Not crazy reactions

This section is for reactions to articles that are not fucking insane.

We have gotten or found a few normal responses to our articles in the past year so here we will put things artists have said about their reviews that are not angry, crazy or whiny. These range from actually mature responses to just "Meh, at least he didn't go ape-shit over it".

--

Bravoman
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



I decided to check twitter one day to see if there had been any mentions of our site there and found a few author responses, one of which was this:



Oddly, I've seen a number of people saying that getting a review here means you've "made it" so... thanks? I guess?

Other than that, his reaction was pretty okay. At first I thought this guy was seriously angry at us (which is why I put it in the other section), but it turns out he emailed the person who wrote it and was pretty cool about it and even left a comment on the thread as a joke.

Strangely, the person who actually did get a little mad at us was the vice president of Bandai Namco Japan.



bridges
In "Not Crazy" section because - Actual mature response.



"Kris" came to our forum and was disappointingly nice and rational. We talked to her a bit and she only asked that we remove a small part of the review that was too personal.

"Hey, this is the author of Bridges. Hoping I don't come off as that guy. I agree with like 100% of the review and that self awareness is why I had to stop drawing it, because it was a huge time investment and obligation, but I was not just blind to all those problems the reviewer talked about so yeah, great review! Really well articulated reasons for why I stopped and why I don't know what to do now. The only issue I have is I wonder if you could maybe please take out the tags from my tumblr? I was literally sexually harassed at work that day and ended up having to leave work early so I really feel super uncomfortable that that's posted for everyone to read, it sort of feels like people are already laughing at me (which is fine!) but then they get to see me naked (not fine?). I hope you guys get that, because I get what you guys do, and I'm really down with the review otherwise. Thanks."

Candi
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.

I found this on the "Candi" forum. Someone posted a link to the review and the creator made a comment.

"It's not so bad of a critique. She wants the characters to grow and mature, and the art and writing to get better. So do I. :) All I can do is practice as much as I can, read more, and try. A lot of the things in the critique that she wants to be touched and worked upon (at least storywise) will hopefully get resolved (but maybe not as well, or as soon, as they'd like :) )."

I think the people on the forum got into a big fight about it, but I didn't bother to read it.

Dare Sensei
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review. One of our members contacted one of the artists of the comic and this is what he had to report-

"I've just showed Pietro the review and he doesn't mind that Dare Sensei is here. In fact he said that Neallyriceguy can review all of his comics and he wouldn't mind. I also asked if there would be a chapter 3. His answer was and I quote: "Not so sure.. is up to kumiko, who wrote the story ^^"."

That is all there is to say about this really. The comic itself, by the way, is completely gone and only leftovers of it remain on the artist's DA page.

Demon Battles
In "Not Crazy" section because - Actual mature response, following an initially immature response.

Originally, the review to this comic didn't have time to cool down before the author was already writing journals on her DeviantArt about how we hurt her feelings. When we found out about this we copied her journal into the crazy reaction part of the site and added our usual response which you can read here:

Click to read

"Has anyone else ever had their art or comic bashed"

Already a good title.

"Just curious. It seems like some people think the internet gives them the right to give harsh reviews on others artwork."

We're sorry. We didn't know we needed to ask for permission to call shit shit.

"Granted, even if some of what they said did provide for good critique, it could have been worded differently. I understand not everyone is going to like my art style or story, and I'm cool with it. I just think some people approach me about it the wrong way."

If the review had good critique then is shouldn't matter how it was worded. Just take the advice and get better. We have no obligation to protect your fragile ego.

"Has anyone else experienced this? Even professionals who are huge and popular, have you experienced it too?"

Yes, it's called "criticism" and you deal with it by putting on your big girl panties and learning to take it.

"Found out not one, but two sources who review "bad webcomics" gave me a review, or plan on giving me a review (I'm not going to say who because pointing fingers is stupid and immature)."

If two people say it then we're not an outlier. Your comic is actually bad. Also, saying we did it isn't "pointing fingers".

"Why? Is it really helping others when you react harshly about their art?"

We aren't trying to help you. We're helping others learn from your mistakes.

"I could understand critique, but when is critique going too far? Like I said, even if you provide some good advice, please be courteous in the way you word things."

No.

"Words can either make or break a person."

Good.

"How about trying to spread some encouragement and love for our fellow artist. Give a critique out of guidance and love, not out of hate or spite. You don't know how a person actually feels about their art or what they are going through personally. If everyone starts spreading kindness instead of hatred, the world would be a better place."

Okay Gandhi.

No one gives a fuck. If we are doing something out of hate then it's a hatred for bad comics and not you personally. What your are going through personally is none of my concern. Learn to draw instead of making excuses. And spreading kindness is not the same as having no standards. We were spreading kindness. Unlike your fans, who cheer for your awful art regardless of its quality to protect your feelings, we were helping you get better by finally telling you the truth. To let you keep being awful is cruelty. Your fans that are now flooding your DA to tell you how wrong we are, they are the ones who are cruel.

