FIRST IMPRESSIONS OF THE WEBCOMICS EXAMINER...
Get an editor, guys.
Like, seriously.
The Webcomics Examiner is an 'interesting' new alternative to the 'Pedia. Created almost surely in response to the recent criticism that my newspublication sucked donkey balls, it premiered tonight...
...and the first thing I noticed were all the typos.
But beyond that, my thoughts?
1) the reviews: well, I'll be honest. They aren't that good. Mike M's biggest flaw is that he speaks completely in the first person throughout, which just doesn't work well for a reviewer. See, if as a reviewer you tell your reader that this is all just your own opinion, you are actually weakening your entire argument, and undermining your position as a reviewer.
Readers automatically give the reviewer a certain amount of respect/power simply because of their position, just like you give a teacher or a bartender power for the same reasons.
Think about it -- the bartender is the person who is in charge of the alcohol, which makes him important, powerful. As a weird side-effect, bartenders have a certain "aura"/"mystique" about them, and people treat them differently. Having been a bartender myself, I can vouch for this -- it's very much a true thing.
But if the bartender goes ahead and ruins this mystique by confessing that they are just some person like you, they lose all the power and charm bestowed upon them by their "position".
In the same way, reviewers lose ALL their power/charm if they point out that what they are telling you is simply their personal opinion. And what better way to highlight that this is your opinion than by speaking in the first person and pointing out that "I think" and "to me"?
The only way that using the first person can really work in a review is if the reviewer has already acquired a specific "status" or "power" due primarily to their PERSONALITY (which can be done with a distinct writing style).
However, for someone to start writing reviews out of the blue by using the first person means that they are either overly egotistical (i.e., they believe that their word IS more important than the norm) or inexperienced (i.e., they don't realize that by using the first person you are making your piece an opinion piece, a subjective piece).
But yeah. Combine that with the fact that one specific reviewer there really does nothing but try to use flowery language and sound witty, and you have someone who is mising the point completely -- that what matters most is NOT the reviewer, but rather the SUBJECT of the review!
Overall, the reviews on the site so far are a poor beginning. Ask me why, and I'm sure I can elaborate on that further.
2) the features: okay, but nothing groundbreaking so far. Zabel's writing is better than mike m's, but I'm not wowed by what they have to say so far -- they touted themselves all month as the 'superior' webcomic publication... they even slagged the 'Pedia a number of time publicly...
...but come publication time? Nothing but praise for McCloud (which, while deserved, is not really all that academic), a smattering of reviews, and a very clear attack on the 'pedia, through a "reconsideration" of Sexy Losers.
And might I say, that particular piece is by far the worse of its launch. It is too busy making false accusations to even try to offer useful information on hard's comic. In fact, it spouts out lines like this:
"Because webcomics are frequently condescending fluff made to attract the largest possible audience."
"How shocking: unlike a horrifying majority of sexual humor, Sexy Losers never depends on racial slurrage to get a laugh."
"But I personally find it horrifying that critics rage about this while lauding comics featuring constant and pervasive violence and murder."
"Sexy Losers, the premiere webcomic dealing mainly with sexuality now and for the past five years, certainly has its shortcomings. But its function is vital to this community, this time, this country, this medium."
1) Holy condescension on the reviewer's part to make such a statement, Batman!
2) RACIAL SLURRAGE?? since when does a "horrifying majority" of sexual humor deal with RACIAL slurrage?????? Most of all the sex humor I've seen in my life has NEVER dealt with race, or with much slurrage for that matter???
3) What is with everyone thinking that people are saying Sexy Losers is a bad adult comic because it is about sex? I don't hear this -- do any of YOU?
4) okay, now he's making Sexy Losers into a freaking CAUSE? How stereotypically "bourgeois!" I don't think that hard is thinking to himself, "hmm... how can I be a CHAMPION to the poor repressed spirit of SEXUALITY?"...
Sigh...
Anywho, it's late, and I'm prolly just ranting at this point.
But I honestly fear that these guys are only making it harder for themselves from the start. While I'd like to see a second publication on webcomics out there, thiriving and helping to spread the word about our kickass medium and all, I fear that these guys are not going to last long if they stick with their pretentious and condescending, snobbishly elitist tone.
