So you got a review on the Bad Webcomics Wiki... What to do now? Should you take the criticism to heart and try sucking less? Should you maybe delete your horrible mutation off the face of the internet so that it can't hurt anybody anymore? Maybe just cry and kill yourself. Those are all valid choices of things to do when you find a review of your comic on this site. But why do any of that when you can bitch and whine about it?
Over time we have received a number poorly worded retorts from webcomic artists who were displeased with their reviews. These range from long, dramatic walls of text telling us we don't know what we are talking about and that there is nothing wrong with writing a comic about the beautiful love that can be had between a man and his rape victim, to short, sarcastic comments written on tear-soaked keyboards about how little the artist care about our review and the quality of their own comic. Attempts to vandalize, delete or re-edit reviews more favorably behind our back have been made. As well as angry response comics, attempts to hack, redirection of links from our site and attempts to mobilize the comic's fanbase into a personal army attack on us that have all but failed. We even got one death threat! A tactic that has never so far been attempted is simply asking us to delete the review and explaining why you don't think you deserve it. It has never been attempted probably because it would also fail.
Few of our reviews ever get deleted. Those that do are, more often then not, simply bad to begin with and have little to nothing to do with how their target feels about them. However, doing any of the things listed above will not hail any results besides us laughing at you even harder and getting you added to this little hall of shame.
And remember: Calling us trolls automatically invalidates any criticism of your comic and magically fixes all of its flaws (not that it has any).
- 1 Addanac City
- 2 The Antillian Chronicles
- 3 Bittersweet Candy Bowl
- 4 Black Jade
- 5 Boss Noodle/Chugworth Academy/Chugworth!/U.S. Angel Corps
- 6 Bridgette's Belly
- 7 The Chronicles of Loth
- 8 Collar 6
- 9 Concession (And also Ballerina Mafia)
- 10 Darkwing Beyond
- 11 Exiern (and also Blade Bunny)
- 12 GamerGate Life (And also Guild Adventure)
- 13 God's Story
- 14 Hearts of wildfire
- 15 I. M. Hip
- 16 Jack (the other one)
- 17 Kirby's Fan Mail
- 18 Least I Could Do (and also Looking For Group)
- 19 Lethal: Death Squad Rising
- 20 Lovefeast
- 21 Lucky Dawg
- 22 Original Life (and also Better Days)
- 23 Pages of Life
- 24 Panty Brigade
- 25 Pictures of You
- 26 Romantically Apocalyptic
- 27 Ryugou
- 28 Sandra and Woo
- 29 Shark Teeth
- 30 Skull Boy
- 31 So... You're a Cartoonist?
- 32 Sore Thumbs
- 33 Sunnyville Stories
- 34 Teacher's Pet
- 35 Twisted Kaiju Theater
- 36 Warmage (also Monster Lover)
- 37 Yu+Me Dream
- 38 Grave of the Unknown Whiner
One day, a new member came to the BWW called hans17. In a fit of non-thinking, he wrote a shitty three-paragraph review of Addanac City. While he banged his head on the wall trying to figure what to do, help was called to fix this stain on the site. In the meantime, George Ford, creator of the comic, found out about it, and motivated by recent negative comments on his site and the BWW, decided the most civil thing would be to feign amusement at the situation:
So, Mr. Ford, one of the reasons you go on with this hit is because you just want to annoy us. Nice way of not giving us any importance.
Oh, my sides are aching... really, how long did it take to think this up? Way to counter those immature kids and their elementary-school name-calling. You sure showed them.
Once again, feeling important. It takes a very deluded man to appreciate people just for visiting his site, not caring if they all hate it. Attention craving must make you think wrong.
Same here, and I'm not talking about the comic.
The Earth kept spinning, the wind kept blowing, the comic kept sucking, and the review kept developing. Nothing happened. However, energized by the strokes of approval of his fanbase, Ford kept shouting rubbish about his supposed posse of haters. He even made a comic mocking his invisible, obsessive enemies.
Click for Ford's meltdown
Sorry Ford, we don't have such fragile feelings. He didn't stop there, though. As a final hit of idiocy, the comic came with this lulzworthy comment, where he finally questions the motives of his imaginary hater squad, and even pulls a JDR.
DAMN YOU GUYZ, WHY DO YOU DIS MY COMIC IF ITS FREE? FREE MEANS NO STANDARDS! Notice the nod to the BWW. Again, we are just a bunch of kids who piss on things for fun, yet we secretly love his webcomic in secret. This guy will make himself believe anything other than the fact that his comic is shit and needs improving. Also, he seems to be of the belief that bad publicity is still good publicity. Sure, a stream of people who come to laugh and criticize your stuff and then leave forever is all kinds of good business, Ford. Quick, get below your rainbow blanket before you catch a cold!
Criticizing things is like spitting in somebody else's house? Wow, so that's how things work! I guess that explains why there's no criticism in the real world, and critics are just assholes with no sense of respect. This guy must hate Simon Cowell and Roger Ebert.
Jesus, Ford, do you really think you're doing a good job with this comic? Honestly, this is untouchable to you? Well, I guess that settles it. If you can't see the immeasurable genius that Ford is, you should just leave. Obviously, us and him live in separate worlds.
Obviously, on the Internet, people who dislike things are not welcome. The sign said so on the way in. What an immature child.
Against this, there were two different attitudes in the BWW. One was to shrug it off and move along. The other was to freak out and make the two shittiest comics ever on DrunkDuck. Hans17 did two terrible parodies of Addanac City and the Jonas Brothers (we assume he hated them too), and he even tried to make us review them officially on the wiki. He was banned with no remorse.
So someone informed us that Nicholas has written a response to his review a while ago. Which is strange because I periodically look for them on Google and have never seen his. Which makes him implying our site is too obscure for him to notice all the more funny.
In his reply he tries to save face by painting the person who reviewed him as an insane stalker, threatening him and then stalking him back.
I'll just let you guys read it for yourself.
Read and enjoy
One review is a shrine.
Well, we are the first ones to notice your comic so I guess that makes us equal... Wait, no, you also contradict yourself about this later.
At least you admit it.
HAHAHAHA Oh my god, I have never seen a more arrogant person in my life. Apparently a few minutes of reading stuff on Google is "Months of determined stalking" and one article is a shrine.
He wasn't. I don't think he ever came back and he never let us know about your journal. Meaning your "Obsessed Stalker" forgot all about you literally the moment he posted that review.
"Friends" hahaha... It seems we are dealing with a badass Internet detective from Anonymous and his crew... You really got us scared.