However, while the author was initially very upset by my review and scolded me harshly for it, pointing out that someone with a grudge against her had come and told us to make a review of her webcomic out of spite, not long afterward she had a change of heart and sent me this message on my DeviantArt account:

"I would like to apologize to :iconlongtom: for the way I reacted over his review of Demon Battles. Although I still don't agree with the tone of the review, I do respect you have some valid points. Actually, some of the things you pointed out I needed to approve on (such as the stiffness) I am already aware of and have been working on it for a couple of months now. I do appreciate that advice about the "double mouths" and as you can see from my latest page I have been applying it.

My art has come a long way from where it originally started, but it still has a long way to go. I know even though I have an art degree my art is amateur at best, but a part of that has to deal with me going to a college with a crappy art program that taught me nothing. A decision I regret. I was drawing wrong for years, but after graduating I had to reeducate myself and completely change my artwork, so even though I've been at it for years, I'm still at a lower level. But I digress.

I'm also sorry for that comment about your art. I guess I was trying to hurt you in the way that I felt like you were trying to hurt me. Yes, I wouldn't say your an amazing artist, but your art does have potential. You just need to keep practicing. Everyone has to start somewhere, right?

Anyways, I'm sorry and my reaction was very immature. I already unblocked you. I hope you can forgive me and we can just all move on. I promise to keep working on improving. Thank you."

With that in mind, I told her the problems I had with the webcomic directly and she agreed. Her art was better in the next story, but afterward she decided to redo the whole thing. Not only were there serious problems with the art, which was as terrible as she admitted (I posted a more recent picture of hers above), but the story seemed rushed into production and was unevenly developed. Whoever told us to review this webcomic may not have had noble intentions, but no matter. The author was mature enough to realize that the criticism was valid and decided the smart thing was to make a better webcomic.

This could be called Bad Webcomic Wiki's first success story.

Dreaming of Utopia
In "Not Crazy" section because - Actual mature response.



In the process of researching the comic I followed Mark Savary on twitter. He must have noticed me and contacted me about the review saying that it was okay, he was aware of most of the flaws but I made a few mistakes in things I couldn't have known about. When I asked him to clerify so I could make corrections he said:

"well, I really don't mind crits, and I don't hate the forums at all. The brands were just a sort of wink to them."

I made edits to the review, but seeing as how he apparently isn't a loon, I decided to talk and ask some questions about his comic. Here is our exchange:

Click for email

This was my email.

Hi Mark.

Okay, so I said I wanted to ask you some questions and here I am.

First of all, I want to point out that what you say is on record. So if you don't want to answer questions if I'm going to quote your answers feel free to say so and I'll leave you alone.

Now, what I wanted to ask was this:

You say you're aware that some of the things the review points out as problems in the comic are true. If so, why haven't you fixed them? Are you planning to fix them in the future? And if you are, how? The biggest issue I see with the comic is it's entire premise, if you agree with me that there is an problem with it, how do you plan on going about fixing something like that?

Thank you for your time, respectfully - oddguy

And he responded:

 Hullo. Well, of course I don't agree with you that the premise of the comic is flawed. The allegory I'm using has been around a long time, and although it's a bit overused and even old-fashioned, it can still make for a good story. Not every story has to break new ground, and the topic is one everybody should revisit once in a while. So the premise is okay. Whether I can execute the premise well enough, maybe that's another matter. If someone approaches DoU with the attitude of "Furries..?! YUCK!" well then, there's nothing I can do about that. I don't blame anyone for thinking the worst, though, given the reputation some furry comics have (I'm not even sure DoU IS a furry comic, per se). All I can say is, I don't want to make those kind of "YUCK!" comics. So while sex might be vaguely hinted at, no fetish shit, no furporn, no sparkle-dogs, etc., will ever be found in DoU. There are flaws in DoU, to be sure, and you touched on many of them. Most of the biggest mistakes are in the first chapter. It's overly long. It has structural problems. Pacing. Art. There are things in it (like that page with the doctors), that I wouldn't do again because they obviously didn't work. I have other longish stories in mind, maybe two or three, and I'd do them differently to avoid things I got wrong with Chapter 1. What you're really seeing in DoU is a learning process. I've never made graphic novels or "real" comics before. Until DoU, all I ever made were sort of scribbly humor strips. With DoU, every page is a challenge, and I'm always working near, at, or even just beyond my talent threshold. And that's just what I wanted to do; force myself to stretch as both an artist and a storyteller. It's a game I don't always win. The art has improved tenfold since the first thirty pages, but it will never be a good as I want. That's probably true for the writing as well. I'm also well aware that probably half of the people who read the comic do so ironically or strictly for lols. And I'm totally fine with that. Would I prefer they took the comic a little more seriously? Well, sure, but even if all they do is laugh, that's okay by me. After spending any amount of time on the Internet, nothing is better for the mind and spirit than some good hearty laughter. But facts are facts, and those guys are part of my audience. So sometimes, I'll slip some goofy thing in just for them. It's a fine line, of course. I do care about the story, and I don't want to just pander. But my hope is that maybe if they keep reading, they'll eventually get a little more out of the comic than just the lols. You're quite correct, it's an oddity. I wasn't aiming for that, but it's kind of cool that it turned out that way. A friend of mine recently described DoU as a "do-it-yourself model kit," like LEGOs or Tinkertoys. You dump all of the parts out of the box and build whatever you want out of it. Want a serious story about the effects of intolerance? You'll find it. Want to see a batshit crazy insane story? It's there. Just look past both and see furries? Okay. Someone on 4Chan or somewhere said DoU could "possibly do anything," and I guess that's just about right. It just depends on what people are looking to see in it. The graphic novel thing is still new to me, but for all the flaws and mistakes, I also seem to be doing something right. I don't know what, exactly, but something. Whether they love it or hate or just laugh at it, at least it engages people. Seems to, anyway. So, how to "fix" DoU? That's an ongoing process. It's always top of mind for me, though. And I sure don't mind having the comic's flaws pointed out. Over time, I hope to get better at conveying stuff, and making the comic a better read. Best I can do for now is to keep plugging away at it. Anyway, hope all this isn't too spergy. The review is fine, I'm just glad DoU wasn't rated a "mindfuck" or something! M.

