How are you doing, comic-wise?

[Wendybird]

For me, drawing comics isn't just fun, it's a coping mechanism. So with all the sh*t going on in my life right now I am updating 2 comics for a total of 5 updates a week and a couple months' buffer on both.

I don't really know how good they are or what people think of them. It's not so much that I'm complacent, it's that there's plenty of stuff I see as needing improvement, and I just don't have the energy to go out and get other opinions, let alone act on them.

I'm trying to get a day job, though, because of my change in circumstances, and I realize that if I can't find one, I'll have to get more serious about marketing my artistic skills and tailoring them to the demands of the public. It's quite intimidating.

In happier news, drowning my sorrows in drawing has led to a vast improvement in the quality and speed of my art! I used to think that after I got to a certain skill level improvement would slow. But maybe it just looks that way from the outside. The art I'm doing now looks so much better than what I was doing a year ago.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Hey Wendybird!

[McDuffies]

I guess I will join the choir and say that anyone asking LC for review should read a few of his reviews before asking for one. He was just coming off from that sorta-drama with Flying Tigers review, and that should have been a clue to what could happen to Peter's comic.

I dunno if Peter missed that part or just disregarded it, but I think that LC said a few things he needed to hear. Peter has a lot of real-life things stopping him from doing a comic more seriously, for sure. At the same time he talks about promoting his comic or complains about his comic not being read more than most of people around. I think he indeed is serious about his comic, so what LC said is a very useful message. It is not "get these things straight of you are a bad person" - it is "get these things straight, then start thinking about how you promote it".
Too bad that Peter seems to skirt around LC's points, kinda refuses to deal with them. But that's ok, I think that most of reviews don't work immediately, but rather sink in with time. Why, I remember how many comics I've reviewed, whose authors quit webcomics months or years after I reviewed it.

Plus it's from LibertyCabbage, who's comics are usually about sentient fruit that violently murders people in the name of anarchy. Not the sort of guy who's concerned about stepping on any toes. Hell, if he didn't insult your comic I would have assumed someone had stolen his screen name.

LC was a lot younger then, though. Enough for a person to change upside down. One thing is sure though, he's taken a lot of terribly harsh reviews in his life and he knows more than anyone what it's like to be on the other side of the monitor, Junior.

In my opinion, the 3 keys to a good review - be objective, be honest, be respectful.

I can name you a counter-example for each, when it's a good idea not to be objective, honest or respectful.

And if you are a sandpaper critic, don't be suprised if your reviewees emotions are a little bit excoriated. And though they shouldn't, the reviewee could simply disregard an abrasive review altogether instead of learning from it, which (presumably) defeats the point of the review. Even if they do learn from it, it'll take longer, because first they have to recover from the blow to their pride before they can return to the review to read it subjectively.

Except that it's the author who is at loss, and not the reviewer.
Anyways like IV said, it was not as harsh as internet reviews can get. Just check Bad Webcomic Wiki to see what could happen to anyone's comic without them even knowing. Sure everyone thinks that their comic is not bad enough to find itself on such site, but I've seen Nobody Scores on Bad Webcomics Wiki which proves that even mind-blowingly genius comics are not immune to that.
The other way of self-protection would be keeping a low profile, but that means never getting a lot of readers.

[RobboAKAscooby]

that sorta-drama with Flying Tigers review

I am feeling less happy with myself about that whole deal as time goes on.....but in the end things got worked out and I've learned a few things (plus she has pj pants now).

Why, I remember how many comics I've reviewed, whose authors quit webcomics months or years after I reviewed it.

You'll never make me quit, boredom will beat you to it first

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I am feeling less happy with myself about that whole deal as time goes on.....but in the end things got worked out and I've learned a few things (plus she has pj pants now).

Tell me about it, man. I got in a gross argument the other week? month? with someone and don't even want to look back at my posts because I'm embarassed with how firy my reaction was. FWIW while you weren't your usual roll-with-the-punches self, I've seen way worse reactions- you seemed more hurt than indignant, from what I gathered.

