I'll review your webcomic.

[RobboAKAscooby]

I do notice they can get somewhat stagnant. You see the same basic posing showing up from strip to strip, the same face angles, the same level of shock...

*hand up* Yep, guilty as charged.

That said I don't think I would have been able to make the right changes to my style before I did, and I certainly wouldn't have been able to change it while doing an ongoing comic.
But that is purely a personal perspective as some of these other artists are far more skilled.

[LibertyCabbage]

My theory is that because they were less experienced, they had to try harder in the old stuff where as the new stuff is done on auto-pilot. So even though the new art is more refined, it lacks the soul of the old stuff.

Pretty much, but...

You read the comic and you still get the sense that this is something fun for the dudes to produce, not just a chore that they're slapping out each week.

...it's not so much that cartooning inherently gets easier over time as that cartoonists get burned out and gravitate towards an easier style. There's a palpable negative effect when, as VCC puts it, making comics become less of a fun hobby and more of a job.

Some people are really good at doing certain styles, but for some comics, I do notice they can get somewhat stagnant. You see the same basic posing showing up from strip to strip, the same face angles, the same level of shock...they don't try anything different, I guess.

Making money can cause problems for strips because even if the creator feels unmotivated, they still gotta sell ads and merch somehow. Plus, sometimes success goes to a creator's head and they don't realize how bad their strips are (or even ignore/ban critics).

That's part of the fun of reading web comics - the medium changes throughout the life of each comic, usually. The art improves, the artist tries a different style, colours with different pens, shades with his own paint brushes.

And I find that a lot of the newer, more obscure webcomics are superior because they have that freshness and enthusiasm of experimenting and wanting to be challenged. It's creatively liberating not having to worry about making money off of a project; plus, if you do get burned out, you can try something new or take a break.

*hand up* Yep, guilty as charged.

It's different for an amateur artist, though, because they have a limited comfort zone. The professional cartoonists should have a much larger comfort zone, but they choose an easy style that lets them crank out strips with less effort.

[LibertyCabbage]

Webcomic: Lies Eternal
URL: http://www.lieseternal.com
Creator/s: Gabriel Velarde, Heather Uebel, Franziska Oertel
Run: 9/12-current
Schedule: Tu/Th

Website: The fixed orange-and-red background looks great and helps makes a solid first impression. The transparent navigation buttons are cool, too, although, apart from that, it's a fairly standard WordPress layout like I've seen in a bunch of webcomics before. The author info and social media pages are nice additions, but I would've liked to see a bit more, such as concept artwork or some information on the setting. Lastly, there are occasionally comments from the creator placed between pages, and they distract from the story somewhat and would be better off somewhere besides the archives.

Writing: The comic confronts surrealism's storytelling problems with a heavy dose of creativity and whimsy, providing a brisk read that I found to be surprisingly accessible. Being based to some extent on H.P. Lovecraft's Dream Cycle stories, there's a liberating lack of concern for past and future, allowing Lies Eternal to more effectively represent a dream state than some of the other surrealism webcomics I've reviewed. In lieu of a real plot, the story offers a series of nonsensical problems with deus ex machina-type resolutions, and, backed up by the playful but refined prose, the reader gets to momentarily revel in a consequence-free world. It's sort of like turning on an invincibility cheat in a game and goofing around.

The story really picks up on Page 50 when the adventurous Eno's introduced, as that's the point when the Dreamlands suddenly change from being dark and scary to being colorful and exciting. He's a much better character than the nameless, angtsy, Bella Swan-like protagonist, who never manages to be interesting or likable. Part of Eno's appeal is that he's usually described in the prose rather than being shown in the artwork, especially in the more action-oriented scenes, and that lets the reader imagine him as a larger-than-life figure. An example of this is when the characters are fighting on the pirate ship, and beneath an image of the blushing girl is the line, "Eno's blade traced death and dismemberment." Another cool thing about him is how comfortable he is with the freedom and empowerment of the Dreamlands, whether he's casting magic spells, traveling to weird places, or hurling chili-filled balloons at his enemies. The girl seems to get more and more attracted to Eno as the story progresses, and I think the readers do as well. There's also a bittersweet nature to their relationship, in that he'll be gone once she wakes up and returns to her angst-filled teenage life.