After that I told him I would be putting these emails on our site and we parted ways. So I guess he isn't the crazy lunatic we all assumed he was based on his comic. Oh well. Sadly I won't be able to use any of the funny pictures from his comic that would have been perfect for this section if he was angry.

Exterminatus Now
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



One of our users who actually likes this comic (why?) emailed Alan/Virus to inform him we wrote a review (why????). He was pretty okay with it and responded:



He eventually did pass it on to Lothar, whom we expected to go apeshit about it, but didn't. He created an account here and left a long message on the review's talk page, but then deleted it and copied it to the comic's thread on the forum. Here it is, presented without comment.

Click To Read

"Oof right in the ego ;)

You know I always wondered how I would react if Exterminatus Now ended up on the Bad Webcomic Wiki. Guess we'll find out?

Yes, I am Garry Webber, aka Lothar Hex, writer of a good chunk of EN. Just wanna come out and say...yeah, Izzus has a lot of valid points here. I would like to think a chunk of it is hyperbole for the sake of comedy, but probably nowhere near as much as I would hope.

Yeah, Lothar is one of the most ridiculous examples of a Mary Sue in fiction. I own up to that. A few years ago this dawned on me when I realised that I had essentially created Wolverine,...twice. One by having him being genetically enhanced clone of a warrior race, and the other by having him then captured and bionics strapped on to him. Yes that was his "original" (God you could cut the irony with a knife couldn't you?) back story. It was then I came up with the following comics:

http://exterminatusnow.co.uk/2011-11-08/comic/non-storyline/randoms/retcon-artist/

One of the few times Lothar got the comeuppance he deserved. Honestly Lothar definitely needed a good kicking once or twice. Ok probably far more than that. This was part of why the whole family and fight with Rogue came about in a later story. My intention was to show that Rogue and Lothar were evenly matched in terms of physical prowess, but for different reasons. Lothar is intended to be a powerhouse, undisciplined but he can take a kicking. Rogue is supposed to be quick and nimble and is far more disciplined, Lothar would only have to get in a few hits to win. Never really came across, though the intention always was for Loth to pull the mercenary card cos, let's face it, he's a twat.

I do think there is a place for the Heroic Comedy Sociopatch trope, which is what I was going for with Lothar, but you need to also have some growth there which while attempted, didn't come off 100%. Sterling Archer is an example of character who ostensibly is an almost complete murderous monster, has some growth and some decently defined reasons for it that don't involve super secret labs and trying to make a character badass by strapping robot bits to him (admittedly cyborgs/robots are one of my main fictional "YES!" buttons. I own far too many Transformers).

I think part of the problems with Lothar stem from the environment he was created for. The Sonic fandom in the late 90's/early 2000's was not a good place to try and make a character stand-out, which was mainly accomplished by editing a pre-existing sprite and make a comic out of it. You know, like everyone else. Being saddled with the echidna design was really detrimental, as mentioned in the review should've gone with a honey badger. Hell the whole being linked the Sonic fandom at ALL was really detrimental. If we could we really would have just chucked out that stuff. But since the Internet has a long memory, even if we ignore it was still there at the inception. Not sure if we would have gone the whole cartoon animal route again, but I think it can lead to interesting designs if nothing else. Although I doubt anyone would believe us, not one of the EN creative team would consider ourselves "Furry" by any means, though we have all dipped our toes in to it at one point at another. Hell some of the people I've met due to EN and talk to and play games with on a regular basis are definitely Furry (just realised this kinda smacks of "some of my best friends are black" territory so I should probably stop). As previously mentioned give me over-priced chucks of plastic, portraying robots that represent black and white concepts of "good" and "evil" while turning into trucks, guns, tanks, planes etc any day. Except the Bay movies...OK all of them accept the first which I find a guilty pleasure.

I can't really speak for the Warhammer 40k fandom though, since I have no interest in it apart from some of the fiction and video games.

Rogue is definitely the most competent out of the main characters. East is a slacker, Virus is book smart but life dumb, Lothar should be dead. Rogue's main flaw is supposed to be that he does not get on with people, hence the name. Though I don't think this comes across as strongly as it should since he is the main straight man of the group, thus making him the most competent, which made it harder for him to look like an arsehole.