I hope they realize what they are getting into.
Like, seriously.
The Webcomics Examiner is an 'interesting' new alternative to the 'Pedia. Created almost surely in response to the recent criticism that my newspublication sucked donkey balls, it premiered tonight...
...and the first thing I noticed were all the typos.
But beyond that, my thoughts?
1) the reviews: well, I'll be honest. They aren't that good. Mike M's biggest flaw is that he speaks completely in the first person throughout, which just doesn't work well for a reviewer. See, if as a reviewer you tell your reader that this is all just your own opinion, you are actually weakening your entire argument, and undermining your position as a reviewer.
Readers automatically give the reviewer a certain amount of respect/power simply because of their position, just like you give a teacher or a bartender power for the same reasons.
Think about it -- the bartender is the person who is in charge of the alcohol, which makes him important, powerful. As a weird side-effect, bartenders have a certain "aura"/"mystique" about them, and people treat them differently. Having been a bartender myself, I can vouch for this -- it's very much a true thing.
But if the bartender goes ahead and ruins this mystique by confessing that they are just some person like you, they lose all the power and charm bestowed upon them by their "position".
In the same way, reviewers lose ALL their power/charm if they point out that what they are telling you is simply their personal opinion. And what better way to highlight that this is your opinion than by speaking in the first person and pointing out that "I think" and "to me"?
The only way that using the first person can really work in a review is if the reviewer has already acquired a specific "status" or "power" due primarily to their PERSONALITY (which can be done with a distinct writing style).
However, for someone to start writing reviews out of the blue by using the first person means that they are either overly egotistical (i.e., they believe that their word IS more important than the norm) or inexperienced (i.e., they don't realize that by using the first person you are making your piece an opinion piece, a subjective piece).
But yeah. Combine that with the fact that one specific reviewer there really does nothing but try to use flowery language and sound witty, and you have someone who is mising the point completely -- that what matters most is NOT the reviewer, but rather the SUBJECT of the review!
Overall, the reviews on the site so far are a poor beginning. Ask me why, and I'm sure I can elaborate on that further.
2) the features: okay, but nothing groundbreaking so far. Zabel's writing is better than mike m's, but I'm not wowed by what they have to say so far -- they touted themselves all month as the 'superior' webcomic publication... they even slagged the 'Pedia a number of time publicly...
...but come publication time? Nothing but praise for McCloud (which, while deserved, is not really all that academic), a smattering of reviews, and a very clear attack on the 'pedia, through a "reconsideration" of Sexy Losers.
And might I say, that particular piece is by far the worse of its launch. It is too busy making false accusations to even try to offer useful information on hard's comic. In fact, it spouts out lines like this:
"Because webcomics are frequently condescending fluff made to attract the largest possible audience."
"How shocking: unlike a horrifying majority of sexual humor, Sexy Losers never depends on racial slurrage to get a laugh."
"But I personally find it horrifying that critics rage about this while lauding comics featuring constant and pervasive violence and murder."
"Sexy Losers, the premiere webcomic dealing mainly with sexuality now and for the past five years, certainly has its shortcomings. But its function is vital to this community, this time, this country, this medium."
1) Holy condescension on the reviewer's part to make such a statement, Batman!
2) RACIAL SLURRAGE?? since when does a "horrifying majority" of sexual humor deal with RACIAL slurrage?????? Most of all the sex humor I've seen in my life has NEVER dealt with race, or with much slurrage for that matter???
3) What is with everyone thinking that people are saying Sexy Losers is a bad adult comic because it is about sex? I don't hear this -- do any of YOU?
4) okay, now he's making Sexy Losers into a freaking CAUSE? How stereotypically "bourgeois!" I don't think that hard is thinking to himself, "hmm... how can I be a CHAMPION to the poor repressed spirit of SEXUALITY?"...
Sigh...
Anywho, it's late, and I'm prolly just ranting at this point.
But I honestly fear that these guys are only making it harder for themselves from the start. While I'd like to see a second publication on webcomics out there, thiriving and helping to spread the word about our kickass medium and all, I fear that these guys are not going to last long if they stick with their pretentious and condescending, snobbishly elitist tone.
I hope they realize what they are getting into.