Concession fan reply

From The Bad Webcomics Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This is an archived version of a stupid slapfight we once had with a fan of the comic Concession. It was added to the Reactions page, but in retrospect, since this is a response from a fan and not the creator of the comic it doesn't really matter. However, I do not want to delete this hilarious part of the site's history, so instead, I am moving it to its own page.




Nothing quite brings the drama like a furry comic, and Concession has proven itself as the best of the best when it comes to crying. It all began when Concession fan Chesamo found the original version of the article and, spluttering with rage and tears, quickly threw together a rebuttal.

WARNING: This rant is not incredibly entertaining to read. The Concession article has changed a lot since its original write up, and a lot of the points raised here essentially boil down to "don't be mean wah wah". Nonetheless, feel free to indulge yourself.

Chesamo's anti-review

It is stated in the rules that webcomic artists should be able to differentiate constructive criticism from "bad" criticism, but there is none in this review. It's nothing but a long rant by someone who is far from being the authority on webcomics. That is why I feel it necessary to systematically deconstruct this monstrosity of a "review".

This is a bold and incorrect assumption to make. I talk about everything from having a plan to your comic to appropriate character emotion, and even say that the art is sketchy rather than the art is bad. That's because it is. If Immy wants his art to be better, he should make it less sketchy.

I recently read your review of Concession, and I have one thing to say to you: horseshit. You fail to grasp basic concepts of humor (something I've noticed as a recurring theme throughout your works), make wild assumptions without proper research, and (worst of all) you take comics completely out of context, or ignore them altogether. I'm going to skip "Background" and move straight onto "Story and Plot". Your first three examples are of Comics 152, a filler strip, and 153. Apparently, you missed the blatantly sarcastic title: "The Continuing Adventures of Mr. Dude And the incredible Technicolor filler comics!" The purpose of a filler comic is to keep a schedule, even when the artist is too busy to finish the strip. Drawing is hard. First comes the concept, then the sketch, then inking, coloring, and words. Immelmann is a college student (see more about that below). Students don't have a lot of free time. If he misses a week, he misses a week. It happens.

What a coincidence, I too am a college student, and guess what? If I miss an assignment, I FUCKING FAIL IT. I've also drawn stuff. In fact, I'm an Architecture student whose days consist of building sculptures, drawing, and painting. Not an excuse.

Strip 152 is a "gag-a-day" strip. 153 is the start of a new story arc. How did you confuse that? Several times throughout the review you misinterpret the theme of the comic completely. Concession is both a "gag-a-day" and a "drama comic". You can't have a good story without comic relief. See also: LeFou from Beauty and the Beast (Broadway version) and the bumbling policemen from Much Ado About Nothing.

There is no such thing as a "gag-a-day" and a "drama comic" all rolled into one. Comedy-dramas have equal amounts comedy and drama in their storylines, and do it without seeming like they're bipolar, which is what this storyline is suffering from. One second we've got waterworks, and the next, we've got laughs up the ass. That is not mixing comedy and drama. That is inconsistent tone.

In the paragraph beginning with "Click on that last comic…" you cite examples of pederasty. First off, Chelsie is a boy (which would be obvious if you actually took the time to read the comic, see Comic 53,)


You constantly refer to him as a girl, displaying your ignorance of the subject matter. Chelsie, as an oversexed character, portrays the exact opposite of a normal child. More about this when I get to your review of the Chelsie story arc.

The dictionary defines pederasty as either erotic love between a man and a young boy, or anal sex in general, but usually between a man and a young boy. So your rebuttal, Mr. Chesamo, that it's not pederasty because "Chelsie is a boy" is like saying that whales can't be aquatic because they live in water.

Kate takes Artie to a NAMbLA convention. Kate is a pedophile. This is obvious. She is also the only pedophile in the entire comic.

No, she isn't the only pedophile in the comic. You show it yourself in the "Chelsie is a boy" comic, where the rest of the dialog shows that Artie had sex with Chelsie six times.

However, you seem to have ignored the very last panel, where Artie's mouth is hanging open is disbelief. Just look at the next comic. Artie storms out, arguing with Kate and denouncing his pedophilia (Artie is not a pedophile).

Yes he is, you retard. All of the context in this entire comic shows that he had sex with Chelsie, but the comic tries to reduce the revulsion by saying that the black-furred character used his powers on Artie, which is bullshit.

Kate comes from an incestral relationship. The Rick/Kate relationship is not really addressed, but that's the extent of the sexuality in that respect. The comic does not condone pedophilia, which you seem to think it does.

It may not straight-up condone pedophilia, but presenting it with absolutely no mention of the damage it causes to children sure is superficial and retarded.