Also as Izzus says, you pretty much skip everything up the the first Morth storyline. He articulates perfectly where that went wrong.

As for my...well less than sterling interactions with fans. Yeah I was a complete twat, Very much a subscriber of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. No excuses there. Hell while that has calmed down for me gradually over the years and I like to think I have gotten over it, I do very much come across as a twat if I don't centre myself first, or let things get to me. Doesn't happen anywhere near as much as it did, hell if it did this would be a very different reply, with many references to the sexual exploits of mothers and such.

I could keep going but really, there isn't much point. I will say whereas I do regret a lot of things about Exterminatus Now, I don't regret that I helped create it. I met some of my best friends due to it, and it has taught me a lot of how to structure a story, probably a bit too late for the comic itself (which is due to end after the current story due to burnout by all four of us) especially with the slow pace. The best thing that ever came out of it though? I met my wife because of it. I guess that means she saw my worst side first and still though I might be worth something

Oh and to the person who mentioned I liked Family Guy...I used to. Like (I would hope) a lot of people I enjoyed it when it first came out but well the pattern of "Like that time when I X'd the Y *cutaway to Xing the Y*" got very old when I got over my "random nonsense = comedy gold" phase. Was digging through my DVD collection the other week actually as was ashamed to be reminded that I owned the first 5 seasons. I gave them away.

Huh that was actually cathartic. Nothing like seeing some of your most embarrassing times on the Internet thrown in your face to help you reflect. I think will bookmark the review so when I turn my hand at writing again, I will try and learn from my mistakes. Thanks Izzus."

The gist of it is that we're right, the comic is pretty bad, Lothar used to act like an asshole but (as you can see for yourself) doesn't anymore and they are planning to finally end this thing soon.

Femmegasm and Da Pukas
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



When "Pembroke" found out about his review he had this to say:

Click To Read

"Check it out! The Bad Webcomic Wiki has given me a far more favorable (yet still negative) review! Yay! I suck less!"

After that he gave the review a brief and friendly mention on his site, and that was it.

So he proved that, even though his comic may not be perfect, at least he is not an ego driven douchbag like most of the people we review. Even when people complained about the review all he said was this:

"I was actually rather pleased with this review. It was very constructive and inspired me rather than depressed me. In short, it was surprisingly well written and like you said, fair."

" Some guy: well at least your comic isn't as bad as Ctrl+Alt+Del  Pembroke:  And if it ever did get that bad, I'd hope that someone would shoot me and put me out of my misery."

"Well, when my site stats show a huge about of hits coming from a particular site, I can't help but be curious as to what the commotion is all about. Also I don't mind them hating on my anymore due to the fact it works against them. In short, every time I get a bad review a ton of people come to my site to see what the big deal is about, and a decent amount of them stay and continue to read my comic. In short their hate benefits me. Humorously positive reviews get me less views... go fig. That and this guy was at least constructive in his criticism rather than just being a hatemonger, so I didn't mind this review at all. In fact, I oddly kinda' liked it. I also like to sometimes read what people think, even if I don't agree."

So thank you Robbie for being such a good sport about this. You are a shining example of how to take negative criticism without looking like a twat. We wish you luck and hope our review will help you make your comic better.

Godspeed.

UPDATE: He later also reacted to our positive review of his much better webcomic Da Pukas in a similarly cheery light, and even cited us as being helpful towards improving his work. Hooray for another success story!

Forest Hill
In "Not Crazy" Section because - Author joined our forums.



Not much to say here. Campion enjoyed our positive review of his webcomic, and then became a semi-regular at our forums, ocassionally giving out advice to new authors. That's really all, moving on.

Furthia High
In "Not Crazy" Section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



It all started when someone made a meme in an attempt to diss us:



What was surprising, though, was finding a response from QuetzaDrake, who apparently knew about the review all these years:



Hey, thanks man! What can we say? Wear it like a badge of honor!

Gyno-Star
In "Not Crazy" section because - I didn't know where else to put this.

Literally us

I had some trouble figuring out where to stick this since I'm not sure if this is an insult or a compliment.



I guess it can go here since it really is "Not crazy". After all, you know how hysterical women can get.

Heartcore
In "Not Crazy" section because - Relatively mature response.



The creator of this comic showed up a day after the review was posted to ask some questions and request advice. Click To Read "Hello! This is the author of the mentioned comic, and I figured some of you guys'd appreciate a response. I tried responding to the topic at hand to avoid clutter, but eh. I agree with the bulk of the review, ESPECIALLY in the earlier parts of the comic. Trust me, I am fully aware of the flaws, as you can see:"

A link "I'm curious what brought the writing from "okay" to "bad" in the forum topic VS the review, as I'd love some suggestions! (As a whole, I know the intro needs a can of polish.) As for the art YEAH trying my damnedest to improve, I like to think the comparison up there is a step in the right direction. Hopefully anyway, har! Any critique is appreciated. (Also yeah the ridiculously huge tits bit is primarily a commission thing. Also yeah I'm hella gay despite being married to a dude.) Really the only thing that baffled me is the original character/Chrono bit. But in the end that's far from important anyway so WHATEV.)"

