Quote:
Originally Posted by Bum Bill Bee
I actually found this fascinating. Its kind of like an Honest Trailers for webcomics, then?
|
It could be, but it comes off as far more biased and condescending, specifically calling out individuals in ways that I'm not comfortable with.
Part of it seems to be the mixed "message" - any given article can fluctuate in its tone which is probably perfectly clear in the author's head ("here's where I do things funny, but over here's where I'm being a tad more serious, while over here's where I'm being straightforward, while over here my sarcastic and subtlety meters are both getting blown out... obviously!") but when read it's less clear and comes across as mean-spirited more than anything else, even when I agree with a fair number of points (which, for some articles I really do, while for others I really do not).
Part of it is the ramble-y semi-organized nature. While they follow a template, being a reaction piece (which is what the writings are) makes it less coherent in terms of tone and obfuscates the points attempting to be made (other than "this is bad and you should feel bad").
The last part is simply that there is a heavy and unfair criticism of anyone - anyone - dealing with money, legally or otherwise, a tendency to accuse things of sexuality regardless of their actual tone, and a seeming disconnect between the tone struck by the webcomic and the tone the author of a given piece thinks the webcomic should strike, regardless of the moral, ethical, or cultural basis for the webcomic itself. As an example, the gist of "This comic is totally sexual, so really the author should just use swear words and show bewbs in all the shots instead of pretending to be all innocent!" is actually something that came across
a lot when I was reading the articles... which is, you know, really weird. Lots of libelous statements (probably mixed in with some true or accurate ones) about the sexual perversions, preferences, or financial dispositions of various individuals, their particular morals and ethics, and their individual outlook on things over and beyond what one could reasonably infer from their work... as well as insightful and well-researched points that had citations to back them up.
The problem is when the two are side-by-side presented with an apparent equal weight in a tone-empty text-based format.
So I'd not really say they're similar, though they may well try to be.