Hotspot #20: Breaking Beyond the Comics Format

It is inevitable... after I read a comic that presents something new, my brain has been running over time thinking about webcomics.

"Eh... How is this different from what you usually do, Ping?"

That's probably what you're thinking. I should probably rephrase that better: Maybe my use of "web comic" is a bad choice. A digital comic is probably closer to the truth.

Hm... a Comp-mic? Pixelmic? Comixel? *cue groans*

Fine. For now... online comic.

In any case, I'm thinking about comics that are made solely to be showcased on a computer screen, and would not be able to be printed out without losing some or all of its impact.

Keep in mind that I am NOT talking about distribution methods. I'm not talking about a comic that happens to reach its readership through a website. Or the clandestine sort that gets forwarded around in office emails, or transferred through flash keys or even bit-torrented.

I'm talking about comics that break tradition by exclusively using digital technology as a format. 

The recently reviewed Hero and the hovertext in place of speech bubbles being an example of a deviation. Of course, Hero was still strongly traditional in some other ways, and there were limitations to the hovertext approach. But it was still a refreshingly new way of doing things.

And there's then-pioneering background animations in Aargon Zark. Of course everyone knows Scott McCloud's infinite canvas.

But honestly up to now, a lot of experiments in digital comicism so far tend to feel... gimmicky. Even the best of them suffer from Marmite syndrome, they either are love or hated, and most of the time are only tolerated for being a novelty.

However, novelty is NOT what I am interested in. What I've been searching for is a stable, universal something that improves upon the old tried and tested way of presenting panels and speech bubbles in sequential order.

At the end of the day, what we associate as the fundamental parts of a comic are still methods that were designed and optimised to be presented on paper. When comics shifted to the web, the same mentality remained.

And honestly, the longer I write about webcomics the more I begin to feel that the word "webcomic" has long since passed its expiry date. There really is no distinction between it and its traditional counterpart anymore. 

It's just comics. Period. 

Maybe I should just rename "Webcomic Finds" to "Lonely Panel" and be done with it.

...

I think I really might.

Back to the topic... I used to get annoyed whenever someone brought up Reinventing Comics by Scott McCloud, mainly because of the stigma it gave online comics that we were just a bunch of geeks trying out gimmicky stuff with the comic format that would never work long term (though it wasn't his fault we were seen that way, really).

Ok, so now it still annoys me a little, but I understand a little bit of what Scott saw in the potential of the web now, although what he covered was but barely scratching the surface, and some of his ideas weren't exactly the most practical things ever.

But the point is in the experimenting. You don't experiment without failing. Fact. You don't find out new things if you don't try.

Talk to others. Try stuff. Fail. Explore, See other people's ideas, try something else. Fail. Research more.

This is what this blog is supposed to be about after all. Exploration of the online comic, not just exploration of online comics.

Heck I did my own experiments with the format myself, though by any standards what I tried was pretty conservative. And to be honest even I didn't think it worked that well.

But most of the experimental stuff we've seen in the last ten years or so art just that... experiments. Prototypes. When they fail, maybe we shouldn't just dismiss them as gimmicks, but give them a bit more thought on what when wrong, and what we could have done to make the new format and presentation better.

Yes I know. I'm sure I'm not the first to be talking about this. The attachment to the traditional format is very strong. Let's face it... we're not going to lose the old panels and bubbles formats until someone comes up a new format that is an improvement in every way that people are convinced they like it enough to adopt it.

It just hit me the other day that after I finish my current project, I really don't want to make conventional comics any more. 

I don't want to follow. I don't want to stagnate in pursuit of minute perfection.

I want to explore. I want adventure in my art.

In short, I want to try going beyond the current comics format.

As web technology progresses, more developments are bound to crop up. Some are going to be gimmicks and fall along the wayside. And some... some may revolutionize the comics art form.

Or destroy it.

Or supersede it.

Maybe it's the right way to go.

At the very least, I'd like to give it a go. 

Yes I know I'm probably aiming for the impossible.

But hey... I can live with that.

Hotspot #19: Webcomic Finds-Now Written By An Evil 14-Year Old!

When I'm in my contemplative mood, which usually comes after a slew of reviews, I take a break and think... and experiment. It's part of the learning process, and I've learnt to just go along with it instead of pushing myself to do reviews despite the requests that pour in. (The waiting list is well into double figures now, but uh... until next review cycle?)

However I can't refrain from checking out links some some er... little birds send to me from time to time, including this rather amusing comment thread over at Addanac City.

Warning: This is a ranty rant of the highest order.

If you recall, Addanac City was on the receiving end of one of my more controversial Postcards, where I gave it a rather sound thrashing for the very bad presentation and obnoxious tagline. It was so distracting that it coloured my entire perception of the comic, and put me in a bad mood to boot. But it was a very very valuable lesson in how a bad preconceived notion and presentation can influence how a reader "sees" a comic, and how they can be offended by it.

Of course, the most wonderful part of the whole thing was the reaction of the creator, George Ford, who politely thanked me for the review and got to work improving the site. We even exchanged a couple of reasonably friendly (well respectful, at the very least) emails and comments, so I thought to myself that even if I did not enjoy his comic, I could totally admire his work ethic and receptiveness to criticism. 

In fact I even dropped in from time to time to check how he was doing and gave him further feedback on the changes he made. 

Recently I received a post on the blog with a request to check out his website redesign. I'm always happy to give feedback to people who are willing to ask nicely for it and listen, so accordingly, I checked it out, left some comments and suggestions on how it could be improved, and thought that was the end of it. This is it, verbatim from the comment in the other post.

Hi George,

I see you've been hard at work!

I have a couple of points about the new web design:

1) I'm not a big fan of the bright turquoise background. It makes the text very hard to read. I would suggest either a) toning the colour down b) putting a white backing layer for whenever there's text. That way you can still have your turquoise without straining the reader's eyes.

2) I actually liked your old header better. This new one is nicely done and attention-grabbing, but it's TOO attention grabbing. It's got waaay too much going on in the image, it's even interfering with the comic itself as the reader's eye is drawn to the banner more than the comic.

The rest of the layout is a massive improvement. I like how it's a lot easier to navigate, the calendar function is a plus! And reducing the number of ads really does help massively.

So imagine my surprise when a little bird tells me that I'm being badmouthed by readers over at Addanac City. *raise eyebrow* Eh?

Honestly I fully expected it when I released that Postcard, but this is months later, so it's a little late isn't it? But my curiosity got the better of me, so I had a look. I have to admit while "badmouthed" was probably an exaggeration... I was amused to see some rather impotent personal attacks directed at me there.

Sadly, there was precious little constructive criticism in the comments, mainly the usual you-must-be-a-comic-artist to review fallacy (which I am, but that is totally irrelevant to the issue... I do not have to be one to review as explained here. If you disagree I will be more than happy to take you on in a debate on this topic.) and the you're not being fair argument (more on that later, I have my own practical reasons for rejecting it).

Most of them missed the point of my review and George's post. Maybe I need to improve my writing to get my point across better. But I do despise pandering to the lowest common denominator. Since I'm already being vilified, I might as well go with it; besides, some of the comments are too delicious not to share. 

Wow George,
As always you were super sweet to that reviewer. All of that, despite the fact that she was just rude, mean and behaved like a ,well I won’t say. I even read her follow up to your last comment and she doesn’t like the color of the page…. Please. She reviews and behaves like a mean 14 year old. Very unprofessional.
Enough about her, I do now and did before love, love your page.

[SKIP TO NEXT RELEVANT PART]

The one thing I would say about reviews in general is to consider the source when you make changes. I would make changes based on positive criticism.Is that an oxymoron? Meaning, If you start changing based on those that clearly don’t appreciate you it will end up changing for the worse. IMO
Forget about them. You are and will always be a great artist

This one is by far my favourite. I guess I'm supposed to be offended and outraged or something, but in truth when I read that comment, I chuckled in delight for a good half hour.

