|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Over in Octopus Pie, I'm wondering if Will is going to end up calling Eve.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
100 HOGS AGREE posted:Well... you were kinda right? Apart from who contacted who, I guess! v  v
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
I'm just glad it's not happening in THIS thread. ...right?  I like that mimi grew up entirely different from her sister and that we still get an arc about her. Also drat linton and sonny pick up the pace how is this nerd getting all the action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Eldercain posted:I'm just glad it's not happening in THIS thread. Because Linton has not moved past "insufferable". Dude needs to get a story arc. Also, I know it's not going to happen, but I want Mimi to stick around past this arc, she's fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
The Lord of Hats posted:Because Linton has not moved past "insufferable". Dude needs to get a story arc. Agreed. She won me over with the last two panels here in particular. http://www.scarygoround.com/index.php?date=20140605 Anybody who views the baguette in such enlightened terms is alright with me 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
There's a serious lack of Poppy going on here.  Lily just keeps on being absolutly adorable. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
100 HOGS AGREE posted:Well... you were kinda right? Why is it so easy to get weird and weepy over those two?
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Eldercain posted:I'm just glad it's not happening in THIS thread. Linton is afraid of girls and Sonny is shaken from his experience with homicidal-seal-girl and seal-sister.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
Zernach posted:There's a serious lack of Poppy going on here. I'd feel sorry for Marche being lumbered with Mary, but he is kind of a dork. Also, Mary seems to be a lot better with Lily than a previous guest comic suggests.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
Zernach posted:Lily just keeps on being absolutly adorable. The cover page is the best. I really want to find out if Poppy's crazy mass/strength are a lucky star thing or some hereditary nonsense that Lily will get as well. Also whatever this Iron Matron jazz is about. I'm not about to cry Get On With It though, because every page where someone is making a face is the best page (most pages).
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Kismet posted:Hey thread! Grantaire, mariealbertine, a bloody icon and I have teamed up with Amy King of The Muse Mentor and spent the last few months putting together a little online studio. Today we launched Countershot Press via a brand new hub blog on tumblr. This is pretty great and I'm excited for you folks, but now I'm thinking about Dumm Comic's format and Ricky's 1930 Theater and I'm sad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
There's a pretty robust discussion going around the webcomics community right now regarding criticism, which is something we've touched on here in the past (especially with the Zen Pencils/Straub event) but might be worth revisiting. I feel like it's a discussion that people (generally) have wanted to have for a while, but which had never reached the right point to gel. Ultimately, I think the further I read the more I feel like most of the "criticism" artists and creators get doesn't fit the definition of criticism and isn't useful, and it tries to bypass the need for trust between the creator and the reviewer. This doesn't mean the reviewer has to be a creator to get that credibility, or even that all creators automatically have credibility as reviewers, but I'm starting to feel that there needs to be evidence of the ability to empathize. Otherwise, the tone and intention aren't clear, where both are necessary for getting whatever content the review/critique was meant to communicate. Additionally, there seems to be an attitude that creators should be grateful that reviewers took time out of their day for a review, whatever the content, whereas there's a pushback against the idea that an audience should be automatically grateful for creator content. It feels like a double-standard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
I haven't seen much of this "criticism" that people haven't been talking about but it probably isn't very good or useful. Webcomics generally don't need reviews either because the barrier to entry is non-existent, since many comics are free people can just go look at them and decide if they like them, instead of having to decide in advance if it is worth spending money on or not. I would like if there was actual critical analysis of webcomics (or really, comics in general) out there but there really isn't. Having gone through an entire BA doing constant literary analysis on both old and contemporary literature I've never really seen the same amount of thought and discourse in the world of comics. I would love to read proper critique on webcomics if it existed. The problem too is, in-depth analysis isn't something you bang out in an afternoon. A well-researched essay into the themes and meaning of a work takes a lot of time to do, and unless you're publishing in a literary journal or writing for a grade most people don't want to put that kind of effort in. 100 HOGS AGREE fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
No Poppy O'Possum this week?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
