[Webcomic] Webcomic Appreciation Jamboree
- Thread starter Allen who is Quiet
- Start date
fade
Staff member
37.2
While the art of Dubious Company can be a bit shakey at times, I feel the story, humor and characters more than make up for it.
Kinda wish Penny Arcade would stop doing comics of "things that happen to us" and get back to stuff at least semi-related to games.
GasBandit
Staff member
I kinda wish gabe would stop drawing teeth that look like can openers.
Haven't seen it yet, but apparently Randall Munroe of xkcd was on The Colbert Report tonight. Wow.
I always mentally add 'woodhouse' to it. Can't imagine why.
figmentPez
Staff member
figmentPez
Staff member
Ah, yearly updates! Only web-comic fans know this pain, the soul shattering pain that you shouldn't complain about because you know you didn't pay for it but you want to any way!
Edit:And now I'm caught up, and now I play the waiting game.
Last edited:
So *clap* anyone else still reading Kevin and Kell? I ask because if anyone read it and stopped...you didn't miss much. Don't get me wrong the comic is still good, but it doesn't feel like its building up to anything, like it could end at any time and I wouldn't shed a tear.
Yes, I still read it. The characters' lives continue to move forward. Slowly, but consistently.
--Patrick
It was the second Web comic I ever discovered, so I think the majority of the time I read it out of loyalty. It was never a "must-read" or intense storyline, but I enjoy the softer humor and seeing how the characters have evolved in the past 17 years.
True true, I guess I just miss in the early storylines when they'd have all the shocking plot-twists. "OH MY GOD! *Blank* was secretly *blank*'s relative all along?!" And of course the massive alien conspiracy. The new strips have suspsensful stories too though, I loved the poodle's asassination attempt story . I just feel there could be more honestly.
GasBandit
Staff member
She got into bed naked, and the artist covered her boobs up for the "free" version. His patreon supporters get the uncensored stuff.
I'm not sure if anyone read today's Shortpacked! or the accompanying article (below comic), but... wow. Guy(not David Willis) has some serious MRA/racist issues, and I'm glad New York Comic Con and/or Nickelodeon pulled his panel. I think I'm also a little offended because he said "Pete & Pete" filmed "whitewashed suburban" utopia, and having lived there, it is a very culturally diverse area, then and now. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed upon reflection that the casting choices weren't more diverse, but not to the point that this guy is salivating that they weren't.
Necronic
Staff member
Here's the actual interview in question.
http://flavorwire.com/480990/pete-p...-clarissa-and-nickelodeons-diversity-problem/
It's...interesting. I think it's a bit unfair to write him off as a racist/MRA. That said he makes some really conflicting points. He starts off by saying that what matters above all else is quality of the show. Then he says that if you shouldn't have a minority actor just to have them in there to appease some call for diversity. If you're going to have an Indian character then it needs to talk about him being Indian. That there is nothing Indian about Sanjay's character other than his voice. This implies that they are putting a brown face on a white body simply to appease the exec's need for superficial diversity, which is (I think) what he's trying to say when he references tokenism.
Which. Sort of. Makes sense.
But then he says that Sanjay would be a better show if he was white, because the un-necessary Indian-ness of the main character just belies the tokenism which distracts from the quality of the show.
Which. Sort of. Makes sense.
But....then I go back to his first statement. It's the quality that matters. And it seems like he has no issue with the quality of the show. Soo....? Moreover, he's really missing a major point on the value of inclusion and exposure. Having an Indian character portray a "standard" role will make the audience (youth's) more comfortable when seeing minorities in general. True, it doesn't go into all the details about how his up-bringing might be different and whatnot, but that's not the point. The goal of inclusion and exposure at this level can truly be skin deep.
And...I think he knows that. He mentions Doug and Skeeter, (who may or may not have been black). But it's not like that character acted all that differently. The racial/cultural differences between Skeeter and any other character on that show was pretty superficial. So in Doug it's ok to do this, but in Sanjay it's not?
In all honesty this point was probably the only sincerely racist statement. He maintained a double standard on the characterization of minorities in these shows, and the dividing factor, as far as I can tell, is whether they were a main character. I sort of got the impression that he did not like superficially non-white main characters, but was ok with other characters being superficially non-white.
