Responses to avoid when reviewed/critiqued

[RobboAKAscooby]

A big part of the review/critique/feedback process is the two way dialogue, being able to respond to your reviewer and address the issues whether it be clarifying a problem, asking for further advice of explaining the choices behind the work reviewed.
Unfortunately on the internet there are too many egos and too many who simply don't understand that constructive criticism isn't bad or mean.
So here's a few points to help these people out:

1. "It's my style" / "It's a stylistic choice"
The number one rallying cry of the online artist (and sadly this is occurring more in the real world too) "It's my style". To the one defending their work this says "This is the way I choose to draw and if you don't like it tough" - to the rest of us it is the equivalent of that young guy falling over at the party and going "I meant to do that", basically a stubborn insistence that they're okay with looking like an idiot or assurance that they're not embarrassed by everyone laughing at them.
"It's a stylistic choice" is the more arrogant version of this, usually it is touted by someone who claims superiority despite being unable to draw a basic shape convincingly.
And the sad part is this phrase can be a completely viable response so long as the style choice is reasonably explained.

2. "I'm my harshest critic"
No, just no! Seriously if you're using this in response to negative/tough reviews then you're missing the point completely.
If you really were your harshest critique you'd be following up a critique with questions like "What about the way my hands look? Do you think they're too small?" Questions and comments that indicate you are aware of your flaws, perhaps even more so than the reviewer.

3. "I'm more popular than you therefore you don't know what you're talking about"
Popular does not equal good (this is a life lesson too), usually it just means a connection on the lowest common denominator.
The sad thing about this argument is that it is usually touted by someone who thinks 1000 hits a day is superstar popularity and nobody has really heard of.

4. "It's just a hobby I'm not trying to be a professional"
The saddest response of all I think.
Normally this one comes from someone who is genuinely proud of their work but either doesn't realise they're still a beginner or isn't thick-skinned enough - basically they've stepped into the arena too soon and are now surprised to find the lions are real. Often these people don't realise that most of their peers are also amateur hobbyists, but the thing about hobbies is you have to learn, you have to improve and you have to realise you're gonna fuck it up from time to time.

5. "You just don't like it because it's offensive/controversial or because you go for the opposition viewpoint"
This kind of response is usually pretty indicative of the content/quality of the comic itself - we're talking arrogant soap-boxer here.
Honestly if you have to resort to this response it's time you reexamined your motivations.
Believe it or not most reviewers are quite capable of putting aside personal bias and doing a proper job of things, especially voluntary reviewers who usually have plenty of good advice to offer.

6. swearing/name calling/childish tantrums
I really shouldn't have to explain this, even if you are a nine-year-old kid you shouldn't be acting like this in public.

7. Badmouthing the reviewer on your comic/in the forums/blogs/twitter/etc
And now the bottom of the barrel. Honestly I really have no advice for these people, I'd say grow up but a lot of these people are in their 20s and 30s so I think it's a lost cause.
Learn to show the reviewer the same respect they show you I guess.

BIG TIP FOR ALL REVIEWED:
Take a breath, step back, re-read the review, re-read any parts of your comic pointed out as needing work, really think about what was said, ask for second opinions.
Then when you've actually taken everything in, without the knee-jerk emotions, feel free to respond.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

This topic makes me happy.

Whenever I see someone engaging in one of the above behaviors, I automatically picture the person as being somewhere between the ages of eight and sixteen and constantly getting in petty arguments with their friends. Even if the person has stated that they are older or have provided a picture proving it so, it doesn't matter. I convince my self that they must have been lying.

#3 "I'm more popular than you" is something I see frequently on other boards. It... it just kind of makes the person look really stupid. So what if you're popular? Star Wars is a popular franchise, but any red blooded nerd can tell you a few problems with it. The Simpsons, Family Guy, South Park, I mean any of the popular television cartoons, you can find faults with. Just because a thousand people love you doesn't mean that your only vocal critic is absolutely wrong or is jealous of you. Protip: Most critics actually aren't motivated by jealousy. There are a lot of comic artists whose talents I envy, but I don't send them scathing critiques in order to soothe my rages and to be honest I'm not sure where that jealousy meme started.

Assume your critics are giving you feedback in good faith until their claims have been proved meritless. This is determined on a case by case basis, of course. Hey, you never know, maybe some troll's going around shitting on people and you just happened to be today's victim. But it never hurts to try to make the best of the criticism you're given.