You might wonder why I should be delighted. Well, I've been told I have a tendency to see patterns and connections that most other people don't see. It's probably responsible for my unorthodox sense of humour, and how I occasionally break into maniacal laughter for no apparent reason.

The irony is delicious here. My point in the Postcard was a preconceived notion and being presented badly influences how a comic is received. It's foolish to assume potential readers will be fair and give each comic a fair chance. Hell no, first impression, website presentation, first three pages... that's all you get at most. Fail to impress by then... there are thousands of other webcomics out there in the web. You've blown your chance. Tough. That reader is going away and not likely to come back.

In the case of Addanac, it gave me a bad impression, the website enforced that, the tagline amplified it and by the time I got to the comic I hated it already.

Now many people will whine it was "unprofessional" and "unfair".

Incidentally: To that I say: Oi! What cloud do you live on? Come down to earth and back to reality, please. Life is not fair.

Oh, I fully admit I am human and thus I write from my point of view. If you want fair try one of those other reviews that try and write from some detached, 3rd person perspective. That's not what Webcomic Finds is about. It's about exploring comics from the point of view of a new reader. I really shouldn't have to explain this... it's in the bloody blog description.

People are not paragons of virtue and will not be fair. You're bloody damn lucky if they give you a chance and check out your link. People WILL judge on first impressions, and many WILL check out a link, see a bad presentation and shuffle off elsewhere without even looking at the comic. I'm a practical reviewer. This is what I take into account.

Interestingly, in the same way, the commenter quoted above got a preconceived notion on the newspost, came here expecting a bad review, glossed over parts I did praise and focused on the criticism.

Never mind that the review was specifically requesting feedback and criticism from me. It was not unsolicited.

Never mind that I warned the creator the review might not be positive, the creator accepted that.

Never mind that I gave some points I felt were valid... they weren't sugar coated and gift-wrapped... THEY MUST BE WRONG AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED.

The best of all... the follow up comment was specifically requesting me to check out the website design. I did so and gave critical feedback. *GASP* I did not like the colour? How dare I?!? I must be EVIL INCARNATE! *sarcastic*

Back to my point, this commenter got a preconceived notion, came expecting an evil reviewer, saw what she only wanted to see and let it influence her judgement of what she saw.

Sound familiar? Yep. Exactly the point I was trying to make. She reacted exactly how I did in the Addanac City review. (See how important first impressions are? People WILL judge your work even before they see it. It's human nature to do so, and it's futile to make apologies for it).

I have to admit, I'm as human as the next person, and I do enjoy being proved right. And I must say it tickles me to death when someone who so violently disagrees with me and who probably wished to call yours truly something that rhymes with "witch" (And probably refrained from doing so by their utmost reverence for the sacrosanct female canine ;) ), ended up doing the exact same thing and proving my hypothesis right without me having to so much as lift a finger .

It's like having your cake, getting to eat it and being presented with the recipe after that... with compliments.

The world is a wonderful place. That comment really made my day. It had me chuckling into my glass of Orvieto. Mmm... Delicious.

Too much sweetness in a wine sickens me. It's like drinking cheap supermarket Ribena. Ick. Initially sweet, but shallow and boring after the second sip, and containing far too much sugar and flavouring to be any good for you. I like my aperitifs a little more complex, slightly dry, less cloying and pandering.

The same also applies to creative feedback. Vacuous praise like "You'll always be a great artist!" is all very nice and all, but abhorrently useless except for inflating one's ego. Let's be realistic... neither George nor I are "great artists" yet. We're journeymen at best. This kind of praise is more damaging than helpful. It encourages people to slack and rest on their laurels. And then they never improve because they get too settled in their comfort zone.

I'd rather have something like "Your writing uses too many parentheses; they break the flow of reading" or "Your posing and camera angles are rather predictable and conservative, you should try more adventurous approaches." You know something that actually helps me get better at doing what I am doing. That quality of critique is hard enough to come by, why should you expect someone to be NICE on top of that? It's like expecting someone to help you AND then compliment you. For Free. WTH?

Oh and I know I've bemoaned about this before, but why the heck do people keep referring to me as a professional? This is my NOT my profession. I am very proud to be an amateur comic artist.

Amateur
1 : one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession
2 : one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science

Both apply to me. I do this not because it's my job, but my hobby and I love it; And I am not presumptuous enough to disclaim I do not fit in the category of the second definition. I don't do this full time so my experience is not to the level of a professional. When I see my stuff I always see where I can improve further (and I suspect it'll be that way till the day I die). Like I say I think it's a good thing.

Does that mean I do not know what I am talking about? I do know my skill level. I have miles to go yet, but I don't believe in false modesty either. At this level I DO know what I'm talking about. If you feel I'm fudging, point out the part when you think I ring false. I'll be happy to come back with proof and reasonings why I said what I said to back it up, if I didn't already.

Why else would people ask me for a review if I didn't? Why not ask the commenter above for a review if they wanted cotton candy make-you-feel-good reviews?

If George hadn't ASKED me for a review, I wouldn't have even bothered to spend my time writing about someone who was so obviously happy in what he was doing. I'm happy with leaving people who don't want my opinion alone, and I respect their right to be left alone and be happy with their comic. I've taken down reviews from people who asked me to out of respect for them, no questions asked.

But when people ask me for a review, I'm relentlessly honest. I will not lie to spare someone's feelings. And in this case George asked me. Twice. So I was honest, even when it was painful to be so. Oh sure it'd be easier to always write nice reviews and make friends, but I'd be a liar by extension. What's that you say? I can critique more nicely? News flash. I already do. I just don't bend over backwards to do it. 

You want harsh? This is harsh. And probably not as useful. It seems to be harsh for the sake of being harsh.

I can understand people not listening to me if I offer unsolicited advice. Fair enough. They never asked for it. I usually save myself the trouble and don't give it either.

But I do get a teensy-weensy bit irritated when people go out of their way to ask me for a review, people (or others) get offended and hurt when they didn't get glowing words of praise and ignore the points I make because "they weren't put in a nice enough way". These type of people really need to wake up, and grow up and stop living in their sheltered little ivory towers. People aren't always going to, and have no obligation to sugar-coat everything just because someone couldn't handle criticism without tears welling in their eyes.

Writing reviews take time. If I took the time to bloody write a review I obviously gave a damn about it. There are many more people who would like the critique in their place. I could be working on my own projects and improving MY comics with that time. People do not pay me to write this review. Heck, I don't even ask for a link back. I write them for my own development, my satisfaction, and everything else is a bonus.

Wasting my time annoys ME. I'd thank people to not waste my time by not asking for what I've already warned them in advance they might get. Let's get this straight. If I hate something I don't tear it down. I freaking ignore it. My time is precious and it's not worth my effort to take notice of. I'll only do it if A) They ask for it, and I think they can benefit from it B) I can learn something from it. Sometimes B comes before A.

I'm not here to be nice. I'm here to be honest. If I see something praiseworthy, I'll say so. If I say something that deserves to be shot, I will shoot it with a AK-47 and a full magazine of bullets. I try to be nice most of the time, but if your presentation puts me off, well... It's your own fault for putting me in that mood. That's the mood like-minded readers are going to be in anyway, and sometimes one has to be harsh to make a point get through. Can't take the heat? Kindly remove self from kitchen.

My observation so far has been: mainly webcomic creators who read other people's webcomics make any attempt to be "fair" when reviewing. This is because they know how hard it is to make a comic and keep it running (Incidentally I give credit for both which people who didn't skim over the review would have noticed). But your main audience, the majority of people who read webcomics... they don't give a damn. So either you have a readership of mostly sympathetic webcomic creators (whom you've probably left nice comments on their blogs/comics to win their affections before), or you suck it up and adapt.

In any case, if George wasn't prepared to get a negative review, he wouldn't, and shouldn't have asked for it. (If I am not mistaken, he pretty much said so to me himself, and because I have respect for him, I will take him at his word that he really meant it, and not that because it was the right thing to say.)

