I'll review your webcomic.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I noticed that, too. I think some people dont' realize that not every webcomic reviewer is part of some Bad Webcomics Wiki Borg operating under the loving wing of John Solomon.

Also I kind of want to point out (to the folks with issues) that no one would be complaining saying you don't have the "authority" to review comics if you were giving entirely positive reviews. If you said "This is a great great comic with no considerable flaws!" I think they'd find you a perfectly qualified reviewer.


Lol, I think that for me this is becoming a case of "Someone is wrong on the internet" and I have this almost patriotic urge to try to correct everyone. I think it would be better if all the plaintiffs were at least very young, but from what I gather plenty of them are legal adults who should be able to take a little criticism without the fabric of their self esteem coming unwoven (or at least giving that impression by what they say).

[RobboAKAscooby]

Lol, I think that for me this is becoming a case of "Someone is wrong on the internet" and I have this almost patriotic urge to try to correct everyone. I think it would be better if all the plaintiffs were at least very young, but from what I gather plenty of them are legal adults who should be able to take a little criticism without the fabric of their self esteem coming unwoven (or at least giving that impression by what they say).

Sadly it's the society the world has created, thanks in no small part to the internet, people believe they are "special" and that anything negative they're told is wrong (I get this all the time at work from customers) and it's only gonna get worse with the next generation...

*sigh*

[LibertyCabbage]

I noticed that, too. I think some people dont' realize that not every webcomic reviewer is part of some Bad Webcomics Wiki Borg operating under the loving wing of John Solomon.

I think I'd actually prefer it if more people didn't see through my thin facade. I've already accepted that my reviews are gonna make people upset and uncomfortable (unless I do a 180 and get super-nice, which ain't gonna happen), so if people actually build up an image in their mind of an organized, malicious Internet group, then I feel like it suggests I'm doing something right.

I guess the next step is for someone to think the goofy animated GIFs I made from YouTube videos are actual spy cameras.

Also I kind of want to point out (to the folks with issues) that no one would be complaining saying you don't have the "authority" to review comics if you were giving entirely positive reviews. If you said "This is a great great comic with no considerable flaws!" I think they'd find you a perfectly qualified reviewer.

Yeah, that's gotta be the No. 1 most ridiculous part of this whole reviewing thing. When I write negative things about a webcomic, I'm a hateful, arrogant, obtuse imbecile, and when I write positive things about a webcomic, I'm a genius, wonderful, expert reviewer. I don't take either of these sentiments seriously, though, because they're so obviously influenced by the creator's feelings. If I make someone feel bad, they don't like me, and if I make them feel good, they do like me. It doesn't really have anything to do with the quality of my reviews.

As for having the "authority" to write reviews, that's definitely relevant a lot of the time, and it's probably gonna be a bigger issue after I start linking to my awful old webcomics soon. But I always think to myself, why do I need "authority" and credentials to post my opinions online, when creators never need any sort of legitimacy to justify posting their comics online? According to conventional wisdom, it's okay for any random person with an Internet connection who can check an "I read the T&C" box to post a crappy webcomic, but God forbid you write anything unfavorable about their work unless you have a master's degree in cartooning, an awesome webcomic with 100,000 readers, and your own 12-step program on how to be famous and successful.

Lol, I think that for me this is becoming a case of "Someone is wrong on the internet" and I have this almost patriotic urge to try to correct everyone. I think it would be better if all the plaintiffs were at least very young, but from what I gather plenty of them are legal adults who should be able to take a little criticism without the fabric of their self esteem coming unwoven (or at least giving that impression by what they say).

The diversion of baiting an author has the sanction of all ages and nations, and is more lawful than the sport of teasing other animals, because, for the most part, he comes voluntarily to the stake, furnished, as he imagines, by the patron powers of literature, with resistless weapons, and impenetrable armour, with the mail of the boar of Erymanth, and the paws of the lion of Nemea.