#1 "It's my style" is something I used to use myself. Never angrily, of course, but just when people would ask why I didn't draw people with necks or whateverhave you. I could SMACK myself for using this excuse, because now I am years behind where I should be in terms of my ability to draw bodies, because I kept clinging to this notion that "I AM THE ARTIST I GET TO DECIDE WHAT LOOKS PERFECT."

If you find yourself using this excuse, it often leads down the road to "I'm only making this comic for my own enjoyment anyway, not to please others!" Er, then why are you publishing it online in the first place? Yes, putting your comic on the internet is publishing it. Just because your readers don't pay to flap the pages back and forth in their hands in a comic book store doesn't mean it's not being published.

I know, I know, there are perfectly good reasons to put something online for your own enjoyment. But people assume you've put it there for them to look at. If you go to a garage sale and the family has two tables in the driveway with piles of items on them, wouldn't you be really confused if they told you only one of the tables had items for sale, and the other table of things was just there for show? Putting your comic where people can see it means that, well, people will probably see it.

For me the worst thing about "I'm only making this for myself" is that the person conveniently only mentions it after someone has given some perhaps critical feedback. How many times does the person ask "What do you think of my art? Please check it out!" and then upon hearing from the audience suddenly insist that said audience doesn't matter anyway. Then you just look silly and everyone will like your comic even less.

For #5,

Believe it or not most reviewers are quite capable of putting aside personal bias and doing a proper job of things, especially voluntary reviewers who usually have plenty of good advice to offer

This. This this this. I wish I could smack this onto the head of everyone with a slightly political or risque comic who gets their feathers all ruffled when someone gives them advice. It makes me think that the person is using controversial material to cover up their inadequacies as a writer/artist, because they know they can default on this excuse. Writing "what everyone thinks but is afraid to say" or however you want to put it doesn't give you a free ride to making a shitty comic. I mean, there's no laws saying you can't make a shitty comic, but your amazingly witty and scathing critiques of our culture and society don't sweep your inability to write convincing dialogue or create a multi-dimensional character under the rug in the eyes of your readers.

#7 using your comic/other sources to insult the reviewer is actually a great thing for comic writers/artists to do, that is, if they subscribe to the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity. Someone gives you a glowing review? Hey, might invite a few more people to check out your comic. Someone writes at length about your failures? WHAT. WHAT. WHERE IS THE HORRIBLE COMIC. I MUST SEE IT WHERE IS IT, IS IT REALLY AS BAD AS THEY SAY??? <3 <3 <3

But if you want to gain a readership based on your good merits and your ability to put together quality work, this method won't work in the long run. You'll wind up being "that guy." The one that has a comic that is mediocre at best. The one that runs a hate campaign against anyone who questions their work. The one whose comic gets hits for the same reason people look at a car wreck on the side of the road.

Don't be that car wreck. You want to be the big beautiful museum, where people go to find out more about their world. You want to be the movie theater, where people go to be entertained. You want to be the library, where people go to get lost in a story that you told. Don't be the car wreck. It gets cleaned up, its victims heal or die, a few witnesses may be traumatized by what they saw there, but nobody recommends it to others. Nobody says "Hey Sal, last week there was this car wreck over on I-95, you should drive by and see if it's still there!" If you're the car wreck, you have a time limit, and then you are no longer relevant.

BIG TIP FOR ALL REVIEWED:
Take a breath, step back, re-read the review, re-read any parts of your comic pointed out as needing work, really think about what was said, ask for second opinions.
Then when you've actually taken everything in, without the knee-jerk emotions, feel free to respond.

Yessssss.

One thing I recommend- and this is good to do even with a praiseful review so you don't just gush with joy at the reviewer- is to sleep on it. Read your review, feel whatever you need to feel, get some rest, and then compose a reply in the morning. Because even the most accurate, best-delivered criticism still can hurt- that's normal. That means you're attached to your work, which is not a bad thing. But wait until your rage no longer makes you incomprehensibly mash the keyboard, wait until your tickled giddiness no longer makes you cry and quee and jump up and down and tell your roommate someone liked your comic. AND, most importantly, thank your reviewer! He/she took (hopefully) a good amount of time to parse your work and then give you pointers on how you can make your comic better, which, as artists, is something we all should be aiming to do.