In your "Art review" section, you use a panel where Joel is standing in front of a bunch of posters on his wall and daring Immy to add more "stolen images". You clearly don't understand copyright law. It's called the "Fair Use Doctrine". Look it up.

Nobody gives a shit. There is no reason to have that many images cribbed from other makers.

The two comics you reference, numbers 172 and 173, have no significance to the story at all.

Except that I have to click through each and every fucking one to get to the next part of the storyline, which makes them significant in that they're getting in the way of me reading the webcomic.

You say that those two are the best artwork he can do. This is an outright lie, for two reasons. One, they are relatively old strips.

The age of the strips has nothing to do with quality, you dipshit.

The comic has progressed three months shy of a year since then. His art style has progressed, and he's even even using different tools to draw. You state that the rest of the comic is "badly drawn furry porno shit". Let's count the real amount of porn in Concession, shall we? 1. "Closer" (Comic 146)


2. All of the other instances of sex are used as comedic devices. If you had the vaguest sense of humor you would be able to understand this. You ask if furries can "actually laugh and jack off to that lizard with the bullet nose," but you fail to realize that the purpose of the strip is not pornographic. It's a dirty joke.

I understand that the sex-talk comics are dirty jokes, but they're horrible, unfunny dirty jokes, and they suck as porn too. So again, how do they laugh and jack off to the lizard with the bullet nose.

Next, we come to your "Writing review" section. You read the first few strips, which are "gag-a-day" format. You then move on to the fourth strip, numbered Comic 3.5. You treat it as if it were a serious comic. Once again, you show that you don't fully understand the subject matter by making the assumption that the point of the comic is to draw porn. It's not. It's a Rule 34 joke (and if you don't know what that means, I suggest you lurk around on the Internet more before pretending that you're an authority figure on anything). It's not even acknowledged as a full strip.

I never said it was serious. I said it was disturbing. It's also unfunny and shitty. Oh yeah, and if it has nothing to do with the rest of the comic. Why is it here?

Now, the bulk of your horrendous review. It is here that your absolute disregard for the methods of research are revealed. You begin the Chelsie saga, blandly summarizing the first two pages. When you come to the third, you (for some reason) assume that Kane is an employee at the concession stand. Guess what? He's not! If you had been paying attention, you would know that he is a police officer (note the uniform and shoulder patch). And again, this is an instance when sex is used for humor, not for the sake of having sex in the comic. The fact that Dave just sighs and asks that a mess not be made shows his grudging tolerance of his employees' sexuality (see also Comic 177,

Link {{Quote|The point about the cop is bullshit. What, is this webcomic set in a place where cops completely disregard public decency laws and just fuck right in the middle of a movie theater concession stand? Give me a break.

Your misinterpretation of the fourth page bewilders me. This is clearly a serious strip. It is providing the background required for Chelsie's unique situation, since he is clearly either neglected or abused at home. Since no one cares about each other in his family, Chelsie has a warped belief of what love and sexuality are. It's not supposed to be funny at all. The same applies for the next page.

The character sees her father die and has no emotions at all. This is horrific character building. I don't care if it's serious or not. Actually, if it is serious, that just makes it even worse.

You mislabel the sixth page as the "final page of the story arc". What about the next, oh I don't know, six comics (disregarding "Sidekicks" and "Grindhouse")? Closure does not occur until Comic 58. Apparently for you, story arcs stop before their resolutions even begin.

Sorry. Kinda hard to realize a story arc's not over when the very next strip is OMG BATMAN HUMOR THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STORY ARC HURRRR.

The rest of this section consists of your overanalysis of black humor. The basic principle of cartoon and comic characters (as written by Bill Watterson himself, in his 10th Anniversary Calvin and Hobbes Collection), is that you can do anything at all and get away with it. Take the popular comic book series, "Archie". In the modern day, many of the antics caused by the characters would cause suspension, expulsion or prosecution by school authorities. When Joel tears off Matt's fur and uses it as a coat, it's a joke clearly portraying the fictional nature of the Concession universe (as if being anthropomorphic animals wasn't enough). The "screaming and agony and pain and unbelievable suffering" on Matt's part is irrelevant, because cartoon characters do not feel pain if the artist does not want them to (See also: "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?").

Fucking please, bitch. He doesn't "tear off Matt's fur", he rips Matt's skin off and uses it as a bloody skin coat. That's fucking disgusting. Once I see actual blood and a plea to not rip the character's skin off again, it ceases to be funny. That's absolutely repulsive character-building, and considering that Joel is usually the one that all the attention is focused on, it becomes even more creepy.