[McDuffies]

If I was to stay away from every place where I made an embarrassing tantrum, I would be banned from internet.

[LibertyCabbage]

Congratulations, Cortland!

And if you are a sandpaper critic, don't be suprised if your reviewees emotions are a little bit excoriated. And though they shouldn't, the reviewee could simply disregard an abrasive review altogether instead of learning from it, which (presumably) defeats the point of the review. Even if they do learn from it, it'll take longer, because first they have to recover from the blow to their pride before they can return to the review to read it subjectively.

I'll second what McD said, but to clarify, helping people improve their comics isn't the main purpose of my reviews. I'm only doing them because I like to write and I like to read webcomics, so I combined the two and starting writing about the webcomics I read. If I feel like giving advice about whatever then I will, and I often do, but it's not my problem if a creator's "too proud" or whatever to receive my review in a useful way.

I guess I will join the choir and say that anyone asking LC for review should read a few of his reviews before asking for one. He was just coming off from that sorta-drama with Flying Tigers review, and that should have been a clue to what could happen to Peter's comic.

The other side of the issue, though, is that 12 out of the 15 webcomics I've reviewed so far weren't volunteers. Maybe I should be linking potential reviewees my thread and asking them if they wanna be reviewed before I do anything.

I dunno if Peter missed that part or just disregarded it, but I think that LC said a few things he needed to hear. Peter has a lot of real-life things stopping him from doing a comic more seriously, for sure. At the same time he talks about promoting his comic or complains about his comic not being read more than most of people around. I think he indeed is serious about his comic, so what LC said is a very useful message. It is not "get these things straight of you are a bad person" - it is "get these things straight, then start thinking about how you promote it".
Too bad that Peter seems to skirt around LC's points, kinda refuses to deal with them. But that's ok, I think that most of reviews don't work immediately, but rather sink in with time. Why, I remember how many comics I've reviewed, whose authors quit webcomics months or years after I reviewed it.

In peter's case, since he wrote he intends to go pro someday, I'm actually sorta glad he's getting this stuff outta the way now, since he has to be mentally prepared to get rejected by publishers. Getting a letter in the mail that says, "Thanks for sending us your work, but we're not ready to sign you now. Sorry," is polite in tone, but it's still hard to deal with. And this isn't a dig at peter -- we've all heard stories about so-and-so genius writer getting rejected so many times before they got published.

LC was a lot younger then, though. Enough for a person to change upside down.

I laugh at my old stuff too, now, for being so trashy, so I don't mind, although if it matters to anyone, nothing I've written in the past five years or so has been at all like my webcomics. The irony, of course, is that I used to show off my trashy writing all the time in my webcomics, but now that I've matured a bit, I'm much less prolific and much more private. Well, I guess aside from this whole reviewing spree.

One thing is sure though, he's taken a lot of terribly harsh reviews in his life and he knows more than anyone what it's like to be on the other side of the monitor, Junior.

Yep. It was a long time ago, but I remember getting my webcomics completely trashed in review after review (including by you), and definitely not being too happy about it.

The other way of self-protection would be keeping a low profile, but that means never getting a lot of readers.

I get the impression sometimes that more than half the webcomics out there are crappy sprite or stick-figure comics. They just don't promote themselves at all or even post on webcomics forums, so they're basically invisible.

I am feeling less happy with myself about that whole deal as time goes on.....but in the end things got worked out and I've learned a few things (plus she has pj pants now).

Well, you'll probably handle it better the next time someone reviews your comic, and since you're trying to improve, your next review will likely be more positive anyways.

If I was to stay away from every place where I made an embarrassing tantrum, I would be banned from internet.

Oh, man. I remember getting involved in some really heated threads on various forums just 'cause I got a kick outta arguing with people.

[McDuffies]

In peter's case, since he wrote he intends to go pro someday, I'm actually sorta glad he's getting this stuff outta the way now, since he has to be mentally prepared to get rejected by publishers. Getting a letter in the mail that says, "Thanks for sending us your work, but we're not ready to sign you now. Sorry," is polite in tone, but it's still hard to deal with. And this isn't a dig at peter -- we've all heard stories about so-and-so genius writer getting rejected so many times before they got published.