[robotthepirate]

I'm not sure I can completely agree with the objection to "It's my style". Obviously there are times when it is a simple exuse but all artists have a style so there must be a point when your reviewers only complaint is not the quality of your work but the style in which it is done. This is when your only response can be that it is your "style".

I'm not going to presume you meant that artists aren't allowed to have their own style, because everyone does.

So I'd put it as something like:
#1 Don't hide behind the exuse of "It's my style" to defend poor art work or quality. Everyone has their own style but that doesn't mean you can't improve and develop your style for better over time.

I'm bias of course. My comic is riddled with what I would call "my style". I know that as an artist I am limiting my skill growth with such a constraint but the challenge is to improve and grow within my self imposed boundaries to promote simplicity and minimalism, aiming for iconic rather than realistic.

I don't know if that makes me sound defensive of my comic. Tell me if it does, because that wasn't what I was aiming for.

[RobboAKAscooby]

I'm not sure I can completely agree with the objection to "It's my style". Obviously there are times when it is a simple exuse but all artists have a style so there must be a point when your reviewers only complaint is not the quality of your work but the style in which it is done. This is when your only response can be that it is your "style".

I'm not going to presume you meant that artists aren't allowed to have their own style, because everyone does.

So I'd put it as something like:
#1 Don't hide behind the exuse of "It's my style" to defend poor art work or quality. Everyone has their own style but that doesn't mean you can't improve and develop your style for better over time.

I'm bias of course. My comic is riddled with what I would call "my style". I know that as an artist I am limiting my skill growth with such a constraint but the challenge is to improve and grow within my self imposed boundaries to promote simplicity and minimalism, aiming for iconic rather than realistic.

I don't know if that makes me sound defensive of my comic. Tell me if it does, because that wasn't what I was aiming for.

Once you've read a few reviews/critiques or even "help me" topics you'll understand the whole "It's my style" argument.
It is very much used as an excuse against badly done art - not against having a style - whether it's minimalistic or realistic doesn't matter.
More often than not the reviewer will comment on something like the proportions being off or the line work being shaky (legitimate things to comment on no matter style) and then we get the whining.

No matter the style it's not an excuse for bad art, I've seen beautiful minimalism and dreadful photo-realism.

As artists our goal is to develop our own style (I certainly have mine in progress) the difference is being able to reasonably explain the choices we've made and actually back it up with a tried consistency (and within webcomics you will usually see the development of the style in practice).

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

asks question

Once you've read a few reviews/critiques or even "help me" topics you'll understand the whole "It's my style" argument.
It is very much used as an excuse against badly done art - not against having a style - whether it's minimalistic or realistic doesn't matter.
More often than not the reviewer will comment on something like the proportions being off or the line work being shaky (legitimate things to comment on no matter style) and then we get the whining.

Also most often the person starts defining it as a style only after it has been called into question. I usually see this with people who try to copy their favorite manga artist (because people think "Manga is easy," but that's another rant) and draw people where you can tell the artist only really cared about drawing the face and the rest is just minimal. Like the hair and eyes will have so much detail put into them, but every nose and mouth looks the same, there is no facial structure variation, and then the bodies are drawn in that really scratchy segmented style, you know what I'm talking about, where the artist doesn't have enough confidence to draw one long line so they make a bunch of short scratchy lines to "suggest" a bigger line, which generally doesn't work. If I hypothetically were to say to someone, "You've put all of the details into the faces of your characters, but their bodies are disproportionate and the linework there is unconfident" I would not believe them if they answered back with "That's my style." There's certain things an artist just doesn't set out to do.

Some artists break the rules of anatomy but get away with it because they understand those rules and why they work. That's a different situation entirely. When someone breaks certain art rules because they weren't aware or understanding of those rules in the first place, it is quite apparent that they were uninformed.

Of course having individual style is encouraged What Robbo and I (and many others) object to is when people use style as an excuse to resist learning or expanding their artistic ability.

