Rebirth of Webcomic Above Discussion

[Dragonkingdoms]

^ Notices how you didn't say anything to Black Sparrow, who I was responding to. (That, and it's neko. He likes to take snaps at everyone.) And where's that subject line? My signature is supposed to be a joke, like eaten by Keffria, or I've been Lego'd, etc. I guess it's only okay if it's made into an image, aka DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Back on topic: I remembered what comic was actually deleted- it was The Manual. I even tried Googling it, and nothing came up. Even the Internet Wayback Machine didn't work out. It's a shame, too, because I wanted to see it.

[Keffria]

See, the thing is, your signature makes it sound like you're whining because you've had a bad review (since it's certainly not an endorsement of your comic), whereas other forum buttons are all about inside jokes. For example, if I were to put "My houseplants were shredded by The Neko", that would be a silly signature line. Furthermore, you might have ignored Sparrow's comment, as it's not a question nor does it necessarily open up a new discussion -- but instead, you've essentially invited other forumites to explain to you why Neko is snappy.

And face it: you have a poor track record here, so you're going to have to get used to people thinking the worst of you until you can convince them otherwise.

And with that, I'm going to pull out of this debate. [Edit: if you want to keep talking about it, feel free to PM me.] And actually, I kind of want to put that houseplant line in my signature now...

[Black Sparrow]

Back on topic: I remembered what comic was actually deleted- it was The Manual.

Heh, yeah. My bad.

[Jesusabdullah]

I agree with Keff.

I'd say more (I'm certainly thinking more) but I don't think anything I say will go well. I feel like this latest bit of squabbling n' such is kind of my fault. Sorry guys.

[Jackhass]

To be fair to Dragonkingdoms, Neko has been un-necessarily dickish in his reviews. This is generally one of the most friendly forums I've posted in, and almost all the reviewers (including myself) have tried to put the most positive spin on our reviews possible.

I think people take the whole "any criticism is GOOD!" idea too far. There's a proper way to criticize and there's a wrong way. The proper way should point out a person's flaws while inspiring them to become better...not to pummel them with a lengthy and relentlessly negative rant that leaves a person feeling down on drawing for the next week (as DK claims he did). Neko seems more interesting in coming up with snappy put-downs, using big words and comparing the comic he's reviewing to various obscure works to prove how well read he is than inspiring/helping.

I've improved mostly by receiving positive reinforcement about the things I've done right rather than having my every flaw picked out and told I'm shit. I've recieved both from art teachers...the former was much more productive.

[War]

Dickish would be me repeatedly yelling shit and then really exploding at the end. What the hell do you say when there are no positive aspects?

There are bad comics, so many people are so damn unwilling to hurt other people's feelings that they praise them anyway.

[Black Sparrow]

Haven't we already had this discussion?

DK, what the Manual did was, honestly, pretty immature. He took a bad review (mine... erk) to the extreme, throwing out all efforts to help him improve and giving up webcomics altogether. Everyone has their strengths and their weaknesses, and pretending a weakness is a strength is just going to stunt that person's growth. It's better that you know your weaknesses, so that you can improve upon them until, years later, they're a strength. True, neko doesn't sugarcoat... he's even a bit on the sadistic side... but you've been pretty good in trying your best to look past that into what he was really trying to point out in your comic. That's a feat, so don't mess it up now.

[McDuffies]

Why don't we make a "nice webcomic above thread" and "mean webcomic above thread"? First one would be intended for only affirmative reviews.
I can already say that majority of people would post in mean one, and then we'd still have same discussions all over.*

I don't know, I can't stay 100% behind Neko's tone* (though his reviewing is miles far from what Jackhass described), I'm told that I'm good at telling the bad news the easy way, but still with webcomic above - who comes below you is purely a matter of chance. I could get someone who'd just praise me by default and I'd probably think "You shouldn't have bothered at all"; I was lucky to get persons whose writing and artistic expertize I trust a lot, but that might not have been the case. I think it's one of things you agree to when putting your name in the hat, be it fair or unfair.