Ah well. I am aware people do like rushing to defend the underdog for the warm fuzzy feeling it gives. Me? I prefer helping them in a constructive manner. And so I'm prepared to help people by being their harshest critic and giving my unreserved opinion when they ask for it. 

If I have to play the evil villain and be vilified before the eyes of their readers, so be it. :D



Maybe I should do a Sherlock Holmes policy and only pick up review requests that intrigue me. Hm yes. That's not a bad idea at all... maybe I will. 

I'd still have done Addanac City though, that was a very educational review.

Thus ends a long rant in which I got to trot out two new words in my vocabulary. :D All in all it's been a good day. Signing off... Evil 14-year old Comic Reviewer. 

I even have my maniacal laugh ready!

Hotspot #18:And This Is Why I Review.

If I have a fault, it is I try to do too much and end up doing too little at the same time.

In the same way, I try to get learn too many things and end up not mastering any of them. Or at least that is how it feels to me. It's only been recently when I finally resolved to pick a select few skills I wanted to really really hone, and stick with them. Right now they are sort of limited to comics, writing, scuba-diving and poi. And maybe cooking/baking, but that's a necessity ;).

Anyway, I write this blog for reasons of my own. Sure, I enjoy discovering new comics, but if it was just left at that, I wouldn't have bothered spending hours taking notes and typing out reviews, would I? Of course Ping Teo has a secondary objective for exploring new comics. No it's not the noble reason of giving lesser-known comics exposure, although it has inadvertently served that purpose in the past. I have mentioned this before, my reasons for writing this blog aren't that altruistic.

Writing this blog is good practice for honing my writing skills. It also ties in to my other hobby:writing and creating better comics. I've gone through a lot of comics. (At least 50 by my rough estimate). Some were excellent. Some were mediocre. Some made me want to claw my eyes out and smash my laptop.

But all of them had one thing in common. I learned things from them. When I had to write and analyze them, stopped reading comics and starting studying them.

From the good ones I learned what makes inspiring comics, how small touches make memorable moments. How the hardest part of making a comic is having the courage to deviate from the norm, the originality to come up with new ideas, and the acumen to balance the strange and the familiar. How each truly good comic has to have a soul made from the little bit of the author that has been breathed into it.

From the mediocre ones I learned how creating something that can be a pleasant read can only take you so far.  How it's worst to be mediocre and forgettable than either bad or good. And how every single mediocre comic still had something for special me to discover; even the mediocre ones had areas that they excelled at that I could learn from.

And lastly, the bad ones taught me what to watch out for.  They made the mistakes that I myself might have made on my behalf. The danger of trying to imitate what you like instead of being honest about what you know. I learnt to see what went wrong and how it could be avoided. Or even amended.. And I try my best to remember it and not do it myself. 

All this learning has to go somewhere. I believe creativity comes in cycles. You learn, you get inspired, you create. Then you get feedback and from that you start feeling you can get better. And that drives you to learn more from feedback or exploration until the urge to try out what you learnt overwhelms you again.

I haven't reviewed much this month. I'm not going to apologize for that. I don't believe in posting reviews for the sake of reviews. Reviews to me aren't just about prattling my opinion off on a comic so others can ooh and aaah over them. They aren't shameless plugs to drive up traffic to the comics in question. So if any of you are thinking of asking me a review because you want the exposure, please forget it. I don't do things that way.

These reviews are my studies.

Right now I'm in a craze to create. Ideas are flooding in, I need to trot them out before I can continue with the reviews. There's no point learning if you don't practice.

Don't worry, I've still got that list of comics to review, and once I test out my theories and tips I'll be back searching for more.

One thing is for sure, as long as I look at my old work and cringe at how horrible it is, I'll know I am on the right track. It's a good sign.

If I ever look back at my old stuff and wistfully wish I could still draw like that and write that well... now THEN I would worry.

Hotspot #17: Decom(ic ex)pression stop @ 5m...

If I didn't have that regulator in my mouth, I'd be grinning my trademark cheesy grin, I bet. Incidentally, trying to draw comics underwater... not so good when there's a current, actually.

So... I do other things in my life besides making comics and writing about comics... and making them. I work in a totally non-comic related job, I indulge in culinary endeavors (and enjoy them), I brave leeches, bugs and other pestilent things to see wildlife that most people wouldn't understand WHY I want to see, I toss around balls of fire on chains for the heck of it... and I scuba dive.

I often wonder what part of me is it that makes me feel alive when I'm swimming in a sea of blue, with the surface a blindingly bright glimmer far above me and all I can hear is the stream of bubbles issuing from my regulator. Is it the danger? Is it the disconnect from the everyday world and the entry into a new one that makes you feel that even if you died the next second, it would all be worth it?

Floating around in the big blue... Nothing to see here, all the good stuff is at the bottom.

I don't know. But one thing I do know... When making comics, you need to do other things as well.

I truly believe this is important as someone who spends most of their time only making comics and not living life can't connect with what they are supposed to make comics about. Like it or not, to make a comic come alive, you need to be honest. You need to put in a bit of your own life experience in, else it's going to be a sad, flat, soul-less thing. 

If there was one thing I can say I finally learned in my love affair with comics for over a decade, that was it. I used to churn out a lot of shallow rubbish that had 0% Ping content in it, and I couldn't understand why I couldn't find the heart to finish them. As it turns out... I'm one of those people who can't write about things that I don't understand. I can't connect. So I need to write about things that do, or make it so that even though it's something that I may have not personally experienced before, it has some similarities to something that I have.

Back to the topic of doing other things... In the one period in my life when I stopped doing all these other things, my comic work suffered until I couldn't do it. Then I stopped comicking (yes this was during my hiatus). And I was miserable. Then I tried to start comicking again, and almost panicked when I found I couldn't. Not until I'd gotten myself out of the funk I was in.

I've found out recently that I'm not the only creator who has experienced something of this sort. 

Anyway... during a decompression stop while on my recent dive trip (it's this thing we do where we stay at 5m below the surface and bum around for a few minutes, to give the nitrogen in our blood time dissipate.) Anyway, on my decompression stop while hanging on to this painfully barnacle-encrusted rope, my mind wandered and I thought about the current problem I was having with one of my comics, The Jaded. 

The truth is, The Jaded is currently hiatused not just because I'm focusing on finishing The Longest Sojourn, but also because I'm having trouble re-identifying with it. 

There. I admitted it.

Compounding my problem is my stubbornness and insistence that I at least plan to finish what I started. But I have a massive problem there. One can't just drop a comic for over 3 years and go back to it like nothing has happened. Things have changed. My mindset has changed. When I read my own comic all I see is the discrepancy between how I think now and how I used to think. 

I could drop it and start anew. I have lots of other ideas for comics that would strike truer to what I feel now. But I want to finish The Jaded. I'm not going to be one of those creators who start something and leave it hanging.

I could restart The Jaded and start from scratch again. But that would be going backwards. I do not want to go backwards. 

So, while still underwater and thinking about it while checking my depth gauge, it suddenly occurred to me that what I was doing now is a very likely thing for a one of the characters to be doing on some covert op. In a flash, the obvious solution came to me. 

I needed to make situation in The Jaded match what I'm doing now. I need to make it identify it with me by dumping my old plans on how it was supposed to go and adapt it to what I feel now. I need to make the character change and grow just like I have. I need to change how the story goes, and scrap what attempts I have made so far because they no longer fit. I may even have to put in a timeskip to match real life.

It's not an easy solution, because it means a lot of what I previously planned will now never see the light of day. But it feels... right.

Maybe in a year from now when I finish TLS and restart The Jaded I won't feel this way... but right now... for the first time in years, I'm feeling optimistic about having to finish this comic again.

Barnacled ropes don't make good descent lines. Really. Ouch!

Now... if only my poor blistered hands would hurry up and heal so I can draw properly...

Hotspot #16: Happy Birthday. Now here's a white glove to the face!

So it was my Birthday on the 13th (last Saturday).

While I spent it in a manner that was err... interesting, what I want to talk about today is how birthdays make you think about your life and all that you have achieved and all that you haven't.