I think you're more interested in these "plaintiffs" than I am. If someone wants to hurl childish insults and act like their cute little opinions mean something, I don't really care. If I had more time on my hands then maybe I could respond to all the haters, but I don't, so when I do choose to respond to someone, it's only when they're actually being mature and respectful.

Sadly it's the society the world has created, thanks in no small part to the internet, people believe they are "special" and that anything negative they're told is wrong (I get this all the time at work from customers) and it's only gonna get worse with the next generation...

Absolutely. The greatest aspect of the Internet's that anyone can contribute, and the worst aspect of the Internet's that anyone can contribute. I wonder how many of these supposedly great cartoonists, if they actually sent their comics to a publisher, would have their submission dumped in the nearest trash bin after being looked at for only a few seconds? At least I take a few hours out of my day to write something about them.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not losing sleep over them or anything It's mostly funny to me (a bit annoying)- it's the desperate "how dare you"-style defensiveness that makes it hilarious.

[Cope]

I'll be posting interviews on my blog on the next couple Tuesdays. One's with the CG forums' horniest member, and the other's with a webcartoonist who's kinda famous.

Is it sad that I thought you meant McDuffies before I remembered that interview you did with me all those years ago?

[LibertyCabbage]

I'll be posting interviews on my blog on the next couple Tuesdays. One's with the CG forums' horniest member, and the other's with a webcartoonist who's kinda famous.

Is it sad that I thought you meant McDuffies before I remembered that interview you did with me all those years ago?

Psyche!

I completely forgot about the interviews I did, too, 'til I went through some old files the other day and found them. I realized today I probably should've PM'd you first, but I thought it'd be funny to post something so old out of the blue, and plus you got a link out of it.

If y'all like this interview and the next one, lemme know and I might do some new ones. As I wrote at the end of the interview, "They're pretty fun and easy to do."

Also, people can still ask for reviews for their own comics, but now I think I'll open this thread up to suggestions for other people's webcomics to review as well. I'm open to reviewing just about anything.

P.S. I'm getting ready to write a scathing review of Wingmen. I'll have it posted tomorrow.

[McDuffies]

I think some people don't understand what a "review" means, and think that it is entirely valueless no matter what unless it's 100% supportive buttpatting of the artist

It's like that with people who make comics strictly for attention, to them criticism really doesn't have value. The other thing is, if you haven't had a chance to show comics to too many people other than your friends and family before putting them on internet and getting in the middle of some small, back-patting community - relying on textbook examples of biased reviewers, you form the opinion that your comics are better than they are. It's worse if they haven't read all that many different kind of comics, and if those they have had been usual commercial fare, then they're used to low standards and think that that's how comics are made.

As for having the "authority" to write reviews, that's definitely relevant a lot of the time, and it's probably gonna be a bigger issue after I start linking to my awful old webcomics soon. But I always think to myself, why do I need "authority" and credentials to post my opinions online, when creators never need any sort of legitimacy to justify posting their comics online? According to conventional wisdom, it's okay for any random person with an Internet connection who can check an "I read the T&C" box to post a crappy webcomic, but God forbid you write anything unfavorable about their work unless you have a master's degree in cartooning, an awesome webcomic with 100,000 readers, and your own 12-step program on how to be famous and successful.

You nailed it on the head. You might as well ask in return, what kind of "authority" do they have to post comics? Have they finished art school? Have they gone through the kind of rite of passage that published comic artists do through? Have they been chasing published artists on conventions to show them their work? Do their comics have to pass through any kind of editor before getting published? Have they ever been published anywhere except by themselves? Have they ever gone through any kind of selection anywhere?
It would be wrong to stake the quality of the comic on these questions, of course, but one thing that a sort of "rite of passage" has to go for it is, it gets people used to criticism, it puts their work in perspective and in general gets them to act more professional (not always though, there are some notable examples to the contrary).
Anyways, it's ridiculous that often the sole reason they can publish their comics anywhere is internet's lack of selectiveness, but then when they get criticized by an online critic, suddenly they're not ok with it anymore.