A particularly imaginative section I'd like to highlight is when the protagonists visit the fleshy Carnal City and witness the Rite of Excitement. The pages are set up like the characters are exploring the inside of a vagina, and the scene manages to feel sexual without depicting nudity or sex. Not only does this symbolic approach help keep the story feeling lighthearted and whimsical, but it also provides a bizarre maze of organs and veins for the characters to explore, making it a unique and memorable setting. Having a priesthood devoted to sexuality's also a cool idea, as it's something religion typically restricts or opposes.

Art: The large, textless panels provide for a lot of creative freedom, and both artists who've worked on the project have taken full advantage of it. As the story takes place in a fantasy world, depicting the strange environments is particularly important, and this webcomic luxuriously delivers colorful, detailed backgrounds page after page. A really neat thing the comic does in this regard is that the panels often have miscellaneous elements, like the strange fossils in this page and the guy riding a bubble-blowing whale in this page, that aren't mentioned in the prose or are really relevant to the story. These bits and details add to the feeling of exploring a new, magical world where you don't know what to expect to find next, which is a really fun feeling to have. The previous artist and the current one convey the setting with different styles, as the former's work is more cutesy and cartoonish while the latter's is grittier and more realistic, but both of the artists seem comfortable illustrating a surrealistic story.

As for the panel-and-prose layout, the creators could experiment with it a bit more. I'm not fond of the woodlike texture used as a border, and the oversized punctuation marks are a little distracting. In addition, the text isn't always aligned neatly and should possibly be a different font, and the exterior white space could be changed so that the presentation feels more cohesive.

Overall: The creator notes on Page 30 that "Lies Eternal is not quite a web comic," but, fortunately, I'm not worried about trying to fit it into a category. It's cool, it's creative, it's different, it's got great artwork, and it manages to be appealing in a way that surrealism webcomics usually aren't. If this sort of unconventional storytelling can manage to catch on with an audience, I can see it becoming less of an oddity and more of a neat new thing in webcomics.

4.5/5

[LibertyCabbage]

Detailed backgrounds can take a lot of time and effort to draw, but it's definitely worth it, and here are a few reasons why.

1) Exploration

Stories make it possible for an audience to experience places they can't visit in real life, such as fictional worlds and past or future settings. In this sense, the creator acts as a sort of tour guide to the audience, showing them the most interesting and unusual aspects of the setting. Webcartoonists who neglect backgrounds in these kinds of stories tend to focus on the characters instead, but it's a wasted opportunity, especially if they've put a lot of thought and imagination into developing their world or have done a lot of research for it. Characters are important, but an often overlooked dimension of theirs is how the locations they're accustomed to are a part of their personality. There are always a variety of cultures, environments, and social classes to take into account, and those are reflected in a setting's appearance.

2) Making It New Again

Backgrounds are less important in slice-of-life stories than in fantasy or sci-fi because the audience should already have a pretty good idea of what things are like from their own experiences. However, artistic representations of daily life can be engaging since we normally don't consciously recognize environments and objects we're used to seeing. We simply have information overload and can't pay attention to everything. When these mundane places are illustrated, though, the reader can take their time and view the details of each panel, appreciating every object, building, and background character as something the creator felt was important enough to include. In this way, every city, landscape, and room has the potential to be a unique experience for the reader. Creators also have the opportunity to present real-life locations in an interesting way, as it's a lot more convenient to read a comic than to travel everywhere and experience these locations in person.

3) Varied Compositions

There are basically four kinds of views a creator can choose from when conceptualizing a panel: close, medium, wide, and establishing. If a comic has minimalistic backgrounds, it'll generally only use close and medium views, which gets repetitive quickly. Utilizing all four views offers more variety, gives the creator options, makes it clearer what's happening, and allows the creator to present a situation without having to rely on captions or dialogue to explain it.

