I'm beginning to see a bunch of comics get reviewed that aren't great but aren't bad either. Putting them up along with comics like "Jack" with no mention of the vast differences in quality between the two (i.e. competent versus incompetent) bothers me.
For example, YaoihuntressEarth recently did a review of a webcomic called "Candi." Now, from my perspective Candi isn't exactly Tex Avery work but nor is it David Hopkins either. I'm bored to tears with it and don't intend on reading it, but I'm looking at some of the parts and I'm not finding it to be a nightmare. I can see a lot of people reading a comic like Candi, and most won't like it but most won't hate it either, because it's a neither/nor scenario.
The reason I bring this up is because, from my perspective anyway, us putting comics like Candi together with comics like Concession and proclaiming both "bad" with no concept of a gray area in between the two makes us look like morons. Concession, at this point anyway, is incompetent in so many ways it's not even funny. Incoherent art, incoherent storyline, it's all there, and its fans are all brown-nosing asshats that flame criticism of any kind and deliberately attempt to keep the artist from changing or improving his comic in any way. Whereas Candi could have all the bitchy main characters in the world and it wouldn't detract from the fact that it doesn't have a storyline where a character simultaneously gets cancer and starts molesting children at the hands of a demonic hero character whose sole ambition in life is killing and maiming others and reveling in murder and violence.
Don't get me wrong: Candi is not the sort of comic I would give an award to. But somehow I feel like we need to do something to separate comics like Candi and Suburban Jungle from Shredded Moose and Single Asian Female. I'm getting concerned with all the rules and procedures I put on getting reviews out there, but somehow I'm beginning to think just labeling all these webcomics as "bad" just doesn't tell the whole story.