Yeah, I got dozens of those. It's the ambiguity, the "we're not gonna publish you but we won't say why" that kills. Sometimes they'd send me complimentary comic books, and sometimes those were, in my mind, way worse than mine, I'd get an impression they were trying to rub my nose in it.

I get the impression sometimes that more than half the webcomics out there are crappy sprite or stick-figure comics. They just don't promote themselves at all or even post on webcomics forums, so they're basically invisible.

Most of comics I read these days I find through reccomendations or links from comics I already read, so I'm not familiar with the bottom of the barrel. Noone reccomends sprite and stick figure comics (except high profile ones like Cyanide and Happiness) or links to it, except for other similar comics.
The worst that I got recently was when I'd read something at random from Keenspot for old times sake, not the kind of "CG guide page 52" comic, but certainly not something I enjoy reading.

[IVstudios]

LC was a lot younger then, though. Enough for a person to change upside down.

I laugh at my old stuff too, now, for being so trashy, so I don't mind, although if it matters to anyone, nothing I've written in the past five years or so has been at all like my webcomics. The irony, of course, is that I used to show off my trashy writing all the time in my webcomics, but now that I've matured a bit, I'm much less prolific and much more private. Well, I guess aside from this whole reviewing spree.

I think I should clarify that I didn't mean what I said about your old stuff as an insult. I just brought it up to point out that you have a reputation as someone who's not afraid to offend people.

[McDuffies]

I think I should clarify that I didn't mean what I said about your old stuff as an insult. I just brought it up to point out that you have a reputation as someone who's not afraid to offend people.

When I read your post I was all like "WHATTA DISS! OH SNAP!"

[LibertyCabbage]

LC was a lot younger then, though. Enough for a person to change upside down.

I laugh at my old stuff too, now, for being so trashy, so I don't mind, although if it matters to anyone, nothing I've written in the past five years or so has been at all like my webcomics. The irony, of course, is that I used to show off my trashy writing all the time in my webcomics, but now that I've matured a bit, I'm much less prolific and much more private. Well, I guess aside from this whole reviewing spree.

I think I should clarify that I didn't mean what I said about your old stuff as an insult. I just brought it up to point out that you have a reputation as someone who's not afraid to offend people.

Thanks for clarifying, and no worries, I didn't see anything insulting about what you wrote. I was just taking an opportunity to reflect on my webcomics history, which is something I haven't had an opportunity to do out loud before.

[peterabnny]

Mate, you deserve a clip round the head just for asking that guy to review Critters. I wouldn't take too much to heart from someone who sees having an irregular or infrequent update schedule as a capital offense. ETC.

I know - you're absoutely right. If I'd been smarter about it and had read through the other reviews I wouldn't have submitted my comic for review. When he said that he could've written a lot more negative stuff about Scooby's comic and that he's not doing it to help the creator, that should have been a banner-sized red flag that a Critters review wasn't going to end well. But yet I was too overeager, and paid for it as a result. Once bitten, definitely twice shy.

Well may not be a capital offense but it is an issue that every review in the world would touch. Not having enough time to make it more regularly is perfectly understandable as noone sane would ask you to, say, cut down the time you spend with your kids to draw a comic. But the price to pay is that it's very unlikely for an irregularly updated comic to amass a regular audience, and it's also very difficult to keep an audience, even when a huge webcomic starts skipping updates, audience starts crumbling. It's not something that should make you neglect your day job or duties, it's simply something that Peter should have in mind in regards to his expectations from his comic.

Oh, I'm with ya, Duffies - I really am! It's out of this experience that I've narrowed my expectations even further, and have gotten a better idea of what I can expect out of the path I'm currently on.

FWIW, I track the traffic going to my site and there is a definite bell curve every month, with the highest activity at the beginning of the month, tapering off in the middle, and then picking up again at the end. That tells me that people who follow me know when to look for new stuff, and I feel the pressure to stick to my schedule to make it worthwhile for them. Yeah, I have missed a deadline and have lost some of my audience as a result, but it seems like they come back eventually as long as I keep to schedule.