And this is where I said he contradicts himself. On one hand he says the review is so meaningless that he is the first person to find out about it, but on the other hand, he admits that it is one of the biggest sources of hits, not only for his comic itself, but for the obscure blog linked on his article that no one has a reason to even click.
Nice revenge! His article exposes you as a mentally ill moron and you get him back by... proving he is a much better artist than you? Good job.
FYI: I am typing this as I hide in the bushes and watch Nicholas with my binoculars.
I have recently acquired the password to our old email address that remained unchanged for months before we realized we lost the password. There I found a second Email by this guy accusing us of stalking him.
Read and enjoy
Again, a single article is hardly a shrine, and as far as the attacks on your personality are concerned, you really proved them wrong when you responded to the review by trying to find and post the personal information of the person who wrote it (and failing).
Because your comic is short but the flaws in your character are abundant.
No, I will not fix it for you. How about you try to make me by stalking me back too?
So now that I have refused his request I will forever live in fear of the day he gets revenge on me by posting the url of my DeviantArt account on his journal.
A few days after a thread was posted (here is the thread in question, if you want to read more) about the comic, the artist's husband showed up on the forum. He argued with everyone, got called out on not revealing straight away who he was, offhandedly insulted a few other webcomic artists, complained about how everyone on Something Awful hates him and his wife, and left.
About a year after this charming display, a review was posted. This time he was back eight hours after it was up with a counter review. This time, he disclosed who he was upfront (too little, too late) and went on to tell us how the review was shallow and insufficient, and giving us a list of flaws in his own comic to comment on, my favorite of which being:
That is him talking about his fans...
Finally, the review was completely rewritten. The comic's actual creator now refuses to comment on it, so she must be very grateful to her husband for all his help.
Oliver's encore before leaving was commenting on one thread to insult The Oatmeal and tell us that we should write a review. And on another thread to call the creator of the webcomic "Love Me Nice" a bitch (they had a personal dispute years ago).
He still continues to claim that their lack of friends in the webcomic community has nothing to do with his people skills.
"Midgear" found his review and did not like it one bit.
Inside: Things no one cares about.
Seems like a pretty mature response, right? Well, keep reading.
Yes, that is exactly the reaction someone has when seeing your comic.
"Man or woman, or some combination of both if you are a character from my comic or from porno I jack off to".
He really did make it better by deleting it.
List of mistakes:
You screw up all the time.
Yeah, you obviously found it so hilarious that you quit.
The comic didn't last long after that. The author stopped updating for a while, then left a note on the front page telling everyone who is complaining that he never updates to fuck off, then didn't update for a while longer and finally just deleted the whole thing.
The creator of U.S Angel Corps, Dave Cheung, has a history of poorly handling criticism. In the past, he had tried to vandalize the John Solomon article on Encyclopedia Dramatica where he is mentioned after he had made claims to not caring about being reviewed on his blog. Later he snapped at the owner of the Webcomic Overlook for saying he deserved that review and, finally, the article about U.S Angel Corps on TV Tropes was deleted and it is safe to assume it was due to complaints made by him.
With our site he had a real drama. Back when we were on Wikidot and soon after a review of USAC was added to the index, suddenly all reviews of Dave's comics were removed for ToS violations. Since Dave has a track record of doing this sort of thing, and since we can't think of anyone else who would have any motivation to defend Dave Cheung's reputation besides Dave Cheung himself, we believe Dave was the only person smart enough to complain to the actual administration of Wikidot instead of doing what most people did, which was sending abuse reports directly on the wiki which our admins would read, laugh at, and ignore.
To remedy this, after BWW was shut down on Wikidot and before moving to this new host, we contacted the owner of ShoutWiki to make sure these kinds of problems would not repeat themselves. As a special precaution, admin oddguy contacted them again prior to restoring these reviews to inform them that Dave will inevitably contact them to make fictitious threats of litigation and was assured that it should not be a problem.
So for now the reviews will stay where they are and we eagerly await Dave's return. In case the reviews ever do get deleted again, there are multiple copies of every single one readily available in the links at the bottom of his Encyclopedia Dramatica article.
Recently we had rewritten the review of this comic that was lost that one time the site got fucked up. But after it was written it became apparent that the new review did not match the old one. A quick search uncovered that most of the comic's archives have been deleted. But it also turned up... this thing...
It seems Mr. Fraser was displeased with the original review (probably part of the reason he deleted the evidence) and sent the author an email to
refute it tell her off cry and beg us to pity him.
(Spelling and grammatical errors highlighted by me)Get ready for a sob story
No, I will not excuse your spelling errors. Stop being a bitch and get a hold of yourself.
It was titled what? Learn to punctuate.
English isn't even my first language and I still share the sentiment.
"Not that I could afford it anyway".
The word you are looking for is "Ridicule".
Why didn't you correct it before sending the email instead of pointing it out?
You also forgot the apostrophe in "What's".
"But since I don't have any fans I now only use it to service myself".
A. What the hell is a "figg"?
B. If you find flaws in your work, why don't you ever fix them?
C. Yes, you are creepy. But that is not the reason why.
D. "yr"? Couldn't you type the entire word? Are two more clicks on a keyboard really that hard for you?
Oh god... I honestly don't even know where to begin with this. Do you hear this guy whining?
Let's set aside the poor grammar for a moment. No one cares about some zombie chick who sat on your desk. No one cares how much you spent or how much you made. No one cares about you trying to improve your comic because you have not made one iota of actual change to it. Most of us are not children, yet we are obviously still more mature than you are.
Delete what? The comic or the email? Either one would have been good.
Well, call me Junior McBare-foot because that is exactly what I am doing.
We are so honored that you have generously graced us with your presence, and set aside time from your busy day of neglecting your child for the sake of drawing more ugly porn you can then try to sell online, so that you can write us an angry letter in which you beg for our mercy and then call us children and tell us we are not worth your time.
You have got to be the stupidest person that has ever contacted us.
- "Review"* should probably not be plural in this case.
Also, do you mean pander like you pander to your readers with fat, furry porn?
Said the man who moments ago called us children and told us he is squandering his time on us. You should pick up a dictionary and look up "Irony", "Hypocrisy" and "Bestiality" while you are at it.
Also, did you mean to say "you should know", or were you using the royal we? I hope it's the latter because some introspection wouldn't hurt you.
You would like to see our work? Okay!
Obviously this is far superior to your own comic.
Then he wiped his tears away, pointed his nose skywards and went back to butchering the English language using furry porn while his child starves in the next room.
