's neither here nor there) to describe your treatment of mentally handicapped characters, was actually out of line or mean. He wasn't attacking you, he was breaking down your comic, a request made by you when you posted in the Webcomic Above thread. In this case, you got exactly what you asked for, and you decided you didn't like it. The thing is, that's how critiques go. It's nothing personal, no matter how personally you might take it; it's just business.

And while we're talking about audiences, here's my take on that-- you can receive it however you want. As a storyteller, your first job is to make a story which is relatable to your audience, an audience which is going to include the die-hard lovefest of fans as well as random cranky strangers stumbling upon your work and giving it a cold read. If someone who comes to you after a cold read with notes about possible weaknesses in your storytelling, just as Serge did, it is a flimsy defense to respond with what amounts to saying, "you don't know me." I, as a reader of your material, do not have to know you. Unless you are writing an autobiography, your life's details should not and do not have any bearing on my enjoyment of your strip. As a reader, I don't care if you actually knew a guy who wore cereal boxes on his head, and screamed obscenities in public places for real. I do care about how well you're able to portray that situation within your work. If it doesn't read well, then it doesn't matter a lick how historically accurate the scene might have been. Since comics are a visual storytelling method, the same goes for the art. If your visuals are bothersome to the reader, it doesn't matter how many other artists do it the same way, or how well it works for them. We're talking about your work, not theirs. Problems in your work can't be fixed with the, "he does it too" defense.

I do empathize with you, and that's why I'm taking the time to explain this. If you think I'm a big fat jerk with a shitty online comic who doesn't know anything, then fine. It seems clear to me that you're a dedicated hobbyist who got smacked with a bit more reality than you were prepared to hear. If I'm wrong in this assumption, then I apologize for that. At any rate, I've been through enough very hard critiques in my life to know that it is always difficult to hear about the faults others see in your work. The best strategy when presenting your work to be ripped apart is to expect it to be ripped apart, come to the party wearing your thickest skin, and try to be objective about what you're being told. That way, when you do decide you need to defend your work, you can do so from a less personal or emotionally-charged standpoint, and you might actually learn a thing or two about how your work looks to the rest of the world.

That's all I got.

[RobboAKAscooby]

Ooh my turn to get all defensive! WOO HOO!!

Okay that was out of line, but seriously now that there's a response thread I might as well respond to my critique/review:

So... Ride the Wind.

I think the most important thing to consider is that I just read the whole thing through and have no idea what the hell it's about. Although you're not supposed to have to have read Sh!t Happens to understand it, it definitely doesn't stand on its own.

Believe me when I say reading the original Sh!t Happens would not help, besides having the same "cast" there really is no connection.
As to having "no idea what the hell it's about", I can understand you having questions regarding the finer points of the overall story but that is the way it's supposed to be. In storytelling you don't give all the answers away at the start otherwise you leave the reader with no incentive to come back, you've given them everything already so why would they invest interest in what's going to happen?
However to not understand the story as it stands (without all the background questions)? That's just a puzzle to me as it is quite simply an interconnected bunch of people going about their lives.

What is Xlaveboarding? Does it involve some sort of fighting?

Now this one ticked me off a little (something that doesn't normally happen, ask Serge he tore SH1 apart and didn't get a negative reaction) because again while the finer points are yet to be explained it's fairly clear that Xlaveboarding involves the flying skateboards that appear pretty frequently.
As to the finer points, well this is being explained as the story goes mostly via Sammi just starting to learn Xlaveboarding.
Does it involve fighting? Not specifically but life DOES involve fighting.
All that being said I have since added a couple of Essays to the site to briefly explain the Xlavegear concepts as I understand some people won't have the patience to wait for the story to unfold.

Why do we get action comics interspersed awkwardly with standard slice of life stuff?

Parallel storylines.
If you don't understand that phrase go watch any TV show (sitcoms or soaps are a good choice).
Again this comes down to storytelling, my style is hardly for everyone - especially when most expect webcomics to be gag-a-day - it's best to think of each episode as an episode, like a sitcom made comicform.