I agree that the conflict between the idea that a reviewer's time is somehow worth more than a creator's is one of the issues here. The other is the purpose of media reviews in almost every other context; helping consumers decide where to spend their money. That driving factor just doesn't exist with webcomics. They're free. If you don't like one, you take it out of your bookmarks or off of your RSS feed. As a result, there just isn't as robust of an audience for webcomic reviews as there is for movie, book, or game reviews. Without much of an audience, there's no imperative to improve the quality or thoughtfulness of the reviews, nor is there any real reason to establish a new source of them, which is why if you asked me to list all the webcomic review sites I knew of I'd be able to tell you that the Webcomic Overlook exists and then run out of ideas. This pretty much means that reviews are going to either be marginally beneficial to creators or just kind of neutral. A bad review from a lovely John Solomon impersonator is going to have very little impact outside of a small circle and a good review from El Santo is going to generate traffic... assuming that people weren't already reading the comic, which isn't always a guarantee. I don't know what it means for webcomics except that they're an artform in its infancy and people don't know where to place it yet. People value their time online, but not enough to need someone else to tell them what they should and shouldn't bookmark. Creators are better off getting critiques from more artistic circles, which has its own complicated mess of issues, the most obvious of which is that it's easy to get stuck in an insular congratulatory circle of fellow artists and not get anywhere. Ultimately, I think that reviews and critique shouldn't be conflated. Reviews are for the consumer's benefit, critiques are for the artist's benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
Fortis posted:Ultimately, I think that reviews and critique shouldn't be conflated. Reviews are for the consumer's benefit, critiques are for the artist's benefit. True, but the method of delivery tends to conflate the two. Remember the controversy with Sinead O Connor's letter to Miley Cyrus? I think a lot of that stemmed from it being formatted as if it were for her but being published for wide consumption. That said, one reason for that approach can be that lessons contained could be useful to those "lurking", which is also true of artist critique and why many art classes do critiques as a group.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Kramjacks posted:No Poppy O'Possum this week? It's supposed to be a day late (today)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
100 HOGS AGREE posted:I haven't seen much of this "criticism" that people haven't been talking about but it probably isn't very good or useful. Webcomics generally don't need reviews either because the barrier to entry is non-existent, since many comics are free people can just go look at them and decide if they like them, instead of having to decide in advance if it is worth spending money on or not. I think this was more influential when there were fewer comics. With so many webcomics out there, now it feels the limiting factor is time, not money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Pick posted:True, but the method of delivery tends to conflate the two. Remember the controversy with Sinead O Connor's letter to Miley Cyrus? I think a lot of that stemmed from it being formatted as if it were for her but being published for wide consumption. That said, one reason for that approach can be that lessons contained could be useful to those "lurking", which is also true of artist critique and why many art classes do critiques as a group. Yeah, and I see the delivery method's conflation as something of an Internet Problem. It's kind of like the problem outlined in the video This is Phil Fish that's making the rounds, but not exactly. There are a lot of parallels though. The webcomic reading public at large tends to end up treating creators like 'famous people', in that they feel that famous people should be grateful for their fame. This of course ignores that most human beings do not know or care about what a webcomic is and is even less likely to know who individual webcomic creators are. The double standard is in play as soon as the 'famous person' perception is in effect, because webcomics-at-large feel like a small, insular community, which leads readers and reviewers to try to interface with artists like they know eachother at all... while still holding the artist to the famous person standard, meaning any reaction the artist has is going to be considered as a reaction to The Audience, not one reviewer or jerkbag on twitter. So reviewers think they can provide a personal critique to the artist even though they probably shouldn't, and if the artist feels this is out of line, well, too bad. It's not fair and most reviewers probably shouldn't be giving critiques, but I don't know what anyone could possibly do about it. The only recourse for creators is to keep in mind that no matter how small of a following they have, they have a public image. They don't have to give a poo poo about it if they don't want to, but it's there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Webcomics need John Solomon, but he has abandoned us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Webcomics need John Solomon, but he has abandoned us. That belief is almost the problem though. Fuego's reviews were very well written and his critiques were solid and well-founded, but other reviewers are not him, and a critique is something an artist usually asks for. When it's just kind of bluntly forced on an artist, it's hard for them to not get defensive. As an artist who has received entirely unsolicited critiques, I have to consider who it's coming from and whether or not they actually know what they're talking about. I have to think about this for a while before I either incorporate the feedback or I disregard it. But before that thought process, my initial gut reaction is always that it's rude as poo poo. Critique is literally "pick my work apart and tell me all the things that are wrong with it," it's one thing when you ask for it but it's another thing entirely when someone just does it out of the blue, and yet another thing when they do it in public for everyone to read. Fortis fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