In my previous Hotspot I talked about time and comics, and the good thing about it is that it made me look beyond the present and what I wanted to be doing comic-wise, a year from now.

Let's be honest, I love my experimental comic, The Longest Sojourn. Messing around with it has taught me so much, but I don't want to be still doing it by next year. I want to be working on The Jaded by then. I fully intend to finish these two comics, and I already have another one lined up that I don't want to be starting until at least finish TLS.

The thing is, TLS is indeed on its penultimate chapter. And while that sounds tantalizingly close to completion, it's not when you bring out the math.

My chapters for TLS average at around 60 pages per chapter. I update a page every week. I'm currently close to halfway through the 2nd last chapter, so even with my conservative estimate of needing at least 100 pages more to finish the story, it's going to take me 100 weeks to finish the comic.

100 weeks is 2 years, give or take a few weeks. So regardless of what I want, I will still be doing TLS this time next year at the rate I am going.

Let me reiterate this. I do not want to still be doing TLS by next year.

And I do not intend to leave it unfinished.

Which means there is only one solution to this problem. Despite my real life commitments, difficulties and what not, I need to increase my update frequency. There is no way around it.

Sometimes, nothing is as good a motivator to a flagging schedule as asking yourself what you want to be doing the same time next year and crunching the numbers for the math.

Updating once a week = 52 pages

Updating twice a week = 104 pages

So the gauntlet is down. 

As they say: nothing to it but to do it.

Hotspot #15: Comics, Time-Flows, and The Things That Happen In Between...

Something I read on my friend Xmung's blog today got me thinking about how the timeline in webcomics travels at a speed so differently from our own. I forget the exact wording but he was talking about his comic Magellan and how his latest chapter took 3 years to finish.

3 years in a long time in real life. At least it was for me during my self-imposed withdrawal from the webcomics world while I struggled to adjust with changes in the real world. In that time, all sort of astonishing things happened apparently, ranging from Comixpedia becoming Comixtalk to make way for the wikipedia of Comics,  to Eric and Weds  getting married! 

In that time, I had changed from an idealistic university student to an adult with a full-time job and responsibilities and all those things that appaarently happen to you when you mature. Well I say "mature" but my colleagues at work tell me I still make random funny faces from time to time for no apparent reason (I was thinking of how to draw an expression). They still haven't adjusted to my penchant of breaking into a melodramatic evil cackle (BWAHAHAAHA!) whenever I successfully complete something that has been giving me trouble for days, either.

Things online change too. I couldn't help but notice that when I returned to webcomics that the trend for webcomics communities seem to be less host-based now, and there are more individual webcomic subgroups that I remember there ever being. Heh... I remember a time when most of the webcomics you could read on the net were on this hosting service called Big Panda... and then Keenspot and Keenspace (Now known as ComicGenesis). Now more and more people are hosting their comics on their own webspaces, or group up with friends and share one.

While in some ways it might be an improvement, I also I feel a pang of sadness whenever I visit the ComicGenesis forums now. I remember the state of organised chaos they used to be in, and while things were always crazy back then and some flame wars got a bit out of hand sometimes you could always count on something interesting happening every day... or even every hour!

And in the real world too, well, you have whole other cans of worms people wish they could forget: ranging from coup de etats in various countries to the sticky subprime mortgage crisis. Events that will change the world drastically have come and gone...

...And in all that time, less than a day has gone on in a comic.

It makes you wonder, doesn't it? The difference in how time elapses hit me particularly hard when I realised that one the characters in my own comic whom I used to think of as "a few years older than me" is now several years my junior and I identify with him less as compared to the older characters now.

And the characters in some comics I read now feel too young to me. I go back and read my own comics and smile at how different I used to think as compared to how I think now.

A family member forwarded me an old photograph the other day. It shows a shy and gawky teenage girl with a sheepish grin, sitting at a table strewn with papers and inking with a marker. Sadly there is no date on it. The picture is at least 8 years old, but I suspect it is closer to 10. 

Yes, that's me as a teenager. You could say I was a bit on the shy side back then...

If you squint at the page she's inking, you would recognize the very first page of The Longest Sojourn, my experimental 'learning' comic that I'm still working on today. Yes, that picture captures a particularly significant moment for me, because it was the ever first time I  had ever worked on a comic that I planned to show to other people and not just myself.

I counted the days in the passage of time in the comic and was startled to realise that less than a week had passed in the lives of the characters.  Less than a week! And it took me more a third of my total lifespan so far to get that far!

It's humbling, and scary in a way. I wonder if any webcomic creator out there ever sits back and wonders when they start a comic they might well be still working on the same thing 10 years later? If they will even finish telling all those stories before they outgrow their own creations and lose interest? Or when they get seduced by a better idea and start on another new comic? Or when the real world calls and they have to give up their pet project? Does anyone think that far ahead. If they do, do they ever get discouraged and never start at all?

I did think about this for a bit and realised something. Even during my time away from comics, I still thought about comics. The doodles on memo pad at work can attest to that. Sure, life took up most of my time and my comic output slowed to a trickle. Nowadays I think about comics more than I make comics, but I never could really fully stop thinking about them. And I suspect I never really will.

There will come a day in the future when I'm old and gray and retired and whatnot. When that time comes I'm pretty sure I will be sitting in front of a table, probably with paper and pen, or tablet and computer, or maybe a holo-pen or whatever art device they will have come up with by then. 

And I'll still be making comics. 

I'll have to be sure the take a picture of myself grinning sheepishly then. 

Hell, I might even throw in a BWAHAHAHAA!

Hotspot #14: To Tell or Not to Tell?

I have to admit, I have having a bit of a conundrum about something.

I enjoy writing my reviews, and I know a number people do enjoy reading them, and a good number of creators enjoy getting feedback. Some have even written to me to specifically ask for reviews (I'm still trying to figure out how to respond to that. As you know I daisy chain my comic reviews, so even if I do oblige I might have to figure out how to work in detours)

Speaking as a person who draws comics, I value constructive criticism more than praise. I love it when I do get it. 

I believe it's a sign of a mature creator when they can take feedback without getting offended.

So before I start rambling again and such... I was wondering, most of the people whom I review never get to know I review them unless one of their fans stumbles across the review and let them know. And given my penchant to go for lesser known comics this is highly unlikely unless said webcomic creator does a vanity search for themselves on Google.

Would it be wrong... or right for me to let them know via email or whatever that I have reviewed them? 

While admittedly it would be easy to do so for the positive reviews, I am hesitant about doing so for ones I have not been enthusiastic on. For example the creator of Kristy VS the Zombie Army seemed to be so happy in what they were doing, it does not feel right to burst their bubble. On the other hand, I do think they would benefit from reading review and feedback. 

What a dilemma. 

If you were a webcomic creator which would you prefer? What would you do?

Hotspot #13: So... Am I For Real?

Thirteen is an unlucky number, or so they say. I never did understand the reason behind it, but it must be pretty big, they rename floors of buildings 12A etc etc just to deny the existence of a 13th floor.

So this is my 13th Hotspot... any connection? I hope not.

Anyway a commenter named Bengo (I do apologise, I suppose it reflects badly on me and my 3 year absence that I didn't know who he was) indirectly posed a question I suspect a lot of you have been wondering to yourself but are too polite to ask... am I for REAL on restarting Webcomic Finds? Sure... as you know I posted a long review recently, going on from where I left off as if nothing had happened. But is there any guarantee I won't suddenly disappear again?

I'll be 100% honest:

No. Not really.

Will there be any guarantee I won't come back after disappearing again?

No. Not really either. Not unless I am dead, then you'd probably be guaranteed of that. (Sheesh, I'm not going to to come back from the grave to blog, people. Not that persistent.)

My point is, Life is unpredictable. People are unpredictable, so too shall this blog be. I will not make any promises I cannot be sure I can keep. This product does not come with warranty.