On a lark, I went to Andrew Fraser's DeviantART page and commented to him that for the last page of Bridgette's Belly, he should have Bridgette eat a wafer-thin mint a la Mr. Creosote in the Monty Python movie The Meaning Of Life. His response was to hide my comment and block me. Long Tom.
Don't worry, Tom. I'll do it for you. SpazzticBunnyhood.
On a thread discussing us being bullies, the author of this comic offered his humble opinion:Click for blog post
It is furry, and it is anime, and it is therefore terrible.
"If you don't like the sound of me beating my wife, just turn up the music and close a window".
Regarding the second part of that comment: We do not support or condone this. That review was the only review this person has written and was he was probably an idiot driven by some personal grudge. Nonetheless, the comic is still bad so we are not going to remove it.
We ask that nobody goes trolling webcomic artists on our behalf.
The Collar 6 article, despite being about a niche comic with a small audience, created a surprisingly large amount of crying. It began in this thread with non-BWW-members leaping to the comic's defense.
You heard him folks, a seizure-inducingly colored mock-anime bondage webcomic is both ambitious and an endeavor, and everyone who thinks otherwise is jealous, immature, fat, apparently lesbian, and a failure at life.
The sobbing quickly spread over to the website of Collar 6 itself when, on September 22, 2009, one of the creators uploaded this blog post:
Click for blog post
This first paragraph is just astounding. Not only does he basically say Megatokyo and VGCats can't possibly be terrible because they have fans, but he also thinks that the problem with shittily ripping off anime style has something to do with him not being Asian.
"SO I JUST DECIDED TO POST ON HERE INSTEAD, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS WILL BE KIND TO MEE :'C"
It's promising that the guy is open to criticism, or at least doesn't have a webcomic superego.
"GUYS STOP CRITICIZING ART THAT PEOPLE POST PUBLICLY ON THE INTERNET OKAY :C GET MAD AT THE TV INSTEAD"
The post has since been deleted from the site, unfortunately before anyone thought to screencap it, but rest assured that every comment made on it by fans was a loving, gentle pat to the writer's bruised ego.
Later, the webcomic site would have the following disclaimer posted:
Whether this came about because of the article here on the BWW or not is anyone's guess.
Concession (And also Ballerina Mafia)
There isn't much to say about us and this comic. His forum got super mad at us making that review and one particularly crazy fan got into a drawn out slap-fight with us that has been archived in "Concession fan reply" instead of this page. As for Immelmann himself, a long time after someone made another thread about this review where commented:
Immy doesn't love us anymore.
This was originally in our irregular section because we thought the actual response was lost. Recently we found it and boy is it good.
The creator of this comic actually wrote a review of our review!
It's too long to respond to but I've added a screencap of it.
Click to read
To give him some credit, he didn't take it as bad as some and acknowledged some of his own flaws. But it's still a really dumb way to respond.
Exiern (and also Blade Bunny)
This reaction is going to be presented a little differently than most. Instead of going through what this person said line by line and mocking it, this one will just be an exchange of our correspondence. Also, I wouldn't exactly categorize this response as angry, but it sure as hell not good enough the excuse the horrible webcomic that is was made for.
So, about two months ago I checked our old forum looking for something and noticed someone made a new post (something that happens from time to time with people who don't realized we've moved). I checked the post and saw that it was Drowemos who left the following note:
Expecting something else (the response I got was ultimately disappointing) I tracked him down and sent him an email which I have mistakenly deleted in which I ask him to explain. To it, this was his response:
Click for email
I decided to write him back (my motivations for doing so are in the email) and said this:
After waiting a couple of weeks I have yet to get a reply from him and doubt I ever will. Therefore, as promised, I am posting our exchange here without further insults to which he can't reply and leave you all to draw your own conclusions. If at any point I receive word from him again I will add it here as well.
A few moths after this, the new owner of the comic sent me this Email:
Click for other email
GamerGate Life (And also Guild Adventure)
Someone posted a link to our review on Kukuruyo's DA page (why do people keep doing that?) and his response was so stupid and poorly worded that I didn't even plan on including it here.
As you can see, he flip-flops between claiming he trolled us, the SJWs trolled us and calling us trolls. So why am I adding this anyway if I said it isn't even worth adding? Because it later turned out that this wasn't the end of it. One of our Spanish speaking fans found a post on his Facebook, that we overlooked due to language barriers, which he kindly translated for us.
So (obviously) Kukuruyo totally trolled us and is super not butthurt. He also thinks we reviewed all the comics on the internet and doesn't care about his own comic... but still sucks GG's dick for tshirt money.
Before I wasn't sure if this guy was a con artist or an idiot, but now I'm sure he's both.
MoonLover left his fans a note regarding us in the comic's comments.
I don't think "Popularity" is the word you are looking for. Try "Contempt".
Flood of comments? Good work BWW.
OMG... Here it comes... What will it be? A half hearted apology? A dubious disclaimer? A weak attempt to justify his actions?
NOOO!! HAHAHA! He doesn't care that he's a sick pervert!
I think that statement would be far more truthful if he just replaced the words "what you think of" with the word "About".
First of all, it's "aren't going to bring me down", you illiterate fuck. Secondly, you can write us all off as trolls if it makes you feel better, but all it takes is a pair of eyes to see we are right about you and your comic.
Which is why he has not updated for almost a year after he left that comment.
More hits? Try any hits. We are the only reason anyone knows who you even are.
After making this brave stand against us, he abandoned his comic and started a new comic... his twenty third comic! Does this guy not have a job?
On a final note, I just want you to know that out of all of his twenty-three comics, "God's Story" is not even the worst. He has another one literally named "Mr. Pedo".
Click for the tastefully written response
"How dare you tell me my food tastes like shit! This is the first time I've ever cooked in my life, you don't get to judge me! Get out of my restaurant!"
Uh oh, looks like we pissed of a super badass internet ninja here.
Why are you... typing like... this... it looks like... you are really indecisive... or your keyboard... is broken...
Also, Applegeeks is still shit.
Not being satisfied with throwing moronic threats around like a thirteen-year-old listening to his first rap album, Urashima/Luna/whatever set up a troll account to a) threaten the article's other author, and b) circumvent his permaban imposed by the Las Tittas forum's admins who are still upset by his batshit insanity.
Click for screencap
YOURS IS COMING...
I AM VERY VINDICTIVE...
I NEVER LEAVE LOOSE KNOTS LYING AROUND...
STOP MAKING FUN OF MY ANIMES...