Who is the purple-haired chick?

PLEASE tell me you mean Dana and not Max as it is damn clear that Max is a guy, although a little rounder and softer (he's chubby) so there can be some femininity to his appearance.
And if you do mean Dana? Well she's Sammi's adopted little sister, a Jebrovian, a highschool girl and a Xlaveboarder who likes to ditch school. All of that is just what is presented IN the comic.

This kind of thing should be explained in the comic, but it's not, and there's not even a complete FAQ page to answer these things.

Fixed. Honestly FAQs and other extra pages are things to be done around the comic, life gets in the way and it's better to keep up with the comic itself rather than worry about the bonus features.

Writing-wise, while there are some attractive elements, there are far too many examples of comics that simply do not make sense. I think it might be a good idea to show the comics to a handful of reviewers and ask if it makes sense to them before you post.

Okay I'll give you the first two here, as Cuddly has pointed out my film background tends to get in the way sometimes.
The third however is pretty clear (if poorly drawn) as a follow-on from the previous comic, Roy pissed Max off on one page the next page Roy's hanging off the side of the building the natural inference would be Max tossed him over the edge.

Art-wise, your character designs are pretty consistent from comic to comic , which is good, but make sure you don't stop improving. The marker/watercolor-style coloring is also consistent, but it does strike me as amateurish. (You may want to try improving your technique or learning to color in your image editing program.) However there are some odd directional choices like this comic where you flipped the direction on Lisa in the last panels, which is a bit jarring.

Never stop improving, that is the key.
COPIC markers can be a bitch at times but I'm not going digital, I know how to fix my problems here but at $9+ a marker it's gonna take some time and money. The colour can get very streaky over large patches, this I'm aware of.
That was meant to be jarring - a visual representation of the sudden shift in Lisa's mood - again this is a side effect of the film background.

I realize this has mostly been a negative critique, but I do recognize that you've put a lot of work into your comic, and there is potential there. Just keep it up and don't be afraid to break out of your mold and try new techniques.

No this is a negative critique, your review was just a little puzzling on some of the points.
When it came to the technical things there was nothing you had to say I could argue with since I'm already well aware of my technical flaws.

But when it comes to storytelling there are major dissonances between the "standard" webcomic and more story motivated ones (and different audiences too) so I'm not too surprised, most webcomics like to start with a clean slate - a single character moves into a new situation for example - and builds the world up around them, others like mine open with an established world and let the readers catch up.
It's a simple difference in storytelling philosophy and holding the reader to a higher expectation - spoonfeeding vs giving them the utensils to feed themselves - and depending on what kind of experience you're after either one can be more satisfying.

All said and done, the only thing in your review I really object to is the questions on Xlaveboarding since Episode Two makes it pretty clear this is being explained as the story goes.

[Tenma]

Well, it's been awhile since I've written one of my word walls, so I guess I'm due. First of all, my mediocre online efforts have nothing to do with the conversation. I know what I have posted, and I stand by it and its lack of coherence, popularity, and overall quality. If it makes you feel better, attack my work all you want, but I won't respond beyond this, because I simply don't care.

Don't worry about that. Merely responding to what I perceived as one ad hominem with another. It's true your comic isn't up my alley, but I'm not saying there's not merit there to others. The art looks great, for example.

What isn't part of the critical process is making accusations that valid points are unwarranted or personal, while at the same time, leveling personal attacks the way of your critics. Peer review is one of the most valuable processes that an artist has at his disposal to make his work stronger. Like I've already stated, it's an opportunity to understand how others perceive your work, because it's a two-way street. Once that comic leaves your hands, and enters the wide world, it then belongs as much to the audience as it does to you. If others perceive your work as lacking or weak in some areas, then you should at least take that into account. You shouldn't stamp your feet, and call them meanies, or tell them that they just don't understand. Nothing I'd read in what Serge wrote, aside from the use of the word "retarded" (a word I'd argue in the defense of, but that's neither here nor there) to describe your treatment of mentally handicapped characters, was actually out of line or mean. He wasn't attacking you, he was breaking down your comic, a request made by you when you posted in the Webcomic Above thread. In this case, you got exactly what you asked for, and you decided you didn't like it. The thing is, that's how critiques go. It's nothing personal, no matter how personally you might take it; it's just business.

