Going Critical: Difference of Opinion

So back on the 23rd of August Doctor Who started up a new season (or series, Brits are weird with that).  I liked it.  Howard Taylor, the artist of Schlock Mercenary, did not.

I'm not going to highlight my disagreements or discuss the episode in particular, but more the point that differences of opinion exist.  Respecting them depends on the reasons they give.

I say that last part because there are a LOT of opinions out there about a LOT of different things, and not all of them are all that well thought out.  I'm not just talking about "that sucks" and "that rules" crowd, but people who don't put any real effort into their opinions.  You could say that about my opinion that I liked the new Doctor Who, and then promptly didn't qualify it.  I don't intend to either since that's not the point.

The point is that many people will simply parrot opinions given by others as their own.  It does take some amount of effort to state why something didn't work for you, as Howard did with that Doctor Who episode.  People are lazy, though, especially on the internet (please no comments about two weeks of lack of site updates), and often are more than happy just to take the previous person's opinion as gospel.  It's often hard to say that something is good or bad based on one review without knowing their history of reviews or seeing it yourself.

Knowing how a person reviews things does help.  Howard has a rather long list of movies he's reviewed (less TV, but some), and of course he's got all of Schlock as his background, so I think I see where he's coming from in his review.  It underwhelmed him, he saw that there were angles that could have been done better, but there were also distractions from the plot, and somethings that were a bit too heavy handed.

On my end, I tend to allow more leeway in design, let things develop over time and look more long term than the immediate plot.  I'm also more willing to overlook distractions and generally don't set my expectations too high right away.  Much of that likely comes from how I review comics, from the beginning, where weaker art, stories and characters are bound to exist and SHOULD get stronger over time.

So while Howard gets turned off by the episode (and the teaser), I'm more curious how they're going to take the ground work I'm seeing and use it in the future.

Never take any review as final, only as a guide.  Even mine are about "did I like, do I think you will" rather than "this is bad, don't touch."  Listen to multiple opinions when possible, and if there's still interest, go see it or read it yourself.

Next time, not sure.  We'll see.  Until then kiddies.

Going Critical: Exposing myself

One last thing, and this one is about me.  I mentioned early that I have a story.  The reason for this entire article series (aside from being in Texas) was because I was sitting down and working on the story again, finishing the editing and finishing it up.  Is it done?

Kind of.  See, I need some honest criticisms of it, and that's hard to get.  I've got some, which did improve the piece quite a bit, but not enough.

So this brief article is setting up what I'll be doing for the next, um, well it's going to be a while.  I'll be posting it, here, on the blog.  I know, it's not a webcomic, but the only other place I can post it is deviantart, and I really don't trust criticisms out of there.  It'll be a midweek post, Wednesday, while Friday will still be my more normal fair.

I'll be including questions that I have about my work that I'm unsure on some answers.  A few will be general questions about the story, and posted over and over again.  It may seem repetitive, but the story is meant to show an evolution of characters, so from one section of the story to the next, the answer can change quite a bit.  And there's some more specific stuff as well (I have an issue with settings).

So next week, the first section of the story will be up.  It's 105 word pages long, and each section is about 2 pages long.  Could take about a year to finish up.

I'm still nervous, of course.  This story has seen the wild once before, but it's still something I've been working on for a LONG time.  I'm almost over protective of it.  Do NOT be gentle, of course, I want an honest response.  No matter if you like the story or not, say why.  Be as clear as you can.

Also, grammar issues aren't that important to me, unless they cloud the meaning of a line.  If it's not clear, please point it out.  Misspellings, incorrect word usage, fragments and run-ons, while things that should be corrected, aren't high on my priorities list.  Story and character come first.

Next week, I again don't talk about webcomics.  Yeah, strange pattern isn't it?

Going Critical: Conclusion

I don't think I really made this clear, so I will say it out right:  Critics do not want to HATE anything.  They want it to be BETTER.  Well, good ones do.

At the very least, I never go into a comic, book or game wanting to hate it.  I love reading comics, I wouldn't have 90+ comics on my read list if I didn't.  When I look for a comic to review, I look for one I want to read.  Even Blade Kitten I went in more curious than anything else.  I want to add comics to my read list, it's something that makes me happy.

That doesn't mean those comics couldn't be better.  I loved Perchance to Dream, as a concept, but it was so frustrating the way it played out, to the point I STILL kind of want to rewrite it.  Sluggy Freelance has had it's bad moments (it's gotten better recently), and it deserves to be criticized for it's failings.  Sinfest has been changing it's general direction for a while and maybe that's not for the best.  Just to name a few.

