Here at badwebcomics.blogspot.com, we get a lot of complaints about what we do. We have people dismissing the fine work we do out of hand for a number of reasons, and for the purposes of laughing at these delightfully idiotic statements and the equally idiotic folk responsible, I'm doing a top 10 countdown! More like a bottom 10, really.
10. He's just attention-seeking.
This comes in at number ten purely because it's not that common. Incredibly stupid, yes, but I only hear it from a few people. Besides, I'm sure you've all seen the Google ads for this blog, the massive viral marketing campaign, all the- no? Oh, yes, silly me. That's because I don't do any of that. I've never so much as linked to my own blog. Now, perhaps I am being a little too literal here, but I would think that if I was actually trying to be attention-seeking, I would be seeking attention and not telling people to fuck off all the time. Go figure! By the way, fuck off.
9. He's Maddox.
This one gets bandied about a lot, but I don't really understand it. I'm either Maddox or trying to be Maddox, apparently because when deluded webcomic fans are faced with someone being all mean to their favouritest webcomic in the world, they associate me with the only other thing they know to be mean to things. This isn't anything to do with me swearing and being a general grouch to one and all, no. This is their own utter lack of comprehension that people are generally bitter, twisted and full of loathing. Go hang around in your average webcomic forum, people, and you'll see what a fwuffy-wuffy place it is. All you people who are from webcomic forums, go hang around in the real world. You'll find my tone and demeanour to be the norm!
8. It's just his opinion.
I love this one, it really should be higher if it was used more often. People see me talk about shitty dialogue, shitty plots and atrocious art and then go "Well, that's what he thinks!"
Now, I know that some of you belong to the school of thought that says anything can be shit and that's okay if it's their style, but that shit doesn't fly. Sorry. I'm willing to bet that years of studying literature both modern and classical kinda trumps your inability to discern trash from gold. You could call me an amateur expert, I certainly don't have a job that involves me having to analyse stories for a living, but I certainly know enough on the subject to use big words and fancy terms that you don't understand and never will. Because you're thick.
Also it's funny how what I say is an opinion, but what you say to the contrary isn't. That's fantastic, that truly is. I'm all for admitting I am something of a hypocrite at times, but this kinda puts me above you people who are hypocrites all the time.
7. Why do you read webcomics you hate?
Well, I'm reviewing them. Once I'm done I generally don't go back, unless it's either to laugh at how terrible a particular strip is or if I'm doing another review of them. See, I can know all the character names just as well as you because I flip through the archives and remember them. What you see, when I refer to specific storylines and so forth, is the sum total of perhaps an hour's worth of hitting "next comic" through the archives. The reason why I can retain so much knowledge is because usually shit all happens.
6. You're not being constructive.
You're mistaking "being polite" for "being constructive" there. When I say that someone's webcomic is shit and they should find out how the fuck to do proper speech bubbles before I hunt them down and beat their ass for crimes against decent aesthetic appearances - that's being constructive. I am telling them that their grasp of how to do speech bubbles is terrible and they should do better. What else do you want me to do? I'm not going to be polite, that ain't how I roll. Besides, no webcomic jerk ever pays the slightest bit of attention to any form of criticism, so I don't need to change my ways at all.
5. What webcomics do you like, then?
Top five, and we start off with an awesome one I find really stupid. People, as much as it might be difficult for you to grasp, this blog is called "Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad". I have already stated, frequently, that I do not want to talk about webcomics I like. Why? Because you dicks are going to start tripping over yourselves in a frantic rush to badmouth them. The thing is, good webcomics work over a spectrum. They appeal to different people. One person's cup of tea may not be what tickles another's funnybone. This is why I do not judge webcomics by their broad content, except possibly when it comes to gaming comics but they all suck anyway. If you notice, I talk about the plots. The dialogue. The art. The various things that make them bad. A bad webcomic can be an attempted fantasy epic or a lackluster gag-a-day strip. What unites them all is that they are bad. If you can't understand that, and I'm expecting none of you will and you're going to shit up the comments page telling me so, then fuck you.
4. You're just jealous.
Oh yeah, this is a great one. I love this complaint. It doesn't make a lick of fucking sense. John Solomon is an assumed name, people know nothing of who I am or what I might be doing under my real name - or even another assumed name. But they just know that this blog is my entire raison d'etre. Fantastic.
The simple fact of the matter is that I don't get jealous. What does anyone have that I cannot attain myself easily?
3. Your writing is terrible!
People can somehow eat up a storyline about how orc rape is awesome, or read through 100-words-per-panel of relationship drama, and then turn around and say this to me. I'm happy they say this. If I was writing what they perceive as good, it'd be terrible. Not to mention that their greatest claim as to my writing being "bad" is that I swear a lot.
I'm not pretending this is some great work, it's a shitty blog and I don't go back and edit for anything more than spelling errors, but Goddamn if it doesn't make me laugh when they say I'm bad and then go back to reading some shitheap like CRFH.
2. You're a troll.
This one's near the top of the stupidest complaints because I have little to no idea of what it means. People come here, to my blog, post comments calling me a dumbass faggot for hating a webcomic, and then call me a troll on their own forums and agree vehemently with everyone else who says the same thing. Whatever, you're idiots.
1. Where's your webcomic?
Ah, the top spot, and rightly so! I get asked this more often than any other question. I get people telling me my points are all invalid because I have no webcomic. I have people trying to be subtle (and actually being as straightforward as a brick) and get me to reveal whatever webcomic I may be hiding up my sleeve. Fucking idiots.
This, more than anything, says everything you need to know about the relationship between the "webcomics community" and criticism. The webcomic jerks don't want criticism of any sort, and the critics don't want anything to do with the "webcomics community".
In conclusion, I hate you all.
10. He's just attention-seeking.
This comes in at number ten purely because it's not that common. Incredibly stupid, yes, but I only hear it from a few people. Besides, I'm sure you've all seen the Google ads for this blog, the massive viral marketing campaign, all the- no? Oh, yes, silly me. That's because I don't do any of that. I've never so much as linked to my own blog. Now, perhaps I am being a little too literal here, but I would think that if I was actually trying to be attention-seeking, I would be seeking attention and not telling people to fuck off all the time. Go figure! By the way, fuck off.
9. He's Maddox.
This one gets bandied about a lot, but I don't really understand it. I'm either Maddox or trying to be Maddox, apparently because when deluded webcomic fans are faced with someone being all mean to their favouritest webcomic in the world, they associate me with the only other thing they know to be mean to things. This isn't anything to do with me swearing and being a general grouch to one and all, no. This is their own utter lack of comprehension that people are generally bitter, twisted and full of loathing. Go hang around in your average webcomic forum, people, and you'll see what a fwuffy-wuffy place it is. All you people who are from webcomic forums, go hang around in the real world. You'll find my tone and demeanour to be the norm!
8. It's just his opinion.
I love this one, it really should be higher if it was used more often. People see me talk about shitty dialogue, shitty plots and atrocious art and then go "Well, that's what he thinks!"
Now, I know that some of you belong to the school of thought that says anything can be shit and that's okay if it's their style, but that shit doesn't fly. Sorry. I'm willing to bet that years of studying literature both modern and classical kinda trumps your inability to discern trash from gold. You could call me an amateur expert, I certainly don't have a job that involves me having to analyse stories for a living, but I certainly know enough on the subject to use big words and fancy terms that you don't understand and never will. Because you're thick.
Also it's funny how what I say is an opinion, but what you say to the contrary isn't. That's fantastic, that truly is. I'm all for admitting I am something of a hypocrite at times, but this kinda puts me above you people who are hypocrites all the time.
7. Why do you read webcomics you hate?
Well, I'm reviewing them. Once I'm done I generally don't go back, unless it's either to laugh at how terrible a particular strip is or if I'm doing another review of them. See, I can know all the character names just as well as you because I flip through the archives and remember them. What you see, when I refer to specific storylines and so forth, is the sum total of perhaps an hour's worth of hitting "next comic" through the archives. The reason why I can retain so much knowledge is because usually shit all happens.