It doesn't help everyone on earth feels qualified to give criticism in regards to certain types of media. Without any experience, empathy, and understanding of the process of creating a comic, the 'crit' ends up being a parroting of tiresome aphorisms at best, and a bad-faith soapbox to deliver sick burns to your buds at worst. It's kind of like you're struggling with all your might, trying to lift a heavy box, and some dude rolls by and shouts "LIFT WITH YOUR KNEES, BRO!" then rolls out. That's generally how useful most criticism is in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Yeah, that tends to come with the one-way belief that webcomic creators can be treated just like anyone else. There's a disconnect that prevents us from giving a movie star acting tips, but for some reason most people will tell a webcomic artist that some colors don't work or something on today's page out of nowhere, but still be offended if the crit isn't taken to heart. The problem is when you're a reader you're not on equal ground with a creator. I don't mean that in a superior/inferior sense, I mean the reader and the artist are on completely different planets when you're dealing with that artist's work in particular. Unless you engage in a discussion with an artist there is no way of knowing what they did and didn't consider doing or not doing on any given comic page. How many color pallets did they try out before settling on this one? How many thumbnail sketches are there of this page alone? You don't know, and when you don't know you run the risk of making some pretty brazen assumptions about the artist's thought process. It's part of why unsolicited critique is rude. For me personally this kind of situation can lead to me feeling compelled to justify myself to the well-meaning person, which annoys me because I feel like I shouldn't have to but I can't stand people misrepresenting my own thought processes to my face. It's exhausting and generally just shouldn't be happening in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
People criticize movie stars on their acting all the time, movie stars just don't listen because there are two societies in the world with little to no cross-interaction and wealthy/famous people (which webcomic creators aren't) live in the one with more sunshine and fewer rats in the water. A critique is a vocalized judgment and people judge all the time, for everything, everywhere. There are people who hate what you do, where you live, what you wear, who you are. There are people on the other side of the planet who ferociously hate you and you specifically right this instant. Instead of bemoaning whole process and how these hapless reader can't possibly understand the tribulations of the Creator Class, you'd most likely be better-served learning how to deal with it and sieve out anything useful from the ocean of noise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Well, that's not my concern so much, I really think the final product is more important than how the artist got there (that's a subjective opinion) and people have every right to hold the same opinion of two pieces of identical artwork, one resulting from low effort and the other from high effort. However, airing your grievances in the artist's space without some sort of established agreement to do so can be problematic. We have rules for this in traditional settings, but the internet is a little slow to develop its own. For example, I recently went to absolutely the most dire performance of The Magic Flute I'd ever seen, and yet was still appalled when audience members booed after the first act. At the opera!
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:A critique is a vocalized judgment and people judge all the time, for everything, everywhere. There are people who hate what you do, where you live, what you wear, who you are. There are people on the other side of the planet who ferociously hate you and you specifically right this instant. Instead of bemoaning whole process and how these hapless reader can't possibly understand the tribulations of the Creator Class, you'd most likely be better-served learning how to deal with it and sieve out anything useful from the ocean of noise. That seems like deeply glossing over how this can morph into an expectation of withstanding and even showing gratitude for abusive behavior. You shouldn't boo at the opera and you shouldn't tell Tom Siddell to kill himself over an ambiguous Tweet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Instead of bemoaning whole process and how these hapless reader can't possibly understand the tribulations of the Creator Class, you'd most likely be better-served learning how to deal with it and sieve out anything useful from the ocean of noise. Right, which is why the first thing I said about what I personally do about unsolicited crit is filter out the real stuff from the noise. I am also not trying to say in any way that creators should be elevated above readers. If that's how it's coming across, I apologize. I'm making observations on why the critique/review thing is suddenly becoming a big discussion in webcomics. Basically this: Pick posted:However, airing your grievances in the artist's space without some sort of established agreement to do so can be problematic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Pick posted:That seems like deeply glossing over how this can morph into an expectation of withstanding and even showing gratitude for abusive behavior. You shouldn't boo at the opera and you shouldn't tell Tom Siddell to kill himself over an ambiguous Tweet. But people still do, and always will, and will do much worse and much longer forever and ever, amen. I can't bring myself to show much sympathy for people who are so invested in the shrieking monkey cage that is Internet commentary that they'll wrap themselves in sympathetic Twitter posts the moment someone who just learned how fun it is to type the word "gently caress" takes issue with the shape of a drawing's head. It shows, to me, lack of perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:31
