Nope, it's fine just as it is if you ask me. However, I would like to havce Gay Naylor higher in the rank. He deserves it. And my undescriptable hatred for him is one out of million good reasons for to go higher.
Hello folks. Sorry I didn't come back earlier, my phone cables are still not fully fixed.
On the subject of Naylor: Strangley enough, and I'm sure I know how this is going to end, I found his latest story arc very much hilarious. I'm getting laughs similar to Perry Bible Friendship (when it hits the mark). You could say whatrver you want. I'm also finding it ironic that his latest page is considered by his fans to be a homage to Calvin and Hobbes, which is what Gryphoneer has been accusing of in the review.
Speaking of which; as I look back at the review I'm no longer noticing any references to Objectivism in the comic, following the Muffin Story Arc, no word boxes and the story arcs are showing subtle signs on when they are coming to an end.
It does leave me thinking a bit.
I don't usually hate webcomic creators. When criticising webcomics, I tend to focus more on what's done than who does it, as sometimes behind a shitty and offensive webcomic there's just a guy or gal who just doesn't know better and is a lovely person would you just talk with them.
That said… here's a list of some other peeves I have in relation to authors to present to the court!
Randall Munroe - There's the whole "shamelessly making money out of a shitty-shitty webcomic" business, and also the fact that he clearly milks the nerd cred from merely a degree in physics and working in NASA "making code compile"[his words, really]. He once boasted about a "Radiohead-like give as much as you want" deal he was doing on a shirt(or poster, the details fail me) but instead of making it free by default(you know, Radiohead-style) it was priced at $20. For a polo shirt with a stick figure, if I remember correctly.
Then again, my biggest gripe is with his fanbase, what with their "true nerd" creed, calling anyone who doesn't get the comics "not a true nerd" but then ignoring that completely when Randall screws up and saying it's just a comic and supposed to be funny. Except when it's not. You catch my drift.
Steve Napierski - Generally immature and locked in a frat-boy mentality and refusing to let go from it. Also one of the few webcartoonists I had the opportunity to interact with and, despite my general unpleastantness towards his comic, I thought at first he was a nice guy. Then he devolved into a "I know what I am doing" discourse citing numbers as a proof of his success(fair enough) and quality(not so much) and trying to prove his comics are not misogynistic just because a seemingly abnormal number of women actually like and share them(also known as the "but I know a lot of black people" defense). He's just a lost soul.
Noelle Adams - Otherwise just yet another bad webcomic artist, she got her time to shine when she closed her comics' comments after a lovely encounter with the anon folks(i.e., her comics were posted on /v/, with the expected result). By one side, closing the comments is a rather sensible response to a neverending assault by hatemonger teenagers on the internet. On the other hand, throwing a hissy fit and throwing indirects at your critics, not so much.
And uh… I guess that's it. I don't usually care for who draws the comics unless they're really good or really bad. So, for me "least favorite" is a rather mild qualifier.
Meh-eh. Let the thread go on.
And ah, yes: from Shaym's list, Ryan Sohmer is the one I think I despise the most. I know Cheung is a closeted necrophile, Bleedman is a not-so-closeted pedophile, Buckley is arrogant beyond measure and Naylor… err… I don't really know Naylor. But anyway, Sohmer is just plain annoying to the cube.
Also: no Mookie? What became of him, after all?
What about ol Fred Gallagher of Megatogayo infamy?
And also that self-important Tom Preston guy. I mean, I'll concede he knows what he's doing, but he's a bit of a prick when it comes to his opinions, obviously.
HOW COULD I FORGET THIS ONE!?
Our lovely story begins with a promising cartoonist with a lot to show to the world. Being creative enough to make herself of a reputation with such a curious art style. She also won a lot of fans due her works about youth in a serious yet hilarious form.
After letting herself lose and adding sex in one of the most weird ways during her first work, se begun a run down the hill to her demise.
Her writting skills were flushed away in the moment she switched you-already-know-all-the-story. She keeps going down. And she expresed herself in favor of this mess.
…is it a trend that authors that dwell into fetish business become unable to ever go back?
…Is Jollyjack an exception?
As aggressively unsexy his inflation/hyper fetish porn is, he knows how to write believable and funny characters and draw sweet-looking stuff.
That (and the fact he appears to be a pleasant, smart person) makes him in my book a better person than any Objectivist loon or dude who wants to kill, dismember and fuck the remains of little girls.
I think the Foglios are another webcomic creators who have delved into fetish business in the past and still manage to came out well.Of course they are no longer doing it now .Not while their kids are still children( that was what they said), at least.
Legace? Yeah, I`m with you there.
I say the worst because she started off with some stuff that was promising (Eerie Cuties) and then it became "BUY MY MERCH AND WANK TO MY UNDERAGE ART!"
I know it`s legal in my backward country but…14 year old girls?
Eh, I'm going to have to disagree on Eerie Cuties. If anyone wanks to Nina, it's strictly their bad; I'm a pretty sick bastard in my own right but every time she pops up I can feel my kidneys shutting down as my expression uncontrollably contorts into the same goofy D'AWW duckface I make when I browse Daily Squee.
As for the older girls…face it, sexual development starts before eighteen, and making comedy about that does not equal making wanking material or advocating pedophilia. (…Which is a tag I think some folks sling around a little too quickly; Bleedman or Naylor, certainly. In print I'd add Naifeh. But not Legace.)
If EC has a problem, it's pacing that's slowed to a crawl, and the frequent attempts to connive me into reading Magick Chicks, which is never going to work. (Ma3 is also on my no-fly list because the central characters are all pathetic assholes, and good God I've never seen sex made so unsexy.)
I give you the point on the sexual development argument. However, several times, these teens are heavily sexualised. A good example of it are the promotional wallpapers. Basically, they're screaming "JUMP THEM!". And they're given as an incentive for purchasing the printed comic.
I have to give another point on the fact it doesn't portray serious sexual situation involving these kids for the sake of "sexy" fun. However, it doesn't approach that sexual awakening teenagers pass through when those times. They just grew boobs, pubs, and they're now desperate looking for sex. Maybe I regret that last part later, but what else, just take a look at what MC is to see where I'm going.
Eflint, the maker of The Chronicles of Loth. Most of these other hacks are at least trying to make something good; Flint intentionally makes his comic cliched in the hopes that it will be published. His crappy comic uses misleading borderline NSFW advertising to lure gullible people to view it, only to find lizard-boobs, ugly manga artwork, and really bad writing.
His flaw as a person is that he intentionally makes a cliched piece of crap and then gets upset when someone calls him out for making crap. He fails logic forever.
Jay naylors story writing is really strange, everything that he writes is always about sex, but it's like some kind of sick twisted porn, it's comics like that that give furry a bad name; I noticed there was an article on bad web comics wiki that was talking about concession, and there also an article about the author on U18chan about it; I think that in general freelance artists aren't always pleasant, and yeah they can't handle criticism very well either, because for them it's easy to talk shit behind a computer screen than to say it in person, they're just vindictive and self absorbed people, who just want to get the Internet to pay attention to them, and that they don't want to realize is that it's really not a good look for them, not to mention that their story writing is nostalgically wrong