I actually made a point of NOT leveling any personal attacks against Serge. I responded 100% to what he said, not making any assumptions about his life outside of those words aside from it being very different than mine. My intimation of "self-righteous fury" may have come off a little combative, but it only referred to that particular paragraph.

I still don't agree that statements like "this is done purely for shock value" are necessarily valid critiques, but if that's the impression it gave at least to one person, you're right that it is at least useful to me on that level alone.

And while we're talking about audiences, here's my take on that-- you can receive it however you want. As a storyteller, your first job is to make a story which is relatable to your audience, an audience which is going to include the die-hard lovefest of fans as well as random cranky strangers stumbling upon your work and giving it a cold read. If someone who comes to you after a cold read with notes about possible weaknesses in your storytelling, just as Serge did, it is a flimsy defense to respond with what amounts to saying, "you don't know me." I, as a reader of your material, do not have to know you. Unless you are writing an autobiography, your life's details should not and do not have any bearing on my enjoyment of your strip. As a reader, I don't care if you actually knew a guy who wore cereal boxes on his head, and screamed obscenities in public places for real. I do care about how well you're able to portray that situation within your work. If it doesn't read well, then it doesn't matter a lick how historically accurate the scene might have been.

This is of course valid, but it wasn't my argument. Maybe I was a little too rhetorical when making my point, but basically I wanted to respond to his repeated mantra that these things are "all for shock value," by saying, "no, this actually happens." Even if it's not what Serge has experienced in his life, it doesn't mean that I'm throwing these things in here for the hell of it. If I really wanted to do everything for shock value, I'd be doing a porn comic.

Since comics are a visual storytelling method, the same goes for the art. If your visuals are bothersome to the reader, it doesn't matter how many other artists do it the same way, or how well it works for them. We're talking about your work, not theirs. Problems in your work can't be fixed with the, "he does it too" defense.

Like I said, the bit on the background was a valid point.

I do empathize with you, and that's why I'm taking the time to explain this. If you think I'm a big fat jerk with a shitty online comic who doesn't know anything, then fine. It seems clear to me that you're a dedicated hobbyist who got smacked with a bit more reality than you were prepared to hear. If I'm wrong in this assumption, then I apologize for that. At any rate, I've been through enough very hard critiques in my life to know that it is always difficult to hear about the faults others see in your work. The best strategy when presenting your work to be ripped apart is to expect it to be ripped apart, come to the party wearing your thickest skin, and try to be objective about what you're being told. That way, when you do decide you need to defend your work, you can do so from a less personal or emotionally-charged standpoint, and you might actually learn a thing or two about how your work looks to the rest of the world.

That's all I got.

Thanks for the in-depth response. After our first exchange, this level of civility was unexpected and appreciated.

I'm not sure there were many ways I could have made my response seem less personal. That's why I debated on posting it in the first place, but in the end I felt like it was worth it. Like I said, I avoided attacking Serge personally, but aside from that, it was a strongly worded review and I'm going to necessarily have some things to say that may come off a little strong in response. It is ultimately a personal thing, as you've alluded to, so maybe I should take your suggestion about bringing my thickest skin to mean "ignore the personal parts, concentrate on whatever constructive info you can pull from it."

[SergeXIII]

Ooh my turn to get all defensive! WOO HOO!!

No this is a negative critique, your review was just a little puzzling on some of the points.
When it came to the technical things there was nothing you had to say I could argue with since I'm already well aware of my technical flaws.

Dude, refer people to the blog. I need the hits. That'd be awesome.