6. You're not being constructive.
You're mistaking "being polite" for "being constructive" there. When I say that someone's webcomic is shit and they should find out how the fuck to do proper speech bubbles before I hunt them down and beat their ass for crimes against decent aesthetic appearances - that's being constructive. I am telling them that their grasp of how to do speech bubbles is terrible and they should do better. What else do you want me to do? I'm not going to be polite, that ain't how I roll. Besides, no webcomic jerk ever pays the slightest bit of attention to any form of criticism, so I don't need to change my ways at all.
5. What webcomics do you like, then?
Top five, and we start off with an awesome one I find really stupid. People, as much as it might be difficult for you to grasp, this blog is called "Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad". I have already stated, frequently, that I do not want to talk about webcomics I like. Why? Because you dicks are going to start tripping over yourselves in a frantic rush to badmouth them. The thing is, good webcomics work over a spectrum. They appeal to different people. One person's cup of tea may not be what tickles another's funnybone. This is why I do not judge webcomics by their broad content, except possibly when it comes to gaming comics but they all suck anyway. If you notice, I talk about the plots. The dialogue. The art. The various things that make them bad. A bad webcomic can be an attempted fantasy epic or a lackluster gag-a-day strip. What unites them all is that they are bad. If you can't understand that, and I'm expecting none of you will and you're going to shit up the comments page telling me so, then fuck you.
4. You're just jealous.
Oh yeah, this is a great one. I love this complaint. It doesn't make a lick of fucking sense. John Solomon is an assumed name, people know nothing of who I am or what I might be doing under my real name - or even another assumed name. But they just know that this blog is my entire raison d'etre. Fantastic.
The simple fact of the matter is that I don't get jealous. What does anyone have that I cannot attain myself easily?
3. Your writing is terrible!
People can somehow eat up a storyline about how orc rape is awesome, or read through 100-words-per-panel of relationship drama, and then turn around and say this to me. I'm happy they say this. If I was writing what they perceive as good, it'd be terrible. Not to mention that their greatest claim as to my writing being "bad" is that I swear a lot.
I'm not pretending this is some great work, it's a shitty blog and I don't go back and edit for anything more than spelling errors, but Goddamn if it doesn't make me laugh when they say I'm bad and then go back to reading some shitheap like CRFH.
2. You're a troll.
This one's near the top of the stupidest complaints because I have little to no idea of what it means. People come here, to my blog, post comments calling me a dumbass faggot for hating a webcomic, and then call me a troll on their own forums and agree vehemently with everyone else who says the same thing. Whatever, you're idiots.
1. Where's your webcomic?
Ah, the top spot, and rightly so! I get asked this more often than any other question. I get people telling me my points are all invalid because I have no webcomic. I have people trying to be subtle (and actually being as straightforward as a brick) and get me to reveal whatever webcomic I may be hiding up my sleeve. Fucking idiots.
This, more than anything, says everything you need to know about the relationship between the "webcomics community" and criticism. The webcomic jerks don't want criticism of any sort, and the critics don't want anything to do with the "webcomics community".
In conclusion, I hate you all.
123 comments:
- Number one is my favourite, I think. You need to have a webcomic to judge a webcomic's quality about as much as you need to be a baker to know when a cake tastes like shit.
- I like number three the best, especially when it comes from the writer of a terrible webcomic.
- I love you, too, man. Seriously though. Your blog continues to be awesome. You really should post a list of your favorites someday, though, just because now I'm dying of curiosity as to what they are.
- If it's good, chances are I read it. Cue a dozen irate fans going "But CRFH/Deegan/PDH/Sluggy/CAD is good!!!!" And then sobbing, because deep down they know they're wrong.
- I really hope more people start using "How can you make fun of webcomics when there are so many bigger problems in the world!" more often so that it can break onto the list. I absolutely adore that one. This reminds me of the Roger Ebert vs. Videogames debate, where I think most of the same points are directed at one of the world's most venerated still-living critics (although you'd substitute "but you've never actually played [x]" for "you must secretly like [x]"). I suppose you could take that as a compliment.
- Damn, I wanted "He's Maddox" to be higher up. It always makes me laugh. Why? Becuase while any one with half a brain knows that Maddox was not in fact the first man to ever be mean, the people who like the comics you reveiw don't seem to get that. Which I find rather funny.
- None of those you listed are good, but some of the ones you've ripped apart before are at least enjoyable in one way or another. Shortpacked!, EGS and VGCats leap directly to mind. They've all at least got potential and some redeeming moments. Did you see Deegan today? The art was shit as usual but Dominic was turned into slightly less of a Gary Stu. Progress?
- Bah. Dominic Deegan retains its shittiness. Remember how, in the beginning, every customer of Dominic's was depicted aus idiotic, prejudiced and narrow-minded? Think that'll change, that Mookie starts depicting people other than Dominic Deegan or his fellow heroes as pretty much normal? Nah, couldn't be. They'll all still be idiotic, prejudiced and narrow-minded, because that's how the Dominic Deegan world rolls. Progress? The past storyline, if anything, pushed Dominic Deegan even lower into the webcomics hell. People will not only keep on citing the orc rape, but also the "superhero story", and have everyone who remember cry themselves to sleep, just like with any other trainwreck people actually happen to observe. I enjoyed that comic once (Yes, I did, but I'm hiding behind my shield of fire resistance +4, so YOU CAN'T FLAME ME LALALALA), but the past storyline had me losing all hope for the comic to redeem itself.
- Well, if you've got that out of your system, could you get to some more reviews?
- This post has been removed by the author.
- Come on, guys, Maddox is the only person to rant using swear words ever. Ever. Every other profanity-laced rant is written by a writer trying to be him. Yes, including rants written before he existed. (Reposted for spelling. Durr, whassa 'proofreading?')
- Personally, I always thought you were the guy behind "Cliff Yablonski Hates You." #1 is definitely the worst. A person can know what makes for a good/bad item without actually producing one himself, similar to how a person can tell when food tastes like crap without having to know how to cook. #8 isn't terribly stupid, though. Since you're a critic, a valid point people can raise is why should they listen to your criticisms. It's not a bad thing for someone to be skeptical of another person's judgment of quality. To continue the metaphor from above: there's a piece of food you want to try but want some input from others so you can anticipate whether the time spent eating it will be worthwhile or not. Whose opinion about the taste would you value more: an average joe or a gourmet who knows what it's supposed to taste like and can describe it accurately? Unlike, say, Alton Brown, who has demonstrative cooking chops, you only have your posts here to demonstrate your value as a "comic taster." You're literally just a guy with a blog shouting at the mistakes people make, not a big name expert with a long standing reputation. So for a person to say, "Hey, you're no comic expert, why should I value your opinion?" is rather normal. (Personally, though, I think your posts prove that you have more than a few brain cells between your ears. There's also the fact that you don't appear to really care what other people think of your opinions.) I think the "You secretly like these comics" response deserves to be on the list more than "That's just your opinion."
- I think the idea behind #8 is that many of the things that people cite as "opinion" are pretty indisputable facts. To go around arguing that, say, that JDR's anatomy is flawless, or that the childishness of The Wotch's art is just a "style" is simply wrong, and dismissing these criticisms are "just his opinion" indicates delusion. To continue with your food metaphor: you could criticize a pasta sauce by saying, "this is an inferior sauce. The garlic in it overwhelms all the other ingredients." You don't exactly have to be Alton Brown to notice something like that, right? Now, it's possible that I may like really garlicky sauce, and so I will enjoy it, but I can't argue with the fact that the cook has erred by including a lot of ingredients that can't be tasted as a result of the overseasoning. Or it's possible that I may enjoy the sauce, but I can't argue that it might have still been better had the garlic taste been less overwhelming. Either way, I know objectively that the sauce is highly flawed, and I would be remiss to recommend it to others as good sauce, even if I personally enjoyed it. So it's certainly possible to like a comic like CRFH or VG Cats for whatever reason. A lot of people do, and those people who say "I can't deny anything you've said, but I still enjoy this because it hits my buttons" are perfectly okay people, and I respect them well enough. The problem is the people who try to say that you are wrong wrong wrong for even suggesting that there might be a higher standard of artistry out there. Most of the things John criticizes center around the most basic aspects of visual storytelling. These are not things you need to have special credentials to notice; all you need is the ability to analyze, and the willingness to see.