Personal example: My Band Geeks comic is pretty representative of my "style" back in high school. I drew all people that way with that same format. It doesn't look horrible, and it suited its purpose. But I took an art class and drew some people and my teacher encouraged me to draw them in a more realistic way for one of our projects. She wasn't pushy about it and I politely refused saying it was "a stylistic choice." Looking back, I know this is bullshit, because if it was a "choice," that would mean I had other options, wouldn't it? And I didn't. I hadn't drawn a realistic body since 1904. And once I started working on Loud Era it took a LONG time for me to break out of that rut. I now don't have a problem with necks and shoulders (well, I mean I'm sure I DO, but not glaringly), but extended anatomy is troublesome. I have problems with torsos, with legs, not so much with feet or hands because I had been drawing them all the while, but I ended up putting myself many steps behind where I could be because of my refusal to open my mind to other things I could do with my art.

VCC making a wall of text???? How out of character! But basically yeah, if you are consciously artistically limiting yourself, there's not necessarily a problem with that. It's just possible that years down the line you'll wish you had a wider breadth of ability and may feel frustrated about "what could have been." This of course is balanced out if you work on other projects outside of your typical style.


edited because one sentence meant the exact opposite of what I intended!

[RobboAKAscooby]

said stuff

Exactly.

Personal example: My Band Geeks comic is pretty representative of my "style" back in high school. I drew all people that way with that same format. It doesn't look horrible, and it suited its purpose. But I took an art class and drew some people and my teacher encouraged me to draw them in a more realistic way for one of our projects. She wasn't pushy about it and I politely refused saying it was "a stylistic choice." Looking back, I know this is bullshit, because if it was a "choice," that would mean I had other options, wouldn't it? And I didn't. I hadn't drawn a realistic body since 1904. And once I started working on Loud Era it took a LONG time for me to break out of that rut. I now don't have a problem with necks and shoulders (well, I mean I'm sure I DO, but not glaringly), but extended anatomy is troublesome. I have problems with torsos, with legs, not so much with feet or hands because I had been drawing them all the while, but I ended up putting myself many steps behind where I could be because of my refusal to open my mind to other things I could do with my art.

I feel your pain.

[McDuffies]

A lot of themes to brush on...


On "It's my style arguement"
The whole thing with covering bad drawing with stylistic choices, the reason why it should not be done is that those two look nothing alike. Drawing something like that because you choose so, and drawing it like that because you can't do better, those two don't look alike. I mean, to someone relatively inexperienced... to a new comic artist, they might look the same. To a superficial comic reader - well, just think of all the crappily drawn yet popular comics that covered their clunkiness with heavy layers of photoshop effects. But to anyone with some experience, to anyone who's spent some years reading comics, they don't. The most experienced reader, specially someone who's worked in art education, can practically figure how much you know from a single line - from confidence, movement, quality of line. I've seen people peg my drawing problems from minimal drawing that I wouldn't have thought was representative at all.

But beginners don't know that of course, sometimes they don't see any difference between Bruce Timm's stylization and their geometric scribbling. That's inevitable, 'cause eye needs training like everything else. That's also why someone who's not exactly a beginner might think that he's successfully covered up the bact that he draws hands as if they're rachitic, comparing them to some other artist who has an unusual way of drawing them. The thing is, I think, that artist also convinces himself that he draws something as stylistic choice and not out of neccessity, the origins of how you started drawing something get blurry over time. The real attitude to preventing this is to attempt to get a hang of basic knowledge of all esential skills no matter whether you intend to use them or not.
(I should note that I have some reservations about dedicating too much to craftmanship aspect, as craftsmanship can often prevent the immediacy, spontanuity and intimacy that comics drawn in more "amateurish" manner have.)

My general attitude about art is always that if it works, it's ok. The "It's my style" agruement always arises from the situation where artist thinks that something works, when it actually doesn't, and that's the whole problem.


On artists who argue with critics
Actually, from my experience you never get too much flack from artists, but from fans of their comics. From my experience, save for occational bad apple, webcomic artists are very acceptive of criticism, well-mannered and even thankful for the kind of attention that analytical approach gives them. Even with comics who work in print, where some egos fly higher, creators usually feel obliged to preserve dignity under criticism.
It's always fans that are the problem. They're the ones from whom I've heard the "his comic is more popular than yours" arguement. They have open range on internet to speak whatever they feel like.
Unlike artists, fans don't have any training in receiving criticism, their skin is extremely thin and they get easily irritated to anything that's not in line with their adulation.
Unlike artists, fans don't have awareness that there is different perspective to the issue. Artists know that they're subjective about their work so they have reservations to act out even if they're hurt. Fans are convinced that they are completely objective and therefore completely right.
Unlike artists, fans don't feel like they're being selfish for defending the comic. They actually feel kinda noble for defending someone else and even think that the criticized artist is being too modest. I've seen more than one instance of an author trying to calm down his fan's outburst of anger, and them completely ignoring him.
Unlike artists, fans can't see any benefit from criticism (they think the comic is perfect the way it is). They don't care about comic getting any better, they just care about getting it more popular.
Unlike artists, fans easily get goaded into ganging on the critic on private forums and the like, thanks to mass mentality, feeling of brotherhood and missdirected allegiance.
Unlike artists, fans generally don't know anything about usual etiquette in artist's circles.
Yeah, artists are easy and pleasant to deal with. Mind the occasional pathological case because they don't outlast their first few dramas. Also have patience with beginner artists, everyone's got to learn sometime.


