Remove this ad

Lead

Sep 28 14 5:11 PM

Tags : :

I'm not going to defend Jack Chick Tracts, but I think it shouldn't be here. Why? 


It's not a webcomic.


Sure, I could try to beat around the bush by saying that some of the more mean-spirited ones were taken out of rotation (permanently), but again, the stated purpose of this website (as I'm sure as I've read somewhere) is to focus on webcomics. I could rip Funky Winkerbean a new one, but that's a newspaper comic. JCT isn't even that...it's paper tracts you order and distribute.

It's a favorite Internet whipping boy, I know, but again...not a webcomic.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad

#1 [url]

Sep 28 14 6:08 PM

Well, technically, any comic which uses Internet as its medium is a webcomic if the author intentionally creates a website dedicated to it. The comics are avialable online in a website dedicated to them, supposedly managed by the author himself...or they were. We can't remember. So, it qualifies for a review.

An exception was made for pay-per-view content, but the discussion never took off.

AGE QUOD AGIC

Quote    Reply   
avatar

oneof5

Casual User

Posts: 74

#3 [url]

Sep 4 15 1:58 PM

An interesting question. Hmm, perhaps the definition should be any comic that uses the web as its primary publishing channel, or never would have gotten off the ground without the web.

Quote    Reply   

#5 [url]

Feb 17 16 10:50 AM

oddguy wrote:
we've had this discussion a lot about a lot of other "webcomics"
generally the consensus is "eh, close enough"

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, Chick has a website where he sells the tracts, but they were paper things long before there was an Internet to complain about them on.

Now you might have something with all the online parodies of Chick tracts, but they are more interesting than the originals.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#6 [url]

Feb 18 16 12:44 AM

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/webcomic

Not that it says especially one thats originally posted online not exclusively one posted online.

Thank you and good night.

_____________________________________________________________________

People have a common defense mechanism they employ to defend themselves from the threat of contrary viewpoints. This shield they wield is the act of dismissing such contrary viewpoints by arbitrarily undermining their validity.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#7 [url]

Feb 18 16 2:49 AM

Peter Smith wrote:

oddguy wrote:
we've had this discussion a lot about a lot of other "webcomics"
generally the consensus is "eh, close enough"

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, Chick has a website where he sells the tracts, but they were paper things long before there was an Internet to complain about them on.

Now you might have something with all the online parodies of Chick tracts, but they are more interesting than the originals.

The Webcomic Police are thataway ----------> http://www.webcomicpolice.com/

Quote    Reply   
avatar

oddguy

Living Spambot

Posts: 631

#8 [url]

Feb 18 16 1:55 PM

Peter Smith wrote:

oddguy wrote:
we've had this discussion a lot about a lot of other "webcomics"
generally the consensus is "eh, close enough"

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, Chick has a website where he sells the tracts, but they were paper things long before there was an Internet to complain about them on.

Now you might have something with all the online parodies of Chick tracts, but they are more interesting than the originals.

I don't fully disagree with you. I think that at the time making fun Chick was popular and the person who wrote the review just went "It's a comic? It's on the web? good enough!". Maybe it shouldn't have been written, but honestly, I don't want to delete one of the classic reviews by BWW's original creator. It's a piece of the site's history. If enough people complain and think it shoud go I'll reluctantly do it, but I'm personally against it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#9 [url]

Feb 18 16 2:22 PM

oddguy wrote:

Peter Smith wrote:

oddguy wrote:
we've had this discussion a lot about a lot of other "webcomics"
generally the consensus is "eh, close enough"

I'm sorry, that's not good enough. Yes, Chick has a website where he sells the tracts, but they were paper things long before there was an Internet to complain about them on.

Now you might have something with all the online parodies of Chick tracts, but they are more interesting than the originals.

I don't fully disagree with you. I think that at the time making fun Chick was popular and the person who wrote the review just went "It's a comic? It's on the web? good enough!". Maybe it shouldn't have been written, but honestly, I don't want to delete one of the classic reviews by BWW's original creator. It's a piece of the site's history. If enough people complain and think it shoud go I'll reluctantly do it, but I'm personally against it.

Even if that were to happen, couldn't it be preserved in some fashion as a museum piece so to speak? Some sort of tag, note or graphic and/or put in a special section of the site to reflect its historical importance. Also, due to the decline/streamlining of published print media, we're going to be seeing the evolution/devolution (?) of some comics from print to purely being online inevitably, in fact I'm certain it's already happened.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help