And Tenma, here's the thing and you may not have gathered this from my initial review, and that may be my fault (though judging from the other responses this doesn't seem to be the case).
Never did I say that Treading Ground is a bad comic. What I said was that Treading Ground is an immature comic with room to improve in its art. That said I think you may be over reacting, especially after considering your tone in Scooby's review and how you've been lashing out at Buster with these petty and immature (see the theme?) remarks.

Also, since this is an area of debate let me clarify something. Treading Grounds feels like a slice of life comic, but doesn't feel very real, if that makes any sense, and calm down that isn't a burn on you. Its a simple matter of each comic ending with a punch line at the fourth panel, which creates a pattern of consistency that makes the product feel very much like a work of fiction, this is something similar to the pacing of a sitcom (though not nearly as annoying). That said when you introduce Purvous I don't think "Ah, this must be based on a real person", I think he is entirely from your imagination, and despite how wrong I am this is something you always need to keep in mind as a cartoonist. At the most basic level, our art form is one of simplification, and when you simplify something you remove detail and when you remove detail you remove recognizable features. The art of cartooning is all about knowing what to remove to keep the object recognizable, so you constantly need to remove yourself from your work and assess it from the perspective of a stranger. This goes for writing as well, and why Purvous fails: the tone of the comic makes him feel like a gag, and not a genuine expression.

So, in other words, what Buster said.

[Tenma]

And Tenma, here's the thing and you may not have gathered this from my initial review, and that may be my fault (though judging from the other responses this doesn't seem to be the case).
Never did I say that Treading Ground is a bad comic. What I said was that Treading Ground is an immature comic with room to improve in its art. That said I think you may be over reacting, especially after considering your tone in Scooby's review and how you've been lashing out at Buster with these petty and immature (see the theme?) remarks.

I'm not sure if you read my response to Buster or not - it sounds like you didn't - but I think he and I came to some agreement, so maybe you and I can too.

The only thing that I can see in my response to Buster that could be considered petty or immature was the questioning of the validity of his comic. Simply a response in kind to his original "meh" comment. Sure, I could have let that slide, and maybe that would have been more mature of me. It's not a pattern of anything, though. The rest of the discussion, I thought, was helpful.

And you say the comic is immature, which implies a bad thing, but to compare it to Tom Green and South Park is actually kind of flattering to me, so maybe I shouldn't take it so harshly. I'm guessing you don't like Family Guy either.

As for my tone my Ride the Wind review, I think it's fair to expect a similar response (and I got one! Sweet!) This reviewer certainly isn't infallible.

Also, since this is an area of debate let me clarify something. Treading Grounds feels like a slice of life comic, but doesn't feel very real, if that makes any sense, and calm down that isn't a burn on you. Its a simple matter of each comic ending with a punch line at the fourth panel, which creates a pattern of consistency that makes the product feel very much like a work of fiction, this is something similar to the pacing of a sitcom (though not nearly as annoying). That said when you introduce Purvous I don't think "Ah, this must be based on a real person", I think he is entirely from your imagination, and despite how wrong I am this is something you always need to keep in mind as a cartoonist. At the most basic level, our art form is one of simplification, and when you simplify something you remove detail and when you remove detail you remove recognizable features. The art of cartooning is all about knowing what to remove to keep the object recognizable, so you constantly need to remove yourself from your work and assess it from the perspective of a stranger. This goes for writing as well, and why Purvous fails: the tone of the comic makes him feel like a gag, and not a genuine expression.

Okay, you're definitely on-point here. Thanks for the insight.

This is my first comic, and I started it in 2003. Had I started it this year, I would have done things differently. But the comic is now well-established with a sizable readership, so starting over is not really an option. It's not the only comic I ever want to do, though, so I intend to take the lessons I learn doing TG and apply them to future works.

One thing I'm noticing lately is that TG occupies this weird space between mainstream comics and porn comics. That's a great place for a lot of people, but it does inevitably turn some potential readers such as yourself off. The comic can't be all things to all people, of course, so I have to cut my losses and march on.