On responding to critics
I made a habit of not retorting to my critics in any way, except perhaps to correct some actual factual mistakes (like if they got the age in LWK wrong, or somethinglike that). I try not to discuss my intentions or things that I might think the critic missed or missinterpreted because I think that a comic should be self-explanatory and not need aditional explanations like that. The other reason is, critiques need some time to sink in. I don't agree with a critic on spot unless they point out something I knew but hoped that readers don't notice, but those things stay in my mind and I reexamine them as I work on a comic later.

Also there are cases when I think that criticism is largely a product of critic's and my different perception of what comics should be (think like: comic is too dark; too heavy; doesn't explain everything enough; too weird). I have a pretty clear idea of what my reader should be like, and I'm aware that this is the small subset of comic readership. However I think that bringing this up to a critic would be impolite. In the end I always do what I want so why argue about it?

So I try to avoid responding with more than polite "Thanks" although it is always very, very tempting. After all arguing with a critic keeps you in spotlight for five more minutes, and I'm not the most imune to that.


Other

4. "It's just a hobby I'm not trying to be a professional"

Actually I think that this arguement has some merrit. While hobby status should not be an excuse for someone to stagnate and not try, it also means that a hobbyist has significantly less time and energy to dedicate to comics than a professional. Also remember that we're all in different situations regarding free time. Some have more demanding jobs, or children, or generally lesser drawing conditions.

[CMikeNIke]

I don't recall who said it, I'm thinking it was a blog post by Neil Gaiman, but where it's from isn't really important.

When there is a review/critique of your work, DON'T RESPOND TO IT. Sure, read it, but don't add comments below it, don't even read the comments, just take what they say, decide what was positive, see if you can see their problems with it, and move on. Replying to bad reviews makes you look bad, nearly regardless of how you respond, and every time you respond there is a risk for it to turn into a big thing, and blow itself out of proportion. Replying to good reviews just makes to look like you're stroking your ego. I feel at most, at VERY most, you can say "Thanks for looking at my work, I appreciate the time."

Again, don't ignore it, take the good points, remedy the bad, and just keep working.

Edit: Sorry McDuffies, I realize that I'm just reiterating your point. Guess that's what I get for glossing over.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Interesting... I always thought it was good form to respond to a critique. Not to critique the critique, of course, but to clarify things. I know that when I write a review for someone I always appreciate when they continue the conversation and ask about the points I've made, and feel kind of eh if the response is just "Thanks!"

Then again, to me, I look at critiques as an interactive process. When I get critiqued, I like to prove that I have read and digested the person's review and didn't just lightly look over it, and also sometimes I like letting the reviewer know perhaps the "whys" (which are reasons but NOT excuses) of certain errors I may have made. I always thought that the reviewer would like to hear back

And I like getting a thorough response to show that my words aren't all for naught and that the person reviewed either likes or doesn't like my advice and whether or not they plan on taking it.

I think this might be a situation where mileage varies, as I have seen both happen about equally. I guess it's up to the person asking for the review (or perhaps the reviewer) to be clear about whehter they are looking for a back-and-forth dialogue.

[RobboAKAscooby]

I think it's more a case of if you are asking for the review/critique you should be decent enough to respond - if some blog or such site just reviews you without warning there's no obligation to respond but a polite thank you doesn't hurt.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I think it's more a case of if you are asking for the review/critique you should be decent enough to respond - if some blog or such site just reviews you without warning there's no obligation to respond but a polite thank you doesn't hurt.

Ah. Gotcha. Forgot about that being a reviewing option

[McDuffies]

Edit: Sorry McDuffies, I realize that I'm just reiterating your point. Guess that's what I get for glossing over.