The other thing is: webcomics have become so much more mainstream to be now (to me at least) that there is no longer a "MUST PROMOTE LESSER KNOWN WEBCOMICS" agenda in this blog that I once started it with. That does not mean that I'll be suddenly reviewing PVP anytime soon. It just means I'll be focusing more on what I want to explore and learn and experiment from my travels, less on the political/social aspects of comics/print comic drama. It's about me exploring and reviewing comics. At my own pace. I'll be doing it for me, my enjoyment and those who enjoy reading and discussing it.

Maybe when I feel less like a fish out of the water (or more accurately, a fish that got out of the water, adapted to dry land and dived back in) I'll start reading the other blogs and get up to speed on what's been happening (and update my links), but right now I am presenting to you Webcomic Finds as it is. Just about exploring comics from the point of view of a first time reader, pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you still have reservations about my return, I will understand. I do not expect any plugs and I ask for nothing.



All that said....

I do like having the rest of you coming along for the ride. I enjoy reading your feedback and discussing points about a comic I've just visited with you all. Please do continue if you feel inclined to.


Incidentally, I stumbled over this while looking up on Bengo's Blog: Comixpedia's List of Webcomic Blogs. I chuckled to myself when I noticed Webcomic Finds was listed as Dead and Mummified. Probably deserved, but now that it's updated, does it merit being moved out of category? I'll let it sit there for a while while I decide...

And Hmm.... Mummies... Zombies....

Which reminds me...

Hotspot #12: Breaking Your Arm Patting Your Back

My latest column is up over at Comixpedia. It deals mainly with typical mystery tricks, and just for kicks I inserted some webcomic personalities and mascots in the comic. I may be a limited artist in some aspects, but I do flatter myself that I can ape art styles somewhat.

However, I have to say the recent theme, Mystery comics, gave me a bit of a twinge, because even more so than fantasy or sci-fi, Mystery has always been my favourite genre. I like stories that make readers think. I like the mystique of the unsolved. Most of all I like the concept of someone being able to see further than anyone else just because he/she observes and reasons accordingly.

So why does this give me a twinge? Well, one shortcoming of being in the Comixpedia staff is that I always feel I shouldn't ask or suggest that my own mystery comic, The Jaded be reviewed because it wouldn't be good journalism. There's no point writing/drawing a webzine if everyone who wrote for it just used it as a platform to talk about their own works. It'd be patting yourself on the back. Even worse, it just wouldn't have been fair, me misusing my influence that way.

And so, as a sucker who is very much at the mercy of her conscience, I held my tongue. And now that Mystery month is over, and despite the twinges, I'm very glad I resisted the temptation.

Ironically when I first started doing The Jaded a couple of years ago, to me, there was nothing I wanted so much, or considered a greater honour than having a Comixpedia review of the said comic. I suppose it sounds silly, and it's probably a sign of progress that I no longer feel so badly about it and even dare to admit it as I am doing now. It's not that I think a Comixpedia review is any less of an honour. It's not that I care any less for my comic. (Granted, it's on hiatus now, but that's because I'm too busy and I care too much for it to churn out a half-assed job. I'd rather put it on hold and do it properly when I have time.)

It's just because I want them to do it of their own accord, with no prompting from me. I want people to review my comic because they see something in it, not because they want me to write about theirs or link to them and it's a way of catching my attention. I want to be sure the comic is reviewed on its own merit. so only then I can be sure that it was picked because it's a comic of quality [x] about topic [y], and not because author [z] makes it.

I want all this because I know that more than anything else, it'd be a true test of whether it is good. And yes... I know that at this, many people will jump up and down and protest and declare that a review isn't proof that a comic is good.

On its own that point stands true.

But to me, if someone takes the time to analyse and write about something you created for the sake of the thing itself that you created, with no strings attached, no favours expected, and without knowing you...

No matter what anyone else says, in my not-so-humble opinion, that is the greatest compliment of all.

I rarely write and inform the comics featured on Webcomic Finds that they have been reviewed. I only do it for those cases where there's something on the site itself that leads me to believe that they are looking for feedback and would appreciate it greatly.

Why? Simply because that how I would want it myself.

Hotspot #11: Uncomplicating Webcomics

Apparently a journalist called Sarah Boxer from the New York Times wrote an article on webcomics.

And apparently it didn't go down very well in the webcomics world.

Eric over at Websnark wrote a strongly worded essay on it. Comixpedia has a raging debate going on as the indignant community rush to defend themselves.

Me? I don't understand how something so simple can be so damn convoluted.

Or to be precise, WHY anyone would even want to make it so damn convoluted.

Reading it over, it's an interesting point of view of an outsider to webcomics. It seems to have dragged a lot of preconcieved notions about 'webcomics' into ther article though. I mean look at this quote from the article:

"But when it comes to the content of Web comics, Mr. Groth was right. The comics that use digital technology to break out of their frozen boxes are really more like animated cartoons. And those that don't are just like the old, pre-digital ones, without the allure of the printed page and with a few added headaches for reader and creator alike."

No shit, Sherlock!You don't say, Holmes! What else is there between those two possiblities? Some super-duper hybrid?!

But seriously... What were they expecting webcomics to be? Taking all the fancy-shmancy theory out of it, in the end of the day they're still comics utilising the internet as a means of distribution.

They're comics on the internet.

In case you need it simplified further,

1. They are a hybrid of words and art with a message/story/joke.
2. They don't get to their audience by being printed on paper
3. They use a network of computers to deliver the content directly to their audience.

Some of them may chose to add effects you can't replicate on paper, true. Sure, some of them utilise different ways of trying to earn money. A large portion of them are free. Some blur the line between comics and cartoons, and frankly, why are we being anal about that again? Comics blur the line between art and writing, after all.

At the end of the day, they're still, they're just, they ARE comics. Distributed by the internet. Nuff said. (Have I reiterated that enough times yet?)

I suppose this is point where I confess I have no idea who this "Gary Groth" guy is, and why he seems relevant to this discussion at all. And before you shoot me that shocked look, this is where I say with a straight face: "And frankly, I don't care unless you can give me a good reason to." (In case you're wondering, I did look him up for the purposes of writing this.) I just wish he wouldn't let his opinion of Scott McCloud jaundice his whole outlook about webcomics.

Yes, Scott McCloud may have been a pioneer in many things, but he is not the King of Webcomic-Land, sorry. Sure, I respect the guy. I agree with some things he says, and disagree with others. But not everyone doing a webcomic is an ardent follower of Scott McCloud, and I really resent this viewpoint that we are all in "Cuckooland" and drunk on experimental McCloud kool-aid or whatever it is they're insisting.

I personally never heard of Scott McCloud until my third year of reading webcomics, and never read "Understanding Comics" until after I started making one of my own. And I've run into plenty of people who make webcomics who go "Scott who?"

And here's another startling confession: I have never read Reinventing Comics. And I don't plan to anytime soon. The closest I got to that was reading "I Can't Stop Thinking", and that's it.

In short:

Scott McCloud DOES NOT EQUAL Webcomics!!!

So stop challenging points in Reinventing Comics already. My God, this whole thing is stupidity times TEN, and watching all this mud-slinging by the supposed "thinkers" of the form is like witnessing the stupidity trying to spread.

Why do these people have to make things so damn complicated?

Why are they acting so damn anal over a form of distribution?

And why can't someone for once, write an effing newspaper article about webcomics by taking them at face value and not mention Reinventing Comics even once?

Reinventing Comics isn't the origin of webcomics. Comics are the origin of webcomics. (Although, that really should have been obvious shouldn't it?)

Maybe that book advocated it, but let me tell you there are people who got into webcomics (and comics) because a news or gaming website somewhere linked a strip that got across the point they wanted to make. There are people who have never read a single issue of Superman or X-men who got hooked on a comic because someone sent them an email saying "Read this about [topic x], it's funny!". There are people who got their first introduction to comics through a Livejournal entry saying "This page just expresses exactly how I feel today".

Maybe those people who never read comics before started reading webcomics because they realised that hey, comics do not have to equal heroes in spandex, which before always got associated with the stereotype of nerdy teenage fanboys that made reading comics 'uncool' and "for kids" or "not for girls" or whatever bullcrap people spout.

