Jack's Webcomic Reviews is now up!

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:12 am

If the author is good at what they are doing, they are able to present their ideas in a comprehensible form to the readers without condescending or losing their message. If you suck at it, then even great ideas can be lost.

Then again, it assumes that the basic idea is any good to begin with. And with many webcomics, they're so full of clichés and self-insertion fantasies that no amount of good presentation can save them.

Geekblather · Post by **Geekblather** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:32 am

*cough*

Warning- I'm about to be five...

Hee! *snicker* "Self insertion"...

/5

--------

Okay, now that I have that out of my system, I actually really like Jack's reviews, and in general, I think they're pretty fair. He's been very good at finding positive and negative things about pretty much every strip he's reviewed, which helps the artist (I agree that most reviews are for the artist) know what they can improve upon, without feeling like they're under attack. I don't always agree with the reviews, but, then, I don't always agree with anything.

Dotty · Post by **Dotty** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 11:35 am

I like webcomic review sites, and I like webcomic reviews. But only sometimes. See, theres a few of them out there who are cruel and rude for the sake of being cruel and rude. I prefer my criticism to be constructive. Help me improve, but don't rake my shit through the mud for a cheap laugh. That shit is absolutely useless, and as much of a waste of internet space as things like Electric Retard. It serves no constructive purpose other than, as I mentioned before, a cheap laugh, and trying to steer people away from reading your comic, or if the reader is extremely impressionable, implanting the idea that the comic is horrible before they even get the chance to read it...sometimes without even saying why.

Mind, if you're a sheep that listens to everything you read without making your own call, then I have very little interest in your opinion of my work.

As for art being a window into the soul; yes, this can be accurate. A long time ago I used to post doodles on another message board, and a couple of the brighter posters somehow took the idea the images were my female side, from posture, and similarities in her interests and what she was wearing. (Character sketches)

However, I'm not of the sole opinion that good art tells you exactly what it's trying to do. I lean more to the idea that good art conveys the message, but great art leaves the door open for interpretation. Kinda like that painting someone said was another Disney sexual metaphor that was going to corrupt our children. You know, the one of a girl on a swing, with various things going on in the backround.

I'm not entirely convinced that work was trying to get just one message across.

Renard · Post by **Renard** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:02 pm

It is quite surprising with how much hesitation I enter this debate.

From the second line in the review I get this feeling that this wasn't a solicited review (or am I reading this wrong?). This was a case of Jack stumbling on the comic and being overcome with a sense of "This is so vile and disgusting! Other people have to see how depraved this is." So, the link and the review might as well stay, because Jack wanted people to see it (and you can contradict me here, Jack, if I am misrepresenting you) at some level--though not really with the intent to enjoy it.

Even if it was unsolicited, I doubt that matters much. That is a comic crying out for attention; it doesn't care if it is negative or positive. The stronger the emotion evoked (even if it is disgust) the happier that particular author is going to be. In fact, if the author is in anyway aware of this discussions I imagine he is pleased.

And while, yes, if I were a school administrator or the author's parents I would be sufficiently worried, I do think making value judgments about the author himself is beyond the purview of any webcomic reviewer. I think rcmonroe has the right of it. While, even reading the review, it is clear that it isn't with the intention to score some points for snarkiness as some go out of their way to do (it is the official pastime of the internets, I hear), there is always that danger.

So, while discussing the merits (or lack thereof) are open game, I really don't think we should be jumping to conclusions about the author himself. Can you read an artist in their work? I don't always think so. Sure, a lot of times you can get a sense, but what if you're wrong?

Tetsuo75 · Post by **Tetsuo75** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:34 pm

The problem is that we all judge through the eyes of our own experiences and we expect everyone else to have shared those experiences with us. So as to assume of the intention of the artist on a piece can be quite flawed since you can never tell what really is going on through another person's mind...

Redtech · Post by **Redtech** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:37 am

Just read the review for Electric Retard. I found http://www.electricretard.com/0011.html a Laugh Out Loud, since I'm a Unreal Tournament Fan. But yeah, in hindsight, there are reviews where saying a positive might be a misjustice. Although the art is "better" than I expected...just not as decent.

Anyways, can't really shout down The Man's reviews. I just HATE BLOG LAYOUTS! I demand sidebars and topbars and downbars, rather than a sort by date function.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:01 am

Well, I believe that reviewer's credibility is determined in part by how much he stands behind what he says. When you review, you have to think through enough times to be sure of what you're saying. If you take back your words, and even worse, if you get apologuetic, the words you haven't taken back are somehow less credible. If you stick to one opinion, that's less a matter of stubborness and more of that you thought through things enough.

Gotta say, if author of "retard" was offended by such review, that would be delightfully ironic (poetic?). Everyone who draws a comic such as this should know what they're getting into and that responses are going to be violently negative.
As deserved, I think. Reading that thing is not a mere waste of time, it's a step toward being dissapointed in humanity.

Back to topic though, yes, art (yes, I have a broad interpretation of "art") is a reflection of a person's mind, but how can you be sure it is being interpreted correctly?

Well what artist wanted to tell is not a primary thing. It's what the comic is trying to tell that is important, and that's sometimes two very different things.