As far as I'm concerned, reiterate away.

Interesting... I always thought it was good form to respond to a critique. Not to critique the critique, of course, but to clarify things. I know that when I write a review for someone I always appreciate when they continue the conversation and ask about the points I've made, and feel kind of eh if the response is just "Thanks!"

Then again, to me, I look at critiques as an interactive process. When I get critiqued, I like to prove that I have read and digested the person's review and didn't just lightly look over it, and also sometimes I like letting the reviewer know perhaps the "whys" (which are reasons but NOT excuses) of certain errors I may have made. I always thought that the reviewer would like to hear back

I dunno, I guess it depends. If it's not reviewer's job to stroke my ego, then it's not my job to stroke his ego either. If a reviewer is particularly analytical, that may grant a mention, but in general I think that reviewing requires a comic to be the center of attnetion (reviewers who require attention eventually turn into those dreaded Pitchfork reviewers who try to impress with writing style instead of analytical insight) so I'm not terribly concerned about not giving a reviewer enough credit.
Also, since I believe that points from the review usually don't sink in instantly, I kind of think that response given instantly after a review is just a response to a first impression of it, if you know what I mean.
The greatest compliment I consider getting for a review was when people returned after some time to ask me for a second opinion. On the other hand, the only reaction that ever upset me was when people made it clear that they wouldn't give my negative review a decent consideration. Although maybe that shouldn't have upset me either since, again, it's reaction to the first impression.

[robotthepirate]

After reading this thread I was a bit scared of when I finish my comics first chapter, which is when I intend to advertise it more and ask for peoples opinions etc. I didn't want people tearing into my innocent creation for obvious reasons and although I still always wanted to carry on I did get rather nervous.

But I've been reading old archives my favourite online comic and remembering how it started out and thinking how much better I can get if I continue to comit to and enjoy RTP. So bring on the reviews, the encouraging, the harshly critising, the unconstructive abuse that will be ignored! Just not yet, give me about 9 weeks to finish the chapter.

[RobboAKAscooby]

So bring on the reviews, the encouraging, the harshly critising, the unconstructive abuse that will be ignored! Just not yet, give me about 9 weeks to finish the chapter.

No 9 weeks - We're all going to tear apart your work right now and leave you a shuddering husk of insecurity.

...

...

Ah but seriously when you're ready for feedback post a review request here on the forums, there's a handful of good folk here that do good thorough reviews.

[McDuffies]

After reading this thread I was a bit scared of when I finish my comics first chapter, which is when I intend to advertise it more and ask for peoples opinions etc. I didn't want people tearing into my innocent creation for obvious reasons and although I still always wanted to carry on I did get rather nervous.

There's nothing particularly comforting I could say on that topic... some people think that webcomics should not be reviewed due to their hobbist nature, and they may be right but it doesn't matter since a lot of other people don't think to, and if the first passes tearing into your innocent creation, the next one will. The only way to avoid this might be keeping low profile, but noone wants his comic not to be read.
It's perhaps a good idea to expose your comic to scrutiny of people you know, or people you know will be less harsh before John Solomon and people with similar discourse get to it. That way you have time to get used to criticism.

[RobboAKAscooby]

It's perhaps a good idea to expose your comic to scrutiny of people you know, or people you know will be less harsh before John Solomon and people with similar discourse get to it. That way you have time to get used to criticism.

Agreed.

Which reminds me we need another "webcomic above" topic soon.

robotthepirate, I wouldn't stress too much about it, everyone's work gets shat on and torn apart at some point the important thing is to both love what you're doing and to always be honest with yourself about it.

eg: I know my comic isn't going to be wowing crowds anytime soon but I like the world I've created and it has become a useful learning tool and harsh reviews help me find the problems I wasn't already aware of so I can try to avoid them in later projects.

But like I said before, when you're ready ask for a review.

[McDuffies]

Which reminds me we need another "webcomic above" topic soon.

Why not try webcomic below?

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Which reminds me we need another "webcomic above" topic soon.

Why not try webcomic below?

or webcomic beside

[Cheburatoroa]

So drunk...
Mjm..

Doesnt matter

[McDuffies]

Which reminds me we need another "webcomic above" topic soon.

Why not try webcomic below?

or webcomic beside

Cause there's no comic beside.