1. Anyone who says “This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life“.
3. Anyone who uses the word “history” in a comparably definitive way.
4. Anyone who writes “period” as a way of re-enforcing a previous point.
7. Anyone who uses the phrase “One word comes to mind…”.
8. Anyone who uses the phrase “I want my X minutes back“.
9. Anyone who tells you to stop creating.
10. Anyone who says “This sucks“.
6. Anyone using multiple exclamation marks or caps lock.
11. Anyone with terrible spelling/grammar.
2. Anyone who criticises your work without seeing the whole thing.
5. Anyone who jumps to conclusions about behind-the-scenes reasoning.
Secondly, it can make the critic feel superior to the creator. I mean, if Mr. Creator has been deemed “amazing” by making something that’s entertained a lot of people, and I then belittle his work, I must be even more amazing than Mr. Creator! This is unhealthy and pathetic. So how does Mr.Creator know which critic to listen to and which to ignore?
12. Anyone who brags about themselves during the review.
13. Anyone who tries too hard to be funny or focuses too much on creative ways to insult your work.
McDuffies wrote:I dunno, there are some things that would crumble my opinion about a critic, but using cliche and overstating phrase would be just one point in the list.
VeryCuddlyCornpone wrote:I keep reading the thread title as "14 ways to spot a bald critic." I figured that would be a pretty clear thing to identify, and there's like a maximum of five things (generously) that could comprise such a list.
McDuffies wrote:VeryCuddlyCornpone wrote:I keep reading the thread title as "14 ways to spot a bald critic." I figured that would be a pretty clear thing to identify, and there's like a maximum of five things (generously) that could comprise such a list.
Actually on internet it's a pretty pressing issue. Rumor has it that creators of Penny Arcade are as bold as billiard ball, but noone could guess.
Harishankar wrote:Maybe it might help both the critic and the creator if the critic asks the creator why a review is needed in the first place without making assumptions.
RobboAKAscooby wrote:Harishankar wrote:Maybe it might help both the critic and the creator if the critic asks the creator why a review is needed in the first place without making assumptions.
Why get reviewed/critiqued?
To find out if it's working and, if not, why.
If you want a reviewer to pat you on the back and say "well done" then you're not ready and should stick to showing friends/family.
Yeah it sucks when your hard work is torn apart but IF you like what you're doing you get over it in a few days and IMPROVE.
Harishankar wrote:I don't think you get my point.
Here's my take on the usefulness of random reviews - critical or otherwise:
The reviewer's view is just a personal opinion - nothing more or less - unless the reviewer actually knows his/her stuff; and a highly critical personal opinion is about as useless as a highly appreciative one. Just because a review says "your work sucks" etc. doesn't automatically make the review useful and just because a reviewer says "I like your work" doesn't make the review totally useless. Unless the reviewer happens to be an expert in his field and is equally willing to share his/her knowledge to improve the subject of criticism, the review is next to useless. In fact, it is useless. And a negative useless review is worse than a positive useless review in the sense that it can be demotivating.
All reviews are just packaged personal opinions in the format of a "review". Experts or people who genuinely understand the medium and equally have knowledge to help others improve are the ones whose opinion is worth reading.
I think what I'm saying is that the reviewer should stick to the same high standards they set for the object of their critique for their own products: i.e. reviews. Reviewers shouldn't go on the defensive when they find their own reviews criticized. Otherwise, they should be honest and admit their own shortcomings before going on to bash somebody else. That shows class and a certain level of integrity.
We artists certainly aren't obliged to take every random stranger's review as a honest and totally useful one unless the reviewer can establish a certain level of credibility.
Also to be considered is whether the criticism is done for the creator- here's your faults and here's how to fix them- versus done for potential readers, like Roger Ebert does for films. In the latter case, there is no obligation whatsoever to say "here are some steps you can take to improve." In that case, the reviewer may just point out what he/she perceives to be wrong.
1. Anyone who says “This is the worst thing I’ve ever seen in my life“.
Sometimes, people who are unable to properly and succinctly make a point[...]
McDuffies wrote:Harishankar wrote:I don't think you get my point.
