Mr Ekshin wrote:
THE ONLY NEEDS OF A COMIC REVIEW ARE THIS:
- Introduce a comic to people who may not have known about it otherwise.
- Explain what may be found in the contents of the comic. Is it a gag strip, or does it require back-track reading to catch on to the story? Does it contain Furry robotic chibi anime elves? Is it stick people?
- Describe it's merits: Is the artwork subjectively beautiful? Is the wit sharp? Is the story iron-clad? Is it interresting, even if failing these other criteria? This point is to lead people who are looking for a certain "genre" to more of the same, or fetch out the more adventurous reader. The reviewer must read the comic far enough to "see" the point being made. Not everyone likes "White Ninja", but many do. Let's not pan something just because the reviewer doesn't love it personally.
- Lastly, where do you find it? How often does it update? Is it current, or dead?
5. To point at weak points of one's comic, which he doesn't see himself because everyone's subjective towards his own work.
Or as someone - I think it was Tchaikowsky - said: I can't lay an egg but I can reckognise a rotten one.
That's why there are good critics out there, as well as bad - not all of them are just bad artist who want to diss on people out of anvy. We shouldn't dismiss any rewiev until we've thought about it.
Not caring about your comic being rewieved is like not caring if your comic is good at all. And don't give me the "tastes differ" story because if you don't take any opinions into account, you may as well be the only one who likes your comic.
But, youj wouldn't reject CCa nomination, right? But that's practically the same thing: evaluation of your comic, maybe objective, maybe not, but just because it's hard to say which evaluation is objective and right, doesn't mean those shouldn't exist at all.
That's why I'll take any comment, critique, negative or positive, into account, and be happy.
"Reviews" are not needed so much as "spotlights". An example: Van Douchebag excaimed at length about the merits of the original pencilwork behind a comic. I fucking LOVE "Diesel Sweeties". I also like Van's work. Would I take Van's opinion at face value for comics to read?
Now let's not simplify it. Artist is a man too and has his own opinion. And sure, one has to follow his vision of a comic, and if he thinks that it's the only valid vision, that may actually do good to his comic but that doesn't mean that reader has to share the same vision. In other words, I don't see why you brought up this issue in the first place.
As for critique site, I think there should be one where you can submit your comic. I know most of us would submit it, if nothing, out of curiosity. I'm not sure whether the site should pick his own comics to review, I mean, if someone doesn't wanna be evaluated that maybe one shouldn't waste time of rewiev and possible flamewar that can come out of it - on the other hand, by making your comic public, you subject it to all kinds of opinions, and you can't stop everyone from talking about your comic - simply said, it's a public stuff now. If you don't wanna receive any comments, don't publish them at all - that's my view on subject.