The real point is how the creator takes the criticism.  I already highlighted a moment when the author of a fanfiction reacted poorly to my criticisms.  I guess my best suggestion is to at least understand WHY something is an issue.  Whether it's an issue to you or not doesn't matter, it's why it's one to them.  Don't try to please the critic, but understand why they aren't pleased and use it as a reference for if your work could be improved, even if it doesn't strictly go the way they want.

The best way, though, is to ask questions.  Ask the critics to clarify their points.  Express your own concerns over your work and see if they agree.  Maybe even ask if they have a suggestion or two.  Don't ignore the destructive criticisms, but don't take them personally.  Remember, good critics want your work to be better, they aren't there to destroy it and make you cry.

Finally, remember that you're your own worst critic.  And I mean you're awful at it.  You will ignore your own mistakes more often than not, over focus on things that aren't issues, or just decide it doesn't need improvement at all.  Knowing that is the first step to being a better creator, and a better critic of others.  I tried to highlight some of my issues writing this blog, but there are so many posts (200+ at this point) and so many topics and comics, I just can't remember them all, or read them all.  I know I've missed things, made mistakes or haven't described them as well as I intended.

In the end, I do the best I can, and I will continue to for as long as I am able.  That's all any critic or creator can ever do.  Working together though, we can hopefully make each other better.

Well, that's another series of articles done.  Mostly I did it because, well, I've been on the road this entire time.  Texas actually, looking for work.  So writing ahead gave me time to work on, well, getting a job that is more than flipping burgers or something.  I'm too old for that anyway.  Point is, next week, something to do directly with webcomics, I hope.  Until then kiddies.

Going Critical: Bias

If you've been reading this blog since the beginning, you'll note I try to link to every comic or website I reference.  I feel if I'm going to comment on them, I should at least let my readers read the site themselves and see if they come up with an alternative opinion, with one exception:  Penny Arcade.

I hate Penny Arcade.  And I was hating it before it went through it's recent issues with dickwolves (BOTH times now).  I won't link to it, not even in an article ABOUT it.  Why do I go to such extremes?  Bias.

I am biased against Penny Arcade.  Every thought about it brings with it disgust or rage, sometimes both.  I can't think rationally about it as a comic (as a business, I can, to a point).  Why?  I can't really describe it, not in words that don't default to nonsensical cursing at least.  Knowing I'm biased against it is kind of important because if I tried to review Penny Arcade, the review wouldn't be very good.  All comics deserve a fair hearing, and I would not provide Penny Arcade with one.

In this sense, the reader of a critic should be a critic of said critic.  Pointing out the critic's bias is essential to an active and informed audience.  Last week I linked to the Cinema Snob, which was created in response to Roger Ebert, who had a disposition against horror and other exploitative works of cinema.  Were his criticisms wrong about those works?  Maybe, but his bias resulted in him being more confrontational about those pieces than were necessary.  Does it invalidate any of his other reviews?  God no, nor does it mean his opinion of those pieces any less valid.  It does mean, though that reader must take that bias into account.

That said, it's quite easy to confuse a negative reception with bias.  Just because a critic doesn't like something doesn't mean they naturally hate it.  A bit ago the inspiration for this series came when I had a discussion with an IRC chat member about Blade Kitten of all things.  He really likes the game, and while I've not played it, just watching the Let's Play, I could see that mechanically, the game is pretty solid.  I told him what I thought of the comic and his reply was "everyone has different tastes."

Of course it wasn't about taste, I tried to enumerate that in my review, it's a badly executed comic.  Saying it's about taste is basically saying "you're biased against it because it's not what you like."  Just because I have a negative opinion about the work doesn't mean I'm biased against it.  I didn't go into it wanting to hate the comic, I NEVER go into a comic wanting to hate it, but what I found was poor, so I had to say so in the review.  I don't HATE Blade Kitten, not like I hate Penny Arcade or Diesel Sweeties.  I just found it to be a bad work.

He still assumed I hated it.  Which is funny considering he hadn't read the comic yet himself.  Still hasn't as of this writing.  Will his opinion change when he does?  No idea, but if he likes it, he likes it, life goes on.  My review is my opinion.  I tried not to be bias with it, and I don't feel I am.

Critics who say something is bad will always face this kind of reaction.  They don't necessarily hate it, they just see that it could be better.  The best defense is not go into something expecting to hate it, but that's the only way to get around the issue, and only just.  Still, not liking something means I have to take precautions, thus why I don't link to Penny Arcade, because I really don't want to deal with those who are biased the other way, they love the comic to death.  They might find this place anyway, but at least I didn't actively seek them out.