- Wait wait wait, you're not Maddox?! Then you must be Tucker Max!
- Number two, "You're a troll," stems from a complete misunderstanding of what an Internet troll is. Although people now misuse the term, purposely or ignorantly, to mean "someone whose opinions are other than 100% adulation," that's not what it actually means. Trolls are not those who post critical, nasty, profanity-laced, whatever opinions on their own blog or website. Going to another's blog, site or forum and posting comments that are mean and insulting and what-not, and that are deliberately meant to upset most or all people in that little space on the Web--that's being a troll. But John, from what I've seen, doesn't do his shtick on the forums, LiveJournals, whatever of the comics or cartoonists themselves. (On the CFRH forum they accused Fletcher of being a troll on John's behalf, but that can't be proven.) No, John confines his views to this blog and the Something Awful forums. Ergo: not a troll.
- This is why you should have kept the old header quote >.<
- No, I'm thinking about changing it again and making it even simpler. That way people may yet understand the message. Eventually it'll just be "Fuck your webcomic."
- I remember running into argument #1 myself. My only response is to point them to "Ebert's Law." Put another way, just because I don't always cook my own food doesn't take away my right to judge how crappy it tastes. But it seems that point has already been hit on by previous commenters. And yeah, the whole "superhero" arc destroyed any possible shreds of hope that Dominic Deegan had for me.
- #2 "You're a troll" Forums and message boards are, for the most part, boring as hell anyway. Why on earth would anyone be interested in being a so called "troll" in such a scourge of a place? Oh, and while not related to this post... thank you for tearing one of the most boring webcomics(VGCats) I've ever known to shreds.
- Beautiful! I never understood that standard that you have to be a better webcomic artist/author than the person you're criticizing. Uh, if someone who ISN'T an artist or a writer can pick out things that are wrong, isn't that even worse? It means people who haven't studied art or writing can see what's wrong! People need to get over themselves and learn to handle criticism.
- "It means people who haven't studied art or writing can see what's wrong!" That's a stupid comment. You don't need a degree in litterature to be able to tell the difference between a good book/comic and a bad one. You just need the ability to tell shit apart from food, which really comes from birth if you haven't got any kind of brain defect. But most people that read those webcomics are social misfits with no connection to reality. So their total lack of common sense is something we should come to expect.
- #5 is pretty sad, since all it takes is the tiniest amount of reading comprehension to find references to comics that you like (or just don't hate). One or two of them I even liked.
- I have to admit that when I first saw this weblog I immediately thought of Maddox, and even called you a "Maddox wannabe" on PoE in response to your PDH review (since JDR is one of our favorite exhibits over there). HOWEVER, since then I have come to regret saying that, because unlike Maddox, you're actually funny.
- Number one is my fave. Saying you need to write a webcomic to judge the quality of a webcomic is like saying only alcoholics really know alcohol. In conclusion, nice work, Mr. Solomon, please keep it up.
- Fight the power, dude.
- http://www.pholph.com/ Teary-eyed, anthromorphic rape! And a colossal struggle of GOOD against EVIL!!!!!!!11one. Also, I think I saw a building made out of a rotting penis in there. If you hadn't seen it already, I wanted to point it out. I'd say I love your reviews, but that would just be adding to that darn ol' infamy you keep trying to avoid. Keep it up, anyway.
- 9. He's Maddox. That's one of the complaints I don't understand. I don't know of anyone who actually brings Maddox up anymore, because his rants have become so passe and outdated. How does one become an outdated internet meme anyways? 1. Where's your webcomic? I love this one, mainly because I visit a forum that regularly critiques a fairly well-known fantasy trilogy, and we get that "well, where's YOUR book?" bullshit argument almost on a daily basis. You don't have to have a webcomic to say other webcomics suck shit, just like you don't have to be a writer to know the book you're reading is shit.
- Heard an anecdote once about an ethics professor whose students confronted him for allegedly behaving unethically and asked, "How can you possibly teach ethics when you don't practice them?" He replied, "In order to teach geometry, would I have to be a triangle?"
- You can read my thoughts in expanded form on the CRFH forum thread you inspired. But if you want a quick recap of it, here's a complaint that didn't make your list: ***You are a fucking chickenshit.*** I suspected it when I ran across your Web site a few weeks ago, but this post confirms it: You are a coward. Your criticisms are NOT constructive for more reasons than they're impolite, and that's entirely caught up in Complaint #5 on your list there: What do you want from a comic strip? Fuck if I know. Your abject refusal to praise something you like reveals that you refuse to commit yourself to any core values, without which you have no use as a critic and exposes your shtick as that of a visionless douche. You hide behind your wall of hostility, scared of exposing any facet of your genuine personality because that would open you up for attack. You outright say that's why you won't do it; right there in writing, you admit your own chickenshittery. Particularly galling is #3 there. God forbid anyone turn the barrel on you. What gets me is your gutless attempt to preempt criticism by saying this is just a "shitty blog" and "no great work of art." Yeah, it's just a shitty little blog. Just a nothing blog. For which you penned several 10,000-word rants for a webcomic I've never heard of. Didn't really think much about them, just crapped 'em out in a couple seconds in the middle of Spongebob while a commercial was on. Right. It's not something anyone could attack you on, they're just meaningless doodles. And yeah... you're just making "objective" criticisms. Stuff anyone can see. If I could insert a video clip of me making a jerking-off motion here, I would. If you really think there's anything as objective criticism of quality of artwork, of any kind, you're even more of an idiot than you let on. Hypocrite Internet whiners like you just annoy the living fuck out of me. Kiss my ass, Solomon. I've read through your posts, and a lot of them do seem to be about bad comics, but -- even for the times I think the comic you're attacking is shit -- you are less than worthless to me as a critic. If you want to just enjoy shitting on something, then admit it and be more entertaining about it. You're problem isn't that you're trying to be Maddox, it's that you're not trying hard enough to be Maddox. Your site is pathetic and I hate you and all of your mindless drone fans.
- Actually, that turned out to be longer than the original forum post, so scratch that. Let me try this again: Fuck you. You can read my thoughts in expanded form in the post above this one.
- I like you, you're funny.
- Kenneth, until you name a webcomic-reviewing blog that you DO like, your critique of this one is valueless and you're chickenshit.
- Kenneth, what's this "core values" bit to which John should commit himself? You a Republican or something?
- The best part is either when he mistakes Ted's hyperbole for the gospel truth, or him trying to sound smarter than he actually is by using words like "abject" and "preempt" - incorrectly, to boot. No, no, wait, it's probably when he says I need to be more like Maddox. That had me laughing so hard.
- glyph my core values are that I am FOR THE FAMILY. .. what do you mean, "what does that mean?" I'M FOR THE FAMILY. Liberal queers!
- John Solomon '08, motherfuckers.
- Ooo, you forgot a good one, and seeing that Kenneth here hid his profile made me think of it: "You can't be a real critic, you don't use your real name!" Hey Kenny! Am I a real critic? I use my real name and all, so your chickenshit comment's a little weak. Somehow I do not think I have just endeared myself to Kenny.