4) Immersive Storytelling

Rationally, we know that stories are make-believe, but it's fun for an audience to get immersed in the details of a story and care about what happens to the characters. Having backgrounds helps make the fictional world feel "real" and helps readers "trick" themselves that they're looking at objects, people, and places, and not pixels on a screen or ink on a page. When characters are frequently shown against blank or abstract backgrounds, it unintentionally makes it look like they're floating in a weird dimension or void, and that breaks the immersion by reminding readers that it's just a story. Similarly, if a creator tries to show the inside of a character's house by drawing the character standing in the middle of an empty room, it fails to feel "real" because we expect a room to have furniture and objects. It can be distracting, too, if a reader's wondering where the scene's taking place or why it looks empty rather than wondering what's going to happen next in the story.

[LibertyCabbage]

Webcomic reviews are essentially based on the relationship between three entities: the audience, the reviewer, and the webcomic's creator/s. When a reviewer's developing their style, they must choose one of these entities to prioritize. Positive review sites such as Your Webcomics! focus on providing creators with a positive experience, while negative review sites such as The Bad Webcomics Wiki focus on providing their audience with a positive experience. In regards to my own reviews, writing them is intended to provide a positive experience for myself, the reviewer, with any benefits for the audience and the webcomic's creator/s being secondary.

Whichever of the three paths a reviewer chooses, emphasizing one of these entities to the detriment of the others is the pragmatic approach. Attempting to regard two of these entities, or possibly even all of them, with more or less the same weight is the idealistic approach. This incongruity between idealism and pragmatism inevitably leads to conflict, as their incompatibility creates an obstacle for discourse. Concepts are the language of idealism, while execution's the language of pragmatism, and conversation between speakers of these two languages is clumsy and exhausting compared to dialogue based on common ground. This pertains to not only pragmatism in general, but to the specific facet of pragmatism that the reviewer chooses to specialize in.

In search of a common ground for the various entities to utilize, it's clear that pragmatic discourse is superior for this purpose since it's based on something tangible. When an idealist analyzes a review, their conclusion is always relative to an idealistic, nonexistent version of the review rather than an actual review. This practice of comparing real things to imagined things is distracting, and the state of webcomic reviews would be healthier if reviews of a similar nature were measured against each other.

The nature of the ideal review -- one that generates a positive experience for the audience, the reviewer, and the webcomic's creator/s -- always dominates the discussion because it's easy to take the side of idealism. The idealist claims to be able to appeal to multiple entities, while the pragmatist only tries to appeal to one. Idealism exists through ideas and theories, which are more nebulous than a written piece than can be analyzed, dissected, and refuted. Idealism has a positive, feel-good vibe to it that appeals to a large number of people as long as no significant effort or risk is required to support it. And, finally, an idealist can't be criticized by another idealist because doing so would be criticizing their own flawed rationale.

Idealists, as well as some pragmatists, would argue that reviewer-oriented reviews are inherently narcissistic, but I'd respond that all three kinds of reviews are valid. Writing reviews is a hobby, and the purpose of having a hobby is to provide enjoyment for the hobbyist. It's not a problem for a reviewer if another reviewer gets their enjoyment from helping webcomic creators or entertaining readers, and while I've occasionally made negative comments about various review sites, these criticisms represent only a tiny portion of the material in my articles and reviews. To fault a hobbyist for not having the right kind of hobby or for not having enough hobbies doesn't make sense to me.

[RobboAKAscooby]

Webcomic reviews are essentially based on the relationship between three entities: the audience, the reviewer, and the webcomic's creator/s. When a reviewer's developing their style, they must choose one of these entities to prioritize. Positive review sites such as Your Webcomics! focus on providing creators with a positive experience, while negative review sites such as The Bad Webcomics Wiki focus on providing their audience with a positive experience. In regards to my own reviews, writing them is intended to provide a positive experience for myself, the reviewer, with any benefits for the audience and the webcomic's creator/s being secondary.