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:But people still do, and always will, and will do much worse and much longer forever and ever, amen. Wow, how very edgy and real. I can't say I agree though, this is the same logic you see in parents who hit their kids to "toughen them up" and last I checked that's out of vogue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Pick posted:Wow, how very edgy and real. I can't say I agree though, this is the same logic you see in parents who hit their kids to "toughen them up" and last I checked that's out of vogue. Parents hitting their kids is a relatively straight forward thing to stop. The internet, not so much. The only plausible recourse therefore is to Learn To loving Deal With It. Or don't! Do you have any idea how easy it is to not engage with the internet? Not reading things is awesome my friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
Pick posted:Wow, how very edgy and real. I can't say I agree though, this is the same logic you see in parents who hit their kids to "toughen them up" and last I checked that's out of vogue. This is what I mean by lack of perspective. They are not comparable. Trust me on this. There are different levels to how seriously "critique" can be taken, based on the venue through which it's delivered. It's why a lot of novelists tend to either have close friends or hired readers who closely and personally read their drafts, so that whatever they say, the writer can at least be assured it comes out of some level of prior investment in the work. Ten thousand anonymous voices who are saying any number of things about any number of works with any amount of sincerity, especially when it comes to webcomics, most of which can be glanced over in about thirty seconds per page and have handy free-for-all comment sections where the signal-to-noise ratio is on the quantum level, is at the opposite end of this scale, and anyone who gets too worked up about the conversations happening on this end are perhaps not very experienced with that end. You should not care if some drunken comment post bearing the header YOLOSWAG4JESUS calls you a poo poo-eater with poo poo for hands. If your mother said that, it would probably, justifiably, carry a little more of a sting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Okay cool, I guess that's settled. Webcomics are on the internet so there can never be intelligent discourse about them, ever. Wrap it up, case closed, everyone go home.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:Parents hitting their kids is a relatively straight forward thing to stop. quote:The internet, not so much. The only plausible recourse therefore is to Learn To loving Deal With It. Or don't! Do you have any idea how easy it is to not engage with the internet? Not reading things is awesome my friend. You're putting responsibility on the wrong people here. It doesn't matter if it's harder to make people stop being abusive than it is to get abusers to put up with it. It's the wrong solution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Really going to the mat to defend yoloswag4jesus here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:Really going to the mat to defend yoloswag4jesus here. He's a gentle soul once you get to know him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
It's pretty fundamental to healthy human social interaction to care about reputation and recognize hostility directed towards yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Frankly I my own self am amazed that said poo poo eater has not eaten his or her own poo poo-hands yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Pick posted:What? By what logic exactly? I'm going to actually just kind of cut to the point here: As Oxxidation has said, it indicates a hilarious lack of perspective if you actually think child abuse and saying mean things about webcomics on the internet deserve to be compared. And to answer your question, anything is more straight forward and easy to stop than anonymous comments on the internet. What is complex about that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Captain Oblivious posted:As Oxxidation has said, it indicates a hilarious lack of perspective if you actually think child abuse and saying mean things about webcomics on the internet deserve to be compared. Emotions are a concrete part of a person's health and it is a ridiculous notion to presume that any hostility against your person is invalid. I would certainly rather get a nasty review than punched in the jaw but it's absurd to say that if intentional, uni-directional maliciousness doesn't reach your magical macho threshold then responsibility shifts to the recipient. And for webcomic fun, 
Pick fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Jun 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:14 |
|
|
It's not about how people are BEING MEAN ON THE INTERNET ABOUT WEBCOMICS (specifically), it's about how everyone and their mom thinks they can give an artist a critique and hold the artist to a standard where they have to accept it and if they don't they're an rear end in a top hat. But the critique itself can totally be delivered in an rear end in a top hat way, for some reason. Primarily we were talking about webcomic review sites and how they are regarded as not really helpful, and how sometimes critique isn't always appreciated and these factors have shaped the perception that webcomic artists and webcomic readers have of eachother. But yeah, no, rrrgh arrgh the internet is a rough place, the world is harsh, hurf blurf suck it up
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 18:57
|
|