We did what we could trying to help her. We doubt she will actually improve, but at least she took the time to make an account and pretend to try. That is far more than most people do.

Jamie Jupiter
In "Not Crazy" section because - Relatively mature response.



Went to the comic page to see if there were any updates, and I found a |page response to the review.



Underneath, she posted an addendum to the response.



Well, the good news is she's taking the review very well. I just only hope she takes the criticism seriously and works on improving her craft. The viewers in the comments section on the other hand didn't take it so well...

Click To Read

"Don't listen to the haters, your comic is awesome!"

You see, it's comments like this is why this wiki exists in the first place.

"i haven't seen the critique you mention, but from the description it doesn't sound very fair or accurate at all."

Then maybe you should've read the critique before you say whether it was fair or not.

"consider pacing. the second day of the storyline of mansion of e took around 11 years. it is an excellent engaging story and plenty of things happen and little time is wasted. in el goonish shive, a date has taken over a year and is not done yet. that doesn't make it draggy by any means. viewed properly your pacing is very rapid. in 20-odd pages per episode, you set up, carry out, and conclude an adventure, while still building the world, wrangling a supporting cast, advancing the overall plot, and developing the characters. sounds pretty zippy to me."

That would be zippy, if the story actually was engaging and world building. But it isn't. Virtually every chapter is a cliche'd filler episode that only inches the plot. The comic was nearing the end of the first season (A season that spent four years mind you) and the main plot hasn't gone anywhere.

Take the manga Berserk for example. The main cast were on a boat for nearly seven years. From that boat they built relationships in separate chapters, with different conflicts thrown in to get the whole cast involved. So despite the main plot seeming like a standstill being on that boat, it still felt like it was advancing. Jamie Jupiter on the other hand follows the "Monster of the Day" formula with only one page dedicated to actual plot movement.

"as to art, museum quality images aren't necessarily the name of the game in sequential storytelling. art that fits the story is. the characters in peanuts were very simple but they were as expressive ans they needed to be. photorealism would have detracted from the comic. xkcd is one of the most deservedly popular comics around and it uses stick figures. dinosaur comics uses the same panels every episode and only changes the dialogue. gritty angsty stories use dark colors, superheroes usually use a bright four color influenced style. a gag a day strip usually uses simple stylized characters. for the tone and genre of the story you are telling i think the art works quite well, some supposed absolute standard be damned."

You have just highlighted the biggest issue with the comic. No one is expecting the quality of Vincent Van Gogh. Any comic with ghastly art can still be good if it has a good plot. As mentioned in the review the comic has neither. Also, art also can provide a first impression for the comic reader. If the style is appealing, then the author would want to keep reading. If it wasn't, then they would stop as they do not want to look at it more.

Also, on the topic of the examples you used, see our Lazyness page.

"You tell 'em Casey! I've seen and been a recipient of outright 100% unjust criticism, or "flaming." You're the one who wrote these awesome episodes, I'll bet those flamers out there don't even a comic of their own. I want to thank you for this comic as it has inspired me to keep going with my own work. JJ must live on! Leave the naysayers to themselves &#61;D"

Ah yes, the classic "You can't criticize if you don't make" straw man argument. Just like you can't critique food if you don't cook right? Also, proofread your comments before you post them kid.

Las Lindas
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



After some fanboy asked the Las Lindas writers how would they react to a review of their comic, ID_Fox mentioned that he read ours:



However, the most amusing part was when one his fans dismissed us as jealous fuckers (gee, I never heard that one before), and ID actually counter-argumented against him:

Simply put, the "you're just jealous" argument is one of the most tired and worn-out arguments ever. Does anyone ever consider that some of us maybe don't care about creating webcomics? Or else, use critical analysis as a means of honing our craft? Or, maybe I'm just really off-base here, the critic in question genuinely thinks it's bad? No, that can't be possible, it HAS to be jealousy. THERE CAN BE NO OTHER EXPLANATION! LAS LINDAS IS A DIVINE MASTERPIECE AND CHALO IS THE MESSIAH!

Legendary
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review and deleted the comic.



Shortly after the review of Legendary was written, its creator showed up on the forum to explain himself:

"I realized it was crappy a little bit before I stopped, and I always meant to go back and delete it, because it's frankly really embarrassing having my real name tied to that shit. (Speaking of which, could you maybe edit my real name out of the wiki article?)"

He has completely deleted the ComicGenesis archive of Legendary. On the bright side, this may be the only mature response we've gotten from a creator we've reviewed. After all, we do say that if your work isn't good enough to show off, you shouldn't show it off. The downside is, now our review of Legendary is full of broken links that make us look like fools. Well played, Ol' Rob Z.

The Lightbringer
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



Someone asked Linkara on Tumblr if he had read our review and he said that he hasn't and he doesn't want to look at it. When pressed he responded:



I rather not read anything negative into this. He admits it was a bad webcomic and it's a very measured response for Linkara, who has a reputation of reacting childishly.

Looney Tunes Reborn
In "Not Crazy" section because - Actual mature response.