Maybe they liked those webcomics because they were easily accessible through the internet. And maybe because it showed them how easy making comics could be, they too wanted to try their hand at it, not because they wanted make some statement on "art". Maybe they made comics and put them on the internet because it was simply the most convenient way to get it to their audience, and not because they wanted to reinvent the form.

A lot of maybes? I know that in one case at least, the person writing this rant got into webcomics this way.

Has it occured to anyone that there is a whole new audience who don't read comics getting into webcomics, and Oops! They bypassed traditional comics on the way? Maybe some will discover print comics on the way. Maybe some won't because they're happy to remain reading comics online.

Newflash: The comics world does not revolve around the (American) print comic industry, nor does it revolve around webcomics either. And frankly, I think it's better that way.

One more thing: Why is it no one expects comics in print to exploit the possibilities of the paper medium? *snorts* Seriously, Where are the 3D paper-pop outs going "POW!" when Batman punches The Joker? You don't expect paper comics to push the form towards the direction of origami just because they're on paper, do you?

While it would be pretty cool of someone did do that, you wouldn't expect every print comic to, so don't expect every webcomic to, because they're the same things... on different media.



Honestly, did people bitch like this about sequential art being presented on paper instead of paintings on stone walls?

"But when it comes to the content of sequential art on paper, Mr. Caveman Ugg was right. The paintings that use the bark of the tree to break out of the constraints of the immovable cave walls are really more like writings. And those that don't are just like the old cave-paintings, without the majesty of the towering stone and with a few added headaches for reader and creator alike (Due to difficulty in getting bark of tree and the durability of the work after being painted on the bark of the tree.)"

Pffft! I really have to draw that one out!

Hotspot #10: Ping's Theory on How To Write a Romance Story

I think I can almost safely say in my whole life, I have read a staggering total of 3 romance novels. As you can tell, I'm not exactly a big fan of them. Out of those three, I paid zero money for them. Two of them were books left by a previous tenant in a flat I rented, and one was one I borrowed from someone because I had nothing else to read.

On thing I couldn't help noticing was all three of the said books followed almost the exact same formula and plot. Maybe it was a just a fluke that all three novels I read happened to be so similar, but from them I came up with a formula for writing your atypical romance story :

Ping's Recipe for Common Romance Story

Chapter 1:
1. Introduce the characters when they were kids, around 10 or so is the ideal age.
2. Have them know each other through a third party, usually their parents (who most probably had affairs with each other).
3. Being childhood acquaintances also helps.
4. Even an the tender age of innocence, one of the kids will have some daft encounter like "seeing" or "peeking" and the other half of the future romance couple and "feeling there's something special" about them. Sometimes one of them has a crush on the other practically since forever but the other one never notices them.
5. Often, the two kids are from wildly differing social classes. One is rich kid, the other (usually the girl) is from a broken home. A perpetually drunk and abusive parent (especially father) is particularly common.


Chapter 2:
1. Insert tragedy. It usually involves the mysterious disappearance/murder of one of the parents, or a friend/sibling of one of the kids (usually the rich one).
2. The mystery never gets solved, but the blame usually gets put on one of the protagonists' shoulders, or that of her family/parent, thereby staining the protagonists' name too. This often happens to the girl, for some reason.
3. Anyway, regardless of the truth, the whole town ostracizes the protagonist as a result.
4. Protagonist leaves/gets driven out of town.


Chapter 3:
1. Fast forward 10 years or so. Protagonist grows up strong. Often it's the girl who struggles against the odds to make something of herself in some other town and succeeds at a modest level.
2. Sometimes she gets married, but inevitably the relationship will end tragically (divorced or widowed) and she never really loved him that much anyway.
3. One of the protagonists, for some reason, will find a daft reason to seek out the other half without intending it to be a romantic reason. More often it's the girl who for some obscure reason, decides to got back to the hometown to open a business/figure out the truth to the mystery/ face her ghosts/ clear her name so she can be accepted.
4. Protagonist doesn't get a warm reception, and by coincidence runs into the other half of the couple. Of course the other half will have photo-realistic memory of the first half and the childhood memories and will be astonished how attractive the first half has become in the last X number of years.
5. Usually a conflict ensues, where girl and guy get into argument but are attracted to each other anyway although they'd rather die than admit it.


Chapter 4-Nth:
1. Fast forward an indeterminate amount of time which can vary from a month to a few more years. Protagonist recovers from conflict and sets about trying to solve the old ancient mystery with renewed determination, much to the chagrin of the evil people who have things to hide.
2. There will always be several stereotypical characters to watch out for:
a) The sardonic, prejudiced parent. (Usually the aging mother bitter at the loss of her child/partner and blames the protagonist for it)
b) The irresponsible sibling. (Often it's a sister of the guy, who hates the heroine for absolutely fabricated reasons.)
c) The kind pleasant family friend. It's usually an uncle or childhood friend of the other protagonist.
3. Hero and heroine are attracted to each other, but the near-sex/kiss scene is usually interrupted. If they do get it one, one of them usually regrets it afterwards and ceases to talk to the other for a bit.
4. Protagonist uncovers lots of little mysteries. Most of them will be seemingly pointless love triangles. Here is an example:

hero's sibling = > family friend => protagonist's parent => dead partner => family friend's secretary => hero => heroine

5. Danger threatens one of the protagonists (death threats, dead cats and break-ins very common) and for some reason, instead of turning to the protagonist's backup network, the protagonist turns to love interest for help even though L.I. may be almost a complete stranger that heroine "for some mysterious reason instinctively trusts".
6. Hero gets all protective over heroine and usually stays with her to 'protect her'.
7. Luuuurve city. Couple finally give in to their desires and page after page after page of their painful and explicit details of lovemaking ensure. Often with descriptions of how perfect the heroine's breasts are, how tender the heroine's skin is, how much body hair hero has and how abnormally big the hero's shaft is.
8. They spend the whole hour/day/week making luurrrrvve. Remember to comment how great it makes both of them feel. Often there will be confessions and plot details coming out in afterplay.
9. In the meantime, we also learn more mind-boggling relationship info from the point of view of one of the other characters, more often than not that belonging to the sibling.
10. Evil bad guy tries to murder heroine, usually going after her after luring hero away with some devious plot as she is about to uncover the secret of the mystery.


N+1th Chapter:
1. Evil bad guy turns out to be... *gasps* unsuspected trusted family friend, who monologues about all the reasons why protagonist's sibling/parent was murdered and how evil bad guy got away with it. Basically he explains everything and fills in anything gaping plot-holes.
2. Hero arrives in time to rescue heroine after she does a valiant struggle.
3. Hero's sibling shows up, intending to interfere but ends up finding out evil bad guy betrayed them and usually sibling, hero or heroine ends up shooting/killing-by-accident the evil bad guy.
4. Hero decides to marry heroine. All problems turn into mist in the sun and they all live happily ever after. THE END.

And that's Ping's rough formula on how to write a romance story. I have no idea how accurate it is for larger sample sets, but I reckon it will have some application in comics as well.

I'm having a bit of an upheaval in my life right (moving, planning etc) now, so updates will be a bit irregular. I still have a half-finished review sitting somewhere.

The other thing is that I'm still more in the mood to draw comics than write, and it's summer so I'm drawn irresistibly outside. While it's easy to draw when you're sitting under a tree in the park, it's not as easy to do that with a laptop without asking to be mugged.

Anyways, will update when I can. Wish me luck!

Hotspot #9: Crossovers, Contrivances and OOC

As a rule of thumb, I HATE comic crossovers.

But then again, the majority of the crossovers I see seem to consist of the main characters of both comics dancing around in some contrived situation, which incidentally appear constructed to allow them to show off their abilities to the max, and seemingly more intent on going: "OMG! Look! Characters from two different comics on the SAME PAGE!" than you know, telling a goddamned story.