Let's hope the little fella doesn't chase any of our reviewers down any dark alleyways with a plastic cosplay katana any time soon.
After reading the review, Thomas Fay had this to say:
After making this somewhat spiteful reply, he actually went on to try to improve the comic. He first fixed some of the errors that were sited in the article, then he asked his readers for advice, and finally he shut down the website and moved the comic to his DA gallery.
Soon after our own review, The Webcomic Overlook wrote one of their own. Catya did not like that one bit. And why would she? She got a well deserved 1/5 stars, and reacted in the same manner that all bad webcomic artists, and her in particular, are famous for. I.E: had a massive meltdown in the comment section, drew and angry response comic, wrote a disingenuous apology and removed the comic... but only after waiting a few months.
During the aforementioned meltdown, she was confronted with the other review of her comic and asked to comment. At that time we had a short, but meaningful exchange:
So, as you can tell, anyone calling her comic bad, or telling her that she should improve, is nothing but a big, nasty troll.
On behalf of the BWW I would just like to say:
Katya explained she was just angry because someone was harassing her online. Check the review's new bio section for further detail.
Several years after the review was written, the author posted this series of tweets:
Presented without comment.
Least I Could Do (and also Looking For Group)
On May 16, 2009, the entire review for 'Least I Could Do' was deleted and replaced by this message:
Not only does it tell the writers of the BWW that we oughta be ashamed of ourselves for such awful behavior (honestly, what would our mothers say!), but it also implies that we are teenage girls who enjoy going to the mall and reading Twilight. All that's missing is a comment about us all living in their parents' basements and it would have won the grand prize!
Fortunately, BWW user Norad Bush had the good sense to keep a backup of the article and everything was restored without hassle.
Some time later he made a plotline in the comic called "Haters Gonna Hate" about people who make fun of him. In it, he makes a pathetic attempt to make people feel sorry for him by making the little girl in his comic cry because she read mean things about him on the internet. But since the little girl just looks like like the main character's head on top of a little girls body, this only reminds everyone the only person Shomer cares about is himself.
After some time looking, I was unable to find any significant criticism of this comic other than ours prior to him this series of strips, and since we knows he knows about our review and hates it, it's safe to say that comic was about us.
When writer Joeby Gibson discovered his comic was spotlighted on the BWW, he at first seemed to take it like a good sport.
But when the members in the forums began to question Gibson's motives as being purely attention-seeking, the butthurt began. Twitter-style.
Click for the Twitter bitch fest and responses from our own Nightgoat
So Joeby's Twitter feed was a hilarious cry fest last night, and it was full of bad arguments to support his comic. Let's take a look at a few of them.
Okay, so Joeby obviously reads this page. First I didn't call him an attention-seeking prick but I stand by Lesbot's observation. Why would someone who isn't seeking attention post a link to a bad review, send the author of the review a message, and then start an all night group session about the review? It's a pretty fair assessment of what happened. All of these behaviors are a cry for attention, which is okay- he is a comic creator and most creators have pretty massive egos, but don't whine about someone noticing your actions. Also notice how he puts the word critic in quotation, he goes on to say:
This is a common argument and a piss poor one at that. Interesting fact: NightGoat is not my real name, it's a shocker, I know. It's an anonymous handle. Yes, I could very easily be a 16 year-old kid with a lot of free time on my hands, but I could just as easily be a 37 year-old working comic book creator who is sick of seeing his lifelong love and lively-hood perverted by people with no respect for the craft. Joeby has no idea if I can, or ever have- made comics. Why use an anonymous handle? Well there are lots of possible reasons; I could be a coward, I could be one of Joeby's close personal friends that hates his work but doesn't want to start a personal fight, I could be working comic book creator who doesn't want to start personal feuds but does want to defend good comics by highlighting the bad ones. Because we don't know who I am, writing the review off as being done by a "critic" who can't create is a weak argument at best.
Also: if i made a movie and Rodger Ebert called my movie shit, I would take a serious look at where I fucked up. Critic doesn't mean uninformed.
(Edit: Joeby points out that if i am going to quote him I should make sure it isn't a statement made by someone else that he is agreeing with...strange I seem to recall him posting several times to twitter that I called him an attention-seeking prick, when I did no such thing: I was agreeing with someone who said it. Hypocrite much?)
I apologize for getting the title incorrect, however; nothing in the title is misspelled- I guess they don't teach the difference between spelling and diction at the University of Bozeman. (Edit, I did make a spelling mistake in the title. Fuck shit, the entire review is rendered worthless.)
I guess I shouldn't expect Joeby to understand why this is a terrible argument. To be able to write a parody of something you have to first be able to write that which you are parodying and you have to be able to write parody, I am not convinced the Joeby can do either of those things. Furthermore this doesn't let you off the hook for not being able to write female characters, or for treating them as objects. Plenty of writers write misogynistic characters without themselves being misogynistic and without making the work as a whole being such. There is a difference between how the characters in the story treat female characters and how the author treats his female characters; Joeby treats all his female characters like objects. And finally to simply state that your subject matter is either "bad" or guilty of a certain flaw, and as such your writing shouldn't have to move beyond it is the worst possible writing sin. You breed in weakness. Joeby isn't the only writer guilty of this, there are lots of them. If you start out saying that this comic is a "bad 80's action film," you will never -as a writer- move beyond it. How does an author expect us to call something good, that they themselves term as bad?
Cop out alert. We are reading it because it was put on the goddamned internet. It's out there, in the public now, and no where does it state that we have to be fans to read it. Also how is that a fucking Tip? It should read: "WHINE: You create content for your fans. If someone doesn't like your comic, then why are they reading it?"
This is more of a tip, and here is a tip in return: They are hung up on them because they are poorly executed.
SOME ONE ELSE MADE SOME SHIT SO I CAN MAKE SOME SHIT TOO. You should live and die by the quality of your work, not the fact that some people will pay money for shit.
Here he is absolutely correct. The insults in my review weaken the argument. I definitely learned that lesson. Lethal is a terrible comic on so many different technical levels. However, when my review goes into the attacks on Joeby's intelligence, accuses him of masturbating, etc- it loses focus on just how bad the comic is in its craft and the focus starts to shift toward my anger at it. The comic is very bad, but Gibson himself probably isn't. He is no Ryan Sohmer or Keith Buckley, he just doesn't have the skills to do what he wants. In future reviews I will be sticking to a technical discussion of the work much more, and attempting to leave a lot of the insults out of it. I can't promise that I won't ever insult the creators, but I will focus more on why their work is bad, not why they personally are bad.
