Saturday, July 24, 2010

Reviewing a Bad Review

I’ve played some Street Fighter II in my day. Can’t say I was any good at it (I wasn’t too shabby with the Marvel versions though). One character I always would pick was E. Honda. He was a strong button mashing character. On those rare occasions where I cornered a player and did the thousand slap move, I would win, then E. Honda would tell his busted face foe:

“Can’t you do better than that?”


Last week my webcomic, Lucky Dawg, was targeted by the website “The Bad Webcomics Wiki”. After a minute of looking at the site, I instantly knew why I was suddenly targeted. I had just begun advertising on the webcomic Exiern. The “reviewer” apparently has hate for this comic because it’s sexual and they have a pay window, so (God forbid!) the creator can make some money. Seeing that I threw a Project Wonderful ad up there, my comic must be “bad” as well. Up on Bad Webcomics Wiki Lucky Dawg goes.

Now Lucky Dawg is up there, but it’s just listed. All the other webcomics on this site has reviews and such on them. Lucky Dawg is just there on a rather blank page with just the “Defining Flaw” being: “Neo-Dark Agean violence excess disguised as a comic.”

I go into this silly statement in a blog post during an update on LD. And in doing so, I had one hope. That my mockery would bait the “reviewer” into writing some more on that blank page. It worked. It made my day.

Gotta say, he didn’t put that much effort into it. Or maybe he did. Maybe he can’t do better than that. I’ll copy & paste:


“Alan Moore surely didn't thought back in 1986 that his groundbreaking deconstruction of the superhero genre Watchmen would set off an avalanche of third and fourth tier copycats rolling over the comic market, burying every classical aspect of the superhero underneath them.

Where classical superheroes were individuals transcending the abilities of the common people, yet always concerned about their sorrows and needs as well as imbued with an indomitable sense of justice, the typical Dark Age Superheroesprotagonists were little more than mindless, musclebound bullies lacking any morals whatsoever who answers to every problem was smashing it to bloody chunks at best and homicidal loons who were downright villains, but could still find some worse to beat up.”


Wow! Mind you, that was only two sentences. If you made the mistake of reading that out loud, I’ll give you a moment to catch your breath from the lack of periods.

Some food for thought, as you suck down that inhaler. He mentions “1986”. Now do you think 1986 is a year he’s lived through or a year he’s only heard of? Hmmm.....

Now, that wasn’t really a review of Lucky Dawg, was it? Merely a general statement on the post-Watchmen modern era of comics. I’m not even sure if that’s a proper representation of Lucky Dawg. Maybe the next sentence will review (don’t worry, it’s a short one):


“Now that the Dark Age Of Comics has ended (or so we're told by the Big Two), you could think comickers had learned rom the mistakes of the past.”


Now learn him!

Is it just me, or does “comickers” sound offensive?

Anyway, I, or anyone else, should not do things because Marvel & DC aren’t doing it? Where is your independent spirit, man? That’s the fun thing about creating. By taking what the big guys are doing and turning it on it’s ear, or going the opposite direction with it. Going to limits they just aren’t allowed to go. Seriously, if you just want to read Marvel & DC, go right ahead. They make excellent comics. Why are you even wasting time online looking at webcomics that aren’t Marvel or DC?


“Cue Adam J. Monetta.”


Yup. That’s my name. My REAL name. I’m not some ominous poster that won’t put his name on his work, even though it tells you exactly how to do it right on top of the page.


“He's… err… some guy. Who wants to make comics really, really badly.”


“Want”? You ding-dong, I am MAKING comics. It’s why you took the time to write this.


“His other crap comic didn't made the cut at Zuda,...”


BZZZT! Wrong again. It did make the cut. That’s why it was on the site in the competition. Zuda chose me. Blood Hunter won the popularity poll.


“...so he went basically "I'm gonna show my Magna Opi to the whole Internet, so it can realize my Epicness and I get published professionally! Natch!"


First of all, it’s Magna Opera. Come on, kid! The internet is right in front of your face. Take a minute and Google it.

Secondly, yeah, that’s the point. If you’ve ever been to a “Breaking In” panel at a con or follow CB Cebulski on Twitter, this is how an unknown writer, like myself, does it. I create, then I display. It’s actually a pretty easy concept to understand.


“Way to got, Mister. They chances that your drivel will…”


Hold on. I need a minute to reboot and process this. The gibberish levels are through the roof. Listen, kid, can I offer some advice? Read what you write out loud. It will improve your output greatly. Okay, let’s try this again:


“Way to got, Mister. They chances that your drivel will see a print release not financed out of your own pocket but by some big publisher tend to nil, but I'm going ahead of myself.”


Two words. Robert Kirkman.

Boom! Roasted!

And there you have it. Absolutely no reason was ever given why Lucky Dawg should be on this Bad Webcomics Wiki site. Just a personal attack on me that was rather weak and poorly written. To my would-be “reviewer”, instead of now angrily creating ten more revisions to the Lucky Dawg page, why not just call it a day. You are not good at this, I’m sorry. Instead of being negative, why not give being positive a shot. Actually enjoy something. Who knows, you might be better at that.

Peace.

7 comments:

  1. Nice. Personally, I rather like Lucky Dawg, if but for one simple reason: In most cases (mainly folklore and D&D), lycanthropes are seen as evil. And in Twilight, cannon fodder. I like it when shifters are being portrayed as the good guys for a change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks. I agree, there wasn't enough hero werewolves out there. Heh, at least not when I started Lucky Dawg.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are the White Wolf games, where they're just trying to survive and bring an insane world back into balance, the Kate Daniels series by Ilona Andrews, the Anita Blake series by Laural K. Hamilton (if you're into that sort of thing), but beyond that, not so much. Well, that's not a fan-based story or pic from the furry fandom, anyway...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey, it's gone.

    Seems like you won over that bunch of wannabe Eberts after all. :3

    ReplyDelete
  5. The review you mentioned was never up to begin with. I checked with the administrators (and the "Recent Changes" page and find no trace of it.

    So either you're making this up or the site is malfunctioning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey, sweetie, tell me when did you see that review? I've been a member of the Bad Webcomics Wiki for over three years now, and I have not seen or heard of it during that time. Tell me, are you that desperate for attention that you are cappable of making up stories?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey, dearest, this review was only up for a very brief time and was
    deleted in shame after my blog post. I don't make many of them, but
    they knock it out of the ballpark.

    Yes, it was wiped from your site (sad face), but thanks to the Wayback
    Machine website, you can see this has been posted on the Bad Webcomics
    Wiki way back in July 2010.

    http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://badwebcomics.wikidot.com/lucky-dawg

    Unfortunately only the preliminary review is up, which is a good thing
    I copied the true review. I think a little thanks for preserving your
    history is in order. Your welcome, in advance.

    Remember, Big Brother is always watching. Every post, every text,
    every tweet is being recorded for your own protection.

    ReplyDelete