Overall, Phil did weigh and qualify. So did you (Lucas). I didn’t say anyone didn’t nor have I complained about any of that. I attack only the blunt and broken instrument that is ‘tasteless’, which was only 1% of both reviews, but it’s a particular 1% I will never let go of anywhere when I see it, applied to anything. It didn’t get shot down ‘for some reason’, it got shot down because of what it is in particular.

The critic’s job is to say “good” “bad” “meh”. In this case, I think Phil did both. Weighing and qualifying is what’s important, and once again I think he did that.

So, my anti-mania on ‘tasteless’ aside <_< your commentary was very enlightening and interesting to me, and I am seriously considering a lot of the ideas.

Anyways, to respond. Completely in random order:

I’m glad you appreciated me pointing out the line consistency issue etc.

The issue with the “Onion” type comics, I think, could be resolved by simply putting them in a box that was the same size as the other comics. It would make me “get” the fact that it is a comic. The restaurant menu is funny, but for a comic-reader, it’s also REALLY REALLY wordy. So it doesn’t feel like a comic. If that makes sense. Perhaps there could be a comic section and a “general humour” section or something. *shrug*

WADE Says: “You’re harping on me to pull this into line with a gag a day. Have a frame size, get all the artwork consistent, etc. I do think the different modes are very consistent within themselves – except for the previously discussed artwork issues in the comicky ones :) – but for instance, the restaurant menu from today + the ebay comic + the virtual will all feel entirely at home next to each other.”

^ I agree. But at the same time, if you want regular readers, you’ll have to decide “What sort” of artwork your producing. What sort of site you want to be. Because if you keep changing it around you’ll lose readers faster than Megatokyo.

As for the stick figure issue, I do understand how the tampon joke can only exist in the world of silliness, but at the same time, it does devalue your comic to have beautiful artwork one day and stick figures the next. there *are* ways of doing a joke like that within the realm of *higher* art, I think.

—–
WADE SAYS:
But I totally acknowledge your point that the people still look too different overall. There’s a few modes, and sometimes the cartoon people look a lot simpler than on other days. I think your suggestions are a definite motivator for me to get them all the same.

RESPONSE: i don’t necessarily mean that they must all look the same or whatnot, but to establish a similar mood is important. The same overall look and feel. They can all exist within their own mood or whatever, but to have some strand holding them together would be nice.

As with the clothing… I could totally tell you stole that from Questionable Content. ;)

And Photoshop: I only called what I saw. I was more commenting on the fact that some lines were blurry and others strong than on the materials you use.

That’s all.

PS: I’m not really a reviewer, just a random cartoonist stopping by and checking it out. Hopefully some stuff I said made sense. Disregard the rest, of course.

I am alarmed by both of you going around with that word ‘tasteless’. I believe critics should never use it. You can use specific adjectives like, ‘This is gross, I find this totally sick’, which also alert us to your subjectivity, possess quality meaning and are fine! But never the nebulous and assumptive ‘tasteless’.

Taste is really just what one person likes. But when it’s evoked for assessment, it seeks to divide things into two completely unproven categories – the tasteful and the tasteless – and pretends they’re objectively defined, and acts all hoity-toity about things while it’s at it! If I say something is tasteful, I’m saying I approve of it and so do all of these other smart and refined people who share my viewpoint about what is tasteful and what isn’t, because we all know. And correspondingly for the negative in the case of ‘tasteless’.

That’s why in conversation, people with no critical skills use ‘you have good taste’ or you ‘have no taste’ to pass off their ‘I agree’ or ‘I disagree’ as something bigger than they are.

As a critic myself, I seek and destroy the tasteful/tasteless thing wherever I see it.

So, I certainly reject all assessments along those lines concerning Ocular Trauma. You can say it’s gross, sick, gory, violent, queasy and ‘just plain WRONG’ becasue it proudly is. But ‘tasteless’ doesn’t mean anything and is dismissive.

In the case of the guy who dug up his mother, I gotta disagree hugely, and not just because of two back-to-back tastelesses :) I never sought shivers or bemusement. I simply drew the guy exhibiting the great joy he feels upon seeing his mum right after he’s pulled her corpse out.