- Oh forget him, we're onto my presidential bid here! I promise to stand for things you approve of! I will not stand for things you disapprove of! I promise that things you want to happen will happen, and things you don't want to happen won't! None of my esteemed opponents see fit to respond to this! That's because you can be sure they are not me! Vote for me: JOHN SOLOMON '08.
- "Hey fuck you guys I don't care what you think FUCK YOU FAGGOTS FUCK FAGGOTS FAGGITY FUCK!" "But here, LET ME DO AN ENTIRE POST DEDICATED TO HOW I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK BECAUSE I DON'T CARE OKAY?! BUT BE SURE YOU READ AND THEN COMMENT ON IT OKAY SO I KNOW I MADE YOU MAD BECAUSE I TOTALLY DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK OF ME!!!!" Christ. You're a joke John Sololame. Why don't you pull your head out of your pussy and actually put some effort into this shit.
- Why I don't believe that this John Solomon person is even American! Clearly this explains his shocking lack of core values.
- You should ask them where THEIR blog about shitty webcomics is. How can they hope to talk bad about yours if they don't have their own?
- Christ. You're a joke John Sololame. Why don't you pull your head out of your pussy and actually put some effort into this shit. Would it matter how much "effort" he put into it? People will still get all fucking butthurt over how he thinks something they like sucks, regardless of how much time he put into it. Maybe the problem is them, their tissue-thick skin, and their over-devotion to a goddam webcomic?
- Specifically, College Roomies from Hell. They're all ticked I said mean things about it, and now they're determined to prove what a bunch of weeping little girls they are by calling me names. Heh.
- I can understand how the cartoonists John and Ted have mentioned here would take this blog personally. Ditto for Robert "Will You Be My Friend?" Howard. But their readers? What the hell?! Are their identities, their life purpose, their happiness so exclusively tied to their favourite webcomic? Or do they think that Mookie, Buckley, Campos and the rest are incapable of sticking up for themselves should they choose to? If so, for fans they sure have a bloody patronizing attitude toward their heroes.
- Glyph: Actually, that one's even funnier given that all said? Campos manages to pull out some good burns when you piss her off. I don't think I would have put my money on the harshest response coming from her, from memory of the fanbase, but it leads the pack.
- "Core value" is a term used in Lincoln-Douglas debate. It has nothing to do with "family values." I like how one of your criticisms in a review I read was that the authors you hate surround themselves with sycophantic praise, especially when I read the first ten or so comments on this post. Just saying.
- If people want to post how much they wuv me, I am not going to stop them. Same as how I don't delete posts where people make fucking idiots out of themselves, like good ol' Kenneth up there. I just mock everyone. I am not surrounding myself willingly with sycophants, anyway. Surely you might recognise this by the way I tell people to fuck off all the time? No? Well, here you go, then: All you cunts who are sicking me with your fetid crapulence of kiss-assery, quit it. Make a point or don't post a fucking word. Except I'm willing to bet that you, Mr. Edward, aren't willing to accept that. Because odds are you're only here because you're irate that I slandered that shitty hack Campos and her reeking, fecal webcomic. Oh well, fuck you too.
- Nice non-response, Solomon. I had responses to your nitpicky bullshit, but really, why bother? You're free to retreat into your presidential campaign jokes; have fun, but be back in time for supper or your mother will get angry. Instead, let's answer some other person's question: What are these "core values" I expect you to stand for? Why, there's a simple answer for that: ***ANYTHING.*** You don't stand for anything, Solomon, and because of that I find it mighty difficult to give a shit what you're against. What webcomic-reviewing websites do I like? Don't read any, barely read webcomics at all. In the broader sense of online critics, I read a lot of movie review sites: Film Freak Central, Ruthless Reviews, Outlaw Vern, Flick Filosopher. They all have their low points and bad reviews, but they're still better than the best of your work because they have the balls to talk about what they like, unlike some gutless wonders I could name. Fletcher: What? What are you talking about? Is there a reason you're ascribing someone else's criticism to me? And... my profile? I didn't even realize I had a profile, it's apparently tied up in my Google account. Is that seriously what you're attacking me on? I don't know if you're a real critic or not! Are you? *Who* are you?
- I like that you don't stop this, people don't like to have something they like to be critized. You do a great job ^^ keep dem angry!
- Hey Kenneth if you were a smarty man you'd have actually read, y'know, the blog and found out that this blog exists to point out bad webcomics and why they're bad. But I guess you're way too busy being full of righteous fury to do that. Or use proper English. Or do anything except desperately try and prove to Campos how studly badass you are and oh gosh maybe she'll let you in her pants. Hahaha, loser.
- My undying love for the Goddess is at least something I abjectly stand for, Solomon. I don't see you confessing your love for anyone or anything. Why is that? You don't love ***ANYTHING***. Without your telling anyone what you personally believe is good you can't expect us to believe that something has abject "flaws" in it. That's a logic, Solomon. You should learn some.
- In the broader sense of online critics, I read a lot of movie review sites: Film Freak Central, Ruthless Reviews, Outlaw Vern, Flick Filosopher. Here's the thing: those sites are trying to be serious reviews, so people can get a good idea of what's bad and what's good. This blog, on the other hand, is pretty much online catharsis. It's not about John being too scared to show his true feelings or some crap, it's about him creating a place to rant about terrible comics. Complaining about John being scared doesn't do anything other than show that you're missing the point. Look, it's simple. This isn't Comixpedia, this isn't the Siskel and Ebert of Keenspot, this is a place to mock bad webcomics. Now, if you don't think this is funny because this sort of thing doesn't amuse you, hey, that's cool. But instead, you're going onto some nonsensical rant about how he's a spineless wonder because he doesn't feel like reviewing the good comics (even though it has nothing to do with him being afraid). It makes no sense.
- You won't get through to him, I besmirched CRFH. He's got a boner for Campos and won't rest until I've been e-slain by his incomprehensible babbling. Verily, he wields his bad grasp of English like a sword, to slay my demonic self through misuse of words and atrocious grammar. He stabs my very heart with inaccurate observations and wild assumptions not based in reality! Alas, I am undone.
- All he wants to do is teach you how to love, John. :( Why are you afraid to love?
- "If you really think there's anything as objective criticism of quality of artwork, of any kind, you're even more of an idiot than you let on." So what you're saying here is that the artwork in CRFH isn't objectively any better than, say, the art in Dragon Kingdoms? This would seem to be your argument.
- His argument is possibly that all artwork cannot be quantified in any way, which therefore means that not only can Dragon Kingdoms be said to be just as good as CRFH, but also that it has no flaws whatsoever. Because you simply cannot objectively criticise the artwork. I wonder if he feels the same way about writing?
- All he wants to do is teach you how to love, John. :( Why are you afraid to love? I love to hate, does that count?
- You know, Kenneth, I thought for a minute you might be a sane person, and that logic might have some place here. I had a whole post typed up about objective quality in art, and the different levels on which art can function in visual storytelling media, and how art should be crafted to work in lockstep with good writing so it's all a well-oiled machine... ...and then I refreshed, and I saw "my undying love for the Goddess" and "you don't stand for ****anything****" repeated like four times, and decided, you know what, what the fuck, I think I'll save my data this time. Christ, people are fucking psychos.
- Yes, well, he's a CRFH fan. It's been said before, but those motherfuckers are CRAZY AS FUCK. I'm not sure any number of swears could properly emphasise how crazy they are, but they are crazy.