We received this response from the author:

"Oh gob you even found the badly edited wiki ;; OKAY long story short, I am the creator of this crappy webcomic. I know, it sucked. All I can say about this review is that I agree, the biggest issue is that this plot is badly executed and is never really consistent. I admit that I am very lazy when it comes to sketching. And you are right, this whole thing was a train-wreck. In fact, I really want to just do it all over again and do better this time if I can, but I guess it was so bad that you couldn't even finish. The only corrections I can do is that Melodia isn't a princess, haha. She's enough of a mary-sue as it is. Tyrahnee is the queen of Mars but Melodia isn't. She's just some time-traveler that have beef with some people. My art style is really scribbly because for some reason, I like how it looks. However, the downside of it is that it will make the comic look crude and I have many problems with proportions. And yes, Eric can draw better than me. And just to let you know, I have no idea who David Hopkin is so no, he's not really my inspiration. The only inspiration that I have had was just my childhood. So the whole "dreamy-like" state is just to show how confusing memories can be. Unfortunately, that did give the whole thing to be very boring and not really a good read. So to answer your question about the audience, nope. I don't have any and that's cool since they might burn their eyes off or something. The only people that like my comic for some reason like the cringe. I refuse to believe that they are just in for the plot because there is literally no way it can be likable. But thank you for reviewing it though so that I can keep that in mind for the future and to stop being lazy. I have no idea how you discover my unpopular trash AND the wiki but somehow it happened. I'm sure that was the most cringe-worthy experience you ever had and I apologize. You made the right choice not to look further. This fanfic deserves a good ol roast so thank you for your honest opinion. Again, sorry you have to witness that kind of stuff but again, thank you."

Perhaps the author was being sarcastic, but I believe otherwise. A few points I wish to make:

1) In terms of the plot, yes, it did randomly jump from one thread to another and no part of the story actually developed. Also, I did get the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you were trying to be avant-garde, which would explain the deliberately weird drawings and weirdly-paced story, and using terms like "carecatura" which I assume you either made up, or it was some very obscure term hardly anybody uses.

2) If, as you imply, this was simply meant as a fan fiction using Looney Tunes characters, well, I saw Bugs Bunny and related cartoons when I was a child as well. But your webcomic lacked certain aspects of the old cartoons and added new ones which failed to make me think of the Looney Tunes I remember.  Okay, maybe Pepe LePew would be called out for sexual harassment and stalking in modern times.  But basically your story does not much evoke the sense of the old cartoons.

3) Who is David Hopkins? Author of the hideous webcomic Jack, and he uses silly-looking cartoon animals to seriously convey a dramatic, violent, maudlin and supposedly deep-meaning story involving the supernatural.  (Seriously, check out the review we have!)

4) "The most cringe-worthy experience" we ever had? Nowhere near as horrid as many of the other webcomics we reviewed...including the aforementioned Jack.

The author adds:

""Imaginatio Project was a mistake" - me"

Well, not every artistic endeavor is going to be successful. We did review one webcomic, but pulled the review when the author scrapped it and did a revised and much improved version. You can always try doing a new fan fiction, but learn to draw better and tell a better story.

Moonlace
In "Not Crazy" section because - Actual mature response.

This tweet was found by forum member robv2002:



Perhaps the author/artist gets the idea that he can do better than what he is doing now? Considering the quality of his artwork, I say yes!

Myo Min Myo
In "Not Crazy" section because - Actual mature response.



I am hesitant to call this a mature response since the review ended in praise and she didn't try to defend her old comic which was indefensible. However, she seems like a reasonable individual so i'm not going to read too much into this. This is what she had to say:

"I just got informed that my very old webcomic “Myo Min Myo” has got it’s own review page on the badwebcomicswiki!

Ironically, I basically agree with more or less everything written on the page - that comic is the worst thing I’ve ever done.

But the part that actually makes me happy is the Conclusion part:"

So again, good work and good luck.

Raine Dog (and also I Drew This and Ozy and Millie)
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



After D.C. Simpson wrote a post where she expresses regret over writing Raine Dog and the backlash it received, our Wiki admin Long Tom talked to her about it, even mentioning his review. Her response?

"I honestly pay very little attention to reviews people write. It’s the internet. People say stuff. I’m not obligated to care.

I only pay attention when it crosses over into personal harassment, which it frequently did for a while. But criticism is inevitable and legit."

They then changed the topic, complimented one another and parted ways.

Sarah Zero
In "Not Crazy" section because - Not the best reaction, but tame by Ace Plughead standards.

How much longer are you going to keep crying about this? Soon after the review was posted "Ace" asked to make an account on the site to talk about it. For once I will not bother posting quotes because what he said was long and boring... If you want to read it anyway, you can find the forum thread here-

http://badwebcomics.wikidot.com/forum/t-261185

What happened was he gave a very unconvincing and confusing explanation as to why his comic is bad, talked a bit about Grey's Anatomy for some reason and got told everything he thinks is wrong. But he managed to remain relatively calm throughout, which is an improvement for him so I am not placing this in the "Angry Reactions" section.

The thread died quickly after he stopped responding and he continued hanging around our forum. Later he mentioned everyone who has criticized him so that he could thank them and even defended us on some forum in the thread about our review of Lovefeast, saying:

tl;dr

"Sarah Zero was one of the FIRST webcomics to be ripped apart on that site. I think it was added just after CAD was.