I think you're more interested in these "plaintiffs" than I am. If someone wants to hurl childish insults and act like their cute little opinions mean something, I don't really care. If I had more time on my hands then maybe I could respond to all the haters, but I don't, so when I do choose to respond to someone, it's only when they're actually being mature and respectful.

One thing you can do if you want to bait them, though, is add a P.S about how they reacted to criticism.

[LibertyCabbage]

Webcomic: Wingmen
URL: http://wingmen.comicgenesis.com
Creator/s: Adam T. Williams
Run: 9/06-current
Schedule: M/Th
Section: 2012

Website: The creator hasn't really touched the layout since the Comic Genesis script spit it out back in 2006. But Comic Genesis sites are intended to be heavily customized, and if a creator really, really, really doesn't wanna spend any time on their site, then a hosting service like Smack Jeeves would be much better, as at least they have some decent-looking templates to choose from. As I've said before, a webcartoonist doesn't need to be a coding guru, but they should at least be somewhat familiar with basic HTML if they're gonna run a website.

It's unclear what the cast page is supposed to accomplish, as usually cast pages provide some information on the characters, but this one just shows the characters and links to one of their appearances in the comic. I didn't find this cast page to be helpful or interesting at all.

The creator seems to have been able to stick to a twice-a-week schedule for quite a while, although this isn't all that notable considering how basic the artwork is.

Lastly, if you're just dying to own a Wingmen-themed tote bag, you totally can.

Writing: A bland, newspaper-style webcomic like Critters might appeal to the elderly and the easily amused, but Wingmen's on a level beneath that, not even demonstrating the basic storytelling skills required to deliver a joke. The creator's obviously trying to be funny, and he's trying to make a webcomic that people will actually wanna go outta their way to read, but unfortunately, trying is as far as he gets.

I'm reminded of the classic shtick of the bumbling stand-up artist trying to pass off his lame jokes to a silent and apathetic audience. Alone in the spotlight, the artist has a pathetic expression on his face, begging: Please.

Please laugh at my joke. Just one time, that's all I'm asking.

Just once. I really, really need this.

Please.

But they don't laugh. And the artist goes home, dejected.

The creator of Wingmen's that artist. He keeps trying, time and time again, to be funny, to entertain, to make people happy, and time and time again, he stumbles, slips up, and doesn't quite get there. And with each new strip, he hopes that maybe, just maybe, something will be different, and he'll be funny, and people will laugh.

But they don't laugh. And the artist soldiers on, determined, confident that next time, maybe, just maybe, something will be different.

But it never is. And that's the story of Wingmen, dutifully pumping out uninspired strips for five-and-a-half years, a webcomic Sisyphus doomed to eternally trying, and failing, to push a webcomic boulder up a webcomic hill.

Art: Over the course of five-and-a-half years and dozens of story arcs, the simplistic, almost chibi-like artwork's barely changed or improved at all, despite not being all that attractive to begin with. The biggest change is obviously the addition of color, with the latest strips being either fully colored, partially colored, or just having the backgrounds colored. However, I consider this webcomic's bland coloring to be "very minimalistic" at best, and "lazy" at worst, and I don't think the newer, colored strips look notably better than the old black-and-white strips.

Prevalent throughout all of the strips are strange little animals that follow people around everywhere, but aside from the lame gag in this one strip, never once in the section I read were any of the animals interacted with or referred to. These animals, devoid of any context whatsoever, seem more like out-of-place doodles than actual additions to the comic. It's fine if a creator wants to mix up their slice-of-life comic with some unrealistic elements, but these unusual aspects need to be presented in a way that makes at least a little bit of sense.

Overall: Reviewer Shane Woodiss bluntly described Wingmen in 2009 as "not good enough to impress, and not bad enough to be funny," and I expect nearly all potential readers who come across this comic will have similar sentiments. Wingmen's an unsuccessful webcomic that shows no signs it'll get better any time soon, and I wonder if its creator would be better off putting the comic on hiatus and reassessing his intentions for the project. The comic may require being reinvented, or perhaps scrapped for a newer, more suitable project, but I think if it's left as-is, the creator'll be stuck rolling that webcomic boulder up that webcomic hill for years to come.