One last thing in this section: You mention Lorelei checking Matt out. You fail to realize, once again, that it's a joke. Immelmann is making fun of how parents often size up their childrens' partners to see if they approve of them. This is normally not a physical exam, but Lorelei is Joel's mother, after all. And Joel is… a unique individual.

Who ripped off his boyfriend's skin and used it as a skin coat. Definitely fucking unique.

I'm going to sum up the "Author biography" section quite simply: moronic. Knowing the artist personally (and apparently understanding the basic nature of human emotion better than you do), I know that not everything goes right all the time. Immy's "King of the Furries" strip from ATHOIA is a joke. Get it? Obviously not. He's making fun of his own ego. It's relatively well-known within the Concession community (and mentioned several times in the Author Comments) that his goal is to have a larger fanbase than JACK. I personally don't understand how JACK got as large a fanbase as it did, but that's besides the point. It's not angsty, it's just a relation of how he is interpreting events in his life. Immy has cyclothymia, a close cousin of manic depression.

So he's basically an egocentric creep that wants to be bigger than Jack. Wow. There's no hope for him. And he's basically manic-depressive. Well, at least now we know why his storyline is so fucking crazy.

Let's see all of the ATHOIA strips you cited:

"pain": He had just broken up with his boyfriend. I seriously doubt you've ever had a boy/girlfriend, since you don't understand that that's how most people feel after a breakup. "suffering": Joke. Joke joke joke. "patheticness" (which isn't even a word): A reflection on fantasy vs. reality. "suffering" (2): His outlook on how people deal with problems. They don't, and pretty up their solutions so they feel better about themselves. "again": Again related to his breakup, it shows a choice: fall to the dogs, or be lifted up by the man threatening to kill you? An intriguing paradox.

You also missed the humor in having the character of Matt call Joel a Mary Sue, because Joel isn't. Immy is nothing like Joel. There is a discussion on the forums about whether Joel is evil or not — and the general consensus so far is that Joel is, in fact, evil. Immelmann isn't evil, and he doesn't pretend to be.

Please. Joel makes long-winded emo tirades and does creepy shit. Immy writes long-winded emo shit and looks up to creepy fuckers like David Hopkins of Jack. The only difference between the two is that one actually acts out on his nature and the other one bottles it up because he's a chickenshit emo that knows that his desires are abnormal and shouldn't be acted upon. Plus, let's not forget that nine times out of ten, a Mary Sue does not resemble the author in the slightest. A Mary Sue is usually what an author wishes he or she was like or views the perfect person to be like. A Mary Sue can also be written to be the author's perfect partner. In other words: a sexual fantasy.

I don't think you quite caught the "bisexual" portion of his bio. I, of all people, would know his sexual habits. All I'll say is, it's not the quantity of the sex, it's the quality. And virgin asses aren't then best, believe me.

I don't want to know about his sexuality.


This review is garbage.

Unrelated note: Your avatar is very poorly drawn. Just saying.

(Commentary by The Luigiian)

Not satisfied that merely e-mailing this to BWW Admin The Luigiian was enough, Chesamo went as far as to create a thread in the forums of the 'Concession' website itself, encouraging other fans to rally with him in his hate for the big meanies (thread was created on April 17, 2009). For about half a day, dust settled.

The very next day, Chesamo requested membership on the BWW. Obviously, some were skeptical; but it was generally agreed that he ought to be given a chance. Chesamo used this chance for two things:

  1. To write a short, poorly punctuated article for an mspaint comic made by some high school kids.
  2. To write commentary on the commentary on his original anti-review. He mentioned to nobody that he had done this and it only came up later in the forums.
Though on the subject of the counter-review, I think the italics arguments against your bold italics arguments are going too far. Amusing comments in bold and italics, yes. But leaving comments on the comments is ridiculous and quite frankly a bit confusing. I'd like them removed. Either just the bold comments, or leave it as just plain old WAH WAH.
I removed the italic comments Chesamo added after the fact. I agree with you that that went too far. Chesamo: Please do not edit the Concession article again. You got to have your counter-review, it will stand as it was written. If you edit the Concession article again trying to defend it you will be banned.

But was that the end of it? Oh heavens no. Chesamo's next desperate scrabble for attention was to create an account on the 'Concession' forums posing as The Luigiian. He used this account to generally arse around until Luigiian caught wind of it and set the record straight.

What the Actual Author of this Comic Said

Not surprisingly, Immelmann didn't actually want some lunatic arguing with us on his behalf. Here are some quotes from him:

Ches, please don't keep arguing with this guy. You're arguing with the mind of a fourth grader, you're not going to accomplish anything.
You guys are ignoring the crucial fact that Ches just likes to argue.