Remove this ad

avatar

MarsFire

Casual User

Posts: 44

Lead

Jun 2 16 5:27 PM

Tags : :

Let me start by first off saying, yes, I am a fan of RH Junior. I keep up with his comics, his fanfiction works, his journal and various other means short of social media and his live streams. 

However, my issue with the review of this comic, I hope, does not steam from that. Instead, it comes from the language used in it. I understand the beief of 'Fight fire with fire'. But too much fire and you just destroy everything.From the start, we have this line describing the defining flaw: 
The cartoonist's personal politics are rammed down your throat like a massive 'MURICA-flavored horse-cock from start to finish

"'Murica-flavored horse-cock." 

I understand, we aren't professionals here, but there has to be a certain level of expectation here. While the comic is obviously a means for the author to convey his fustrations about the world around him, there has to be a better way to word it than with the word 'horse-cock'. Especially when a lot of the opinions he expresses can be universal.

To the Art review, we have: "At the begining its very sketchy, but passable". The term 'sketchy' is an improper term for what the review intended, I'm sure, and for art in general. Sketch images can actually be very well drawn and are usually used as a base for the final inking. A defining characteristic of sketch images is that you can still see the lines that the artist drew that were not incorperated into the final shapes of the character. The fainter lines coming off the clearer image. Compare that to the first strip of Camp Calomine. Yes, the image is very basic, Camp Calomine is a comic the artist spends very little of his time on in lew of his other works. Therefore, it is done in a more basic style while still remaining very clear and understandable. 

However, that is minor compared to the final line in the paragraph: "A bored high-school student could do this with a minimum of practice." Off the cuff shots like this abound in the review and  have no place in a review. Especially of a work that is often done on the authors time away from their major works. I will be mentioning them as we go along.

In storyline we have this: "Barely any. This is a political gag-a-day comic, with the joke usually being on whatever RHJ doesn't like, which is usually anything that isn't a red-blooded gun-totting meat-eating socialism-hating true American. Strawman central." There is a lot of vetrial in this line. The first two statments contradict each other. "Barely any" suggests that the comic was attempting to have one while refering to it as a "political gag-a-day comic" makes it clear that it was not intended for such.

Characters: "The characters in this comic are as flat and one-dimensional as the political messages in it. These aren't characters, they're political straw-men and caricatures." You will notice a pattern that the reviewer took a major focus on the comic's politics rather than much of anything else. I will not disagree with the characters being caricatures. However, in order for something to be a strawman, the fallacy requires that the argument be made up, constricted for the one having the argument to knock down. And I dare anyone to prove that such people like these don't exist somewhere in some form.

Micellanious details takes another shot at the author, stating that the reviewer prefers when RH Junior "takes his head out of his ass". This would be fine if the work was of someone that was commonly agreed has earned the 'douchbag award' as was given out to people like Jay Naylar and the like. Thus far, all we have seen is that RH Junior has beliefs different than the reviewrs and that hurts his feelings. 

The rating summery concludes with one of the lines being: "Problem is that Camp Calomine is, of his many webcomics, the one where he most often tries to push a message" as if no other work ever tries to push a message.

And that was just in the opening scores. We can go on for lines that do not belong in what need to be an objective review : 
  1. RH Junior "is a furry webcartoonist, who is also an extremely religious Christian neo-con young earth creationist. Oh ya, this is going to be fun."
  2.  "his delightful Christian persecution complex" (Crusifix in a jar of piss and burning churches, anyone?)
  3. "And there you basically have RHJ's shit-list, because between proponents of ecology and animal welfare, women's rights and child psychology... well they're all scum of the earth by RHJ's twisted logic" This is nothing short of slander as many of RH Junior's othe works include very strong women, an understanding and love of nature. And I think we all know how children can be without a solid hand to guide them.
  4. "Oh wait, oops, a bald eagle just flew into it and died - guess wind power is a terrible idea and should be abolished forever, amirite?" I believe this was brought up for an example of a strawman argument. Though we can know for a fact that eagles and other birds are killed frequently by wind turbines. You will also note there is no mention here of the solar panels which failed because they were installed in a climate that rarely gets sunshine.
  5. "a large tub of hard-right politics-grade bullshit". I wonder if it would have been ok if it was hard-left politics?
  6. "but if you are the sort of person who'd go "Praise Jesus and pass the ammo" before going to your Ted Cruz rally, then you'll quite likely enjoy pretty much all of this comic's content." I don't think God was mentioned at all in the comic.
  7. But above all else is the biography the reviewer gives for the author where he refers to him as "homopobic", How he's known for "absolutely explosive hatred of socialism and any other kind of liberal or even remotely left-wing politics". For someone who's worst crime is having beliefs that is different than others, this language is uncalled for. 
  8. I'm not asking that the review be taken down. If it is believed by enough that it is a bad webcomic, than so be it. But can we do better than this?