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:13 pm

Dutch! wrote:Struth, there's a lot of high horses around here, eh?

"Just wanted to state here that I'm not pretentious like you guys. That's why I'm better."

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 10:25 pm

Dotty wrote: As for art being a window into the soul; yes, this can be accurate. A long time ago I used to post doodles on another message board, and a couple of the brighter posters somehow took the idea the images were my female side, from posture, and similarities in her interests and what she was wearing. (Character sketches)

I think it might be more accurate to call art a 'mirror to the soul'? I mean simply that given the many ways to interpret a simple drawing (much less a complex work like a novel) not only will what individuals see reflect what's already within them, only the artist (or people very well acquainted with the artist,) will necessarily be able to see how that particular piece reflects on the artist.

Which kind of gets into why I find 'dream analysis' so annoying... what a baby represents to me (at almost 7 months pregnant) is likely to be very different from what it represents to someone who isn't interested in having children from what it means to someone who recently suffered a miscarriage... We can all draw our own meanings from a dream, but only the dreamer really has the ability to see what the dream means to them.

Dutch! · Post by **Dutch!** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:11 pm

The Neko wrote:
Dutch! wrote:Struth, there's a lot of high horses around here, eh?
"Just wanted to state here that I'm not pretentious like you guys. That's why I'm better."

Maybe I should have included the smiley face in the original quote, eh?

Uncaringmachine · Post by **Uncaringmachine** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 5:36 am

I'm glad to see we can all carry on an intelligent conversation and add our own opinions, even on a subject such as EL. Too bad he calls anyone who agrees with my review idiots. But hey, that's an opinion too, right? Eh.

NakedElf · Post by **NakedElf** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 7:09 am

That's pretty much exactly what I would expect... Though I have difficulty expecting him to expect anything else out of a review... In a sense it's just a great big circle-jerk of dislike--us disliking the comic, and him disliking us in return.

Considering I've seen better work out of small children, I ain't crying any tears over the comic or the opinions of anyone with such a pitiful notion of color palettes.

The Neko · Post by **The Neko** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:10 am

Dotty wrote: As for art being a window into the soul; yes, this can be accurate. A long time ago I used to post doodles on another message board, and a couple of the brighter posters somehow took the idea the images were my female side, from posture, and similarities in her interests and what she was wearing. (Character sketches)

However, I'm not of the sole opinion that good art tells you exactly what it's trying to do. I lean more to the idea that good art conveys the message, but great art leaves the door open for interpretation. Kinda like that painting someone said was another Disney sexual metaphor that was going to corrupt our children. You know, the one of a girl on a swing, with various things going on in the backround.

I'm not entirely convinced that work was trying to get just one message across.

There is a concept of ideology present in many comics, just like any other medium. You can often see what an author believes, or is preoccupied about by looking at what they say, what they draw, and the subject matter they choose to discuss or leave out. Sometimes you get an almost Freudian slip where people say more than they intend in a comic.

It's kind of like if you read John Kricfalusi's blog. At random times, he seems to derail his discussions of animation to re-inforce his oddly archaic views of masculinity, denouncing a female character design cynically as showing her being "superior to men".

Brigid · Post by **Brigid** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:10 am

People can't help but infuse their own beliefs into their art or writing. It's part of the human condition.

Part of the reason I don't take 'non-biased' journalism very seriously.

I mean, you look at professional comic writers in newspapers and you can get a pretty good idea what their belief system is. Somehow, I don't think the writer of B.C. would agree with much the writer of Doonesbury says.

Kels · Post by **Kels** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:29 am

More so since he's dead...

Princess · Post by **Princess** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 2:00 pm

I don't really understand what the point of reviewing ER was, I mean it was created as a joke/shock comic on the something awful forums wasn't it?

Eric is not going to read the review and think "I need to improve my figure drawing skills" and take a life class is he?

By writing a shocked and offended review you have given the creator exactly what he wanted.

(Note: I really enjoy your other reviews

)

Brigid · Post by **Brigid** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:26 pm

I think the idea, as stated at least, is to warn away other people who might stumble across the comic.

By the way, kels, which author is dead? Because I thought both comics were still active.

Kels · Post by **Kels** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:27 pm

Johnny Hart died only a couple of months ago. Died at his drawing desk, which was kinda fitting.

Princess · Post by **Princess** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:42 pm

brigid wrote:I think the idea, as stated at least, is to warn away other people who might stumble across the comic.

By posting a link and an attention grabbing review? Human nature being what it is, if you yell LOOK SHOCKING TERRIBLE OFFENSIVE people will look

Skyman8081 · Post by **Skyman8081** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:55 pm

princess wrote:I don't really understand what the point of reviewing ER was, I mean it was created as a joke/shock comic on the something awful forums wasn't it?

To my recollection, It started out from the GBS thread, started by 'Eric,' called: "MSPaint your sociopathic fantasies" (Note, most MSPaint threads in GBS are terrible. There has only even been a single good MSPaint thread, ever) Eric collected all the drawings he did for that thread into Electric Retard.

This just goes to furthert he theory on SA that nothing good comes out of GBS.