Tags : :
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
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 :
- 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."
- "his delightful Christian persecution complex" (Crusifix in a jar of piss and burning churches, anyone?)
- "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.
- "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.
- "a large tub of hard-right politics-grade bullshit". I wonder if it would have been ok if it was hard-left politics?
- "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.
- 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.
- 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