Not only do I feel the pinch to keep on schedule, but having a monthly comic gives me a lot less room for gags that don't work or miss their mark. If mine was a daily - or even weekly, for that matter - one bad comic wouldn't matter that much; I'd simply write it off and get 'em soon with the next one. With a monthly, it's a long time till the next update, so every single cartoon has to fire on all cylinders and hit its mark.

Very true. But there's ways of saying that nicely.

In the same way that while its understandable to get annoyed with you neighbours' dog messing on your lawn, there's a difference between a polite note and setting bear traps. One way leads to a better behaved dog and the other potentially leads to one less dog.

*DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!* And we have a winner!

Although it may not show here, I can take being told I suck. What hurt was the douchebag way I felt LC went about it. I've had people give me negative feedback, but the tone was never this negative and they offered examples of why something didn't work as well as examples of what did work. That is what I look for. If I reacted poorly, it was because I felt that I was being treated poorly. As did Schooby. As would anyone who suddenly felt like their pride and joy (and, indirectly, themselves as well) was under assault. In a case like this, if a reviewer had positive things to say, but still came across as a real douche with everything else, the positive stuff becomes lost on the creator among all the other douchebaggery.

Aye, IV, which is why I mentioned either in this thread or in some other one that you should know a bit about the person reviewing your comic if that's possible.

Indeed, and going forward I'll be sure and be far more selective about who I accept review offers from....

You shouldn't be getting this upset about what a random person writes on the Internet, though. And while this kind of reaction doesn't bother me personally, I think a lot of people would be more reluctant to give you criticism after reading something like this, which hurts your comic in the long run.

Well, as others have said, here's a right way and there's a wrong way to criticize someone. With me, it's give respect, get respect, as I'm sure it is with most people on and off the net. I just wished like hell I knew your bias against newspaper comics before I said anything!

Actually, I think peter should be praised for having the courage to submit his webcomic for review.

I don't think "courage" would be the right word I'd use. I was thinking more like "total dumbass."

Some of my reviews have definitely been negative, but I think calling my review "an orgasm of hatred" and etc. is a little ridiculous.

In my mind it's no less rediculous than some of your original assertions.

[peterabnny]

I guess I will join the choir and say that anyone asking LC for review should read a few of his reviews before asking for one. He was just coming off from that sorta-drama with Flying Tigers review, and that should have been a clue to what could happen to Peter's comic.

Indeed, and it's a mistake I don't intend to repeat.

Don't get me wrong. I share Schooby's opinion that a creator can learn from even a terrible review like I got, and FWIW I did get some things out of it to help me improve. My thing, tho, is that it shouldn't have to be this hard - or painful.

I dunno if Peter missed that part or just disregarded it, but I think that LC said a few things he needed to hear. Peter has a lot of real-life things stopping him from doing a comic more seriously, for sure. At the same time he talks about promoting his comic or complains about his comic not being read more than most of people around. I think he indeed is serious about his comic, so what LC said is a very useful message. It is not "get these things straight of you are a bad person" - it is "get these things straight, then start thinking about how you promote it".
Too bad that Peter seems to skirt around LC's points, kinda refuses to deal with them. But that's ok, I think that most of reviews don't work immediately, but rather sink in with time. Why, I remember how many comics I've reviewed, whose authors quit webcomics months or years after I reviewed it.

Again, it's not what things were said as much as the way they were said. But I also agree with you that it may take some time for this review to work. It still is even now.

To that end, I saw LC's latest response and if I may be allowed to respond in this thread, let me say thank you, LC! THAT'S how you get me to resonate with your message - by being civil and constructive, not all this sucks and that sucks, and this is alright, but it kinda sucks, too. I only tend to be as defensive as other people are offensive.