[LibertyCabbage]

Have they finished art school? Have they gone through the kind of rite of passage that published comic artists do through? Have they been chasing published artists on conventions to show them their work? Do their comics have to pass through any kind of editor before getting published? Have they ever been published anywhere except by themselves? Have they ever gone through any kind of selection anywhere?

I'd be shocked if any of the haters had actually gone through a "rite of passage" like this. Of course, if they'd gone through it, their webcomic probably wouldn't suck, and they wouldn't have gotten such a negative review in the first place.

Anyways, it's ridiculous that often the sole reason they can publish their comics anywhere is internet's lack of selectiveness, but then when they get criticized by an online critic, suddenly they're not ok with it anymore.

And to take things a step further, there are a bazillion webcomics, but there just aren't that many people out there willing to put up with the drama bullshit that comes with writing webcomic reviews. Don't like my review? That's fine, but good luck finding someone else who'll go out of their way to give you an honest review after you acted like a whiny four-year-old when you got the first one.

One thing you can do if you want to bait them, though, is add a P.S about how they reacted to criticism.

Of course, the word "bait" is from the Samuel Johnson quote I posted, and even then, I think Johnson's being sarcastic. It's not my intention to actively harass anybody, although I could probably pretty easily come up with a variety of ways to do it if I wanted to.

Also, the reviews'll pick up more next week, starting with one of the Fall of God comic just posted in the Comic Pitching forums. The reviewing was slow this week 'cause work was uncharacteristically ridiculous, and I was also busy furiously whipping up a website for another project so it'd be ready to start this Monday. I still need to make the "about" and "extras" pages, and the navigation buttons, but I'm sure I can get those done pretty soon after the comic starts. Website critiques would be appreciated when the site launches, since it's kind of a weird design that I quickly threw together.

[peterabnny]

Writing: A bland, newspaper-style webcomic like Critters might appeal to the elderly and the easily amused,

Hey, thanks for the plug, LC!

Unfortunately, I lost the elderly demographic when I made a disparaging comment about Betty White, and now the AARP is hounding my ass for saying something bad about a beloved American icon. Sheesh - who'd have thought those old people would be so mean?! Fortunately, I still have the easily amused crowd, which encompasses a great many people, so I got that going for me.

And I see you quoted me in your sig line, too. I feel honored! That line is one of my favorites, too.

Wingmen's on a level beneath that, not even demonstrating the basic storytelling skills required to deliver a joke.

You mean you found a comic that sucks WORSE THAN MINE?! WOO HOOOOO! That must have taken some doing!

You know, I was just thinking - there's so much drama and flaming going on in this thread whenever you rip someone to pieces, but I can't help but think so much of it could have been avoided if you had a little more truth in advertising in your subject heading. Instead of "I'll Review Your Webcomic" you should have had: "I'll Shit On Your Webcomic."

[LibertyCabbage]

Hey, thanks for the plug, LC!

No problem! It's obviously not in a favorable light, but I think most webcartoonists would agree that any publicity's helpful, even if it's bad publicity. And maybe somebody will click the link and think to themselves, "Hey, I actually really like this."

Of course, I could've just found a link somewhere to an online version of Garfield or something to represent "newspaper-style comics," but it made more sense at the time to link to a webcomic.

Unfortunately, I lost the elderly demographic when I made a disparaging comment about Betty White, and now the AARP is hounding my ass for saying something bad about a beloved American icon. Sheesh - who'd have thought those old people would be so mean?! Fortunately, I still have the easily amused crowd, which encompasses a great many people, so I got that going for me.