Last Edited By: MarsFire Jun 2 16 5:29 PM. Edited 1 time

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

peabrain

Regular User

Posts: 167

#2 [url]

Jun 2 16 6:48 PM

Oh goodness, trust me, I have the same problem with editing stuff on this site. If you click on the source option you'll have a better chance of fixing it.

As for the review, I think it's pretty tame compared to a lot of the reviews on this site. Webkilla says the art is passable, but I personally have a hard time looking at it. I'd never even give a comic with art this poor a chance (which might make me miss out on a good story, but I'm too spoiled to look at crap art these days). I can't really address your other comments since I have a hard time looking at the comic.

I actually think I can draw better than this guy, which is saying something since my cats look like oranges.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#3 [url]

Jun 3 16 1:51 AM

MarsFire wrote:
Let me start by first off saying, yes, I am a fan of RH Junior. I keep up with his comics, his fanfiction works, his journal and various other means short of social media and his live streams. 

However, my issue with the review of this comic, I hope, does not steam from that. Instead, it comes from the language used in it. I understand the beief of 'Fight fire with fire'. But too much fire and you just destroy everything.From the start, we have this line describing the defining flaw: 
The cartoonist's personal politics are rammed down your throat like a massive 'MURICA-flavored horse-cock from start to finish

"'Murica-flavored horse-cock." 

....

I'm not asking that the review be taken down. If it is believed by enough that it is a bad webcomic, than so be it. But can we do better than this?

image

You'll have your America flavored horse cock and like it, young man!

Now stand for the National Anthem.

[url=
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#4 [url]

Jun 3 16 6:46 AM

MarsFire has a point.  Camp Colomine certainly doesn't have the extreme views of Hathor The Cow Goddess or Billy The Heretic.

That said, what matters in a political comic is less what it says, but how it says it,  Does it knowingly and deliberately tell lies?  Does it engage in slander?  Does it leave out anything important?  And that is the reason to criticize any political comic.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#6 [url]

Jun 3 16 10:27 AM

To the Art review, we have: "At the begining its very sketchy, but passable". The term 'sketchy' is an improper term for what the review intended, I'm sure, and for art in general. Sketch images can actually be very well drawn and are usually used as a base for the final inking. A defining characteristic of sketch images is that you can still see the lines that the artist drew that were not incorperated into the final shapes of the character. The fainter lines coming off the clearer image. Compare that to the first strip of Camp Calomine. Yes, the image is very basic, Camp Calomine is a comic the artist spends very little of his time on in lew of his other works. Therefore, it is done in a more basic style while still remaining very clear and understandable. 

I strongly suspect the use of the word "sketchy" in this context has nothing to do with the noun 'sketch' and 'sketches' but is fact being used as an adjective to describe the quality of the art being used in the comic. sketchyˈskɛtʃi/adjective 
  1. 1.not thorough or detailed."the information they had was sketchy"
    synonyms:incompleteinadequatelimitedpatchyscrappybittyfragmentaryrudimentary;More

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#8 [url]

Jun 3 16 5:04 PM

MarsFire wrote:
Hm. In that case, I can understand the meaning a lot better. 

Perhaps some clarification? Perhaps using "minimalistic" or "basic"?

I'm no art critic outside the most basic of parameters so I would leave that up to the experts to decide.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

MarsFire

Casual User

Posts: 44

#9 [url]

Jun 13 16 6:13 PM

It's been ten days and so far we have Peabrain who says this is tame and Log Tom who has a few questions for it.