LC was a lot younger then, though. Enough for a person to change upside down. One thing is sure though, he's taken a lot of terribly harsh reviews in his life and he knows more than anyone what it's like to be on the other side of the monitor,

That's what I find so damned puzzling. If he knows what it's like to have gotten such harsh reviews, why on earth is he so cavalier about giving the same to others?? He of all people should know the power of words - and their consequences!

[IVstudios]

Alright there, the meter in this thread is creeping towards what is scientifically reffered to as the "butthurt threshold."

Yes, LCs review was kind of mean, but that's all it was kind of mean. And it had every right to be, reviews have no obligation to be nice for the sake of nice. And you, Peter, have every right to feel kind of bad about it, but this is by no means grounds for a pitty party. Having read the review I can say there was only one thing in it that struck me as being overly critical, and it was the compaint about characters using "bunny" in their screen names*.

There are three things you can do with a review like this:
1. Say "Screw him, I'm happy with my comic and/or there are things that prevent me from making changes, so I wont." (Acceptable, but then why bother asking for a review?)
2. Recognize that beneath the mean tone are some legitamate points and use your anger as motivation to do better. (This, do this one)
3. Use the fact that it was mean as an excuse to ignore the points and complain about how it was too mean. (No)

Very true. But there's ways of saying that nicely.

In the same way that while its understandable to get annoyed with you neighbours' dog messing on your lawn, there's a difference between a polite note and setting bear traps. One way leads to a better behaved dog and the other potentially leads to one less dog.

*DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!* And we have a winner!

Robo, I like you, but no. Just no. This is not the same. It would be more akin to the difference between a polite note and an angry note. And if my neightbors dog is crapping in my yard, I have the right to be a little angry.


* Yes it would be weird in the human world to use "human" as part of a screen name, but only because humans are the only animals who have screen names. In a world with antropomorphic bunnies and cats and dogs and whatever it makes sense that your speceis would be part of your identity. [/overthinking it]

[McDuffies]

Eh, Peter, I would like to direct you to "Your comic is bad and you should feel bad" blog, but it is removed from internet now, probably due to all the hostile reactions it's author was getting. Instead you might check out Bad Webcomics Wiki. Just about any review, really. Notice, for instance, how it has a section dedicated to making assumptions about author's personal traits. It's basically a section specially designed to speculation how stupid or how much of a perverted fuck the author is.

These are the kind of reviews that are regularly dashed off on the internet. This is not just some particularly vicious site, in fact it's not in the top most vicious. I believe that compared to this, you'll find that LC's review is not bad at all.
It seems to me that you aren't too used to being reviewed. When a review like LC's comes, it stings. It would sting me if I got a review like that. But part of that comes from the fact that everyone loves their own work, everyone is emotionally invested in their own work, everyone feels that it's unfair that all their work can be brushed off with one paragraph of text.
Average reviewer, however, isn't emotionally invested in your work. Heck, he doesn't know you, he doesn't feel any responsibility to guide you by the hand, to child-proof sharp corners on your way. He's a stranger observing the work that he reasonably thinks is open for criticism, not your friend.
Someone said that gentle reviews work better because harsh reviews are instantly rejected. Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. A harsh review does work it's way into author's mind, perhaps more effectively, some would argue, because of the shock associated with it. My opinion is that different things work for different people.

Anyways it was said that you have to take criticism if you want to improve. My opinion is that if comics are merely a way to pass time with something you love doing, then not improving is an option, specially if it is difficult for you to take average level of criticism. It is perfectly ok that you post your comic on internet for tens or years, maybe amass a few dozens of readers, get some of their feedback - we're all hobbists here. Fact is, it's perfectly ok not to want to face criticism of something you do purely for your own leisure.
My arguement why you should get used to even a bit harsher criticism, though, is that you're gonna get it anyway. In the vast jungle that is internet, someone may be trashing Critters on some forum out there even as we speak. One day you might run into it by accident or someone might show it to you. Or you might report your comic to one of webcomic directories searching for some exposure, and lo - that directory has a comment section full of folks very likely to care about how you feel.