At first, my feelings were really hurt cuz of the then-recent assbeating I took over on a very popular forum. At the time, it was like compounding insult to injury to insulted injury.

But now, well over a year later, I'm totally over myself and I have a fresh outlook towards criticism. Part of my epiphany came from listening to Kevin Smith's SmodCasts where he discussed, at length, dealing with and overcoming his personal demons and internet hate regarding the "poor" opening for Zack and Miri in the fall 2008. Smith got beyond responding personally to the opinions of others and learnt to embrace people's honesty, candour and vocal passions with respect, dignity and appreciation.

With SZ, there are still more and more sites, blogs and forum threads popping up every day, heartily bashing SZ. It's actually kinda koo now. Most of these people are quite funny, witty and/or insightful, and I'm kinda flattered that anyone bothers to discuss SZ at all, cuz for the most part, SZ is sooooooooooooo fucked-up, under-the-radar and obscure that it's quite flattering when somebody says that SZ is the WORST OF THE WORST out there.

Over time, I've gotten to know better and actually LIKE some of my biggest detractors. Some of them showed tons of initiative by making hilarious SZ diss comics, and/or send me thought-provoking emails asking hard questions about things I hadn't ever given any thought to. And I was particularly crestfallen when one webcomic diss blogger actually stopped updating. I kept E-mailing him, sincerely hoping he'd come back. Some of these cats who've ripped me new orifices still visit SZ daily, know my every move on the intarlulz and even follow me on Twatter (perhaps ironically) and speak to me as though I were one of the gang.

In the past, I was a sissy whiny faggot douchebag when it came to dissent. But I learned a lesson, just like Sarah did, to EMBRACE criticism and critics. Some of the harshest words spoken to me have turned out to be some of the most important and useful I've ever heard.

It may seem weird, but some people can be against us AND still be with us at the same time!

Keep on keepin on, Senshuu!

Sorry for the long rant, everyone, tl;dr."

"Complaining about people complaining about people complaining.

That's a whole new level of meta."

"Yeah, you bring out a lot of good points, especially the part about doing the site and reviews for FUN. The articles are fun to read and fun to write! It's fun to make jokes, deconstruct the things we consume, have a couple laughs and move on.

I visit the WW regularly, read pretty much every new review that comes out, I discover tons of new comics and I learn a lot about how to identify and hopefully correct certain problems in my own work. The WW is a great resource for me, and also it's a really fun read, updated regularly, and the addition of the "how-to-improve" type articles are a nice touch, showing a deep commitment to webcomics as a craft. I also really like seeing things from the READER perspective. As a CREATOR, that's one thing I'm really really weak at in SZ.

It's koo to have one centralized place where people can go to learn stuff about webcomics. The WW site has grown exponentially since its early days, and I know the tons of hard work that goes into the site maintenance. It's really come a long way! I'd love to see what the future holds for the WW."

"We can't control what others say about our webcomics.

It's not our place to tell anyone how nice, how honest or how whatever to speak about our work.

The only thing we can control are our REACTIONS to what is being said."

This became a recurring theme with him. So it seems "Ace" learned how to deflect criticism by thanking everyone for it even though the comic itself became more and more of a meta narrative about how people still make fun of him for that meltdown he had a few years ago and call him pretentious and continues to be that way to this day.

What he hasn't learned was how to use that criticism to make his comic one iota better.

Oh, and after a link to a tumblr mocking his comic was posted on our facebook it was soon reported and closed... coincidence?

Shayla the Pink Mouse
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



Shane Nelson commented on the review with surprising maturity for someone who draws a furry sex comic. His only comment regarding the review was: "sad but true." Even though he admitted the review was right about him and his comic, he failed to delete it.

Finally the domain expired and he did everyone a favor by letting it be. Thank god. Sadly, the comic was later saved and archived by some other gross furries.

You can see the FurAffinty journal entry in question right here.

Slightly Damned
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



After our friend Raizy found out about our review, this is is all she had to say:

"Oh hey, we finally got featured on the Bad Webcomics Wiki! Does that mean I've "made it"???"

And to that we say - sure, why not? There's plenty of worse things to be proud of, just like there are plenty worse ways that you could've responded.

Stubble Trouble (and also The Humanthro Condition)
In "Not Crazy" section because - Didn't bitch about the review.



Ryan Powell emailed us about this old review. He didn't act crazy.

Click To Read "Greetings, Bad Webcomic Wiki. I found the review of Stubble Trouble on your site some time ago. My reaction: Meh. I don't mind.

There's a fine line between mindless bashing and constructive criticism, and although the review by Crack Lobster took a few shots at me personally, there was some okay criticism presented. I've worked to improve my comic over the years (your definition of my "improvement" may vary) and I like to hear feedback and even criticism. It may be a slow climb with some slip-ups, but I'm working to get better both personally and artistically. While the artwork did indeed suck early on, I've worked to improve it over time. The comic may be fetish-based with all the shaving and Gynette being decapitated, but you have to admit, at least it's not porn!