Whichever of the three paths a reviewer chooses, emphasizing one of these entities to the detriment of the others is the pragmatic approach. Attempting to regard two of these entities, or possibly even all of them, with more or less the same weight is the idealistic approach. This incongruity between idealism and pragmatism inevitably leads to conflict, as their incompatibility creates an obstacle for discourse. Concepts are the language of idealism, while execution's the language of pragmatism, and conversation between speakers of these two languages is clumsy and exhausting compared to dialogue based on common ground. This pertains to not only pragmatism in general, but to the specific facet of pragmatism that the reviewer chooses to specialize in.

In search of a common ground for the various entities to utilize, it's clear that pragmatic discourse is superior for this purpose since it's based on something tangible. When an idealist analyzes a review, their conclusion is always relative to an idealistic, nonexistent version of the review rather than an actual review. This practice of comparing real things to imagined things is distracting, and the state of webcomic reviews would be healthier if reviews of a similar nature were measured against each other.

The nature of the ideal review -- one that generates a positive experience for the audience, the reviewer, and the webcomic's creator/s -- always dominates the discussion because it's easy to take the side of idealism. The idealist claims to be able to appeal to multiple entities, while the pragmatist only tries to appeal to one. Idealism exists through ideas and theories, which are more nebulous than a written piece than can be analyzed, dissected, and refuted. Idealism has a positive, feel-good vibe to it that appeals to a large number of people as long as no significant effort or risk is required to support it. And, finally, an idealist can't be criticized by another idealist because doing so would be criticizing their own flawed rationale.

Idealists, as well as some pragmatists, would argue that reviewer-oriented reviews are inherently narcissistic, but I'd respond that all three kinds of reviews are valid. Writing reviews is a hobby, and the purpose of having a hobby is to provide enjoyment for the hobbyist. It's not a problem for a reviewer if another reviewer gets their enjoyment from helping webcomic creators or entertaining readers, and while I've occasionally made negative comments about various review sites, these criticisms represent only a tiny portion of the material in my articles and reviews. To fault a hobbyist for not having the right kind of hobby or for not having enough hobbies doesn't make sense to me.

Okay I'm sensing a story behind this...

[LibertyCabbage]

Okay I'm sensing a story behind this...

It'd be a cool story if I was venting about a particular situation, but it's more like I'm just being dismissive towards the constant stream of negative comments my reviews have been getting for a while. Normally I would've just reviewed something and not worried about it, but I wasn't able to find time to review a webcomic this week and figured that writing an article/rant about something was a reasonable alternative.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Okay I'm sensing a story behind this...

It'd be a cool story if I was venting about a particular situation, but it's more like I'm just being dismissive towards the constant stream of negative comments my reviews have been getting for a while. Normally I would've just reviewed something and not worried about it, but I wasn't able to find time to review a webcomic this week and figured that writing an article/rant about something was a reasonable alternative.

Where's the negativity been coming from? The authors? (Though I understand if you don't want to go into detail if it feels like gossip)

[LibertyCabbage]

Where's the negativity been coming from? The authors? (Though I understand if you don't want to go into detail if it feels like gossip)

It's just random people commenting on the blog. I've been giving them brief responses, and here's the ones left that I'll see if I can get in today:

1 - long post, doesn't like the Scandinavia and the World review

2 - the webcomic I did a mini-review of is illegal, or something

3 - same guy, "truly the owner of http://thewebcomicpolice.blogspot.com/ is an incompetent"

4 - long post, a few people are unhappy about my review of Redtail's Dream

I don't mean to be, like, complaining about it, though. I already got over the negativity in the first year I was doing reviews. What I wrote's more, like, a suggestion for people to be more realistic about stuff.

[Cope]

2 - the webcomic I did a mini-review of is illegal, or something

Well, fanfiction doesn't exactly operate on the strongest legal grounds.

[LibertyCabbage]

Well, fanfiction doesn't exactly operate on the strongest legal grounds.

That's not my problem, though. Plus, it's a 160-word review I posted more than a year ago about a webcomic that doesn't update anymore.