- Kenneth makes the mistake of assuming you have to reveal what you think are good webcomics to talk about how you decide what's bad. In fact, you don't - you just need to describe the process itself and don't need to mention what you consider good at all unless you want examples in your explanation. You would only really need to go into what comics you like if you were using a comparative-style judgment approach (i.e. this movie is the best, therefore any film that isn't this movie isn't as good) - which Kenneth seems to be assuming you are. If you're using an absolute scale, then you can simply describe said scale without having to go into examples. Likewise if you're just sticking with first impressions or some informal method (which I think is likely the case). One point Kenneth may have been trying to make (but failed miserably) does validly relate to your own criticism method: what standards and methods do you use to determine if a comic is bad? Ebert tries to use his academic background, for example, to determine whether he likes a movie and why. How do you reach your conclusions? Do you have a point system where, if a comic adds up to less than a certain value, it's deemed "bad?" Do you just look at a comic and go with your gut feeling about its quality and then try to put that feeling into words? Or do you just pick a comic at random, declare it crap, and then try to justify that position? For example, you've made it clear some of the standards you hold for art: it has to use perspective, designs should be original, and lines should be clean and not messy. But at what point do you go from saying "This art is bad" to "This art is all right?" I'm not saying you need any sort of formal scoring metric, of course. Your blog would be just as entertaining without one. But knowing just how you deem one comic bad and another good might be worth an explanation if only to shut up those who think you're totally chaotic.
- Okay, here's something which might explain exactly how fucking crazy CRFH fans are: FLEET. These people not only spend all day on IRC pretending they're defending the cast of CRFH from evil demons, but they pretend they do so using a giant space station with lasers. They also make their own uniforms that they wear in real life. They have their own theme music they paid someone to make. Oh, and they're furries. These may be the craziest of the bunch, but only by a little. Everyone else there doesn't see a problem with them, which is damning evidence in itself.
- Do you have a point system where, if a comic adds up to less than a certain value, it's deemed "bad?" Do you just look at a comic and go with your gut feeling about its quality and then try to put that feeling into words? Or do you just pick a comic at random, declare it crap, and then try to justify that position? Mostly the first two, not the third at all. I believe there are a lot of bad webcomics on the Internet. This much is fact. Look at places like, say, Drunk Duck or ComicGenesis or Smack Jeeves. Full o' shit, they are. Maybe a few good webcomics in there, but mostly shit. I have not covered them on this blog, I may not cover them on this blog at all. They don't rate as "bad" as the others I have so far reviewed. Is there a concrete points system? No. It's more of a vague overlook. There's the art to consider, of course, but moreso the story. Good art cannot make bad writing good, but good writing can make bad art... well, less obvious, at least. Then I break down both these halves into more parts. What's the site design like, the font choice, the archives layout... these are important and part of the webcomic's art, even though some people don't think so. These people are stupid, a webcomic that hinders you reading it is bad. As well as the general writing, I look at the characters to see how good they are. The dialogue, too. If it's a story comic, I check out the setting and pacing. If it's a gag strip, I look at the jokes and see if they're amusing at least most of the time. That means, like, six out of seven days per week, not "half-ish". If a gag strip isn't making me laugh half the time, it's failed. It matters not whether these webcomics are popular amongst thousands of fans or have an almost nonexistent readership: if they have little to no redeeming qualities, then off I go to write a review of them. Generally, though, a bad webcomic fails in one major area: it either doesn't entertain, if it's a gag strip, or it is simply appallingly written, if it's a story comic. That's basically it. Webcomics can avoid being reviewed here if they just manage to do what they set out to do in the first place. Hope that answers your long, rambling question!
- If I may, I'd like to approach the topic from the artist's point of view, since I was gonna do so before I realized I was dealing with a psychopath. I apologize in advance for the unsolicited, lengthy post. In a visual storytelling medium like a comic, the art is unequivocally meant to support the writing. Art in a comic should serve three basic purposes: 1. Art should not actively hinder the writing. Objects should, to a reasonable degree, resemble the things that they are. Characters should be drawn on model enough that they are recognizable from panel to panel. Layouts should be arranged such that the eye can follow the action without the aid of visuals such as pointer arrows. (I would argue that most of the webcomics reviewed on this blog do at least achieve this most basic level most of the time, which is probably why they are capable of gathering a readerbase in the first place. You can say that The Wotch's artist doesn't know how to draw a bookshelf, but you can, at least, identify that it is a bookshelf.) 2. Art should enhance the writing. The art style should suit the story's overall tone: a style that resembles saturday morning cartoons will be naturally detrimental to a serious story. Panel layouts should make good use of space, lacking both an abundance of pointless blank space, as well as distracting clutter, so that the reader's eye is encouraged along the page. Character faces should be made sufficiently expressive to portray the depth of emotion required by the story. Once you've gotten these two down (and mind, this is the least important of the three, when dealing with a comic): 3. The art should be attractive and beautiful on its own merit. This of all things is not absolutely required for a comic to be good, but if it works in conjunction with the first two, it can elevate a comic from being acceptable to being truly admirable. The artist should develop his or her own distinctive style. Characters should have designs distinctive enough for them to remain recognizable despite changes to the standard model (for example, if they cut their hair). Panels should demonstrate dynamic layouts showing characters and settings from many different angles rather than relying excessively on cut & paste. And on and on. (Incidentally, the problem with a lot of comics is that they attempt transcendence without first mastering basic competence or cartooning, which is why you get the disconnect between fans who say "that's just her style" and critics who say "that's not a style, she just can't draw.")
- Yeah, but try peppering all that with a liberal application of cusses and personal attacks! tehkou I do not think you are in the true spirit of Solomonmas here.
- Sorry, it's been a rough day, and I used up the last of my expletives looking at the FLEET site. I mean... jesus christ, what the fuck? ... oh wait. Not quite all.
- Honestly, it's your blog and you can write what you want to write. You're entitled. I enjoy things that aren't literary masterpieces, it's nice to see people getting out and having a go at something. They're enjoying themselves. I'm not going to kiss your ass or agree with you. You make valid critical points. You're also a bit of a nasty asshole that makes personal comments about people you don't even know. You're like reading a trainwreck.
- That's fantastic but you're a colossal fucktard.
- #1. is a variant of my favorite, which is, "Well, could you do better?" A long time ago I saw somebody at a forum use that one to defend [i]Rob Liefield's[/i] work, of all things. Anybody who paid attention in art school can do better then Rob Liefield, and I'd reckon that a given comics forum probably has at least ONE person who went to art school. It's even weirder when it comes to webcomics, though, because most of those have art that even Liefield wouldn't publish and derivative storylines that have been done ten-thousand times or more. Without hyperbole, I think anybody here could, in 12 to 24 hours, draw 6 or more comic strips with art as good as or better then things like The Wotch or Guy whose name I forget: Oracle for Hire, and, with a little effort, could come up with MUCH more creative settings, thus giving them a hook to grab and say "THIS is what makes my comic better then College Roomies From Hell!!!" I just don't see what it would prove.
- Well, I know exactly what it'd prove to all the people who say it: absolutely nothing. Even if I made a webcomic that was akin to looking upon the face of God himself, these people would call it a pile of crap and not anything as good as their beloved bestest webcomic ever. They're just dumbass cunts, ignore them.
- You're also a bit of a nasty asshole that makes personal comments about people you don't even know. Why is this a problem? If the author of VG Cats really is an asshole who bailed out at a convention, or if the author of Pastel Heliotrope Defender really did make a website telling people how to cheat on the transexual psych evaluation, these facts aren't going to change just because Mr. Solomon doesn't know them personally. My undying love for the Goddess is at least something I abjectly stand for, Solomon. You apparently have failed to think about whether undying love for the Goddess is at least something a rational and mature adult should abjectly stand for. (The answer is no.)
