Mikon :3
Indeed. The Caustic Critic trope doesn't amuse me as much as it used to. I think I'd rather them just fade into obscurity. If we make a fuss over them, it'll draw attention to their site and potentially attract new fans.
RJ Savoy
I can kind of understand some of their criticism of Questionable Content. I like it, but it runs mostly on charm, which is a very subjective thing and easily turns to boredom. I can see some of their points with the art (keyword: "some"), some recent characters do feel tokenish and I couldn't give a hydroelectric power plant about the indie bands... but there's a section that amounts to "Jeph Jacques panders to hipsters instead of pandering to our ideas about hipsters", it's loaded with insults and piles on baseless suppositions about the author and the fanbase (okay, the part about death threats is valid).
But the hilariously pathetic part is linking to a blog devoted to insulting every strip of QC... that has four posts, last updated in 2008. That is an example of half-assed effort with base motives.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
Out of curiosity I went to go read the QC review. And wow, they just put in a bunch of stuff about his marriage and private life that is in no way necessary to a fucking comic review. Wow. Ok. Yeah, a bunch of these reviewers are out there to just talk shit about authors they don't like.
Also, "minority bingo"? Well, fuck you, reviewer who doesn't think that a racially diverse cast is actually a thing you can have without pushing a fucking agenda. Jesus H Christ, there's a ton of casual bigotry in this part of the review.
edited 9th Jun '16 9:49:25 PM by AceofSpades
These people think that you can't have a racially diverse or sexually diverse cast without pushing an agenda. They should realize that having a diverse cast is a reflection of the times we live in.
Also, is it me or are they obssessed with Zoophobia and the author? I always see them criticizing her personal life, her artwork, and her fans.
By the way, I'm not kidding when I say they're obssessed with the author of zoophobia. They always posting criticisms of her artwork, her personal life, or her fans. It honestly annoys the living hell out of me.
Because a lot of them are jerks and the kind of person who'd call them out on that doesn't frequent that site in any manner? And who knows if they'd even care if anyone did.
Jer gets all the girls
The site actually got me reading Zoophobia. I came to read a train wreck, but I found that the comic isn't actually that bad.
I mean, a lot of the flaws the review points out are actually in the comic, but it's nowhere as bad as the review made it seem.
Everybody's all "Jerry's old and feeble" till they see him run down a skyscraper and hijack a helicopter mid-flight.
necro post, but i gotta give them credit for pointing out how skeevy bleedman is (the To Catch A Predator joke at the end of their Grim Tales from Down Below review made my day). i dont know how an egotistical creep like him has any fans, to be frank.
speaking of pedophiles, has anyone read their reviews of "thats my sonic," "chaos diamonds 3," and "gg-guys?" ive heard how shitty the comics' author is.
edited 25th Jun '16 5:02:08 PM by AnimeBadger
Just because they're occasionally right about someone doesn't mean that the other articles are excused. It's one thing to have an author biography that points out their flaws (And good lord are some of the authors listed on there scumbags) it's another to repeatedly talk shit about the author throughout the article, act like having a diverse cast is somehow part of an agenda rather than reflective of reality or trying to have a visually diverse cast in order to avert things like the six faces syndrome, or to disrespect their gender identity in such a way as to conflate it with mental issues.
It's like they see it as imperative to their goal to shit on an author for, frequently, dubious reasons.
that is also true tho. im pretty aware that most, if not, all the reviewers there are shitty, pretentious people, (i didnt like their reviews on JDR's works, Assigned Male, or Dumbing Of Age either, what with their reviewers delving into "EVIL SJW"-type arguments). i'll just say that site is hit-and-miss for me as well.
RJ Savoy
Their review of Dresden Codak is kind of interesting. There is again the "SJW as knight templar" trope, this time with confused back-and-forth over whether his disagreements with various feminists redeem him in some way; there are legitimate points about layout, preposterous plots, unlikeable characters and esoteric humour (I agree, but the comic is good enough and different enough that I can overlook them); and then at the end they link to an article refuting the author's idea of the singularity using the exact same arguments he has hilariously refuted many times. Again they link to something much worse than what they are excoriating.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
I've read Dresden Codak. (Seriously not my kind of thing AT ALL. Transhumanism in comics tends to be one of those weird polarizing things on whether you like a work or not, I think.) There's nothing particularly SJW-y, so if they're objecting to a mixed race female protagonist just because.... wow?? Jesus H Christ. And oh, the author depicts the fact that there's disagreements in the broad philosophy that is feminism? Wow, who would have thought anyone could do that, or need to do so to be "redeemed".
My main complaint would be that there's some serious pacing issues, especially with the goddess part, and then it goes off on another tangent that feels almost like an entirely different story. The art is gorgeous, though.
RJ Savoy
The SJW thing is less about the comic itself and more about Aaron Diaz's tumblr blog, where he has been very critical of superhero comics in particular. The disagreement was about whether he could elevate his own heroine as a feminist model when he draws her nude so often.
I find DC to be hit-and-miss on the jokes, while the serious strips can feel self-important yet also strangely flippant. It's easy to get angry at it, but it is undeniably unique in both good and bad parts.
At least Solomon's "Your webcomic is bad" blog was short, somewhat witty and never claimed to be more than the author's opinion. Where has the community of this wiki gathered from? I know Something Awful likes to make screeds about bad webcomics but they tend to be on the side of social justice.
Stories don't tell us monsters exist; we knew that already. They show us that monsters can be trademarked and milked for years.
If they're arguing about she can be a feminist model simply because of nudity, they've totally misunderstood feminist critique about how female characters are depicted. Context matters. In any case, they've got their own forum, and have for as long as I've been aware of the site. So wherever they originated they gather there now for the purposes of the wiki, and also to just talk about webcomics generally.
Why does the wiki have such a problem with nudity? Are they prudes or something? Yes, excessive fanservice is annoying but they seem to get pissed off at even the slightest show of skin.
Also, they should realize that showing nudity while having feminist views isn't a contradiction.
So, does anyone have a least favorite wiki review? What's a review by the wiki that pissed you off?
Mikon :3
If I had to pick just one review (which is like picking black holes in the sky), it would have to be Two Kinds. It's probably my personal favorite of the comics listed there (with the exception of Ozy And Millie, which is there to make the creator's less successful work look worse by comparison or something). But the criticisms ("fanservice=pornography", "depictions of Fantastic Racism in a negative light=the author is racist against Asians despite being Asian himself", etc.) are so out of left field that I'm tempted to say the author deliberately read things into the work because of bias against the author. And seeing that their no-holds-barred critique of the author himself takes up a good chunk of the review, I'd say I have more evidence for my view than they present for their claims.
Not as angry as the name would suggest.
...What.
Oh God! Natural light!
Yeah, the wiki accused Tom of being racist despite him and his brother being half Korean. That's really fucking stupid.
On another note, my least favorite reviews by them would be their reviews of Bittersweet Candy Bowl, Las Lindas, Megatokyo, and Candi.
edited 15th Jul '16 10:42:44 AM by pointless233
No longer a forum herald
For the benefit of those who don't know who his brother is...
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)
Yeah, they're related.
Seems like writing articles about their articles would be both an endless, thankless task AND a way to just create very bad and very petty internet drama.