Overall, Gibson did nothing but show all members of the BWW what a bitching, moaning crybaby he is. The lesson learned? The best way to respond to criticism: don't.
The creator of "Lovefeast" opened this thread on the "Top Webcomic List" forums to complain about being reviewed.
Here is what she had to say:
You don't have to be one to make a webcomic either... Case and point.
Yes, there couldn't possibly be more than one person who thinks your shit comic is shit. It's simply impossible.
Hahaha... Do you really think that? I read it. It is.
I don't know if Norad did this intentionally, but lol...
... What? What the fuck does that even mean you moron?
This point is that you are too stupid to take any of our advice and improve. That's why it's better to post this publicly so everyone can just laugh at you, instead of in a privet email, so you can pretend it never happened.
You're right. Why not? Why not bring more attention to the fact you suck and that people have been flocking over to your site just to see how much. Perfect reasoning.
From then on the thread devolved into a massive circlejerk, where they continued to tell one another that we are all trolls, who only write reviews because we are jealous that our own comics about gay girly-boys with horribly misshapen bodies are not as good as their's. And we were also hilariously white knighted by Ace Plughead and William Greggory, in a display I have no other way to describe but "cute". Although, I am not sure if at the time Greggory was already featured on this site.
The comic itself, which at the time of the review only contained 24 pages, only reached 46 before stopping it's updates indefinitely in 2010. We can't know for sure if this did or did not have anything to do with our review helping the creator to realize this comic is not worth continuing, but we can only hope.
One way or another: Good riddance.
The review was crap and was deleted but the response is still hilarious
Rooting around google we found a really old post on some comic we never heard of about a review we didn't know existed. The creator first pointed out he noticed there was an empty review page about his comic, and when that caused whoever wrote it to try and continue it he wrote a review of the review on his blog. Finally, whoever wrote the original thing just deleted it and was never heard from again and the blog posted a final victory note.
Two years later we found the blog buried somewhere deep within a google search and it mentions getting a massive spike in traffic from that one line review. So to call this comic unimportant would be an understatement. In truth, the review itself was pretty crappy. We have no idea who wrote that article or why. The person who did it did not post on the forum to ask anyone if he should write a review of the comic and quit soon after changing his mind. However, the comic is, in fact, bad.
Original Life (and also Better Days)
What's worse than an author who can't take criticism? When the author's fans lick his boots. Several months after our review of Original Life was posted, Naylor posted an entry on his Livejournal account called "The Kind of Fan Mail I Love". He posted what is apparently a reproduction of a fan letter slamming us.
For the most part we don't concern ourselves with fan reactions. In part because almost every review we write brings about a river of tears on the comics respective forum, and in part because it's simply beneath us. But, seeing as how Naylor himself reposted this thing, it makes it a special case.
The entry reads as follows:
Get some coffee. This is long, boring, and poorly written.
What? No it hasn't. Seriously, click the "go to start" button, then the "most recent" button. It's exactly the same.
That's not true. We also called him a racist and a misogynist.
You're right. Only people with good taste.
"Gained a new reader", didn't you read it before you wrote that letter? Or are you trying to say that you are now going to start reading it on a regular basis to get us back for writing a bad review? In which case I must say: WOW! you really taught us a lesson!
If you were, you wouldn't like this comic.
We did not imply that. We implied that Naylor is a pedophilic animal rapist with a penchant for Ayn Rand.
Yes, some people will brake off relationships with their friends for making anti-American comments, fly off the handle at their girlfriends, and delete negative commentary about their comics from their website. I wonder who those some people are.
<3 The Bad Webcomic Wiki.
After saying thank you and stating essentially what I said at the top of this journal post, they added in a following email:
You mean being called bad for being bad? Yes, that is very unfair of us.
I wouldn't say "giving them a chance". "Putting them in danger", maybe?
Deleting critique when you can, pretending it doesn't exist when you can't, and earning a reputation as an insufferable prick and possible racist as a result is "standing up to critics".
By the way, we're not withholding the name on the letter. Naylor is.
Let's ignore the fact that this letter doesn't go into enough detail to explain why the review is unjustified and move on to the really big problem: there's no undeniable proof that this is a genuine fan letter. For all we know, this could be a fabrication written by Naylor to spite us. Maybe it is real, but faking it just seems like the kind of thing he would do.
I particularly like the line, "turning away many prospective readers without even giving them a chance to read for themselves," as if to suggest that we don't provide links to the comics we review, or that we actively prevent people from reading them somehow.
About five fucking years after the review was posted, Luke Page decided to respond to it after spending all that time simmering in rage. In his response he explains that he knew our old reviewer Lesbot and melodramatically tells the tale of how she forever ruined his love of art by being pure evil. What he says is so stupid I didn't feel the need to add commentary.
Name withheld and hilarious insults/pathetic whining highlighted by me.
How a webcomic review ruined a man's life
I know some might say it's bad form to write reviews about people you know in real life, but I'm not against it. This isn't the first time I saw someone who met some incompetent artist and became so frustrated with trying to make them less like shit that they ended up either writing a review about them or asking us to do it. If anything, unlike other reviews, where we have to speculate about the author's personality, here we have a first hand account. Not that there is a need for it because Luke pretty much admitted to everything said about him in that review. He demonstrated that he's really a twat with this very response, he proved he can't draw and won't improve by the fact that the last page he ever posted looked exactly as bad as the first and then demonstrated that he gives needlessly personal information in these comics by that same page containing a drawing of himself fucking his girlfriend.
If this review made you quit making webcomics I am fucking glad.
We had quite a bit of fun with the reaction to this review.
Boo hoo hoo...
Before the review was even finished the comic's creator caught a whiff of our intentions and posted this:
After the review was published he posted this:
(Typos highlighted by us although there were other mistakes that could not be highlighted like when he calls us "thebad comic wiki" for example)
Usually we decorate these things with our snarky commentary, but this man's responses are so damn stupid I don't even see a point to it.
After declaring his own victory he tried to fight off dissenters by anonymously replying to people on his own chatroom/shoutbox and having an immature slapfight with them which only resulted in a massive spam/flame-war. Just to be clear: we did not participate nor did we encourage anyone to spam, flood or invade people on our behalf. This somehow just happened on its own. He followed up this victory by not posting anything for a month and a half.
But just as we thought he was dead and gone he returned to make one last reply to us which sadly was not properly archived by the wayback machine. We no longer have contact with the people involved to ask them, but from the replies it seems possible he might have even drawn a comic about us.