[RobboAKAscooby]

Well, LC, I for one will be quiet happy for you to tear apart review my new comic in a few months time when it actually exists and has sufficient content and such...

[Cope]

Well, fanfiction doesn't exactly operate on the strongest legal grounds.

That's not my problem, though. Plus, it's a 160-word review I posted more than a year ago about a webcomic that doesn't update anymore.

I mostly commented because you seemed confused about why it might be illegal rather than wondering why someone would leave a comment about a comic you did an old review about.

(although, looking at that comment again, it probably should have been left on the comic's comments page rather than on your review.)

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Yeah, that guy seems to be responding as if you were the creator of the comic, bless his heart.

[RobboAKAscooby]

Yeah, that guy seems to be responding as if you were the creator of the comic, bless his heart.

And also as if he's failing fifth grade English but this is the internet so not exactly a big shock.

[IVstudios]

2 - the webcomic I did a mini-review of is illegal, or something

3 - same guy, "truly the owner of http://thewebcomicpolice.blogspot.com/ is an incompetent"

I don't know if I'd put too much stock in what a clearly crazy person has to say. I know it can be hard to ignore commenters, but that guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about (or what punctuation is).

Though if you've been getting criticism for doing the reviews for yourself, instead of for readers and/or comic creators, that is a somewhat valid criticism. I mean I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing that, but that doesn't put your work beyond criticism. If someone doesn't like a review because it caters mainly to the reviewer and not the reader that's a valid opinion.

Again, I'm not saying your wrong for doing reviews mainly for yourself, but if you're making your reviews available for the public to read then what people think of your reviews is a relevant topic for discussion. Like if I cooked a really dry steak because that's how I like my steaks and someone complained that it was too dry. While that complaint wouldn't be relevant to me because that's what I like, it would be relevant to anyone else considering eating my steaks.

<_<

>_>

And now that my awkward metaphor has inadvertently implied your reviews are dry like an overcooked steak, I'd like to put in a request for a review of Inhumation. If you still take request, that is. Since I recently finished chapter 6 I've been eager to get some feedback about it.

[LibertyCabbage]

I mostly commented because you seemed confused about why it might be illegal rather than wondering why someone would leave a comment about a comic you did an old review about.
(although, looking at that comment again, it probably should have been left on the comic's comments page rather than on your review.)

I just feel indifferent about the whole thing, and this reader didn't exactly make a compelling argument for me to revise or delete my review. As you and VCC mentioned, the reader should probably be contacting the webcomic's creator instead, 'cause, as far as I know, mentioning fanfiction on a blog isn't illegal.

Well, LC, I for one will be quiet happy for you to tear apart review my new comic in a few months time when it actually exists and has sufficient content and such...

I'm up for it, and if the webcomic ends up being pretty bad then I can redline the art or something.

And also as if he's failing fifth grade English but this is the internet so not exactly a big shock.

Yeah, 'cause, like, I mean, I don't really mind getting negative comments, 'cause getting comments online is always kinda cool and is better than getting no response at all, but if someone's objective is to get me upset then they need to try harder than whatever pseudo-English this guy or gal wrote.

Though if you've been getting criticism for doing the reviews for yourself, instead of for readers and/or comic creators, that is a somewhat valid criticism. I mean I'm not saying you shouldn't be doing that, but that doesn't put your work beyond criticism. If someone doesn't like a review because it caters mainly to the reviewer and not the reader that's a valid opinion.

My intention wasn't to say that criticizing reviewers is bad, but rather to make a distinction between good, pragmatic criticism and bad, idealistic criticism. To use your analogy:

Like if I cooked a really dry steak because that's how I like my steaks and someone complained that it was too dry. While that complaint wouldn't be relevant to me because that's what I like, it would be relevant to anyone else considering eating my steaks.

In this case, pragmatic criticism would be to compare your steak to another steak that you or somebody else cooked, and it's relevant because it's two real things that are similar. Idealistic criticism, on the hand, would be, like, "Your steak tastes bad. If you had cooked a turkey using my recipe, it would've tasted good." In this case, the discussion isn't about the steak you cooked anymore, it's about the nature of this hypothetical situation involving you cooking a turkey using this particular recipe. In my article/rant, I dismiss this sort of development as "distracting."