In any case, Point Guardian review is up. Now we'll see whether I really do know how to lay down bad news or not.

(Also, I think I made some girl quit webcomics by telling her what I think about her comic, back in early years of my posting here. She was drawing a stick figure comic and she was apparently shocked when she got a generally negative response, of which I was largely a part.
Actually I never felt guilty about it. I guess I see such people as ones who expect to jump in the water and do with half-hearted effort and expect to get the same results as some who slave over it for years. I mean, if they quit so easily, then they weren't into it much in the first place.)

----------
*or maybe Webcomic below?

[Dutch!]

Why are people so unkind? [/Kamahl]

[Jackhass]

Dickish would be me repeatedly yelling shit and then really exploding at the end. What the hell do you say when there are no positive aspects?

There are bad comics, so many people are so damn unwilling to hurt other people's feelings that they praise them anyway.

You're completely missing my point. I'm not saying we should praise bad comics. I'm saying we should give criticism in a way that's helpful and encouraging, not mean-spirited discouraging and with the focus on writing witty scathing reviews over actually helping/encouraging people.

We're all in the same boat here. Compared to actual professional cartoonists most of us aren't that great...what's the point of one marginally-better-in-the-big-picture amature cartoonist trying to stomp down another?

[McDuffies]

Dunno about you, I'm pretty great.

[Jackhass]

Dunno about you, I'm pretty great.

You just think that because Neko hasn't reviewed you yet.

[ChaosBurnFlame]

Why don't we make a "nice webcomic above thread" and "mean webcomic above thread"? First one would be intended for only affirmative reviews.
I can already say that majority of people would post in mean one, and then we'd still have same discussions all over.*

I don't know, I can't stay 100% behind Neko's tone* (though his reviewing is miles far from what Jackhass described), I'm told that I'm good at telling the bad news the easy way, but still with webcomic above - who comes below you is purely a matter of chance. I could get someone who'd just praise me by default and I'd probably think "You shouldn't have bothered at all"; I was lucky to get persons whose writing and artistic expertize I trust a lot, but that might not have been the case. I think it's one of things you agree to when putting your name in the hat, be it fair or unfair.

In any case, Point Guardian review is up. Now we'll see whether I really do know how to lay down bad news or not.

(Also, I think I made some girl quit webcomics by telling her what I think about her comic, back in early years of my posting here. She was drawing a stick figure comic and she was apparently shocked when she got a generally negative response, of which I was largely a part.
Actually I never felt guilty about it. I guess I see such people as ones who expect to jump in the water and do with half-hearted effort and expect to get the same results as some who slave over it for years. I mean, if they quit so easily, then they weren't into it much in the first place.)

----------
*or maybe Webcomic below?

It's a nice review...

However, some of your facts are off.

Kirby wasn't an inker, he was a penciler.

Kirby, from what I knew of the man, based on what I'm told by people that worked with him, never inked...

In fact, in the early days, he still didn't ink his own stuff... HIS WIFE ROZ DID!

Misconceptions of Kirby are one of the few things that bug me.

As for the review itself, a lot of what you say is stuff I've heard before, but as for the over simplifications.... It's based on the idea that morality isn't too complicated if you don't let it be...

It's the reverse direction of the same concept that Steve Ditko took when he embraced Objectivism and applied it to such comics of his as "The Question".

Overall, Point Guardian is a learning process for me, it's a moving exercise to build on my skills as an artist and storyteller. When Point Guardian ends, I realize I probably wouldn't be able to market it, but by then I figure I can be able to market and work on one of my many other ideas.

And as I learn, I take steps closer to the pros that I wish to one day become like(switching to a brush for inking, switching to 11x17 paper over letter sized, stuff like that).