There are a few errors and dead links in the review that should be corrected. I no longer post the comic to Drunk Duck/The Duck Webcomics. One of the links goes to SpaceWolfOmega's profile page, not mine. The author biography is also incorrect. I am 27, not 37. My fursona is a fox/wolf hybrid (stereotypical furry, I know). The review itself could be more fleshed out and deal with more of my comic. There's a lot of stuff that Crack Lobster didn't cover!

Some of my favorite parts of the review?

"How do I feel after writing this review? I feel like I need to purchase enough vodka to make me forget I ever read this. It might kill me, but at least I'll be dead and presumably not thinking about Stubble Trouble anymore."

"Maybe it's just me, but right-wing furries make no goddamn sense."

"There's a pair of wolf(?) twins named Rosie and Reggie who are Scottish stereotypes for no reason other than perhaps it's one of Powell's fetishes, I don't fucking know."

As for your website in general, I enjoy reading it. Yeah, I do. Many of your reviews are pretty funny and it's neat to see what kind of garbage is out there on the Internet. I've learned a lot of stuff from reading these reviews. By the way, I have an on-and-off sprite comic that I've worked on from time to time that I think would be ripe for a good thrashing. It's called Contra Farce and it can get pretty bad at times. You could have plenty of fun making fun of this one.

Thank you and have a nice day!"

I fixed the mistakes as requested.

TOME Respec
In "Not Crazy" Section because - Relatively mature response.



Liz decided to tweet a few things about her old webcomic, expressing a distaste for how it turned out. The relevant bit is this:



I think this just speaks for itself, really. Seems like she's gotten better as a person, too, no longer being the douche she was back then.

And don't forget, Bryon Beaubien can go fuck himself!

Zack and Spike
In "Not Crazy" Section because - Realized his comic is shit and deleted it long ago.



The author of this webcomic wanted this review removed because it had the names and locations of the contributors. He felt that this information was unfair, especially in so that the other guy didn't have much to do with the webcomic at hand. The webcomic had been removed from the web for about five years, and he made it when he was a teen, so we have deleted the review.

For the record, this was his message to us:

"Hi! I was the author of this comic. I've known about the review since it was posted, but I've never really strongly disagreed with it, even at the time. It gets right down to the core problems of the comic and it's an entertaining read. If I recall correctly, the review was written around the time I began to shut the comic down and started being less of an annoying internet shit-head. I don't really have a lot to say other than, I was 13, new to the internet, thought memes were cool, and I was just having fun with it. I think even the review makes that pretty clear. After that comic, I learned the important lesson of being absolutely confident of something before you send it out into the wild web. So, there's a win for the wiki. At this point, I think the comic is over 7 years old and hasn't been online for 5. That's long enough, right? The only thing that ever bothered me was the inclusion of both of our full names and general locations, which I felt was kind of weird for someone who knew the authors were young teenagers. With that, please humbly consider my desperate plea to delete the article. If the consensus is that it should stay, then it's just a desperate plea to remove the full names and locations. At the very least, my co-author didn't deserve to be mentioned at all, he was a smashing dude with a minimal involvement in the comic and doesn't deserve to be lumped in with my dumb ass.

I hope that read out okay, I know sometimes people like to hide in some passive aggressive type shit in their responses or suck up to get what they want, but generally I just like the happy ending and closure of these kinds of things, and my intention is to close the book on my irritating teenage adventures. I'm sure everyone cares a whole lot.

Thanks."

The Zombie Nation
In "Not Crazy" section because - Actual mature response.



For the first time in the history of the site we got a reply for a webcomic author we reviewed that was not either an angry rant, a lame attempt to convince us they don't care or spiteful attempt to thank us while being passive-aggressive at the same time. Click To Read "Ouch! I won't lie, that was a rather painful review and I do feel fairly skewered by the reviewer. All the more so because there were some very valid points that were made about my comic, my art style, and how I create it. While I don't agree with everything that was said, there was a painful amount of truth to what was said. Enough truth for me to take a good hard look at what I'm doing and start making some changes. Some you would agree with and probably others you wont. I felt the review was on the caustic side, but I'm fine with that. I have a pretty thick skin and can take it. I would however ask that you schedule my site for another review in approximately six month or so. Based on this review I plan on changing and hopefully improving my comic over the course of the next year. My archive will still be there which I'm sure you will hate, but I would be very interested to know what your opinion of the site and the new material would be in the future. Thank you for your time Carter Reid thezombienation.com"

Dear Carter,

We are glad our review helped, and even more glad you will try to improve the comic.

A lot of people misunderstand the purpose of this site. We are not here to make webcomic artist angry, and none of us ever wants to make anyone give up on making art. It is only a desirable result when the person in question can't/refuses to try to and better himself. We hope webcomic artist will understand what they are doing wrong and change, and if not (which is usually the case) that others will learn from their mistakes using these reviews.

But, to answer your question, we will try to find time to look at your comic again in a few months. We will probably not write a second review for the same comic (it's just not a thing that we do + if the comic actually becomes good then the review will just not fit with the rest of the site). Still, we will try to contact you and give you more feed back, and if the comic improves, we might add a disclaimer to the review to reflect that.

Good luck and godspeed.

--


 * Back to front page
 * Back to the review index
 * Back to response categories