VeryCuddlyCornpone wrote:I have a few suggestions for you along this line that I'll put into my review Seems that you and I are both having a period of reflection regarding our earlier work.
Phact0rri wrote:I would agree with the "non-rework" situation. Just because your old comics were weak (whose wasn't?), you can go forward bettering your self as you go. There's no set rule that you can't organically adjust things as you go. For the most part this is a hobby, and a learning exercise more than anything. And I think we draw a lot (where's Joel when you need him) of understanding and skill from looking at the failures. More forward, but don't worry about what has already happened.
If you get disastified, I am in the school just pack it up and make a new comic.
McDuffies wrote:If you get disastified, I am in the school just pack it up and make a new comic.
There's also a lot of cases where authors were very attached to their characters, so they were starting new comics reusing old characters. Take John Allison for examole, he's been using his characters of Shelly and Tim since his pre-internet high school comics.
McDuffies wrote:I think that kind of "being satisfied with all parts of your comic" doesn't happen in webcomics... remember reading your favourite webcomic, five years of archives, and then returning to it's beginning to reread it again, then thinking "hey, I don't remember it being this crude!"
Anyways, some of the best stories start in the middle.
Phact0rri wrote:I think having a consistent style works well in print comics. but Webcomics are a much longer burn than those for the most part.
McDuffies wrote:Phact0rri wrote:I think having a consistent style works well in print comics. but Webcomics are a much longer burn than those for the most part.
But even newspaper comics are rarely consistent from beginning to end. Just remember those early Calvin & Hobbes strips.
Users browsing this forum: bokliriu and 1 guest