But so far, I haven't seen anyone who had any reason why this series should be on the wiki or should be on there with such a degree of vetrial it has.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#10 [url]

Jun 13 16 6:31 PM

MarsFire wrote:
It's been ten days and so far we have Peabrain who says this is tame and Log Tom who has a few questions for it.

But so far, I haven't seen anyone who had any reason why this series should be on the wiki or should be on there with such a degree of vetrial it has.

There's a difference between criticizing a webcomic because it puts out views you dislike (unless they're particularly extreme), and criticizing it because it does a bad job of it.

The original review of Adam4d was scrapped because the reviewer attacked it for being Christian; I wrote a replacement review which pointed out how it failed as a Christian-themed webcomic.  But I don't plan on working on the review of this one; either the original author needs to do a better job, someone else has to redo it instead, or we might as well just dump it.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#12 [url]

Jul 16 16 8:35 PM

Long Tom wrote:

MarsFire wrote:
It's been ten days and so far we have Peabrain who says this is tame and Log Tom who has a few questions for it.

But so far, I haven't seen anyone who had any reason why this series should be on the wiki or should be on there with such a degree of vetrial it has.

There's a difference between criticizing a webcomic because it puts out views you dislike (unless they're particularly extreme), and criticizing it because it does a bad job of it.

The original review of Adam4d was scrapped because the reviewer attacked it for being Christian; I wrote a replacement review which pointed out how it failed as a Christian-themed webcomic.  But I don't plan on working on the review of this one; either the original author needs to do a better job, someone else has to redo it instead, or we might as well just dump it.

Just to clarify, I wasn't attacking it for being Christian (insert obligatory: some of my best friends etc) but for it being written by what I saw to be a hypocritical Christian. Then just taking the purely factual accuracy of the comic (as we do for all comics, religious or not), for pushing the demonstrated false narrative about Planned Parenthood. When everyone from the Far Left to Fox News is in agreement that there was no basis to the claims you're still putting in your comic, you might be in the wrong here. There was more where that came from.

Still, no-one was more relieved than I when my review was nuked. I just could not make it work and I was clearly out of my depth. Learnt my limitations after flying far too close to the sun. Have since then sent myself quietly back to the start to learn more about how to write and finally ready to get back on the horse with some things that are IMO much simpler by virtue of just being fiction. I can in all fairness say that I think trying to review this one broke me for quite some time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#13 [url]

Jul 17 16 6:15 AM

Shan wrote:

 

Just to clarify, I wasn't attacking it for being Christian (insert obligatory: some of my best friends etc) but for it being written by what I saw to be a hypocritical Christian. Then just taking the purely factual accuracy of the comic (as we do for all comics, religious or not), for pushing the demonstrated false narrative about Planned Parenthood. When everyone from the Far Left to Fox News is in agreement that there was no basis to the claims you're still putting in your comic, you might be in the wrong here. There was more where that came from.

Like I said, none other than columnist Charles Krauthammer had been taken in temporarily, and he isn't a Christian, or even right-wing (unless you call any criticism of Democrats "right-wing").  I assume Adam Ford really was taken in rather than deliberately lying, so I left that part out.  Some people genuinely believe that Reagan somehow managed to delay Iran's releasing of American hostages until after the 1980 elections-as if Reagan had that power, or it would have made any difference.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#14 [url]

Jul 17 16 7:41 AM

It was a learning experience. I don't regret it insofar as we learn from our failures. Like how these reviews are reviews of webcomics, not a polemic political discussion. I think I was getting part of the way there with subsequent edits removing the worst of what clearly in retrospect (and probably should have been evident in advance) but it was mostly likely for the best to burn it to the ground.

I wasn't really thinking of it as a Democratic/Republican thing, more of a Truth/Lie situation. Charles Krauthammer of all people should have known better, though. I guess the test would be asking Adam4d what he thinks *now* the majority full spectrum of media (and much more importantly the Justice Department) seems to be largely in agreement but I don't really care enough to find out.

I probably was also carrying the resentment the fact that this terrible webcomic that is utterly bereft of value and worthwhile content is making more money than all the talented creators I sponsor on Patreon put together. At last count, all 29 of them and that includes The Adventures of Dr McNinja.