- That last post by me is actually someone pretending to be me, for the record. I haven't been active on the CRFH board since, geez, high school. Anyways: "His argument is possibly that all artwork cannot be quantified in any way, which therefore means that not only can Dragon Kingdoms be said to be just as good as CRFH, but also that it has no flaws whatsoever. Because you simply cannot objectively criticise the artwork." Ah: a straw man. Hello, straw man. *shakes straw man's hand* However, that first part is accurate. I mean, you can argue all you want that CRFH has objectively better or worse art technique than WhateverComic.com, and you can tell me that the Ramones have objectively worse guitar work than the Mars Volta, and that Teen Titans has objectively better animation than Rocky and Bullwinkle, and Brett Ratner makes better-edited movies than Edgar G. Ulmer, but who gives a shit? I don't care what's "objectively" anything about artwork. The part that's false is where I'm saying artwork has no flaws. I'm saying that they have no objective flaws. The reason I'm attacking you for your horseshit claims of objectivity is that it's a way to disguise your opinion. The right response to someone saying "That's just your opinion" is "No shit, Sherlock," not "No it's not, I'm just being objective!" Grow a pair, admit that you have opinions and stand by them. I mean, honestly, what do you like? All I know is that you like it when things are "good". Way to take a stand there, buddy. So you like, what, Sinfest? Garfield? For Better or For Worse? I couldn't even begin to guess. One defense your fans suggested was that, unlike the sites I like, this isn't a real website. But you didn't put that argument forth yourself, I notice. Do you consider yourself a real website? Or a joke website? If you're a joke website, you're not very funny, but you don't seem to be trying to be funny. You seem to be trying to impress people with your insight. Well, like I said, when you stand for nothing, what you don't stand for is meaningless. I'm not saying that you don't stand for anything in reality, just that you're unwilling to admit it. You say you want serious insight rather than sycophantic praise. Then start a real website. As it is right now, you run a goon website and that only attracts other goons.
- Here is one: "Try being a little more subjective in your "reviews", do some research about what makes a comic good before you point out it is bad.
- That last post by me is actually someone pretending to be me, for the record. Funny how absolutely no one could tell. Could it be because every comment you post makes you look like a total fucking idiot and that one was no exception? Why, yes! It's truly something how you can claim artwork has no "objective" flaws. By which I mean, you're absolutely wrong and it's hilarious.
- I'm going to take that as a sign that you're not going to give an actual answer, but continue to fall back on simple "You're wrong and you're stupid"-style responses. Well, no, YOU'RE wrong and YOU'RE stupid. But you consider yourself a smart guy, right? You sure seem to. Well, consider this, you're using your intellect in the laziest way possible. You reveal nothing lest you may yourself vulnerable for attack, and you do nothing but criticize, which is the easiest thing in the world. Doesn't take a genius to piss on the sidewalk, man. Here's some constructive criticism: Figure out if you're a joke website or not. Are you Siskel & Ebert, or are you Mystery Science Theater? You don't get to be both, sadly enough. And just for the curious, for a glimpse of someone who does what this site does far better, check out the Comic Strip Doctor at Wondermark.com (http://wondermark.com/wm_stripdoc_index.html)
- "However, that first part is accurate." So Kenneth really does believe that the art in CRFH is not objectively any better than the art in Dragon Kingdoms. I really suggest that everybody go follow that link and look at the comic that Kenneth is defending here. He says that we're not allowed to say that there's anything wrong with that, because it's art.
- Uh, Kenneth? Why do you feel you need to make a bigger fuss about the attack on your beloved CRFH than Campos herself does? She's basically said, on her own forum, not even bothering to come here, "Whatever, I don't have a problem with John Solomon's review." So who appointed you her Knight Protector? You want to help out the noble cause of webcomics you like, Ken-doll? Here's some advice: 1. Turn off and unplug your computer. 2. Uninstall your modem. 3. Take a sledgehammer and smash the modem into a fine powder. 4. Stick to using your computer for storing recipes.
- So who appointed you her Knight Protector? His undying love for her, of course!
- His undying love for her, of course! Quixote will defend the honor of his beautiful Dulcinea to the very end, you heathenous hind!
- Jesus F. Christ, how many times do I have to say this? I'm not complaining that you're criticizing people's art, I'm complaining that you're framing it through the bullshit standard of "objectivity". It isn't fact, it's your opinion, and obviously you have the right to your opinion just like anyone else, but don't try to bullshit me and tell me that's it's not an opinion-based judgement. And as for CRFH... I haven't said a fucking word about it, if you look back and notice. I read it a lot in high school, I picked it up trying to read it again just recently and quite honestly, I can't follow the current storyline because I can't remember who this "Joe" guy is. Let me make this clear: I'm not offended because you're attacking CRFH, I'm offended because you're a shitty critic. I honestly like the idea of this site, but you have so badly botched the follow-through that I can only mark this site down as a frustrating and sad waste of potential.
- Kenneth, the post referring to "undying love for the Goddess" is written exactly in the style of your many posts thus far. So either someone else is an uncannily expert mimic, who actually took the time to create an account, instead of just typing the name "kenneth" in the "Other" field (and who also has an "unavailable" profile); or you're so embarrassed by that "Goddess" comment (as you should be) that you're lying to us. Oh yeah. I went there.
- If Kenneth isn't as knee-deep in CRFH culture as he claims, then that doesn't really explain this post on the CRFH forum where someone going by "Kenny" kisses ass and says the exact same stuff. I mean, unless postin' on the CRFH forums makes you incapable of using words like "abject" correctly, and also renders you so fucking stupid you assume someone's playful hyperbole is a God-given fact despite massive evidence to the contrary. Oh, and everyone there is called Kenneth. Ockham's Razor, good sir!!!
- Funnily enough, the "fake" Kenneth comment links to the exact same profile as the "non-fake" Kenneth comments. Except for this latest one, which makes me think that it actually is fake. Especially since it's rapidly backpedalling away from all of Kenneth's previous claims. Perhaps it's another CRFH fan, trying to make Kenneth (and by extension, the rest of them) seem less crazy. I'm just going to assume ol' Kenny was drunk when he started talking about his mad boner for Campos. Makes sense.
- "Jesus F. Christ, how many times do I have to say this? I'm not complaining that you're criticizing people's art, I'm complaining that you're framing it through the bullshit standard of "objectivity". It isn't fact, it's your opinion, and obviously you have the right to your opinion just like anyone else, but don't try to bullshit me and tell me that's it's not an opinion-based judgement." What's your opinion of the art in Dragon Kingdoms, then? If it's just a subjective opinion then you shouldn't feel bad about sharing it with us.
- Kenneth/Campos' Folks: Goddamn, but you're fucking late, aren't you? Isn't Solomon's calling your darling empress out for being nude two posts down by now at fucking least? Isn't this the Internet? Do I not have the right to expect you tards to be on time? I understand wanting to post off-topic, because that's just how you roll; I even understand needing to read up on the Wikipedia entry on "logic" but come on, punctuality, assholes! Tehkou: I wonder if some of these comics might not be improved by the disinclusion of writing? Maybe that's just the author in me shriveling from such abuse of the text medium, but I think that PvP at least could be an interesting commentary on the modern office if the dialogue was removed...CRFH would remain shite, however, there's only so much surgery can do...then Pastel Defender barely uses dialogue as is, which I am ever thankful for, because what I did read of that fucking insane shitstorm, I cannot comment upon. Words are almost criminal when wasted upon it.
- Oh, and as an extra note for Kenneth, I have to call bullshit on your claims of being "inactive" in the CRFH community and "not being offended" on bitch Campos' behalf, man. Why? Because in your very first comment you mention that we can read your thoughts in expanded form on the CRFH forums! You've not read the comic since high school, yet you keep an active forums account? I THINK NOT, SIRRAH!
- President Solomon? That has a nice ring to it. Your running slogan could be "Vote for Solomon, or fuck you!"
- why do I get the feeling that 3/4 of the people asking #1 are trying to say that if you know every flaw in webcomics, than you should be able make a perfect one. as for the food analogy, yea, anyone can tell if something is good or if something is bad, however this blog critizizes HOW they are written in most cases, and an average jo does not know HOW to cook the things he likes.
- Do you ever think that anybody else's criticism is valid?