Keep in mind, though, that if any of the good webcomic-style comics submitted their work to a more conservative publisher (e.g., newspapers, maybe children's material), they'd quickly get turned down for being too "edgy" or "weird" or "offensive." In that case, that publisher's deliberately looking for something bland. Even a wildly popular webcomic like Penny Arcade probably isn't suitable for a newspaper, because so many newspaper readers are older and wouldn't get the gaming culture and references.

I also tried to make it clear in my review that I don't like newspaper-style comics in general, and I'd have no hesitation to give the professional, well-known newspaper comics negative reviews as well if I was interested in writing about print comics.

You mean you found a comic that sucks WORSE THAN MINE?! WOO HOOOOO! That must have taken some doing!

If I'd been seeing more newspaper-style webcomics around then I possibly wouldn't have singled out Critters like that, but I just haven't been seeing them on the sites I mainly review from (CG, DD, SJ).

You know, I was just thinking - there's so much drama and flaming going on in this thread whenever you rip someone to pieces, but I can't help but think so much of it could have been avoided if you had a little more truth in advertising in your subject heading. Instead of "I'll Review Your Webcomic" you should have had: "I'll Shit On Your Webcomic."

The negative reviews are the most exciting and get the most commentary, but if you've been paying attention to this thread, you'd notice that I actually do a lot of positive and mixed reviews as well.

Anyways, Webcomic Above's coming up really soon, so you should probably shift your focus to that if you're so concerned about what other people think about your webcomic. And you can even review one of the webcomics I linked in my signature if it'd make you feel better.

[LibertyCabbage]

My blog has another interview today, this time with Nick Gurewitch of Perry Bible Fellowship fame.

[Metal_Solstice]

You know, I was just thinking - there's so much drama and flaming going on in this thread whenever you rip someone to pieces, but I can't help but think so much of it could have been avoided if you had a little more truth in advertising in your subject heading. Instead of "I'll Review Your Webcomic" you should have had: "I'll Shit On Your Webcomic."

Just think of him like you (well, this is what I think anyway) would Simon Cowel: Critical, but has good vision for things that are great or have potential for greatness.

I have to get my act together with my comic under my own criticism, never mind others criticizing it. Off to my drawing paper and Dreamweaver trial I go

[RobboAKAscooby]

Anyways, Webcomic Above's coming up really soon, so you should probably shift your focus to that if you're so concerned about what other people think about your webcomic. And you can even review one of the webcomics I linked in my signature if it'd make you feel better.

By next Wednesday at the latest I promise...

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Anyways, Webcomic Above's coming up really soon, so you should probably shift your focus to that if you're so concerned about what other people think about your webcomic. And you can even review one of the webcomics I linked in my signature if it'd make you feel better.

By next Wednesday at the latest I promise...

GAAAHHHH I GOTTA START UPDATING ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;

[peterabnny]

No problem! It's obviously not in a favorable light, but I think most webcartoonists would agree that any publicity's helpful, even if it's bad publicity. And maybe somebody will click the link and think to themselves, "Hey, I actually really like this."

That would certainly be the hope.

Of course, I could've just found a link somewhere to an online version of Garfield or something to represent "newspaper-style comics," but it made more sense at the time to link to a webcomic.

I was thinking that today, actually. Out of all the possible comics to reference, you chose mine. Seriously - again, thanks, mate.

Keep in mind, though, that if any of the good webcomic-style comics submitted their work to a more conservative publisher (e.g., newspapers, maybe children's material), they'd quickly get turned down for being too "edgy" or "weird" or "offensive." In that case, that publisher's deliberately looking for something bland. Even a wildly popular webcomic like Penny Arcade probably isn't suitable for a newspaper, because so many newspaper readers are older and wouldn't get the gaming culture and references.

The indie papers my stuff appears in serves a more liberal readership, so my editor has given me a rather wide berth when it comes to comment, but even that has limits, as I found out the hard way. You never know how many people read your paper until you have advertisers suddenly threatening to pull their revenue because of a particular edgy, offensive comic...