Here's my take on the usefulness of random reviews - critical or otherwise:
The reviewer's view is just a personal opinion - nothing more or less - unless the reviewer actually knows his/her stuff; and a highly critical personal opinion is about as useless as a highly appreciative one. Just because a review says "your work sucks" etc. doesn't automatically make the review useful and just because a reviewer says "I like your work" doesn't make the review totally useless. Unless the reviewer happens to be an expert in his field and is equally willing to share his/her knowledge to improve the subject of criticism, the review is next to useless. In fact, it is useless. And a negative useless review is worse than a positive useless review in the sense that it can be demotivating.
All reviews are just packaged personal opinions in the format of a "review". Experts or people who genuinely understand the medium and equally have knowledge to help others improve are the ones whose opinion is worth reading.
I think what I'm saying is that the reviewer should stick to the same high standards they set for the object of their critique for their own products: i.e. reviews. Reviewers shouldn't go on the defensive when they find their own reviews criticized. Otherwise, they should be honest and admit their own shortcomings before going on to bash somebody else. That shows class and a certain level of integrity.
We artists certainly aren't obliged to take every random stranger's review as a honest and totally useful one unless the reviewer can establish a certain level of credibility.
It seems to me like what you're saying is basically that there are bad critics and their opinion is worth less, and then there are good critics and their opinion is worth more.
Ok, I guess we're on the same page there. You might have run into us harping about the superficial, tabloid-like way Bad Webcomic wiki and the likes approach reviewing elsewhere, though those remarks are buried somewhere in a different thread... but there's certainly no issue with the opinion that some people who do the criticizing simply don't do that job right and consequently waste everyone's time.
But I'll repeat my statement from before, which I'm saying strictly from the point of author who's been a subject of critique, that even reviews which I found terribly amateurishly written where useful to be in the long run. They may not have presented any particularly truthful information, but they did act like a splash of cold water, which alerted me in the sense that they reminded me of other possible perceptions of my work. As I said, you may get cocooned during the creation, surrounded by collaborators and people who reliably like your stuff, and forget about the other directions in which you may take your work - these reviews serve as a reminder that there are other directions.
Now I am aware that I am one of those more dedicated to my "art". I am aware that there are people who make comics in a decidedly unambitious manner, to whom spending a few hours doing something that they enjoy is the main draw, and who aren't interested in improving, reaching more audience or creating something that will be praised. That's a valid choice as any, it's nothing to be judgmental about, and I guess those people perhaps can't benefit from badly written reviews.
But I also can't help but remember all the people who allegedly worked in this leisured, hobbyist manner, and still often complained that their comic's popularity didn't reach their expectations. That's like wanting to have your cake and eat it too, because popularity usually requires work and dedication that are on the level of professional work.
Now, it may seem sucky how everyone who can cobble together a web page thinks they have "credentials" to be reviewers. But to me this is like asking an artist to show "art credentials" before posting his comics. Because - this is internet. It's the great equalizer. The very fact that internet has no quality control results in the fact that any of us can get our comics out there without needing to go through tedious editorial and approval process, but we just have to be at peace with the fact that the same thing goes for reviewers. "The great equalizer" is both a great and an awful thing. It gives us comics such as "Dinosaur comic", which are great, but would have zero chance being published in papers. It also gives us hundreds of kids who photograph their toys, stick speech bubbles on them, and then go around bothering strangers, complaining how noone wants to read their great comic.
To me, enjoying all the benefits of internet but complaining about it when it comes to activities of other people, is hypocritical. It would be as if I was urging to stop those kids from posting their toy photos of internet, while at the same time I myself never apply my comics to anyone's approval.
And I know you'll probably think that it's different with reviewers, that reviewers are there to bash someone else's work while comic authors are purely and independently creative. But then what about webcomics that are critical of something as well? What about political comics? Should we object to Penny Arcade criticizing games in their comic? Shouldn't we say "hey, someone invested a lot of money and effort in that game, and now you're bashing it in a comic strip that took you couple of hours to produce"? I don't think so.
Furthermore, what many artists don't realize is, reviews are awfully hard to write too. One of the hardest things about writing reviews is actually achieving balance. For one, critic has to balance between being too harsh and too soft. Critic has to appear flexible, yet he has to have authority about what he's saying (which is why it's a very bad idea for a critic to point out at his own shortcomings in attempt to appease artist he's criticizing).