Well, that's enough of that.  Next week, we wrap this series up.  Until then kiddies.

Going Critical: Are You Entertained?

Most things critics ply their trade on is entertainment and art, and there's often very little difference between them.  There are critics for everything from webcomics (naturally) to pornography.  They aren't meant to be entertainment in and of themselves.  Sadly, however, they often are.

Especially with the growth of the internet.  The internet offers an open forum for opinions of all kinds to cross natural cultural, geographic and whatnot boarders, but it also means those opinions kind of drown underneath everyone else's opinions.  Criticisms are even harder to get through because, well as I said, critic is a dirty word to many.

Thus begins the rise of the "internet reviewer."  Reviewers are not strictly critics, but in general they are, well, entertainers.  Typically they end up on Youtube or Blip.tv where they show clips from a movie or TV show which they then make fun of.  Are they critics?  Well, kind of.  Their comments are critical that's for sure, but often it's in pursuit of a joke.  No one watches the Nostalgia Critic to get his honest opinion on a movie, they go to watch him rage about something.  That's the CHARACTER of the Nostalgia Critic, however, Doug Walker, the actor, is much more of a critic when out of character.

This trend means the most popular "critics" are usually just entertaining.  They rage, and cry and make jokes, but rarely do they do any actual criticism.  I've done it, as far back as my old Earthbeta review, albeit in my brief way.  Even my Blade Kitten review taps it, though it is far more reigned in than it could have been.  There's nothing wrong with being entertaining, at all, but if it falls back on destructive criticism, then has it done any good?

Criticism is about leading to better products, and most entertainer critics don't do that.  They are there just to yell at the product.  I suspect that a lot of the rage against critics stems from here because they don't really make constructive comments, or if they do, they're buried under jokes.  Worse, the really popular ones often have legions of fans who will agree with everything they said about the product.  This leads to entire comment sections filled with people who don't know WHY something is bad and how it might be fixed.

It also comes off as hateful and agressive.  Again, people don't watch Nostalgia Critic for honest opinions, they watch him for the rage.  His raging is funny, but it's not actual hatred for whatever he happens to be doing, usually.  Still, it comes off as trolling, as insulting just for the sake of insulting, when it's more in line with the tradition started with Mystery Science Theater 3000, of making fun of something just to have fun.

Of course, critics end up always riding that line.  Reading a critical review of anything is, well, not all that interesting.  So there's some spice to keep it interesting, or it's far shorter than it should be.  Otherwise all that remains is this kind of snooty commentary that is the opposite end of the reviewers, the snobs, whose opinions may be valid, but come off as condescending and insulting.  Of course, they then open themselves to mockery, otherwise the Cinema Snob wouldn't exist.  I try not to go into snob territory (might have crossed the line in Blade Kitten), but even honest commentary can get confused with snobbery.

Next time, I get into the real pitfall of being a critic, bias.  Until then kiddies.

Going Critical: Constructive vs Destructive

I have a rather lengthy story I wrote not to long ago sitting on my hard drive.  I think it's pretty good and have considered posting in various places, here and deviant art for example.  I don't not because I'm afraid people will say it's awful, or say nothing at all.  No, I'm afraid of four words:

"Great job.  Post more!"

Afraid because that is utterly useless to me.  It doesn't help me improve my work at all, and worse, it might encourage me to keep going with terrible ideas when they should be reigned in.  This phrase, these four words and its various forms, is a form of destructive criticism.

It's not alone of course, and the reason this kind of "encouragement" exists is because of the weakest of the three major destructive criticisms:  The troll.  Trolls, in internet parlance, are people who spout off insulting comments for no other reason than to make people respond to them, and then they can say more.  The vast majority of trolls are, well, obvious.  There are good trolls out there, that can play a community like a fiddle and drive them into frothing at the mouth rage, but most are obvious, terrible, and not worth the time.  If someone is discouraged by one of these, then they probably have greater problems than just what's in the piece.  At the same time, sometimes trolls can reveal potential problems on accident, and might be useful, but they should only be taken with a grain of salt.

Still, the internet is full of touchy-feely people who believe everyone should be encouraged, so they post things like "Great job.  Post more!"  The reason it's useless is because it doesn't say WHY it's great.  What worked to make the commenter enjoy it?  Why did the commenter enjoy it?  It says nothing.  It is meaningless, meant only to counter trolls whose opinions are meant to simply hurt.  The result is most of the comments on any given piece of work is utterly worthless to improving the comic.