This has been a major beef with me for ages. I've seen far too many comics, good and well-written comics at that, that fall flat on their faces when attempting crossovers. It's weird. In their normal spheres they act rationally, talk normally, and have an interesting story. But when it's crossover time, characters suddenly start stiffening up and acting OOC (A common fanfiction term I borrowed. Stands for 'Out of Character'), very much like a self-conscious amateur acting in front of a camera for the first time.

As for the plot... There usually is no plot. They're usually a collection of scenes the creators thought would be 'uber-cool' to see their characters in, with the merest excuse of a plot to hang them together. Which usually runs along the lines of:

Some evil mastermind steals/kidnaps something that matters to both Team A and Team B.
Team A and Team B go afte the evil mastermind.
Team A run into Team B.
Team A and Team B get into a disagreement/misunderstanding and get into a 'fight' (Last part is optional, but this is usually to allow them to 'show-off' their powers/abilties)
Both cool down, teams decide to call a truce, and join forces to defeat the 'evil mastermind'
Yay all is happy, they become friends and go home with good cheer.
Ping pukes.

Can you spell "contrived pablum"?

I want to know why, for the love of God, can people NOT come up with something more original than this when doing crossovers? This kind of shoddy writing would not be acceptable in a normal comic, it should not be acceptable in a crossover either. It just shows a lack of respect to the reader, assuming they're going to lap up the substandard stuff just because characters from their two favourite comics are OMG, in the same thing together.

And of course, if you have a reader who only reads one of the comics, they're either going to be confused as hell or bored to tears. Either way, presenting an insipid story to introduce your characters to a new audience sure is a great way to get people interested. Uh huh.

Yes, that was sarcasm, by the way. I'm not going to point out which comics (and there are very very many, among them the 'big guys') who have been guilty of the crossover bug. You all know who you are.

I'm not saying that all crossovers suck, of course. Just those that don't are damned rare. For future reference, here's some stuff I'd like to see in properly executed crossovers:

1. An original, non-cliched plot and plausible reason for Team A and Team B to get together. It usually helps if you plan the plot FIRST then base the scenarios on it later, and not the other way around


2. A plot that should able to stand alone on its own merit even without the presence of Team A or Team B. Pap is not any more acceptable if your stick good characters in it. It just makes the good characters look poor.


3. Proper introductions. Don't assume we automatically know who the other party is. Chanting their names to each other in two panels does not count either. Introduce the personalities of the other party to the audience.


4. On the other hand, don't get too long-winded with the intros either. You don't have to go into excruciating detail, but introduce them as much as you would a secondary character in one of your normal comics.


5. Get rid of the Automatic-Trust On button. It does not magically appear after 'disagreement' and 'fight', just so you know.


6. Stop the characters from acting OOC! I swear, the moment most characters enter crossover mode they become as wooden and stiff and featureless as a board. Instead of being characters living their lives out, they usually become horrendously bad actors acting out scripted scenes without much heart in it. Some of them even get an inexplicable case of enhanced PMS and become irritable and irrationally agressive towards the other team for no apparent reason (except to trigger the 'big misunderstanding', mahybe). I hate this. HATE HATE HAET!


7. Have the characters REACT to the other team as people. I cannot stress this enough. The other team should be treated as the individuals X, Y and Z, not 'members of Team B' who are coming along with us.


8. Get rid of the 'Reset and everything goes back to the way it was' Button too. It's damned annoying. Just makes the whole N-number of pages done the crossover absolutely pointless.

In short, treat the other party as characters, not features. Just because it's a crossover doesn't mean you have to stop thinking. A good measure go with is the 'Secondary Character Replacement Rule'. Would the crossover still work if you replaced the guest characters with fascimile nameless secondary characters? If it doesn't, you're in trouble.


All that said, two of my favourite GS comics, Killroy and Tina and Reckless Life, appear to be entering some sort of crossover thing. Both comics are very similar at heart, with a mix of outrageous goofball humour, strong characterization and dramatic plot/action.

So far my "Ping sense" says it looks promising, because the premise behind them meeting appears to be fairly sound and fitting in context. Tina is currently busy playing vigilante. Locke is an anti-hero thief. The non-appearance of the 'evil mastermind' is a definite plus. The plot would work even if Locke was replaced with Random Thief X or Tina with Vagabond Vigilante Y.

We'll see if the rest of it soon enough, but I really hope it lives up to the start.

Also, be sure to check out the Modern Tales sites on Free Comic Book Day (May 7th). A little bird tells me Joey Manley's doing something special to celebrate. Something like free comics... *cough*

Hotspot #8: Creation and Evaluation, and Why One Does NOT Necessarily Imply the Other

Now, the original title for this hotspot was:

Hotspot #8: Creation and Evaluation: What they are, and Why One Does NOT Necessarily Imply the Other, and Why We Should All Learn to Tell them Goddamn Apart!

Which should pretty much give you a good idea of what I'm going to cover in today's topic: Creation and Evaluation.

When put in this context, few people ever seem to have trouble telling Creation from Evaluation. Distilled to its simplest essence, one pertains to the making of a product, and the other pertains to the evaluation (or if you like, criticism) of that same product.

cre·a·tion
Pronunciation: krE-'A-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : the act of creating; especially : the act of bringing the world into ordered existence
2 : the act of making, inventing, or producing: as a : the act of investing with a new rank or office b : the first representation of a dramatic role
3 : something that is created : as a : WORLD b : creatures singly or in aggregate c : an original work of art d : a new usually striking article of clothing

eval·u·ate
Pronunciation: i-'val-y&-"wAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: back-formation from evaluation
1 : to determine or fix the value of
2 : to determine the significance, worth, or condition of usually by careful appraisal and study

Main Entry: crit·i·cism
Pronunciation: 'kri-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
1 a : the act of criticizing usually unfavorably b : a critical observation or remark c : CRITIQUE
2 : the art of evaluating or analyzing works of art or literature
3 : the scientific investigation of literary documents (as the Bible) in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition, or history

From Merriam-Webster Online

Now that we have our definitions down pat, what I want to know is:

When it comes to reviews and criticism, Why do so many people seem to believe someone must have the qualification of a creator to have the qualification of an evaluator?

What's that you say? "Because someone who has done that something before likely knows what they're talking about?"

True sometimes, but not always. You see, if a creator is good, s/he IS more likely to know how to evaluate work, but I'm of the opinion that the reason s/he is a good creator is because s/he knows how to evaluate work in the first place.

Think about it. Most wine-makers and chefs have good palates and senses of smell to give them feedback on how well their creations are doing. Pilots need very good eyesight. Musicians need a sense of tone, rythmn and pitch (ok, that very last one is debatable with the current state of the music scene, maybe).

But my point is, without the necessary senses to detect how good/bad something is, how can a creator tell when something goes wrong and s/he has too go about correcting it? Bereft of the ability to evaluate and work from feedback, most creators would be reduced to following a set of proven formulae for success and hoping ferverently it pays off. Sometimes it pays off. And sometimes it doesn't and s/he ends up with something like those crappy summer blockbuster turkeys everyone shakes their heads about.

In my eyes, a (good) creator is a critic who learned how to do (Or if you prefer, a creator who learnt how to critque). Does that mean that a critic has to know how to create to learn how to evaluate?

I think not. I wouldn't expect the most of you to know how to run a farm and raise cattle. I wouldn't expect most of you to know how to slaughter a cow and butcher it. I would expect some of you (but not all) to know how to tell a joint of good fresh meat from one that's been soaked in water, frozen for two months, and then thawed and left for a few days. I would think that a few of you would probably know how to cook a steak too.

But I'm pretty damn sure most of you will know a good steak when you eat one.

(Unless you're vegetarian, then substitute meat in the analogy with something else, please.)

So taking it out of the analogy, I think most people, regardless of whether they're chef or rancher or webcomic creator, will know something they like (and thus perceive it to be good) when they see it.

Now explaining why that thing they like is good is another thing altogether. Back to the steak analogy, a bad critic would be the guy who goes: "Gee... that tasted sorta good, I guess.". The good critic on the other hand, is someone who can tell you about the firmness and texture of the meat, the sweetness of the flavours, whether the meat is dry or moist, whether the seasoning overpowers the taste of the steak or complements it.