And now that my awkward metaphor has inadvertently implied your reviews are dry like an overcooked steak, I'd like to put in a request for a review of Inhumation. If you still take request, that is. Since I recently finished chapter 6 I've been eager to get some feedback about it.

Sure, I'll review it. I actually read all of Inhumation pretty recently. I just avoid reviewing forumers' comics unless they request it or if it's for W.A.Y. Now that you've requested a review, I can go ahead and write one.

[IVstudios]

My intention wasn't to say that criticizing reviewers is bad, but rather to make a distinction between good, pragmatic criticism and bad, idealistic criticism.

I get what you mean. I was more trying to say that, while it's okay for you to ignore those criticisms, they still have their place and can be useful to outsiders.

In this case, pragmatic criticism would be to compare your steak to another steak that you or somebody else cooked, and it's relevant because it's two real things that are similar. Idealistic criticism, on the hand, would be, like, "Your steak tastes bad. If you had cooked a turkey using my recipe, it would've tasted good." In this case, the discussion isn't about the steak you cooked anymore, it's about the nature of this hypothetical situation involving you cooking a turkey using this particular recipe. In my article/rant, I dismiss this sort of development as "distracting."

I think those "idealistic" reviews that use a hypothetical perfect review as a standard can still be valid as well, provided the person making them is a good enough cook. Most people aren't going to be inclined to do a bunch of research and add a bibliography to their comments.* Especially if they are just giving an opinion on something they read on the internet.

And while it might be unfair to be an armchair sous-chef and criticize someone else's work with the benefit of hindsight and compare it to a nonexistent ideal, if the person knows what they're talking about they can still make valid points to consider.

Sure, I'll review it. I actually read all of Inhumation pretty recently. I just avoid reviewing forumers' comics unless they request it or if it's for W.A.Y. Now that you've requested a review, I can go ahead and write one.

Thanks!


*And if someone did do that, I would probably hate them for being a big nerd.

[LibertyCabbage]

I get what you mean. I was more trying to say that, while it's okay for you to ignore those criticisms, they still have their place and can be useful to outsiders.

I consider idealistic criticism to be similar to trolling, and I don't think it's useful to anybody except maybe as entertainment. You could probably make an argument that trolling is "useful" in some way, but it's just not nearly as useful as pragmatic criticism.

I think those "idealistic" reviews that use a hypothetical perfect review as a standard can still be valid as well, provided the person making them is a good enough cook. Most people aren't going to be inclined to do a bunch of research and add a bibliography to their comments.* Especially if they are just giving an opinion on something they read on the internet.

And while it might be unfair to be an armchair sous-chef and criticize someone else's work with the benefit of hindsight and compare it to a nonexistent ideal, if the person knows what they're talking about they can still make valid points to consider.

It's not really an issue of knowing how to write a "good" review, it's an issue of acknowledging that people have different ideas of what a "good" review is, just like people have different preferences as to how their steak is cooked. It would be dopey to say there's such a thing as a "hypothetical perfect steak" because some people like their steak dry and others like it juicy, and some people don't even like steak at all. That's why I proposed grouping reviewers as creator-oriented, reader-oriented, or reviewer-oriented, and evaluating their reviews more on those lines rather than saying, "If this reviewer was Category X instead of Category Y, he'd be a good reviewer instead of a bad reviewer."

Thanks!

I'll see if I can get it done by Tuesday so I can make it my weekly post on the blog.

[LibertyCabbage]

I'll see if I can get it done by Tuesday so I can make it my weekly post on the blog.

Yeah, it wasn't happenin' and I didn't wanna super-rush something out so I went with an old Zoology review instead in order to keep my update streak going. Next week should hopefully be a li'l better for writing reviews. Also, while fixing the links for this I found out that after Jackhass stopped posting on the forums he ended up doing some writing for Cracked, GameSpy, and some other sites, and he has a blog now at http://natebirch.com .