And what's worse is that the creator might start buying it.  Hearing everyone and their uncle say "great job" does have a positive impact, right up until someone counters it.  Then the creator goes ballistic.  How dare someone counter their work that everyone else claims is the greatest thing EVAR.  I've had that happen once.  Remember back when I was talking about Dreamfall I mentioned I wrote a fanfiction for the series.  I was posting it to a particular board, and others were writing stories as well.  I wrote a critique on one, and while the details are fuzzy, the result was that it wasn't all that great.  The author came unglued on me, and I left the board, and stopped writing that fanfic because of it.

Finally, the last form of destructive criticism comes from the nitpickers and grammar nazis.  Their problem is they focus on things that, in the end, aren't important at all.  To a point, some of these things are important, and useful in refining a work, especially on the grammar end.  The phrasing and wording can change the meaning of a piece easily, but it's not that important in the earlier drafts.  Same with nitpicking plot elements.  It's unnecessary criticisms that, while they might be useful, often miss the point of improving a piece, instead beating on the little things.

My Not-So-Wild Review of Schlock Mercenary got this treatment from a commenter.  Considering I write most of these articles kind of off the cuff and do no editing whatsoever (because I'm lazy), I'm sure those errors are there, but it didn't affect the substance of the article, so what good did it do in the long run?  I'm not unappreciative, of course, but it doesn't help me work on expressing my ideas better.  He did follow up by saying he agreed with my ideas, but didn't add in if he had different thoughts.

Meanwhile, my brief discussion about Sinfest a bit ago resulted in a much more constructive comment.  The commenter disagreed with my suggestion that maybe something deeper is going on.  I didn't reply to the comment (sorry!) but I suspect he might be right and if I do a follow up, I may quote him on it.  That comment added to my ideas in a way that quoting off all my grammatical errors did not.

So what makes criticism constructive?  That's easy, answer one question:  Why?  Why is it good?  Why is it bad?  Why did I enjoy it?  Why do I want read more?  I say easy, of course, but it's not.  In trying to write my Supermassive Blackhole A* RE-Review, I had to struggle with why I wasn't enjoying it.  Eventually it came down to bad pacing, and a character that was a little too perfect for my tastes.  It sounds quite harsh, and it is, but I hope it comes across that I didn't HATE the work because of it, I just didn't enjoy it.  The next step is to try to present options to fix it, which I only half did, but we're not all perfect.

The point is to make the product BETTER.  But as I've said, criticism is practically a dirty word, even the constructive kind.  I'll explore why it might be next week.

Going Critical: Introduction

With 4 years behind me, I think it's time we talked about what I actually do here.  See, I'm technically a critic.  Oh, it says "reviewer" at the top, but that's not actually what I've been doing all these years, mostly.  No, I'm being a critic, not just of each comic, but the entire industry.

Considering myself a critic means I have to think differently when I read a comic, but exactly what that is might be a bit hard to describe.

But the word also carries a lot of baggage.  People don't like critics, for lots of justifiable reasons.  Often the idea is that those who can, do, those who can't, teach and those who can't teach, criticize.  This often makes critics as lesser people in this chain of creation, lumping them in with lawyers and corporate executives, groups that most people wouldn't mind seeing just simply vanish from the face of the Earth, preferably via cannon.

And yet criticism is, in and of itself, not a bad thing.  In fact, I would argue that it is a good thing, a great thing even, and vital to the evolution of art, politics, and everything else.  Criticism isn't about putting something down, or saying it's not good enough, it's about championing good work, and encouraging weaker pieces to be greater.

It is about pointing out mistakes, as necessary, but it's also meant to show how to correct those mistakes.  The issue is that it is often confused with trolling, entertainment and simple positive reinforcement.  These cloud real criticism, burying it underneath insincere comments, jokes, and well intentioned but meaningless comments.  It's so bad that finding actual, honest criticism, especially online, is difficult.

And worse yet, even the best critics often fall prey to their own biases or focus on the wrong things.  Instead they savage the topic because they don't like it and nitpick things that, in the long run, don't matter whatsoever.

It all adds up to critics being viewed as horrible people when really we just want to help.  It's getting past those issues, both on ends, that is a task worthy of effort.  With that said, this begins yet another series of articles which I can write in a week and post for a month or so.  Here I will try to explain what criticism really is, how to give it and receive it, and how to identify and avoid false criticism.  I'm not an expert in this, of course, but I'll do my best and use my own reviews to help define the point where applicable.

Next week, constructive and destructive criticism.  See you then.