- Black Enigma- PDH's writing appears to wound you (a writer person) on the same level that its art wounds me (an art person). I suspect it's not a matter of one aspect actually being stronger than the other, just our own particular sensitivities coming into play as regards what is basically an all-cylinders crapfest. This is not to say that I am not absolutely terrified by JDR's textual braindump as well, but christ, the art. The "lemur arms" guy in one of the strips John linked to way back still gives me nightmares, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. (I have no strong feelings on PvP's art except that I recall it being a lot of rather lazy C&P, which is unobjectionable for gag-a-day stripping, but not exactly stimulating.)
- why do I get the feeling that 3/4 of the people asking #1 are trying to say that if you know every flaw in webcomics, than you should be able make a perfect one. How do they know I haven't?
- the only complaint on the list htat I can agree with is #6, in your blog you basicly yell "X,Y, and Z are WRONG AND TERRIBLE" whcih isn't constructive, if you said "X is bad and you could do Y to make it better", that's constructive critisism, yes it's a little more polite than screaming curse words at the fanbase, however if you jsut say that X is wrong, and give no examples as to how it could be better, than it isn't constructive, and #6 is a valid argument.
- Dammit, meant to get to this yesterday. Well, I'd much rather the focus be on this blog's scathing but intellectually vacant author, I might as well enter my own self-defense. Let me clarify a few points: When I meant "active," I meant, you know, ACTIVE. I think I've made five posts on that board in the past three years, including the ones about you. I think there's a way to prove this on the Keenspot boards, but you don't care and neither do I. Yes, indeed, I used "abject" when I meant "utter". Got me there, bucko! Clearly, any point I made was invalidated by that single error in word usage. (Out of curiosity, just so I can increase my word power, what was wrong with "preempt"?) I don't know that profile thing works. Quite frankly, I'm baffled by how the fake one has the same profile as the others. That's weird, yo. However, I maintain: the one about me worshipping any Goddess is the fake one. (You can tell that it's fake by the overuse of "abject," the post's most obvious satirical dig.) The rest are real. My subjective opinion on the dragon comic thing is that the artwork is ugly, less than competent and unpleasant to look at. But who cares? That's not the topic of discussion. The topic was Solomon's balls, lack of. Congratulations, you don't have the guts to expose your inner self to review, something that five hundred 14-year-old cartoonists of shitty sprite comics do every day. When I suggested you be more like Maddox, I meant that you should be more clear about whether you're joking or not. But here's another way you could stand to be more like him: You could stop updating. Either way would be an improvement.
- Kenneth, you were caught. Be a man and either admit it or stop posting. As it is you're just making yourself look ridiculous. Run along now.
- This thread is probably dead, right? No point in responding anymore, I suppose. But dammit, I've got something to say and I won't stop until I have an answer: How did I use "preempt" incorrectly? I'm going to post on this thread for random intervals until I find out. Anyone? Doesn't have to be Solomon.
- preempt (or pre-empt): to forestall or prevent something anticipated by acting first. Tell me how this entry is preempting anything.
- Just a quick note: The first four posts from kenneth have the same profile id: 04950170064111541601 (This includes the goddess comment.) The later kenneth has the following profile id: 02196676728730592045 (this starts with the whole "someone else pretending to be me" comment.) tee hee. p.s. fleet.
- Well, I´ve been wanting to comment on this Blog for some time now, and this may be a good place. Hope you read this, you don´t have to reply. First: your points don´t get any more valid by adding "Fucking idiots". Certainly gives them flavour, but not exactly what you would want in a debate with, you know, arguments. Now. There´s a lot of webcomics out there that are miserably bad. So: I don´t read them. I don´t waste time on them. Of course, it´s useful to have a guide for good or bad webcomics, so to avoid wasting time in reading a few months of a comic that you regret later. But: There isn´t much use if you can´t, on the other hand, get positive reviews of some others to see if your taste in webcomics is similar to that of the reviewer. I´m just trying to determine the use of a page that offers only bad reviews. Is it for the artists? Your "purpose"-post says so, but I can´t see the point in insulting an artist in public rather than writing to him personally if you really want his webcomic to improve. The only possible uses I can see in your blog are that it is fun to write bad reviews, sometimes is fun to read them, and that you disencourage wannabe artists who may rethink starting their webcomic. I won´t say this couldn´t have been useful a lot of times. Then, of course, the Sluggy thing. You don´t have to love the comic. There have been times when it was way down on my list. there have also been times, however, when I couldn´t wait for the update, fascinated by the amazing amount of work and creativity that Abrams put into the comic. I for my part will always respect that in SF: Constructing a world like Timeless Space or a concept like Keasndrus Well is work and spirit beyond most "real" literature, comic and non-comic. Beyond Hollywood, certainly. And while having big, well-written story arcs with good characters it still stays funny with a nice punchline at the end of most days. I can even understand Abrams desire to wrap up Aylees character, even though she was introduced as a goofy parody. She is too much a part of the main Sluggy crew not to be given any backstory, and her "man-eating-alien" status was getting in the way of further development. I give Abrams credit for pulling this off: Giving her a new background without having to scrap the original Alien-parody. As there is no other way to determine what you actually like, I have to go from what you haven´t bashed yet, btw all comics that I like. Schlock Mercenary? Order of the Stick? Nuklear Theatre? Simulated Comic Product? Prove me wrong. BTW, your writing is good, funny and clever. Find an artist that suits you and start a comic. Do it. I will love to read it, even if the art should happen to suck. For one thing, thank you for taking webcomics seriously enough to spend so much time and energy on them!
- Well, since you asked so kindly: What I was suggesting is that you, John Solomon, were attempting to "prevent" criticism by "acting first," which in this case means labeling your webpage a "shitty blog" and "no great work of art," i.e. not worth criticizing. I thought this would have been clear by the context, although I admit I could have been wrong. I have more to say on that topic, but I want to see if you agree, or see any flaws in that reasoning. The post about worshipping a Goddess: still fake. Don't know how it happened, but I'm still amused by it. I don't really get the logic that assumes that the first half of the posts by "kenneth" would be real, yet the last half would be by someone pretending to be kenneth for God knows what reason. What is that, sockpuppetry in reverse? It seems like, if I were in fact two different people, it'd be far more effective, to post as two people, not one.
- Kenneth, people have been calling me a stupid-ass faggot since DAY FUCKING ONE of this blog. I am almost two months too late to "preempt" anything. Of course, that still doesn't change the fact that I was trying to point out the incredible irony, and hypocrisy, of people holding a review blog to far, far higher standards than the webcomics they read. Apparently the subtle approach has yet again failed me! So why are you dissecting my every noun and verb with your ill-gotten grasp of grammar, yet habitually ignoring every single literary crime that Campos enacts?
- Find an artist that suits you and start a comic. Do it. I will love to read it, even if the art should happen to suck. People, again I say: HOW DO YOU KNOW I DON'T HAVE ONE ALREADY? And no asking me about my favourite webcomics, sheesh. Also your points about Sluggy Freelance are fairly incorrect. Merely being a little more creative than Hollywood on occasion isn't anything to write home about. My last shit was the product of more care and effort than many a Hollywood film. I suppose if you've never really been exposed to any greater work of creativity, you might think Sluggy Freelance to be all that shit you said. But really it just betrays the fact you haven't seen much besides. Thanks for taking the time to write and being civil, though. I hope it catches on!
- Fine, you were trying to preempt FURTHER criticism. Sheesh. God, and there's another thing that pisses me off: "HOW DO YOU KNOW I DON'T HAVE ONE ALREADY?" sayeth Solomon. Well, do you? Well? If you've got one, let's see it. If you don't, say you don't, I'm not going to judge you on it. I don't think you need one to run a blog like this. But your refusal to commit one way or the other marks you as a complete -- what's the secret word, kiddies -- CHICKENSHIT. You said in another thread that you hate it that people want you to review their comics. They should fear you, or some shit like that. Well, if you want people to take you seriously, start a serious blog. Yes, there is a contingent that will never take you or any critic seriously, but your harsh yet ultimately shallow invective has certainly never given them any reason to.* *Look at that: A sentence ending in a preposition! This entire post is worthless.