Be too condensed in your writing and you'll be accused that you're not helpful enough. Try to guide an artist by the hand, and you'll appear patronizing, or meddling too much in other people's work. Then there's also other things that pretty much any writer has to deal with, such as: organizing your thoughts, organizing the structure of your article, trying to transfer what you think into words without losing anything in "translation"... In general, a critic has to find his voice, he has to learn his craft, as much as the artist does. Where will he learn if you're asking him to know his craft as soon as he hits the paper for the first time?
And let's not be mistaken: no matter how good a critic is, artists will always hate him. Artists hate critics, that's a given. No matter what they say aloud, artists actually don't want to be criticized, they want to be praised. No matter how noble they appear about critiques, artists sill always see a critic as someone who is ruthlessly and effortlessly stomping all over their hard work (despite the fact that, if you're an unambitious hobbyist, this work couldn't have been that hard).
Artist hates a critic, no matter whether he is an internet hobbyist who is giving away entertainment and asking for basically nothing in return, or a Michael Bay who is being paid enormous money for doing a really shoddy work.
I'd also like to say that I'm slowly getting tired of the whole "poor artists being deeply hurt by bad reviews" spiel. I advocate every artist becoming callous about reviewers, and about other people's opinions as well. Opinions are gonna happen, no matter how much you resist putting your comic's name in the google, they'll be out there, and you have to learn to deal with that. I may appear terribly cruel when I say this, but if one really can't stand hearing other people's opinion to that level of emotional hurt, then one should reconsider showing his work to other people.
Realize this: when you post your comic on internet, you are implicitly asking us to judge it. Perhaps not to write a lengthy diatribe about it's strengths and weaknesses, but when I visit your site, I am asked to a) like it and read it, b) be ambivalent and c) hate it and leave it. Expression of my opinion is recorded in your user stats. If you check your stats and see that your site has three readers, you are receiving implied criticism, and believe me you're gonna feel hurt as much as if someone trashed your comic in a review. If you never get a bad review in your life, you'll still gonna feel hurt if noone reads your comic.
Artists like to act as if reviewer hurt them personally, they like to equal this to a reviewer physically attacking them or someone close to them, perhaps and most notoriously, their children. This is an insult to everyone who actually had someone close to them attacked or hurt. Realize that this is only comics. They're supposed to be fun. They're supposed to be a pastime. We are not supposed to take them all that seriously. So why are we suddenly acting as if it's something much more important than a simple hobby once the criticism arises?
I should point out, though, that I still hate John Solomon and Bad Webcomics Wiki and the likes. They may be the most well known of the webcomic critics, but only in the tabloid sort of way, because if you're playing a douchebag for the sake of publicity, you get more publicity than dozens of people who are doing an honest job out of something. Blame internet audience on this, not the reviewers.
(Actually what I really hate is probably the fact that they are popular, that these are people and places that internet audience has decided to make into stars)Also to be considered is whether the criticism is done for the creator- here's your faults and here's how to fix them- versus done for potential readers, like Roger Ebert does for films. In the latter case, there is no obligation whatsoever to say "here are some steps you can take to improve." In that case, the reviewer may just point out what he/she perceives to be wrong.
Critics like Ebert never take the "educator" stance, but they still have a lot of useful things for an author. For one, if they point to what the work is missing, isn't that useful? If I say that work is disorganized, isn't that a pointer to try to have your work more organized? If they say what are work's strengths and weaknesses, haven't they already told a) what artist should accentuate in next work b) what artist should work on improving c) what direction artist's work might go to? I think if, in such review, artist is saying that reviewer wasn't helpful enough, artist is basically just looking for an excuse to reject the review. Actually I'd go as far as to say that these reviews are better because they make a reviewer think instead of telling him what to think.
Harishankar wrote:Unless the reviewer happens to be an expert in his field and is equally willing to share his/her knowledge to improve the subject of criticism, the review is next to useless. In fact, it is useless.
LibertyCabbage wrote:Harishankar wrote:Unless the reviewer happens to be an expert in his field and is equally willing to share his/her knowledge to improve the subject of criticism, the review is next to useless. In fact, it is useless.
Can you imagine, though, what it'd be like if a reviewer had that attitude towards webcomics? If they said, because a creator isn't an expert writer or artist, that their webcomic is "useless"? Oh my God. People would flip their shit.