But all good things must end and he finally came to his senses and left us this final apology:
After that the comic remained inactive for a while before finally going offline.
Rot in peace, you trash heap.
Finally, he revived the comic yet again. And if you think he learned a single thing or that his apology was at all sincere, then you must be new to this site. The new comic was just as bad as the old one, and when the reincarnation of his abomination got another bad review he responded by pretty much telling the person who made it "lol thanks for the pageviews!" more or less.
So, while checking to see if anyone has ever mentioned us on twitter, I ran across a couple of tweets by the infamous Gibson Twist.
He describes our review of his comic as "More than a little racist" because it commented how he draws all people of all races the same, save for a small change in hue. Which begs the question, what does that make him? Since he's the one who drew them like that.
A few days ago I got an urgent Email from the shoutwiki administration that they have received a complaint that we are libeling and infringing upon someone's copyrights. At first I assumed it was Dave Cheung, having recently re-added his reviews to the site, but when I asked for clarification I was told that the reviews in question were those of "Romantically Apocalyptic", "Niels" and "So... You're a Cartoonist?". I thought this was then the work of Humon or Tom Preston, but the name of the complainer didn't ring any bells.
It was Vitaly S. Alexius' wife!!!
Usually this is a section for complaints by the actual author, but this time I figured: "Close enough".
The admin that contacted me informed me that he had asked for specific examples and, since I have yet to receive any new word on the matter, I assume they have yet to get them. He also pointed me to a usable version of the template Wikipedia uses to qualify its own copyrighted material as fair use that we could also use in this case so that we didn't have to delete anything.
Also, there was no libel in any of those reviews and if there was it would be easy to fix that without deleting the entire review, which is what I believe this complaint was a pathetic attempt to get us to do.
Maybe she should stick to posting naked pictures of herself online and leave the thinking to someone else.
I guess the email didn't work because a few days later someone left us this eloquent response in the form of an abuse report-
At first I believed it was his wife again, but Alex claims it isn't her or anyone related to him. However, since he has a history making anything that reflects badly on him disappear (including trying to get this review removed) I seriously doubt he would admit to it if it was.
I leave you to draw your own conclusion.
Still not satisfied, they redirected one of the links on the review to another page containing their retort... I guess they didn't know how to redirect traffic or something. So now I suppose I have to write a response to the response.
It took 7 people to write this. Apparently.
I find it hilarious that the RA team has 7 people. Does it really take that many people to run pictures through a photoshop filter?
Are you fucking kidding me? What exactly is your definition of "from scratch"? I started looking through these and gave up when I realized every one I looked at was still composed of edited photos of backgrounds as backgrounds and edited pictures of people as characters.
Also, good job on missing the point. It doesn't matter if you find pictures on google of take them yourself. What matters is that you're an artist that doesn't draw anything.
Your response to the previous question literally disproves everything you're saying in this one! So we said you claim you draw shit from scratch and virtually lie about it, and your answer to the last question was saying that you draw shit from scratch which I have shown you are lying about!
Furthermore, there are some claims (including in the review) that you delete evidence. On our old forum I asked to confirm if you ever actually claimed to draw everything from scratch before we say that in the article and someone said he saw it but everything was deleted. Makarov later posted links to more proof, but those have been curiously deleted as well.
LOOK WHAT WE FUCKING FOUND!
"Parody", yeah, right. It makes me laugh you try to lie and pretend what he said about you was a parody and that we misunderstood when everyone knows it was 100% legit and you reported him for it.
Okay, you got us there. Let no one say we are incapable of admitting when we are wrong. I should have checked the dates before saying you ripped them off and I will edit the review to reflect that.
So I'm sorry Alex for calling you an art thief when you're actually just really, really unoriginal.
Well, as I have shown before, you go back and delete anything negative you say or is said about you, so I doubt I will find it. Makarov tried to look up the quote but he said that whenever he did find a lead it would always be mysteriously deleted. The review itself has a quote of you saying something almost the same but the link that leads to it is nother delted comment.
But even if I don't have proof I have an eye witness who saw you say it. Too bad you can't delete people's memories like you delete your journals, right Alex?
First of all, It's funny (and sad) that you think our reviews are part of some secret plot to thrust people's fan forums into turmoil. We could not care less what your legion of suck-ups think of this review but I am glad to know it had such a major effect on them.
Secondly, all proof is, again, gone. Shocking. But regardless, you charge nearly 50$ for a fucking t-shirt. Are you shitting me? That's all the proof I need.
Here's the thing- I actually did check the IP and figured it was her anyway because she was the one who tried to report us to our host (more deleting evidence? Good work) and that report came a day or two after her request was denied. If not her than it was someone else from your team of MENSA members. I know you say that it isn't, but it's too much of a coincidence and the more I delve into writing this the more I have reason to doubt your honesty.
Hahahaha! You've done a real fine job at that!
You got us. It was that day that young Makarov's life changed forever. He began drinking and slowly went down a spiral of depression and self destruction. To this day he sometimes wakes up covered in sweat in the middle of the night as the word "Smudged" echos in the distance...
Or maybe he just said it because your drawings are shitty and smudged.
MakarovJAC: Yes, I did a digital painting. But I don't act like a little bitch for not getting some asspats. Also, finish reading that thread. You will find something called "humility". Alexy could learn a thing or two from it.
Wow, he's an art critic that spends his time criticizing bad art? How dare he?! That's almost as bad as an artist who doesn't actually draw anything... Oh, wait.
No, we just found your comic bad.
If you want money get a job. Instead of selling tshirts at 47.50$ a pop.
Yes, editing photos instead of drawing is a very simple drawing style.
"Boo hoo trolls hurt my feelings".
Did you just seriously compare us to the WBC? I don't even have anything to say about that. This is just too funny.
Actually, we were never told exactly what we were shut down for. What you quoted is just a segment from their ToS. In the end, it took five years for them to remove us and the reason was probably the never-ending flood of whiny e-mails from crybaby artists like yourself who were mad we were telling the truth about them. This time we reached an agreement with our host and were promised not to be deleted for similar reasons. But even if we are, were will be back again in no time and we will never let up on pathetic webcomic artists like you and your friends.
So in the end all this response has done is help me understand how seven people can come up with a comic that's half of a person worth of work. Because they share half a person's worth of brain.
There is something wrong with this response... I remember seeing this page at least a month ago and there was something different... Has Alex deleted something he wanted to hide again? Maybe "Web Archive" has the answer!
Let's look at and respond to some of the deleted versions of this page.
Hide, delete, don't respond
Well, first he mentions in the reply to the first accusation:
I wonder why he deleted this. Probably because it wasn't true.