- At first it looked as though Robert "Lookit Me Everybody" Howard was going to be John's main antagonist, judging from his frequent (and, as always, annoying) presence in the comments. But even he seems to have realized he was fighting a losing battle here. But look, we have another contenduh: "I'm Calling You Chickenshit Even Though I Myself Use Only My First Name" Kenneth. Otherwise known as "I'm Calling You Chickenshit Even Though I Won't Admit to LYING about My Own Fucking CRFH Posts" Kenneth. Will he too realize that nothing he says will ever cause John to cry like a baby, shut the blog down, and disembowel himself on YouTube? Or will Kenneth be the one to go down, presumably through dehydration from all those tears he's shedding? (And for what purpose I have no idea, since it was never him personally being attacked until he started up.) Tune in next time!
- "My subjective opinion on the dragon comic thing is that the artwork is ugly, less than competent and unpleasant to look at." But competency is an objective measurement. You have no idea what you're talking about, Kenneth.
- This entire post is worthless. Yes, it is.
- The difference between hypocrisy and irony is intent.
- Shhh! It's supposed to be a secret.
- I read this blog on and off when I am a little bored and fancy reading some humorous reviews, and equally humorous, albeit sometimes idiotic, responses, and up until now I haven't really felt the need to say anything I didn't think hadn't already been said. And if I am repeating what somebody else has indeed already said, I apologise, I must have missed that comment. "Maybe the problem is them, their tissue-thick skin, and their over-devotion to a goddam webcomic?" I honestly think this is the problem. I browse CAD occasionally, and have a chuckle here and there. Same with one, maybe two other comics reviewed by Mr. Solomon. But I must confess, when I read the reviews for those comics, I laughed. A lot. Because they were funny. And they pointed out a lot of things that were indeed bad about the webcomic; some stuff I had noticed, some I hadn't. But do I still read those comics? To the same browsing degree that I did beforehand. Do I valiantly defend them? No. What's the point? To put in the public arena anything you have done is to open it up to criticism; that is the natural state of things. Therefore, CAD and Tim Buckley are getting exactly what should be expected; criticised. Just like, and take note here Kenneth, Mr. Solomon placed this blog in the public arena, and thus opened it up to criticism. There is no "preempting [sic]", for I'll wager he knew exactly what he was inviting. And the fact that he didn't buckle under opinion and close the blog down after receiving criticism proves that he is actually committing to something; he is committing to this blog, and the things he unapologetically says therein. Unlike you, who seem to backflip more than a gymnist doing the Floor routine, Mr. Solomon has not once retracted or denounced anything he has said. I think you should "grow a pair" and realise that Mr. Solomon is in fact committing more to this blog than you likely commit to anything you do.
- "Cue a dozen irate fans going "But CRFH/Deegan/PDH/Sluggy/CAD is good!!!!" And then sobbing, because deep down they know they're wrong." And you'll delete whoever manage to make a point. Problem solved in either way. It's not like you are reading what they respond to you anyway.
- Add that as complain zero: 0.Whaaaa! you deleted my comment!
- I deleted your comment because a) it was borderline spam; and b) I was sick of you constantly posting the same whiny shit over and over again. And you wouldn't fucking stop even when I pointed out that you are either too dumb or too inept at English to understand you're asking me to repeat what I said and then getting bitchy when I actually do that. Let's put it simply: I pointed out that CRFH has no characterisation and explained why. You essentially said "OH but it MUST - because I like it!" Your argument failed right there. Everything you posted after that has basically been a pathetic cry for validation of your belief that CRFH isn't a pile of shit. That is, when it isn't you not being able to understand the conversational English I type in. So fuck off and stop posting stupid, shitty, incomprehensible 300-word comments that detail how utterly little you know about writing.
- And the only reason that "You deleted my comment!" would be "complain zero" is that apart from you, zero people have used it. Why? Because they understand why I delete their comments, which is because they're unwanted and unneeded. You seem to think I somehow got schooled by you in literary devices, even though I hardly understand a single fucking thing you say.
- You know, I'm in love with you. Okay not really. But you kick alot of ass, and it's easy to agree with almost everything you say. The complaints are ridiculous, but it's kind of funny to see how butthurt people get over a comic. Anyway, yeah, you're awesome.
- I think the only possible complaint I would have (after speed-reading your own archives) would be to trim the reviews down a little, so they come across as less rambling rant and more pointed criticism. Still, you've been on the money about every comic you've reviewed, so keep up the good work.
- Oh... But I genuinely want to know what webcomics you like. But I see why you don't talk about them, I suppose.
- I just stumbled onto your blog, and in my opinion, you guys must either be impossibly brave, or unfathomably stupid. It only takes one of those to go against the giant, anonymous behemoth that is the internet comic reading public. After reading your archives, I feel ambivalent. I could either despise you for criticizing other people's webcomics, or thank you for the service you have done. Webcomics right now, to some people, is still a "new" art, and most reviewers tend to review webcomics with a leaning towards positive reinforcement. It is sort of refreshing, no not refreshing, but jarring to see the other side of the spectrum; Reviewers who are no-nonsense, and kind of intolerant to obvious major mistakes in webcomic art and writing. After typing this mile and a half tirade, I am feeling a little bit decisive now. I appreciate your work, and in me, you have a long-time subscriber for life. However, I don't envy your job at all, you crazy bastards. -Best of luck
- so you're saying you know more about literature and writing so you can say anyone else having an opinion on that matter is retarded BUT at the same time you say you don't need to make or have made a webcomic to say that is shit and whoever made it is retarded. SMART.
- Actually yeah, it is SMART. Any moron with MSPaint can make a webcomic and be a 'creator', but only a small percentage of the population have actually studied literature and literary techniques. And as John said the latter category, which includes himself, is far more qualified to judge the quality of webcomic writing than the former category. Are you suggesting otherwise? Or have you simply misinterpreted what he said because you're a fucking moron? Well, you're a fucking moron either way.
- I'm going to say this once just to get it out of the way..It is all just your opinion! So go ahead and bash me for it, but the truth hurts. If half the population like coke and the other half like Pepsi and you come along and say "The people who make Coke are dicks and so are their whole families, so don't drink their soda cause it sucks (bear in mind I'm recreating your writing style)." Also keep in mind that your "degree" means nothing. All it does it gets you a better job. THink of some of the greatest artists of all time, did they have a degree to have great art...no. Did the greatest writers in history have a degree...no, they wrote what they wanted to, and where considered great. So just because you have a piece of paper that says you are better than everyone else, doesn't mean you are. Let others waste their live with bad webcomics and at least spend your life doing something worth living for.
- i actually am curious to know what webcomics you would recommend, but alas, that would defeat the purpose of this page.
- Okay, but you have stated that you have an issue with the writers of webcomics as a whole. If you meant JUST THESE PARTICULAR writers, it makes sense. But it's kind of hard to believe that you only critique constructively and that you only bitch about plot/etc. if you have also stated that you just plain think webartists are pathetic windbags.
- ... Many people have made the analogy of judging a webcomic without having written one to not knowing whether something tastes good or not without being a cook. Are you guys retarded? If something literally tastes like shit, and I mean it's downright, godawful, vomit-it-onto-the-floor-and-even-the-dog-who-licks-his-ass-won't -eat-it terrible, you don't need to know jack shit about cooking to know that the food isn't good. In summation, your analogy is bad and you should feel bad. P.S. - Also, a lot of people liking something is never criteria for whether or not it's good. A lot of people liked the Macarena - think about that for a while.
- John Solomon is Charlie Brooker.
- I'm glad you're getting a lot of hate. Yeah, I said it.