Moving on, I know this is technically "The Bad Webcomics Wiki" but I just wanted to say that I like what you're doing with the good reviews (counter examples, I guess you could call them) of genres, areas, even people who are typically considered "not good". If more of those present themselves, you could keep doing them. It's not diluting the mission statement so to speak because there's a connection in a sense tying them to Bad Webcomics (See, this is a religious/political/sometimes an author who's work qualifies etc who's done good here - see it is possible).

Quote    Reply   
avatar

MarsFire

Casual User

Posts: 44

#15 [url]

Jul 17 16 8:46 AM

Can we talk about a few lines in this? 

"Basically he's been cranking out furry and non-furry webcomics since the early 2000's. Getting an exact date on this is difficult, as he has purged most of his online galleries of his older non-comic work, and he didn't date all his earliest webcomics. To absolutely nobody's surprise, this is because of his delightful Christian persecution complex, because all those crazy feminist Democrats hate his freedoms."

When has he said this? Or anything to that effect? 

And then here:Here we learn that the camp is sponsored by, among others: "The ASPCA, PETA, Greenpeace, The Green Party, The NAACP, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the N.O.W."And there you basically have RHJ's shit-list, because between proponents of ecology and animal welfare, women's rights and child psychology... well they're all scum of the earth by RHJ's twisted logic - and this is the comic where he shows you that."Here we learn that the camp is sponsored by, among others: "The ASPCA, PETA, Greenpeace, The Green Party, The NAACP, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the N.O.W."And there you basically have RHJ's shit-list, because between proponents of ecology and animal welfare, women's rights and child psychology... well they're all scum of the earth by RHJ's twisted logic - and this is the comic where he shows you that."

The favortism of the original author is clear here when it is known that quite a few of those organizations have done rather despicable things themselves. PETAs mass killing of animals in their care, That's all I can think of at the moment but I'm sure research into each organization can find reasons why someone of RH Junior's beliefs would think badly of them without him resorting to "twiste logic". Mainly, I think we can refrain from making them look like poor victims of RHJ's words.

"hate-boners for enviromentalism, foreign cultures, vegetarianism and anything else RHJ doesn't like in the mix."

Can we not write things to make RHJ look like a racist or something without good cause. 

 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Crazy J

Regular User

Posts: 121

#16 [url]

Aug 18 16 6:22 AM

I got to agree with MarsFire on this one. It seems that Webkilla is more upset by the political views of the comic's author then whether or not Camp Calomine is actually bad.

It is a really poor review.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#17 [url]

Aug 19 16 3:40 AM

Crazy J wrote:
I got to agree with MarsFire on this one. It seems that Webkilla is more upset by the political views of the comic's author then whether or not Camp Calomine is actually bad.

It is a really poor review.

I did take out Webkilla's soapboxing.  But he did have a point about the webcomic being in-your-face political preaching, so I left that in, especially since it basically preaches to the choir.  I noted that when I wrote my review of I Drew This by D. C. Simpson.  And he did have a point about reusing the same pictures with different word balloons in a number of strips.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Crazy J

Regular User

Posts: 121

#18 [url]

Aug 19 16 9:00 AM

Camp Calomine is is actually not that bad and I kind of like it. So it pokes fun at tree hugging hippies for going overboard. Big deal. You dont have to be a total wacko in order to care about the Earth. Heck, even I recycle and I vote republican.

Now if you want a comic that will cause Webkilla's head explode and commits all of these sins but only cranked up to 11, then try : http://hopenchangecartoons.blogspot.com/

Quote    Reply   
avatar

MarsFire

Casual User

Posts: 44

#19 [url]

Aug 20 16 7:55 PM

It's all good by my opinion. I don't know if RH Junior would particularly like it or dislike it, I'll leave it to someone else to point it in his direction. But then again, i take it that most of you don't care. Or hope that the response would be funny.

So, are we going to cover his other works? I would love to see Goblin Hollow done next.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#20 [url]

Aug 21 16 1:16 AM

MarsFire wrote:
It's all good by my opinion. I don't know if RH Junior would particularly like it or dislike it, I'll leave it to someone else to point it in his direction. But then again, i take it that most of you don't care. Or hope that the response would be funny.

So, are we going to cover his other works? I would love to see Goblin Hollow done next.

Maybe you should try it yourself.  I wasn't impressed with Webkilla's review and cut half of it out.  You can do better.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help