I thank you for the review and your willingness to tell what needs to be told, although most of what is said, I kinda already knew

[LibertyCabbage]

I'm pretty supportive of Neko's style of reviewing, actually. It's harsh, and insensitive, but in this way I think it's also quite effective. I don't think anybody else here (including myself) has the constitution to be that direct and disaffectionate, so I think we're fortunate to have someone like Neko here to do this. Of course, it's easy to have such positive regards when I, myself, haven't been one of Neko's "victims", but isn't all criticism really the same way? I'll go as far to say that Neko's reviews are entertaining and refreshing to read. He's the forum's Simon: everyone dislikes him and thinks he's a jerk, but his scathing remarks are infinitely more amusing and insightful than what the other judges say and I'll bet he's the real source of the show's popularity. It should also be considered that with the Webcomic Above system, everyone can -- and should -- enter their comic multiple times. That way, a consensus can be formed based on multiple sources as opposed to the opinions of one person.

We're all in the same boat here. Compared to actual professional cartoonists most of us aren't that great...what's the point of one marginally-better-in-the-big-picture amature cartoonist trying to stomp down another?

I have somewhat of a different opinion regarding skill. It seems to me that the skill gap separating the pros and the amateurs, the great and the good, the good and the mediocre, the mediocre and the bad, is really not that much. Being slightly better in all areas of production really makes a huge difference. I also don't have nearly as much faith in professionalism. I've seen many, many amateurs out there who easily have as much talent and skill as the professionals but they don't fit into the established mold or have burdens (school, part-time/full-time jobs) that hinder their artistic development (as opposed to professionals who can afford to spend much more time on comics because they get paid for it.) For example, I even feel that Jackhass' comic is of equal or greater quality than the stuff you'd find in your Sunday newspaper. Also, one last statement: no one was born with a professional level of skill in cartooning. The comic jobs market is extremely competitive, and the people working at Marvel and DC didn't just get jobs out of the blue. Not only did they spend hard years of practicing and learning, but I'll bet that if they didn't have a history of amateur work to display that they wouldn't even be let in the door for an interview. It's easy to look at an artist at the top of his/her game and ignore all the years of struggling, failing, and learning it took for them to get there.

[ChaosBurnFlame]

The comic jobs market is extremely competitive, and the people working at Marvel and DC didn't just get jobs out of the blue.

Yes, sometimes they sleep with the EIC, other times they are the nephew of the owner. Oh, and there's always "The current EIC likes me and fired everyone that disagreed with him".

[LibertyCabbage]

The comic jobs market is extremely competitive, and the people working at Marvel and DC didn't just get jobs out of the blue.

Yes, sometimes they sleep with the EIC, other times they are the nephew of the owner. Oh, and there's always "The current EIC likes me and fired everyone that disagreed with him".

Thanks for completely ignoring the subject of my post in favor of making a sardonic comment.

[Adobedragon]

Dickish would be me repeatedly yelling shit and then really exploding at the end. What the hell do you say when there are no positive aspects?

Nothing, nada, zip, zilch. I don't bother to critique a work if nothing about it appeals to me. I'd rather critique something that shows promise.

I think the word Jackhass is looking for here is "diplomacy." Basically, it is possible to deliver bad news in a manner that doesn't feel like getting chewed out by a drill sergeant.

[ChaosBurnFlame]

The comic jobs market is extremely competitive, and the people working at Marvel and DC didn't just get jobs out of the blue.

Yes, sometimes they sleep with the EIC, other times they are the nephew of the owner. Oh, and there's always "The current EIC likes me and fired everyone that disagreed with him".

Thanks for completely ignoring the subject of my post in favor of making a witty comment.

The point is being the most skilled in the industry doesn't always mean you'll get the job.

It's about who you know.

Stan Lee got his start him comics because his uncle was the owner of Timely.

[Mo]

Hurrah, more forum drama!

[Col]

And not nearly enough people getting their reviews done, or at least showing any signs of getting 'em done.