Supposing we have such a person who can do this, does s/he REALLY need to know about the difference between cattle breeds, or slaughtering techniques or whether the technique of searing meat before grilling it makes for a better steak to be 'qualified' to give an opinion on how the steak tastes!?

I think not. All s/he needs is a set of good senses (tastebuds in this case) and a working brain.

So Creation is NOT Evaluation.

Oh, Creation involves Evaluation.

But Evaluation does not necessarily require Creation.

And so everyone has the right to an opinion.

Now without a good solid explanation to back it up, how much that opinion is worth is up to interpretation. If you're Scott McCloud or Derek Kirk Kim with a proven track record, most people would be willing to take your word for it based on the virtue of reputation alone, since they're confident that on request you can produce good explanations to the wherefore and why.

But if Joe Schmoe too can produce good explanations to the wherefore and why, why should his opinion be any less valid than Scott McCloud's?



Logically, it shouldn't be. It's the logic behind the argument that counts.

The accuracy of a statement doesn't change no matter who says it.

So next time if you disagree, try focusing on the message instead. It'll probably work a lot better than shooting the messenger.

Hotspot #7: Welcome to the new frontier, and everyone wants to be a critic.

So maybe you've noticed them popping up. Like mushrooms after the rain, they're starting up everywhere now.

Don't know what I'm talking about?

Webcomic Blogs.

Or if you want to be more specific, webcomic-centered commentary blogs. Since the 12th of August 2004 when I first started Webcomic Finds, I've been witnessing the birth of many many new webcomic blogs and discovering many many more. Websnark, Digital Strips, (not to mention all those other blogs that don't focus on webcomics, but mention them frequently) and now even more recently, William G and Phil Khanhave decided to join the fray.

(FYI, it is notable that Eric Burns converted his old blog into Websnark 8 days after I started mine. Perhaps it's a testament to his writing skills that despite starting later, his blog is far far far more popular than mine ;) Dag-nabbit! Of course, I deal more with the lesser-known comics, so that could be it.)

Back to the topic, I'm not pointing hoodoo fingers or bad mouthing the newcomers or accusing them of jumping on the bandwagon or anything. I'm just making an observation that more and more people are realising that serious and regular commentary on webcomics is still a relatively unexploited niche, and there's room for them to fill it. For now.

The webcomics world is growing very rapidly. Some might say far too rapidly, because it is nearing the state of drowning in its own volume. For every good webcomic out there, there's probably another 10(or if you want to be bombastic, 100) crappy ones you have to go through. The webcomic blogs help by doing this job for you. Providing that you and the blogger share similar tastes, chances are you're going to like what the blogger recommends to you.

And if you have a plethora of different bloggers and different personalities and tastes to pick from, it can only be a good thing.

"Wait!" You say. "Didn't the webcomic review sites like Korsil and Comixpedia do something rather similar?"

Yes and No. They reviewed webcomics. They rated them. But most webcomic reviewers had to be impersonal and impartial, just to be professional. Or at least, they had to try to be.

But by doing so they missed out on the spice the webcomic blogs have. The personality behind the blog. The feeling that you're listening to someone you know talking, instead of reading some article written by a faceless someone you will never know.

And this, I think, is the new frontier. I have great hopes that with the new wave of bloggers there will be less insularity and more blurring the lines between the different webcomic collectives. That we might be able to filter more effectively through the great masses of dross from the gold, the serious efforts from the bandwagon jumpers. That more good webcomics get the recognition they deserve.

Granted, for every blogger that can discourse rationally about plot, pacing and execution, there's bound to the odd attention-seeker who sees the success of Websnark and thinks "OMG! All this guy does is sit around and make snide comments about webcomics! I can do that too!". Much like the webcomics medium it spawned from, it is pretty inevitable that Websnark or HB clones will spring up the more popular these sites get. And like bad webcomics, most of them will run out of steam shortly and end up dying by the wayside.

I am no prophetess or clairvoyant. I'm simply an observer of patterns. We saw this pattern happen with webcomics. I see this as something that will happen with webcomic blogs.

Just you see if it doesn't.




Fun fact: The Webcomic Finds system of picking reviews was inspired by this same Comixpedia article of Dalton Wemble's. God, I miss that column.

Hotspot #6: The Scurrying of Ants on the Trail

I was really going to write this hotspot yesterday, but then I was so upset that I decided it wouldn't be a good idea. I do after all, have a policy of not posting when I'm anything but calm and logical, and every time I've violated my own rule, I have always had cause to regret it and see a better way I could have done things.

It's been a turbulent week for anything with the word "Keen" in the name. There is of course, the molehill that was the Keenspot Gay-Newsbox thing raging on in Comixpedia and WebSnark. And there was the ruckus over the wrongful termination of a certain popular Keenspace account which was the reason I was too upset to hold a brush yesterday.

Let me repeat that: I was too upset to hold a brush. I was too upset to draw. Despite forcing myself to, the only thing I could achieve out of drawing was a bunch of wriggly sketches because my hand was shaking so much.

And that was really what tore it for me. I'm not the sensitive artist type, but for something to bother me so much I cannot not draw comics is just too much.

So I took a step back and looked carefully at what it was I was upset about.

Then I stopped and started laughing hysterically.

When I was younger, I used to play a lot with ant trails. I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with this, but colony ants do their communication using chemical pheremones sprayed on the surfaces they travel on to form a trail. The ants then follow the trail and stick to it until it changes.

I used to like messing with them, by disrupting the pheremone trails. Generally wiping a finger across it is enough to disrupt the column. Then at the point where you've wiped the trail, you'll get a bottle neck of confused ants, scurrying around in indignant circles, unable to carry on.

Eventually of course, there's going to come along an ant that realises: "Hey waittaminute... the trails continues just right over there. All I have to do is cross over here without making a fuss and I can be on my merry way!". And so it does. And all the other ants realise they've been scurrying around for nothing and follow suit.

From the point of view of the outside observer (me), all this scurrying was all very entertaining.

And I'll wager from the point of view of anyone outside webcomics... hell, Keenspot or Keenspace, if you want to be specific, all the scurrying about that has been occuring the past week in is every bit just as ludicriously entertaining.

So love him or hate him, Scott Kurtz was right on this one.
Edit: I've been told the above sentence is incredibly vague. Sorry. What I meant: he was right as in this was blown ridiculously out of porportion.

One more thing I'd like to mention: I'm not the type that likes making a fuss. And I realise from the comments made by various people in the Websnark post, and in the livejournal and Keenspace Help Center, this is a quality that may not endear me to many people.

You know what? I don't care. I still prefer to keep my head down and keep going.

But this does not mean I will not make a fuss if I have to. It just means I prefer to find less disruptive ways of doing things BEFORE I turn to the last resort of making a fuss. I prefer to sort out things through emails and private messages BEFORE whining about it on my livejournal or blog and giving it up for lost. I prefer this because I find it a better way of doing things, and speaking practically, it's a lot easier to rectify a problem if your don't tar and feather the person responsible for screwing up before you give them a chance to make up for it.

It's probably too naive and noblistic to survive in the real world, but fuck that. It's the way I do things, and I'll keep doing that as long at it survives and I do.

There's also the issue of crying 'Wolf!'. I'm a final year university student in a very socially active university. I swear, every month or two they have some sort of protest or campaign to challenge some injustice. Whether it's the "Fuck Bush" campaign or "Save the Lecturers" or "Gay Rights" or "Jesus believes in Atheists", I'm sorry to say the frequency of the fuss they kick up has desensitised me to these issues so much I no longer care or participate, even if the issue being campaigned is something near and dear to my heart. Just because it's yet another protest campaign, I stop listening to it. Period.

So no, I don't want to be an ant marching along in the column, but if I have to be one, I want to be the ant that realises the trail is just a finger's width over there, steps over the broken line, and keeps on moving.