[RobboAKAscooby]

Ooh my turn to get all defensive! WOO HOO!!

No this is a negative critique, your review was just a little puzzling on some of the points.
When it came to the technical things there was nothing you had to say I could argue with since I'm already well aware of my technical flaws.

Dude, refer people to the blog. I need the hits. That'd be awesome.

I'll do that in future - might even add it to my links page next time I update it.

this is something similar to the pacing of a sitcom (though not nearly as annoying).

And what's wrong with sitcoms?
One of my few paid writing jobs was a redraft for a sitcom pilot - it didn't get picked up but at least I got paid.

As for my tone my Ride the Wind review, I think it's fair to expect a similar response (and I got one! Sweet!) This reviewer certainly isn't infallible.

Now my first instinct was to paraphrase An evening with Kevin Smith ("Don't lump me in with you.")

But that would be unfair as it's fairly clear that you're still on the defensive for your comic, I would guess you haven't had many reviews/critiques before.
And while I hate to use my own stuff for a compare and contrast no-one else has responded to their reviews here yet so I'm gonna have to:
It all comes down to attitude and maturity and realising your own flaws as much as the reviewer does - objectivity I guess.
Now I certainly didn't agree with you on some of the points in your review I didn't attack you/your review (as you did with Serge) I responded with a simple explanation as to why I disagreed. And I did this without once referring to anyone else's work or reverting to defensive sarcasm.

I also took the time to get second opinions (see here), re-examine my comic as objectively as I could and make changes/adjustments to the comic where needed - which I made mention of in my response.

Now for a direct comparison:

I hate to get in the way of your self-righteous fury here, but Purvous is entirely based on a bagger I worked with in real life named Ervin. Almost every single one of Purvous's lines in the main comic are taken from things Ervin has actually said. (Yes, including "AH WANNA MAKE A BABY!") Currently, the only one that wasn't was "BINGO?!" which was the catch phrase of a different mentally challenged kid my brother knew.

PLEASE tell me you mean Dana and not Max as it is damn clear that Max is a guy, although a little rounder and softer (he's chubby) so there can be some femininity to his appearance.
And if you do mean Dana? Well she's Sammi's adopted little sister, a Jebrovian, a highschool girl and a Xlaveboarder who likes to ditch school. All of that is just what is presented IN the comic.

Both characters are bit parts that have barely been featured however, while you feel the need to explain Purvous by the fact you've based it off a real person as an excuse for the vagueness, I merely pointed out what little information has been presented in the comic itself.
Neither character is well presented yet in either of our works but that is the thing with bit characters, they're not the focus of the story.

And I've been rambling on far too long with this so I'm going to close with a little advice:
You don't need to agree with the critiques you get but at least try to be gracious about it and try to learn from the reviews you get, every review/critique I have gotten has given me something new to think about (yours for instance reminded me that not everyone can wait for the answers so I added the essays and commentary), even the harshest review has taught me something.

[Bustertheclown]

And Tenma, here's the thing and you may not have gathered this from my initial review, and that may be my fault (though judging from the other responses this doesn't seem to be the case).
Never did I say that Treading Ground is a bad comic. What I said was that Treading Ground is an immature comic with room to improve in its art. That said I think you may be over reacting, especially after considering your tone in Scooby's review and how you've been lashing out at Buster with these petty and immature (see the theme?) remarks.

I'm not sure if you read my response to Buster or not - it sounds like you didn't - but I think he and I came to some agreement, so maybe you and I can too.

The only thing that I can see in my response to Buster that could be considered petty or immature was the questioning of the validity of his comic. Simply a response in kind to his original "meh" comment. Sure, I could have let that slide, and maybe that would have been more mature of me. It's not a pattern of anything, though. The rest of the discussion, I thought, was helpful.

Yeah, I started off pretty snarky, and turnabout is fair play.

