"So I read the review, and I think it highlights many of the problems with this comic satisfactorily. I still read the thing, but I'm a simple man.
Still, a couple things prompted me to make an account and post here (first post, hi!)."
Hi! Review author here!
"First, the art rating: 2 out of 5. This seems a bit low, given how the comic has operated for the last couple years or so. I'll definitely grant that the art in the begining was horrid, but it has improved VASTLY in that amount of time, faults and all. Especially given that the artist uses all his time making the comic while trying to improve (though this does and has lead to a somewhat schitzofrenic shift in style, but that's to be expected when someone is improving). Other reviewers on this site tend to praise a comic's art if/when it improves, but no such grace was granted here. It's also jarring given some of the other 2-star comics reviewed on this wiki:
I feel that, despite its flaws, the art in Grrl Power overshadows these, and should be a 3. Maybe 4, but the reviewer doesn't like the fact that sometimes characters go into a cartoony pose for comedic effect, nor does he approve of the use of fanservice (which, by the way, is usually lampshaded, and is parody-like in nature). So while some things are subjective (style preferences) and others are objectively good or bad (like anatomy), it's hard for me to swallow that the reviewer thinks G.P. is on the same low-level of the stuff posted above."
Ok, maybe I did rate the art a bit low, but it doesn't deserve a 3 or 4. I'd be willing to bump it up to a 2.5 at MOST. I also agree that Dominic Deegan needs to be rated lower. The reason I rated the art so low isn't because of the first comics, or because of comparisons to other reviews. (Honestly the only reason I looked at another review when writing mine was to steal formatting for the wiki.) In fact I even mentioned in the review that the art got better as time went on. All of the reasons that the comic was rated so low were mentioned in one way or another in the review. First, the rapid switches between art styles. The artist has shown that they are capable of some quality art, yet they repeatedly take shortcuts with the laziest manga styles and some of the worst face-faults I've ever seen. If the artist wants to draw the webcomic like its a 90's comic book, awesome! Just stick to it and stop drawing overexaggerated features. Does the artist want to do cartoony so Sydney can continually get away with the Looney Tunes idiocy she constantly does? Fine, but that ruins any hope of you getting any of your characters to actually look menacing or badass. I rated the art so low because it's so inconsistent when the artist has shown he's capable of doing better. Laziness, pure and simple, and it makes it obnoxious to read.
"On a related note, the reviewer didn't even know "how many people" work on the comic. For the record, it's ususally just the author, but he occasionally outsources coloring duties (about once every 4 pages you'll noticed the colors seem to abuse the burn tool, that's the other guy). Bad form on the reviewer for not being able to find that out."
You know, that just makes it worse. I have no idea how one person can be so inconsistent. As I said before, laziness. Then again, I was being lazy when I decided that I was getting sick of reading the comic and didn't really care about diving into this guy's personal life. As far as I can tell the author seems like a decent fellow, and I'd really hate to find something that changes that opinoin.
"Second, the reviewer seems to have beef with there not being enough action in a super hero story. I feel this is an immature view of what the super hero genre is allowed to produce, or alternately, that a comedy series can't be allowed to have super heroes for characters. In fact, I think he would be better served to view this as a comedic series, not a super-hero story. Even if it's not humor that the reviewer likes (or feels that it falls flat because god forbid the "straight man" isn't 1-dimensional and allowed to have some fun, too), it's still there."
First of all, the comic spends the first 300 pages trying to establish these guys as superpowered badasses, and you think I'm immature if I find fault when the comic finally gets around to showing us that they're not just blowing hot air? This is exactly what I was talking about with the writing being schitzophrenic. The comic is like a college freshman. It has NO IDEA what it wants to do with itself. It has no direction. Even then, all of the stuff that it gives half-hearted attempts to try and do, it doesn't do very well at all. I would rather the comic pick one thing that it wants to be good at, and focus on it. If that happens, the writing might not be awful. Two, no one is saying that the comic can't have jokes, but it would help if they were actually funny. Sydney is obnoxious and tries to get across slapstick and reference humor, which none of it is done well or entertaining. Maxima is meant to be the grounding force and the relatable "you guys are ridiculous" but that's ruined when she starts doing wacky shit too. If you think the straight man in a comedy has to be one dimensional, you don't know good writing. Often times the straight man is the most fleshed out. The point is that the reader can relate to them, and when that feeling is gone, there's no getting it back. The others are just varying degrees of assholes, and are rarely entertaining.