Firstly, he removed the mention of his mass reporting campaign. I guess he didn't want to draw attention to it. The rest was probably deleted when he realized how stupid his foam-in-mouth ranting about TD looks. And, by the way, that thread is dedicated to making fun of him.
She's not a fucking paraplegic, Alex. Not only are people with POCS fully capable of losing weight, they are encouraged to do so because being fat due to POCS has all the same health risks as being fat for any other reason.
You're treating her like one of those Sims that if you remove the ladder from their pool they go: "Oh well, I guess i'll just die". How about instead of enabling her you do something productive and buy her a gym membership.
The "extra content" in Homestuck is the text, you dense motherfucker. And if you want to put yourself on the same level as books for toddlers then... well, good work because that's exactly where I place you, too.
Anyway, I updated the parts of the review where I must admit there were factual mistakes and I can't wait for his next attempt to get rid of us.
—Alexander Gromov AKA "Vitaly S. Alexius"
Soon after we commented on his comic being shut down, Joshua took a break from jerking off to try and save some dignity by having the last word (forgetting that he can't because WE have a website).
Click if you are ready for extreme levels of passive aggressiveness.
Yes, "got tipped off". It's not like you were watching every mention of you online like a hawk or anything.
No, we saw it. We just realized that the only reason you mentioned rebooting that comic was in hopes that no one will be able gloat over their victory over you. And when you saw that they are doing it anyway, you made this second journal to try and make it look like you still won.
So let me say it again: the overwhelming negative criticism of your comic made you end it to make people stop making fun of your poor art skills. We won. Next time try improving.
"EVERYONE JUST HATES ME BECAUSE I LIKE TOM PRESTON!!!"
Yes, your bad webcomic, which you ended because you admitted it was bad, has nothing to do with the article about you on a site called "The Bad Webcomic Wiki". But like you yourself just said: "guess some people really only see what they want".
Again: we care.
"Anyone who calls my bad art for what it is must be a troll".
You can just say "furry". We all know you're a furry.
Or don't care.
With that, he finished his journal and went back to drawing porno.
It is a truly sad thing that we kind of jumped the gun with this review, because soon after it was finished, more embarrassing things happened to or were discovered about this person. One of his gay porno drawings (which he still claims are not gay) was featured on the front page of the Rule34 website, his main character was discovered to be plagiarized and it was found out that he and his brother draw pictures of penises together (incest? I can't prove it, but no one can blame you for being suspicious).
But it's not all bad, Joshua. You should take pride in being one of the few artists to stop making their comic when they realize it's bad. If only you could also stop being so mad about it, you could maybe get started on the road towards improvement.
Recently he posted a journal on his DeviantArt account responding to our response. Sadly you will not be able to read this hilarious denial by a documented lier because he deleted it 9 hours later! Instead, he posted a second journal that said this:
Besides the hilarity of a man in his late twenties quoting a children's book and thinking it is deep and inspirational, what is more funny is the reason why he actually deleted that journal. I was able to catch a glimpse of the journal before it was gone, and, more importantly, the comment section. There I noticed one of his aforementioned fans begging him not to rile ED and BWW because it puts his fans in danger.
What a bunch of chicken-shits.
The creators of Sandra and Woo demonstrated their maturity and ability to handle criticism by temporarily redirecting all traffic from Bad Webcomics Wiki to a favorable review on NotMadComic.com so none of the links in our review would work anymore.
To remedy this we uploaded all linked strips and embedded images to imgur. Recently, we noticed that the embedded images have been removed. Since we have never had this problem with imgur before it is safe to assume that its creator reported the images. Luckily, this was just before we moved sites anyway and now all images are uploaded directly to the wiki.
For a moment we considered first linking everything to the site again (since it is the old BWW that is being redirected) just to see how long it would have taken before we were blocked again, but decided that we were too lazy for that.
However butthurt the author might have been over our criticisms, he did not disregard them. When we last looked over the archives, he deleted some strips and modified others. I guess he realized that we were right.
At first I put this in the "Irregular" section, but on second thought, it belongs here.
"A page dedicated to hating me"... Don't think so highly of yourself. We don't know who you even are.
Click for the message
"I needed some time to gather my emotions. *sniff*"
"Why are you picking on my webcomic on your webcomic review site?! IT'S BECAUSE YOU HATE ME ISN'T IT?!"
"Yeah, I know it's shit! So what?! STOP JUDGING IT!"
Note: Mediocrity's first comic used to have an article on this wiki. He didn't cry about it. Man the fuck up.
Surprisingly eloquent for someone who created a VGCats fancomic full of dead baby jokes.
A few months later, William rebooted his comic again. And by "rebooted", we mean "continued without improving a single thing. Only now on the SNAFU site". After joining the illustrious company of Bleedman and Donald Wayne Lozen, he saw this thread. He then sent us yet another whiny note.
Click for more bitching
- A. We don't remember what FTS stands for.
- B. That is not what "ironic" means.
- C. If you want to reply, feel free to make an account and post on the forum, and we will feel free to make fun of you and post about it in this section again.
- D. Stop crying.
Can't wait for the next one.
Tom Preston briefly mentioned us in a journal.
Thank you, Tom, for helping settle a long debate about that picture. A replacement has already been found and it took all of five seconds to find it. Also, I think you are confusing "nitpicking" with "pointing out glaring flaws".
Chris Crosby did not respond to our review of his comic Sore Thumbs. But a few months later, when we made a new thread to consider reviews for other works by the Crosby Brothers, he showed up to do what had to be the most failed attempt at defending one's self in the history of the internet.
Here are some of the things he had to say:
Click to read
"When I write the way I want to write I make things people won't like." Good job standing up for yourself.
"I don't care if I make crap. I just want money."
"I have no standards."
He has failed miserably each time, and so will you.
After admitting that his comic is bad and that he's doing it all for money, and laying out his brothers insane aspirations, he topped everything off by smugly offering us to make a comic, which he will graciously allow to be hosted on his site, and left.
You can read the rest here.
We are still waiting for Bobby Crosby to show up.
I found this tweet by Max West about the review:
Which is funny because...
When you look up his comic, our review of it comes up before the actual site.
If there is any truth in what he says it probably has more to do with the fact no one cares about his comic.
Soon after its inception "Teacher's Pet" was being hailed as one of the worst webcomics ever created. It lasted for a few miserable years before being deleted (probably as a result of all the negative criticism it was getting).
