|
Post by RA on May 1, 2005 6:24:11 GMT
I know you've heard this before from me, but...I love you, Neko. Please let me please have your babies, or at least a fetus in a plastic bag.
Harsh, cruel, belligerent, and says what a lot of people have been wanting to say for a very, very long time. You know your topic, and can properly rip whatever stands in your way to simpering bits.
Much. Love.
|
|
|
Post by achim on May 1, 2005 23:35:07 GMT
Everyone knows that Neko secretly loves me so don't bother.
|
|
|
Post by Firedrake on May 2, 2005 9:33:10 GMT
I clicked on this expecting a coherent, intelligent discourse on why X and Y were bad things to have in comics and only found swearing-laden opinion.
All that wordy article manages to put across to the reader is that the author dislikes manga, people into J-pop, and people who mess with mythical creatures simply because they're tied to judeo-christian beliefs.
If you're gonna keep this column, I suggest getting a more open-minded, objective writer who can put a point across far more clearly than this guy.
|
|
|
Post by KrisX on May 4, 2005 15:44:41 GMT
To request open-mindedness requires the requester to share the same open-mindedness. Otherwise tis pointless to request when one is also just as close-minded.
People will never motion your same opinion and the fact that you replied proves he did his job very well.
On that note, not a fan of swearing in an article, but nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Tealya on May 10, 2005 5:43:54 GMT
So, wait, if I'm understanding this article right, anything that involves angles or demons of any sort that don't meet with the judeo-christian standards are garbage and should not exsist?
|
|
Dutch
Writer
The newsletter's Australian influence
Posts: 178
|
Post by Dutch on May 10, 2005 7:32:13 GMT
Honestly, it sounds like you're all reading far too much into some of these pieces. Let's not make sweeping generalisations, but at the same time, let's not just go out there and believe them when we read them, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Jimmy G on May 11, 2005 2:09:35 GMT
Hey,
I totally understand that was an opinionated article there, but I'm kinda dumbfounded. Is the writer an artist at all? D'you people know about how to give constructive crits? I'm just curious.
I understand the personal distaste for the comics mentioned in the writing, but as far as columns like this go it came off as pretty crass and weak. You're just angry there's so much crap, right? I think it's a little harsh to tell them all to stop, though. In essence the only negative things coming from these comics is that they clog things up. These comics can lead the artists into doing better and much more justifiable things. It's a personal thing. And dude, c'mon, the Internet is huge.
Ahhh, the elitist webcomics critic. Just like that one guy, I don't know if you ever heard of him, he was called HITLER of the NAZI party.
|
|
|
Post by spriteville on May 11, 2005 3:30:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 11, 2005 4:02:05 GMT
Haha, wow.
Yeah, it also says, and I quote:
Seriously - I wasn't attacking you guys or anything, and there's no argument, so. I'm just pointing out the fact there's a real similarity there. I don't get the purist point of view. At all.
|
|
|
Post by Phalanx on May 12, 2005 21:17:55 GMT
Uh, you guys don't get the point of this article, do you? The negativity and swearing, the whole 'snobby elitist critic' pose is all part of the comic act. The setting up of the worst-case scenario enemy straw man, if you will... It's purposely written in an biting, over-the-top way to provoke a reaction and drive a point home, at the same time allowing a focus for all those things people secretly think but are too polite to say. Ever heard of Dalton Wemble? One of my favourite articles over at Comixpedia, I was very sad when it ended. Naturally this needs to be taken with a pinch of salt and healthy dose of good judgement and a sense of humour. Taking it seriously is missing the point altogther.
|
|
|
Post by Phalanx on May 12, 2005 21:35:48 GMT
In case my explanation above wasn't clear enough, the writer here is setting him/herself up as the bad guy on purpose, even though he/she may not be like that in real life.
They're emulating the worst possible kind of critic, sort of to give you an idea of the worst possible reaction someone can have to your work. Knowing the worst possible scenario is always a very good thing, because you eventually learn to fireproof your work so there's nothing there for people to rip at even if they want to; instead of sloppy work it's all solid and well-done.
There's a place for constructive criticism and gentle encouragement, but every now and then you also need a bit of fire and brimstone to wake you up.
Oh, and I think the point of the article could be summed up as:
"If you're going to borrow stuff from myth, for the love of god research the original myth, and don't just borrow from stuff that's already borrowing from myth!"
Why? Because you get the Xerox effect (i.e. Each copy loses detail to the point end product becomes very low quality). Most people who make comics generally just 'borrow' from the series that inspired them, but more often than not, 'inspire' turns into 'make my own slightly different version with different characters'.
That, and kill the cliches.
Ok, I really am done now.
Oh, and did I say "Nice Job, Neko?"
|
|
The Neko
Writer
Sardonic Cynical Satirist
Posts: 33
|
Post by The Neko on May 13, 2005 0:30:31 GMT
Phalanx got the point perfectly.
Hell, I don't really get pissed at bad webcomics, I just sit there and say "next". Hell, nobody should get that pissed at an artistic media. It's called a WRITING PERSONA. The entire purpose was to piss off people with a pompous blowhard style of writing. Basically, the entire point was to show that cliches are idiotic, and unless you do something original with your work, it becomes nothing more than BAD FANFICTION. I systematically pointed out the common clichés, and compared them to the original religious context, to demonstrate how idiotic the cliches were. The message was "be original".
And about "they're only experimenting". You don't have to upload your experimental work on the net. People can always practice until they get decent and then put it online.
|
|
|
Post by taltamir on May 13, 2005 5:10:07 GMT
nice article... it needs follow ups for other brands of shitty webcommics .
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 13, 2005 7:42:23 GMT
People can always practice until they get decent and then put it online. You'll find it much harder to get constructive crits offline, though. Then again online people will use a "WRITING PERSONA"to bash those who are clueless and just in need of a nudge in the right direction, rather than a kick in the nadgers. I'm not sure why you wanted to offend by writing in that style. It's probably just me, but I find even the most intelligent of people comes off as crass (in a bad way) and childish in their reasoning when they do. Still, considering your audience -- it was fitting. Just giving my feedback and comments.
|
|
|
Post by Phalanx on May 13, 2005 9:56:02 GMT
I agree, some people do use writing personas to bash hapless beginners and make themselves feel good. I also note Neko didn't specifically name any comics and single anyone out. It's a case of "if you're doing this, you know who you are". Kinda like HNTRAC. The other thing is (I know this sounds stupid) but articles like this also make people appreciate constructive critcism a lot more. I do a lot of constructive criticising myself (A lot of people have even specifically contacted me and even requested special constructive criticism for their own work), and even though I take great care to not bash, some people still will not accept anything other than fulsome praise and regard anything remotely negative as an insult.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 13, 2005 16:10:28 GMT
Yes... it's somewhat sad that we artists love a good ego stroking. The real sad part is artists who can't take good crits at all, and unfortunately as you will know there's way too many. It's a problem in having so many young people working in the medium... webcomics are so young, everyone is taking a go. On the plus side at least you still have your creativity with youth and a willingness to experiment. I just loaded up your blog/review site. Looking good! I'll probably end out adding a link to it on my own blog ( jimmysan.blogspot.com), too. Ta. [Edit: Spriteville] Made link and actual link.
|
|
|
Post by felblood on May 14, 2005 2:34:03 GMT
A lot of people posting in this thread without fully reading it, are saying this to the effect that the writer was offended by the fact that the works refered to religious icons. They proceed to say we should look at the works in question in greater depth.
Those people missed the point and are acting against what isn't there.
The works are being criticized because they have no greater depth to look at. They are totally unplanned rip-offs of things that naturally can only be original once. If the examples in this article had been replaced with bad sprite comics (the kind that are inferior replicas of 8-Bit Theatre) or Penny Arcade clones the message would have been the same.
If you are thinking about producing and posting a comic that is based on a overused premise, don't. Come up with something worth showing off and *then* show it off.
The harsh nature of the imagery was obviously intended to be sarcastic and to shock the nieve children who produce this crap into the real world. Shooting their dog out of mercy, that someday they might produce a different comic that adds, rather than detracts, to the comic experience.
Neko, does it make you sad that the majority of the people who needed to read this article had to have it explained to them?
|
|
The Neko
Writer
Sardonic Cynical Satirist
Posts: 33
|
Post by The Neko on May 14, 2005 8:26:21 GMT
Neko, does it make you sad that the majority of the people who needed to read this article had to have it explained to them? It makes me a little depressed, but I'm really glad you understood the point. Awesome summary!
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 14, 2005 15:32:39 GMT
If you are thinking about producing and posting a comic that is based on a overused premise, don't. Come up with something worth showing off and *then* show it off. That sounds eerily like the same thing going around the game industry right now, which is "TRY SOMETHING NEW, OR DIE." I don't agree with it... webcomics are a personal experience as well as totally open to anyone. They're not catering to you. They're doing it for themselves. And if they're not doing it for themselves, they'll quickly quit anyway. Can we point out that Keenspace is one of the huge contributors to all these shitty webcomics? It's easier than getting your own webspace, domain, and building a site for yourself; so everyone and everyone gives making a webcomic a go.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 14, 2005 15:55:53 GMT
Directed at the post by Felblood:
Also, Neko's own webcomic is pretty generic (if you ask me). My webcomic is pretty generic. Both of them have a couple of characters in and while I don't think I've copied or re-used any jokes in my own comic, Neko is putting pictures to conversations I've seen all over the Internet before. It's like an extension of his rants. I've seen this stuff in other places, just a different spin.
Does that mean it should be ripped apart? I don't think so. It's not the best and it's nothing new, but it's not hurting anyone.
Or, maybe we should tell Neko to give up and come back when he can write 100% original strips and draw with his own pure style?
|
|