The negative reviews are the most exciting and get the most commentary, but if you've been paying attention to this thread, you'd notice that I actually do a lot of positive and mixed reviews as well.

Actually, you do! To be honest, I haven't been back to this thread since Page 5, so no, I haven't been following it. But I just did the research: Ten Ways Bendy Straws Saved My Life was the first comic you reviewed since we squared things on five. I looked through your reviews from then until you reviewed Sly Eagle's Quest, taking the viewpoint "If I received this review, would I consider it Good (or Positive), Bad (or Negative) or Mixed. I found 11 were Good, four bad, and six mixed. Out of 21 reviews, 17 good or mixed and only FOUR bad! Needless to say I was damned-near shocked, considering your reputation! I guess seeing how things were before your review of my comic overly - and wrongly, I suppose - colored my view of your reviews since. So, yeah - "Your Honor, I'd like to withdraw my previous objection."

Anyways, Webcomic Above's coming up really soon, so you should probably shift your focus to that if you're so concerned about what other people think about your webcomic. And you can even review one of the webcomics I linked in my signature if it'd make you feel better.

You know, I should. Before I was still gunshy about participating in that thread, and debating whether or not I wanted to do it. But you know what? Eff that... I've already stared creative death square in its black maw after spending time in your crucible; what should I have to worry about? They say people who've had near death experiences lose their fear of dying. I should be the same for bad reviews. And anyway, as a big believer in continuous improvement (artwork or otherwise), I should consider it a great disservice to my comic to pass on the chance of scoring some.

Speaking of reviews, in reading SE's response to yours I was thinking of coming out with my own take on how to handle terrible reviews, for those who've had them and were hurt by them. I figure, if it's not you ripping their work to shreds, it's bound to be SOMEbody else, SOMEwhere else. So, better to have it happen to them here then on some lulz website out there. At least here there's a kind of support network, with people willing to help soothe the wounds as long as you're not a complete asshole about it.

Oh, and Sly Eagle - I read LC's review of your comic. That's not a bad review...

THIS is a bad review: viewtopic.php?f=695&t=104876&start=40 and scroll down to my comic, Critters.

(Or, try this one on for size: viewtopic.php?f=695&t=104876&start=20 and scroll down to Scooby's comic, Flying Tigers)

Things really aren't as bad as you think!

[RobboAKAscooby]

You know, I should. Before I was still gunshy about participating in that thread, and debating whether or not I wanted to do it. But you know what? Eff that... I've already stared creative death square in its black maw after spending time in your crucible; what should I have to worry about?

MWA HA HA HA!!!!

[McDuffies]

It is critical that your house not really give an impression of animals, regardless of how a lot you're keen on Fido or Cosy. Places that animals are living should be stored meticulously clean up. If you should, melt away a number of incense, placed potpourri throughout strategic spots and take off as well as substitute and carpet which has been dirty. It is quite challenging to market virtually any house which has dog odours as well as deposit.Put any chair or counter nearby the door in case individuals need to eliminate their particular shoes or boots prior to vacationing your premises. The lack of a spot to take a seat is indeed a turn-off, specifically in vacation resort market segments along with aging communities.Perform small fixes. Numerous sellers overlook the should do edit vehicle repairs for example caulking the bathtub, fixing the dripping tap, traveling unfastened claws into patio panels, and many others. Caring for these minor particulars removes the biggest doubt in which customers have after they see one thing incorrect; What in addition is actually completely wrong using the place?

This raises some interesting points.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I wonder if some spammers are just dream-posters, because reading the posts always sounds like the "dialogue" that comprises my dreams. They make perfect sense in-dream and in context, but if you were to write them down they sound like those spam posts.

oh my god


you guys maybe i'm the spammer

[RobboAKAscooby]

I wonder if some spammers are just dream-posters, because reading the posts always sounds like the "dialogue" that comprises my dreams. They make perfect sense in-dream and in context, but if you were to write them down they sound like those spam posts.

oh my god


you guys maybe i'm the spammer

Cuddly is sleep spamming us!!!