In such situations, it is much better to have received some reviews such as LC's, to grow an extra layer of skin. It may be useful to remind yourself that it is just comics. That reviewer doesn't hate you personally, that ss far as you can tell, he could be thinking you're a real swell guy, that your webcomic is not really an extension of you, and it's flaws do not reflect your flaws. Despite what it might look like at times, none of this is personal.

[LibertyCabbage]

I know - you're absoutely right. If I'd been smarter about it and had read through the other reviews I wouldn't have submitted my comic for review. When he said that he could've written a lot more negative stuff about Scooby's comic and that he's not doing it to help the creator, that should have been a banner-sized red flag that a Critters review wasn't going to end well. But yet I was too overeager, and paid for it as a result. Once bitten, definitely twice shy.

You can always try the Webcomic Above thread here or try somewhere else if you wanna get a second or third opinion.

And regarding not doing reviews to help people, it might look better if I acted like I'm a philanthropist, but realistically I'd get burned-out pretty quickly thinking that way.

FWIW, I track the traffic going to my site and there is a definite bell curve every month, with the highest activity at the beginning of the month, tapering off in the middle, and then picking up again at the end. That tells me that people who follow me know when to look for new stuff, and I feel the pressure to stick to my schedule to make it worthwhile for them. Yeah, I have missed a deadline and have lost some of my audience as a result, but it seems like they come back eventually as long as I keep to schedule.

Retaining readers is only part of having a fanbase, though. The other part is getting new readers.

Not only do I feel the pinch to keep on schedule, but having a monthly comic gives me a lot less room for gags that don't work or miss their mark. If mine was a daily - or even weekly, for that matter - one bad comic wouldn't matter that much; I'd simply write it off and get 'em soon with the next one. With a monthly, it's a long time till the next update, so every single cartoon has to fire on all cylinders and hit its mark.

That sounds like an unnecessary amount of pressure, though. And you're still just doing a strip of a gag comic, so there's only so much you can do.

Although it may not show here, I can take being told I suck. What hurt was the douchebag way I felt LC went about it. I've had people give me negative feedback, but the tone was never this negative and they offered examples of why something didn't work as well as examples of what did work. That is what I look for. If I reacted poorly, it was because I felt that I was being treated poorly. As did Schooby. As would anyone who suddenly felt like their pride and joy (and, indirectly, themselves as well) was under assault. In a case like this, if a reviewer had positive things to say, but still came across as a real douche with everything else, the positive stuff becomes lost on the creator among all the other douchebaggery.

If you wanna try to improve, then maybe the next time someone reviews your comic you'll get more positive feedback. Maybe you should focus on working towards that rather than dwelling on one bad review you got.

Indeed, and going forward I'll be sure and be far more selective about who I accept review offers from....

That sounds reasonable. And from this forum I'll recommend McD, Serge, and Cuddly as some people who can give a good review if they have the time and interest to do so. blankd over at the Smack Jeeves forum's also pretty capable if you wanna ask her (him?).

Well, as others have said, here's a right way and there's a wrong way to criticize someone. With me, it's give respect, get respect, as I'm sure it is with most people on and off the net. I just wished like hell I knew your bias against newspaper comics before I said anything!

That's also reasonable, and I'm certainly always trying to improve with my writing. As for complaining about bias, it's a little silly because everyone's biased, and someone who's favorably biased isn't any more qualified to review something than a person who's negatively biased. And at least I was honest about it and tried to relate my bias in a way that reflected on readers in general and not just my own personal preferences.

I don't think "courage" would be the right word I'd use. I was thinking more like "total dumbass."

I still disagree, and to me, a "total dumbass" would be someone who never got their comic reviewed, yet thinks they're God's gift to webcomics because their mom likes it.

In my mind it's no less rediculous than some of your original assertions.

Okay.

[LibertyCabbage]

Eh, Peter, I would like to direct you to "Your comic is bad and you should feel bad" blog, but it is removed from internet now, probably due to all the hostile reactions it's author was getting.