[Tenma]

As for my tone my Ride the Wind review, I think it's fair to expect a similar response (and I got one! Sweet!) This reviewer certainly isn't infallible.

Now my first instinct was to paraphrase An evening with Kevin Smith ("Don't lump me in with you.")

But that would be unfair as it's fairly clear that you're still on the defensive for your comic, I would guess you haven't had many reviews/critiques before.
And while I hate to use my own stuff for a compare and contrast no-one else has responded to their reviews here yet so I'm gonna have to:
It all comes down to attitude and maturity and realising your own flaws as much as the reviewer does - objectivity I guess.
Now I certainly didn't agree with you on some of the points in your review I didn't attack you/your review (as you did with Serge) I responded with a simple explanation as to why I disagreed.

It's true that I haven't received many negative reviews before, so maybe I don't know the accepted method of responding to one. Honestly, here the accepted method seems to be "suck it up and move on." I don't think that's honestly that helpful. It wasn't until deep within this thread that I could start to see what was a simple attack and what was valid information. Now, this has actually been a useful experience for me.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a little fire in your words when you're speaking about anything that's important to you. You would have been well within your rights to respond just as I did to Serge. And I didn't mean to lump you in with me by implying that you were just as aggressive in your tone, just that you've responded in this thread with the points you disagreed with. Poor choice of wording there on my part.

And I did this without once referring to anyone else's work or reverting to defensive sarcasm.

I didn't refer to anyone else's work specifically. Some people don't do backgrounds, or do them minimally. That's a fact. Doesn't excuse my flat backgrounds of course, but it did cause me to wonder when Serge presented mine as if they were a great atrocity.

I never personally attacked Serge. You could say that I attacked his review, but that's just a semantic decision. I'm allowed to disagree, and disagree vehemently or even sarcastically if I want. You may consider your way of responding more mature. I'm going to raise hell when I feel hell needs to be raised.

Both characters are bit parts that have barely been featured however, while you feel the need to explain Purvous by the fact you've based it off a real person as an excuse for the vagueness, I merely pointed out what little information has been presented in the comic itself.
Neither character is well presented yet in either of our works but that is the thing with bit characters, they're not the focus of the story.

Good point. Seven comics, most of them isolated gag strips, are not going to give you any kind of solid indication of his character.

And I've been rambling on far too long with this so I'm going to close with a little advice:
You don't need to agree with the critiques you get but at least try to be gracious about it and try to learn from the reviews you get, every review/critique I have gotten has given me something new to think about (yours for instance reminded me that not everyone can wait for the answers so I added the essays and commentary), even the harshest review has taught me something.

I will work on my grace under fire. I promise nothing.

But like I said, I have learned a lot from the more in-depth and even-tempered explanations, and I'm already starting to apply that to the work ahead, so I appreciate everyone who participated here.

[RobboAKAscooby]

It's true that I haven't received many negative reviews before, so maybe I don't know the accepted method of responding to one. Honestly, here the accepted method seems to be "suck it up and move on."

No it's more along the lines of "Just because we're amateurs doesn't mean we have to act amateurish" - I can't remember whose quote that is.

And I didn't mean to lump you in with me by implying that you were just as aggressive in your tone, just that you've responded in this thread with the points you disagreed with. Poor choice of wording there on my part.

To be honest I wasn't sure what way you meant it (52 hours without sleep = foggy brain).

I will work on my grace under fire. I promise nothing.

But like I said, I have learned a lot from the more in-depth and even-tempered explanations, and I'm already starting to apply that to the work ahead, so I appreciate everyone who participated here.

Cool. It's all a learning process after all.

[Bustertheclown]

It's true that I haven't received many negative reviews before, so maybe I don't know the accepted method of responding to one. Honestly, here the accepted method seems to be "suck it up and move on."

No it's more along the lines of "Just because we're amateurs doesn't mean we have to act amateurish" - I can't remember whose quote that is.

That quote does sound familiar...

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

That quote does sound familiar...

Yep, too bad we'll never know where it's from.