I'm not supportive of basing reviews on "expertise" and "credentials." Let bad reviewers write bad reviews, and encourage people to try, even if it means they fail. Give advice to bad reviewers, and hope they consider it and improve. I look at reviewing as a craft, similar to how I look at webcomics as a craft.
Both your posts and Thunt's article have an overall gist of, "Don't discourage creators from making comics," but in a way they also discourage people from reviewing comics by placing these unfair pressures and expectations upon them. Again, inverting it to a webcomics standpoint -- how many webcomics would exist today if the webcomics community condemned any work not made by "experts"? Probably very, very few, especially considering how many of today's "expert" webcartoonists had humble beginnings.
Look at this way. How many potential webcomic reviewers feel too intimidated to actually write anything? Probably most of them. After all, how many people are gonna take the time and energy to write reviews if everyone's so eager to discredit their efforts as "useless" if they don't have the right "credentials," whatever that means? A lot of people with legitimate and useful criticism to give are reluctant to share their views because the attitude of "Well, what makes you so high and mighty that you're fit to judge somebody else?" is so oppressive and uninviting.
And who is it, exactly, that evaluates which reviewers have "credentials" and "expertise," and which don't? The person being reviewed? A committee? Other reviewers? Scott McCloud? You? Adding that extra layer of complication doesn't make sense. What does make sense is evaluating reviewers based on one sole criteria -- the quality of their reviews. Trying to bring other factors into the situation isn't anything more than being spiteful and evasive.
McDuffies wrote:I'd also like to say that I'm slowly getting tired of the whole "poor artists being deeply hurt by bad reviews" spiel. I advocate every artist becoming callous about reviewers, and about other people's opinions as well. Opinions are gonna happen, no matter how much you resist putting your comic's name in the google, they'll be out there, and you have to learn to deal with that. I may appear terribly cruel when I say this, but if one really can't stand hearing other people's opinion to that level of emotional hurt, then one should reconsider showing his work to other people.
Realize this: when you post your comic on internet, you are implicitly asking us to judge it. Perhaps not to write a lengthy diatribe about it's strengths and weaknesses, but when I visit your site, I am asked to a) like it and read it, b) be ambivalent and c) hate it and leave it. Expression of my opinion is recorded in your user stats. If you check your stats and see that your site has three readers, you are receiving implied criticism, and believe me you're gonna feel hurt as much as if someone trashed your comic in a review. If you never get a bad review in your life, you'll still gonna feel hurt if noone reads your comic.
Artists like to act as if reviewer hurt them personally, they like to equal this to a reviewer physically attacking them or someone close to them, perhaps and most notoriously, their children. This is an insult to everyone who actually had someone close to them attacked or hurt. Realize that this is only comics. They're supposed to be fun. They're supposed to be a pastime. We are not supposed to take them all that seriously. So why are we suddenly acting as if it's something much more important than a simple hobby once the criticism arises?
I should point out, though, that I still hate John Solomon and Bad Webcomics Wiki and the likes. They may be the most well known of the webcomic critics, but only in the tabloid sort of way, because if you're playing a douchebag for the sake of publicity, you get more publicity than dozens of people who are doing an honest job out of something. Blame internet audience on this, not the reviewers.
(Actually what I really hate is probably the fact that they are popular, that these are people and places that internet audience has decided to make into stars)
Also to be considered is whether the criticism is done for the creator- here's your faults and here's how to fix them- versus done for potential readers, like Roger Ebert does for films. In the latter case, there is no obligation whatsoever to say "here are some steps you can take to improve." In that case, the reviewer may just point out what he/she perceives to be wrong.
Critics like Ebert never take the "educator" stance, but they still have a lot of useful things for an author. For one, if they point to what the work is missing, isn't that useful? If I say that work is disorganized, isn't that a pointer to try to have your work more organized? If they say what are work's strengths and weaknesses, haven't they already told a) what artist should accentuate in next work b) what artist should work on improving c) what direction artist's work might go to? I think if, in such review, artist is saying that reviewer wasn't helpful enough, artist is basically just looking for an excuse to reject the review. Actually I'd go as far as to say that these reviews are better because they make a reviewer think instead of telling him what to think.
Return to Technique Tips and Tricks
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests