Ok, as a preface, let me state that this is a post based solely in opinion and in my perspective. Totally open for, and encouraging discussion.
Through Weds, I found this discussion going on over on Meaghan Quinn’s LiveJorunal. After perspectives were exchanged between she and William G., the general consensus is that more webcomic criticism blogs need to be done by readers, and not by creators. And that the principal idea is that creators can’t be critics.
This is a hot issue right now, what with the recent upsurge up snarkblogs (I don’t like to count myself as one of them out of sheer vanity… Sorry, it’s the truth). Can creators be efficient critics?
Most say no. Mainly because a creator has their set style, and their set method, and a firm perspective on how webcomicking should be done. They would have an unfair advantage/disadvantage on their critical influence based on their popularity and readership. There may be rivalries, jealousies, private hatreds and general pettiness, I suppose. I of course can’t truly tell the concerns of that position being that I’m a creator and a critic. This, in turn, shows me the merit of having a critic that’s a reader, because they’re apart from all of that. They know only the reading and consumption, and can give a totally objective opinion (which still isn’t possible, because of the fact of preference, more on that later).
To me, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a creator who critiques, a critic who creates, a critic who is just a reader, or a creator who doesn’t criticize. Because they’re all essential to the process.
In order to have a good criticism community, or just a good discussion period, you have to have different perspectives entering into the equation. Take me for example. I’m a film student, 19 years of age, been making a less than lesser known webcomic sporadically for maybe a year and a half. I run a webcomic small scale community/production studio. I love Kevin Smith, David Cronenberg, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriquez, Bryan Singer, Terry Gilliam, Sam Raimi, etc. I love Queens of the Stone Age, Foo Fighters, Mark Lanegan Band, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Franz Ferdinand, Les Claypool, The Rolling Stones, etc. If you look at The Plate, you’ll see which comics I read.
My likes and dislikes are essentially a template for what I feel is good and bad, just like everybody else. And because everyone’s palette of preferences is different, it really doesn’t matter whether you’re a creator or not, when it comes to critique.
Let’s take Eric Burns as another case. He ran a webcomic at one point known as Unfettered by Talent. He began Snarking later afterwards, and now he is a creator once again with Gossamer Commons. He wrote/writes for RPGs. He wrote extensively with a group project known as Superguy (sorry, can’t find the link at the moment). Now with all that said, he brings a pretty unique experience to the criticism table. He’s shown us through Websnark that he is an excellent critic. But does that mean his critiques are more valid?
No offense to Eric, but the answer is no. It makes no difference to me what you’ve done or have done in your life when you make your criticisms. Because they’re (hopefully) still the best and most well thought out criticism you can muster. And that criticism is you. Which I say, is what we need and currently have in the newly forming Criticism community.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but William G. is in a different place than most the rest of us. His blog is not primarily a criticism blog. It is first and foremost a blog on his life. And at times, he gives us his review of a popular webcomic. Again, not a question of his validity. He’s just in a different critical perspective, and I think that’s what I’m getting at.
The thing we need is more variation in critical perspective. And that means a great big mix of creators, readers, fanboys and girls, art snobs, average joes, teachers, students, etc, etc, etc. Then we’ll have the best mix. And then particular readers can find their like-minded, or unlike-minded critics that they want.
I’m just sayin’ is all…
I just think we need more people writing critically about webcomics. On one hand it’s harder for creators, because we have our own way: but on the other hand, we have it EASIER, because we’ve had the experience of creating and dealing with lives and deadlines and audiences and so on. How far removed can the critiquer get from the subject material before what they’re saying loses its validity entirely? Didn’t we all scoff and laugh when the syndicated cartoonists leapt on Scott Kurtz and claimed his “web-comics” would never make it? Didn’t we picture them as doddering old fools, scared of the future? How far does a critic have to be for a creator to look at their critique and say “Well, you complain that I don’t update: but have you never turned in a paper late? Have you never missed a deadline? And I give this to you for FREE – how dare you act like I’ve failed you when I updated a day late?”
I have a genuine problem with William G., and that is that he seems so much for going with the attention-seeking, “oh lookit PA and PVP suck,” or how he put it, that they “wouldn’t be doing so well if they had started in today’s environment.” That’s so post-modern it tickles my gag reflex. SERIOUSLY: PA and PVP largely helped to START today’s webcomics environment. Just try to imagine it without them! For 90% of comics out there, those comics are the reason they exist, whether through primary, secondary, teritiary (on into infinity) means. _I_ started my comic because of running into PA back in 2000. Back in the day, Megatokyo had Tycho and Gabe guest star in their comic in a now-very-cliché-juvenile-webcomic-writer move of “I’ll be more popular if I mention popular people!” (except THEN it was kosher, because Piro/Largo and Gabe/Tycho were friends… closer community then than now).
Part of being a writer is knowing your audience, and imagining that there aren’t people out there who will not hesitate to flame you into a cinder for somewhat unwisely criticizing something they love is tomfoolery I say! ::waves cane:: There was an article a while back about why the author didn’t like Megatokyo: while I myself enjoy it, I recognized the points in the article as being solid, and the tone was respectful and generally “eh, this is why I don’t read it, and these are the problems I see: read it if you wanna, this is just MY outlook.”
Anyhow. My ranting ends now because I gotta sleep. But I just say: the more WELL-WRITTEN criticism the better… doesn’t matter if it comes from creator or non-creator, so long as its insightful, respectful, and hopefully gives two craps in a hat about being well written. So go you, Phil, for doing all three ::chuckle::
Besides. Now that I read about it, Will G. didn’t even READ the entirely of either comic, just sampled a comic a month. He took someone’s word that they were “gag strips” and that’s all he let them be. If someone did that to my comic – and stuck it in the “gaming comic” or “college comic” category – I’d be hella pissed. I mean, IS it fair to look at just a few of a comic’s strips – out of order no less – and judge it from that? It’s like seeing snippets of a movie and complaining that you can’t follow the story. Jeebus save me from such a fate!
We need more good webcomic writing – and FAR LESS William G’s (or even none at all, but there I know I hope too high).
Whoa now, Annie. Let’s not let this become a bashfest. That’s precisely what I’m aiming NOT to do.
William G.’s criticisms are just as valid as mine or Burns’ or anyone else. He’s not the “Oh, I’m going to get attention by bashing PA & PvP!” I happen to think he’s an all right fella, and would verilly enjoy discussing comics with the man.
And we don’t need less of any critic. We still need the hypothetical “Fuckall” critics, because we still need that contrast for us to compare to. Seriously, for the sake of diversity of opinion.
I just want to adress two points made: I claimed they wouldnt make it in the webcomics world they created because the webcomics world they created has evolved beyond them. Much the same way modern film has evolved beyond Battleship Potemkin. I wrote about this in the follow up to the entry, though now I realize I should have included it.
Oh well, first tries at anything are boot-ugly.
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I decided to look at those two comics because people are generally terrified to say anything negative about them. Rightly so, given the sick obsessiveness of a portion of their fanbase. Seriously, these people need to figure out what’s so wrong with their lives that they need Scott Kurtz to guide their thinking for them. But I did it for no other reason than that. People can assume all they want.
But it’s true, my blog is primarily about my life where I occasionally sound off about webcomics, my own included. It’s your regular run of the mill blog. But I’m gald to see more people sounding off about webcomics because up until recently, it has only been artists pulling double duty on the critiquing. More people willing to look at webcomics shows that webcomics are starting to have some sort of value. That they have worth. I see it, you see it, and I assume Blue also sees it, and when it all comes down to it, that’s all that matters.
Later
Well said, William.
I don’t think the issue is really about creator/reader, or small time/big time, or even “blog-format”/”well-written.” The real issue is, is your criticism constructive or not? Websnark is really well written, yes, and Eric brings a distinctive background to the table, but he’s also really, really good about saying *why* he doesn’t like things, when he doesn’t. There is an enormous difference between a 2,000-word “You Had Me And You Lost Me” that pins down precisely when and why a comic stopped working, and just saying “I don’t like this, because I don’t like this.” One is an actual “critical perspective”, and the other is just somebody pointing out that they have opinions, too.
Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, of course. But it’s not criticism — it’s just opinion, and while everyone is welcome to their allotment of those, we all need to start distinguishing between them better.
That, too, is what I’m saying. Spot on.
I’m glad you pointed me out to your blog thing here. This is exactly what I’m talking about. More people with MORE perspectives. There isn’t one true criticism style that trumps all others.
The only reason I want more of the “MORE” to be non-creators is because when you get people like William G. writing, his motives automatically get called into question, and not just to see where he’s coming from, but to NEGATE what he’s saying. Granted, even if he’d done it anonymously, fans of whatever he critiqued would come in drones, but he was a way easy target with his small, critically acclaimed comic “going after” the big, popular comics.
And yeah, we need criticism, we need constructive criticism, we need opinions. They’re better than money on the internet for us webcomics junkies.
I think I see what you’re saying. But then I think, Wouldn’t the non-creator-critics’ motives be called to question, based on their tastes and preferences? If a non-creator blasted PA, fans’d pipe up “That’s not fair cuz you don’t like gamer comics/profanity/violence/industry jokes!” But again, that doesn’t matter, because we need that total diversity.
Oh, and I’m glad you’re glad :D
Small but critically acclaimed?
My masculinity feels bruised by that for some reason.
:D
Honestly, Will? I didn’t even know it was YOU who did Delineated Life until I discovered this discussion on Meaghan’s LJ. I’ve read it before, and really, really dug it.
I know, I know… “Delineated Life, Delineated Blog.” I just didn’t put two and two together. That happens to me a lot. :P
By the by, I’m waiting for more of that. Get crackin’, you.
We’re all small in comparison to PVP. And I acclaim your comic, and I’m a critic… maybe.. I dunno. I like using that phrase!
And yeah, people will complain no matter what. The thing is to not give them an easy target. Make ‘em WORK for their trolling!
I feel like the whole critique game at this point is akin to an art-class critique, a warm-up for some bigger game that, for most of us, won’t come. There’s validity in both kinds of reviews though, the ones from peers and the others from critics. Frankly, most of our stuff, particularly some of the stuff I review, is not ready for prime timem but that doesn’t mean it’s not worthy of some discussion (I try to make sure my reviews are more discussion than decision.).
As long as we accept each kind of review for what it is, I don’t think there’s a problem. There is a huge need for more reviewers though. I accept submissions and am backed up more than three months at this point. People want help, advice and honest opinions and I’d welcome more people jumping into the game.
I’m glad you feel that way, Bob. I really have no idea where this criticism community thing is going. All I know is that its size is growing, it’s making making a much bigger impact, and I’m trying my damnedest to keep up.
Let me know if you want to lighten the load, I’d be glad to help. Or you can tell your folks I’ll take submissions, too. Although I think I should fear the e-mail onslaught if you do such a thing. Still, it’d be fun.
“Or you can tell your folks I’ll take submissions, too.”
Good to know. If I get another big wave, I’ll mention it. I thought people were submitting to get traffic or a strip that mentioned their characters. Lately though, creators seem more interested in what I have to say. I have been spending more time on the writing so that’s good to hear.
I think “the bigger game” is coming, and coming soon. I can kind of see it on the horizon, and I’m not certain what shape it’s going to be, but it doesn’t look like what’s up top now.
At best, it’ll be the Surface Sixers thinning out of the field a bit and making the demand side stronger than the supply side, causing people to start paying out more. At worst, the bottom will fall out.
If I had to pick a median, I’d say that webcomics will become a farm system for print publishers.