We discovered this comic soon after it began gaining attention and a thread was made to discuss the possibility of writing a review. Even before a decision could be made, the two girls who were making the comic saw fit to write a long blog post about our unsolicited advice.
Get your tissues ready
We didn't even write a review yet! No one showed you that thread! You went looking for it! How exactly is that finding our way to you?!
"Egos", not "egoes".
It doesn't look that way.
That, on the other hand, is pretty obvious.
Wow... this?! This crap is the best you can do? Are you five years old or something?
Improvement? - not seeing it.
Trying vary hard? - Nope.
Never done comics before? - That one I can see.
No one ever does. Few murderers turn themselves in. If people were able to recognize how bad they are, ask for help improving and implement that help, there would be no need for this site and no need for us to be having this discussion.
Your best is not good enough. Even for someone who is not a visual artist, your work is not good enough. Your work would not pass muster if you competed in a comic making competition organized by drunken hobos.
We have vary different definitions for the word "clearly". So yes, your snails pace worth of improvement counts for nothing. Less than nothing even.
No you are not, no we do not and not at all. We want you to improve. If you can't handle that, then quit... Oh, I guess you did.
How did you jump from three to five?
Yes... Compared to Hitler, Osama bin Laden was not so bad! In fact, he was a pretty cool guy!
You're right, It's all subjective.
OH MY GOD! What does this have to do with ANYTHING?! Who the hell asked you? Why are you using this reply to us to give us your review of fucking Twilight!? Who cares?!
Wow... so you start with saying all opinions are subjective, go off on a tangent to prove that "Twilight", hated as it may be, is considered good by some people. Then you arrive at the conclusion that it objectively sucks, but your own comic is fucking awesome. What a bunch of stupid, hypocritical bullshit. Are you even reading what you are typing?
In conclusion, it is only unwarranted if we try to force it down your throat, and if you can't handle it, either grow some thicker skin of stop sucking so much.
Listen girls, I know that you have long since deleted that little trash heap that you called a comic, but if you ever stumble upon this page, I want you to know that if you indeed tried your best, then we appreciate that. But your best was not nearly good enough. Not by any standard. You can't possibly not see that.
I would like to say something nice and reassuring to you because you seem like nice girls, but I honestly can't. Your comic was bad beyond measure. It wasn't even at the point where its quality was somewhat debatable. If it had, I might have been able to understand your righteous indignation over being criticized. But, for someone who made something so utterly horrible, you really have a lot of nerve complaining when someone calls you out on it. Especially when a review was not even written and you went looking for responses to your comic on your own accord.
People who make something bad might have some right to contest the criticism they receive, but people who make something irredeemable need to take criticism in stride and learn to shut the fuck up.
Sean "Shin-Goji" McGuinness (or someone claiming to be him) added a section to his review titled "Legacy" with his reaction in it where he talks about himself in the third person like he's retarded and then takes the "Romantically Apocalyptic" line of response and says we are only making fun of his shit comic because we are racists who hate feminism.
It is as a hilarious cop-out as it is a pathetic one. Enjoy the read.
He's gonna squish us like a bunch of Japanese businessmen!
You sure as hell didn't win that award for typing.
"Majority" in this case meaning "Almost none of".
Ah, the classic "This was written by one of my many haters" defense. Whatever helps you sleep at night Sean (next to your preteen girlfriend).
Actually, I just randomly found it while looking at our old site on "Web Archive" and decided to finish it and post it. But please, do go on about how a grown man playing with dolls in a dinosaur costume is going to smash the "Patriarchy".
If you admit your comic is shit then why not stop making it?
In other words: "It doesn't matter if my comic has bad writing. Only if it has bad feminism". I guess this explains why it was so bad.
Do I really need to bring out the "God Hates Webcomics" picture again?
"Doing what I want" in this case meaning: "Wearing Godzilla pajamas at three in the afternoon and seducing little girls on the internet".
You're right Sean, only the police can stop you from doing that.
Yes, most of them get a life or realize they're not good at it and stop. Thankfully, you didn't have that problem.
"ALMOST"?! Someone actually gave you financial support to keep doing this shit?!
Oh please, you were #1 on "Top Webcomics List" for like 2 years (although that's nothing to be proud of). Stop the pity party and put on your big-boy cartoon pajamas... Oh wait, those don't exists.
How? By showing them how bad he is and making them not want to be like him?
"Loving"... That's nice way to put what they were doing with the Godzilla porn that you posted.
You spent 13 years of your pathetic life taking pictures of your doll collections and posting them on the internet. People who brush their teeth in the morning have done more than you.
Warmage (also Monster Lover)
When the author of this abomination noticed the traffic coming to his site from us, he contacted the review's writer to leave him a "thank you note"...
Not content with this, he felt the need to leave a second reply of this sort on his Facebook page which read:
Still not satisfied, he opted to make sure he wasn't left with any dignity which might have been left over if someone mistook his replies for a genuine "thank you" note. So he created for us our first ever video response. Unfortunately, it was removed before any one of us could save it/watch it/make fun of it. All we know now is that it was titled "nosuchthingasbadpress".
So to you, my dear "Dumok", I say:
Enjoy your pageviews. Enjoy the flood of people that have rushed to your website just to see how awful you and your comics are. Enjoy your momentary "popularity" comprised of people who laugh at you. And remember: Every hit is worth one internet dollar! And if you get enough of them, you can buy the fuck we don't give.
Some time ago we had a review up on this site about a comic called "YU+ME: Dream". After it was made we got a complaints from a couple of its fans that the review was poorly written and probably done by a disgruntled fan who was unhappy with the direction the plot was taking. After further inspection we realized they were probably right. The article was indeed pretty bad, focused on a single flaw and the the comic itself may have not deserved a review in the first place (although I am beginning to doubt that after having to look at it in search of a picture to put up here). And so, the page was subsequently deleted.
But not before the author could comment about it with a childish response.
It's not really personal if you post it up on the internet.
You know what else is original? Dipping your genitals in molten lava. Don't confuse "Original" with "Good".
So whoever is making this comic should probably thank her fans. They are obviously smarter than her.
Grave of the Unknown Whiner
Over the course of running this wiki I have repeatedly come across various complaints about our wiki across the web, as well as private messages sent to our members or left on our forum, saying that our reviews somehow ruined someone's life or made them delete their comic and quit art forever.
I do not know who these people are, which comic is theirs, how many of them are there or if indeed these are all complaints made by the same person who find it necessary to bitch about us on every single webcomic related forum he can find. Nonetheless, I have added this mention to this page to honor their futile efforts and trashed comics.