I actually just found it earlier today. I haven't read any of it yet, though. http://badwebcomicsarchive.blogspot.com/

[RobboAKAscooby]

After much consideration I've decided to end (at least for the foreseeable future) SHR so once I'm back up to date with Flying Tigers I'll be making the final pages of SHR - planning on just doing a "wedding album" of a few weeks artwork and a thank you to my readers (what few remain).

Sh!t Happens in all its incarnations have been a mostly fun learning experience, I love the characters I created even if they didn't always come across as intended, it was a nice way to ease into the world of webcomics and it has helped me learn to draw.

Now if I was clever I would use the extra time I'll have to concentrate on improving Flying Tigers or practicing my drawing, but there's another idea that's been rattling around inside my head so I may give into temptation on that - I can if I'm motivated get four pages a week done so 2 pages per comic could be doable.

[LibertyCabbage]

Don't get me wrong. I share Schooby's opinion that a creator can learn from even a terrible review like I got, and FWIW I did get some things out of it to help me improve. My thing, tho, is that it shouldn't have to be this hard - or painful.

I think it's normal and healthy for a negative review to be difficult and painful for the reviewee. But as IV explained, there are multiple ways a reviewee can react to that sort of situation.

Again, it's not what things were said as much as the way they were said. But I also agree with you that it may take some time for this review to work. It still is even now.

Yeah, even just a month from now you might have a different perspective on your comic.

To that end, I saw LC's latest response and if I may be allowed to respond in this thread, let me say thank you, LC! THAT'S how you get me to resonate with your message - by being civil and constructive, not all this sucks and that sucks, and this is alright, but it kinda sucks, too. I only tend to be as defensive as other people are offensive.

You're welcome, and I'm glad that myself and others were able to clarify a few things in this post-review follow-up.

That's what I find so damned puzzling. If he knows what it's like to have gotten such harsh reviews, why on earth is he so cavalier about giving the same to others?? He of all people should know the power of words - and their consequences!

Continuing my first response in this post, it's normal to get upset about a negative review, but getting too down on yourself, or getting hostile towards a reviewer, aren't proper ways of dealing with it. I don't particularly remember how I responded to the reviews I got, but if I had reacted in an overly negative manner, then I'd say I was being immature about it.

stuff

Thank you, IV and McD, for your contributions, and I anticipate I might refer future reviewees to your posts if they have similar difficulties handling a harsh review.

Now if I was clever I would use the extra time I'll have to concentrate on improving Flying Tigers or practicing my drawing, but there's another idea that's been rattling around inside my head so I may give into temptation on that - I can if I'm motivated get four pages a week done so 2 pages per comic could be doable.

Another option I've seen is you could offer "bonus updates" as an incentive for readers to vote for your comic so many times, or donate a certain amount of money, or give you so many followers on Twitter, or whatever.

[peterabnny]

There are three things you can do with a review like this:
2. Recognize that beneath the mean tone are some legitamate points and use your anger as motivation to do better. (This, do this one)

This one, please.

At this time, I just want to apologize to all you guys, but to Duffies and LC in particular for my recent drama. For a guy who hates internet drama, I certainly seem to have done a sterling job of creating it of late, haven't I? But I also want to thank you guys, for your patience and forebearance as I struggle to sort through and understand all the information thrown at me the past two weeks or so, like a scientist grappling with a revolutionary discovery and its implications. It may take some time to fully come to grips with it all, but it's an undertaking I want to do.

LC, your most recent posts tell me that I think I misjudged you, fella. I know that we hardly got off on the right footing, but if it's all the same to you, I'd like to hit the reset button and start things over. To that end, may I extend to you my virtual hand in friendship. I do gotta hand it to ya, mate. I kept hitting and hitting, but you never broke your civility - a rare virtue in this Internet world of ours. Real, authentic peer-to-peer feedback and reveiw can be brutal, raw and painful, but at the same time it is also honest, worthwhile and extremely useful. Thanks for that.

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for putting up with me, and thanks for helping me better understand not only my comic, but myself as well. I love all you guys and I love hanging out with yas! I have a good thing going with CG; I wouldn't want anything to ruin the magic.