"For instance, the page that the reviewer edited to make it "flow better"? Well, he cut out a joke to do so (he also said he cut "Harem's" lines when I think he meant to say "Sydney's")."
I meant to say Harem. Remember that part in the review about how I said the writer treats his audience like they're idiots? That's a perfect example. The art did a good enough job conveying that momentum is conserved through teleports, and Sydney's "You tele-orient to the ground!" is really all the explanation that is needed.
Jokes are this comic's #1 priority, so while that page DOES read better from a dramatic standpoint, it nullifies half the reason for this comic's existence (he also cut out the probably-important fact that the bad guy knows that Succubi actually exist, which, given the current storyline involving how no one is SUPPOSED to know that, is probably important! ...Or a giant plot hole, we'll have to wait and see which!).
One, if jokes were the comic's #1 priority, why have all the exposition? Oh wait, it's because the comic HAS NO PRIORITIES. It tries to be a comedy, a drama, a fanservice show, and a bunch of other genres at once.
Two, that scene is meant to be dramatic. The dramatic overhead angle at the end, the buildup with the bad guy, the dramatic reveal... it's all meant for the page to be dramatic. The jokes just deflate the buildup that the earlier lines are pushing for.
Three, this comic does not know what subtlety is. The fact that it was DABBLER that knew what Vehemic Energy was, and that no one else had any idea was a clue to the reader that hey, maybe his powers are magically based. After Dabbler's earlier explanation to X, we already know what Tantric Energy is, and didn't need a refresher. It wouldn't be too far of a leap from there for the reader to assume that maybe, just maybe, Vehemence gets more powerful with violence in the same way Dabbler gets stronger with lust. But you know, that is getting back to the whole "don't treat the reader like an idiot" thing.
Four, at the moment and time of that page, it is completely irrelevant whether or not Vehemence knows whether or not Dabbler is a succubus. He's a gigantic threat that is right in front of them. If it ever becomes a plot point later, it's probably the easiest and most logical hand wave the comic could make.
V: "Hey, succubus."
Sydney: "She's not a succubus! She... She's..."
V: *Holds out hand for a handshake condecendingly* "Hi. Big guy. Demonic powers. Fueled by violence. I'm sure we've met?"
See? Much more natural progression.
"And to be fair, the author is aware of all this. In many of his blogs, he talks about how much stuff he's cut from the current scene or page. If Mr. Barrack were really as much of an unfocused hack as the reveiwer wants us to beleive, G.P. would be twice as long as it already is (or rather, we'd still be in the parking lot battle and the reveiwer would probably be complaining that the action scene is too long instead of there not being enough action)!"
Dear lord. There was an EVEN LONGER version?! Excuse me while I fill up my flask with Jameson and take a few nips in the process. As far as I can tell, this isn't really a defense of the writing.
"So, in short, I'm not saying that the comic doesn't belong here. Despite my defense of it, I will agree in hindsight that a comic that's been running for 6 years, with around 470 installments to its name, having only a single scene that engages in the expectations of its surface genre... yeah, that's kinda lame. But I still think it's viewed too harshly based on the reviewer's flawed expectations and standards (He says the creator only has a fraction of the talent that Marvel/DC comic artists have. I've seen plenty of those comics where the art is worse or at least less appealing than what we see in G.P.), and that an amendment to the review should be considered."
So far the only thing you've convinced me of changing is MAYBE adding a .5 to the art score. To tell you the truth, I thought I was holding back and being nice when I was writing it. I still stand by all of my previous points about the comic.