That said, while his main argument about superficial diversity is flawed, I think that comic was a bit extreme in it's portrayal. The article itself was using what I would consider some sensational click-bait headlines that didn't really represent a complex, but very flawed argument. In some ways the editorial choices made by the comic writer and the interviewer bother me more than the interview itself. Because they chose to sensationalize this and make it simple, one-dimensional, and palatable. In my mind they both chose to exploit popular sentiment on racism to try and slam this guy on a superficial reading of his material.
Don't get me wrong. His argument is flawed. But both the article and comic author did not portray good ethics in their representation of it and did a dis-service to racism by exploiting it.
http://flavorwire.com/480990/pete-p...-clarissa-and-nickelodeons-diversity-problem/
It's...interesting. I think it's a bit unfair to write him off as a racist/MRA. That said he makes some really conflicting points. He starts off by saying that what matters above all else is quality of the show. Then he says that if you shouldn't have a minority actor just to have them in there to appease some call for diversity. If you're going to have an Indian character then it needs to talk about him being Indian. That there is nothing Indian about Sanjay's character other than his voice. This implies that they are putting a brown face on a white body simply to appease the exec's need for superficial diversity, which is (I think) what he's trying to say when he references tokenism.
Which. Sort of. Makes sense.
But then he says that Sanjay would be a better show if he was white, because the un-necessary Indian-ness of the main character just belies the tokenism which distracts from the quality of the show.
Which. Sort of. Makes sense.
But....then I go back to his first statement. It's the quality that matters. And it seems like he has no issue with the quality of the show. Soo....? Moreover, he's really missing a major point on the value of inclusion and exposure. Having an Indian character portray a "standard" role will make the audience (youth's) more comfortable when seeing minorities in general. True, it doesn't go into all the details about how his up-bringing might be different and whatnot, but that's not the point. The goal of inclusion and exposure at this level can truly be skin deep.
And...I think he knows that. He mentions Doug and Skeeter, (who may or may not have been black). But it's not like that character acted all that differently. The racial/cultural differences between Skeeter and any other character on that show was pretty superficial. So in Doug it's ok to do this, but in Sanjay it's not?
In all honesty this point was probably the only sincerely racist statement. He maintained a double standard on the characterization of minorities in these shows, and the dividing factor, as far as I can tell, is whether they were a main character. I sort of got the impression that he did not like superficially non-white main characters, but was ok with other characters being superficially non-white.
That said, while his main argument about superficial diversity is flawed, I think that comic was a bit extreme in it's portrayal. The article itself was using what I would consider some sensational click-bait headlines that didn't really represent a complex, but very flawed argument. In some ways the editorial choices made by the comic writer and the interviewer bother me more than the interview itself. Because they chose to sensationalize this and make it simple, one-dimensional, and palatable. In my mind they both chose to exploit popular sentiment on racism to try and slam this guy on a superficial reading of his material.
Don't get me wrong. His argument is flawed. But both the article and comic author did not portray good ethics in their representation of it and did a dis-service to racism by exploiting it.
Last edited:
I think what we're all missing here is the cultural significance of Salute Your Shorts in being the first show to put the word "fart" in its theme song.
GET IT RIGHT OR PAY THE PRICE
GET IT RIGHT OR PAY THE PRICE
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I read both the comic and his full article, and have to say that the guy is very much high on his own status. In his own words:
"To just shove it in there because, “Uh-oh, we need diversity,” is silly and a little disgusting."
How is diversity disgusting? We live in a diverse nation/world. Maybe it's because I grew up on the East Coast, but seeing people of different backgrounds in a group setting is pretty normal. Then there's this gem about his attitude towards racial stereotypes:
"I think that it does the culture a disservice. If I were Indian or Jewish, for example, and watched something where the characters are Jewish or supposed to be, and if it’s not specific to that, then I start to wonder, “Why are they doing this?” It becomes blackface. They’re exploiting this, they’re using this thing, they’re taking advantage of it. They’re doing it just for that reason"
So, unless the character is using specific stereotypes of that nationality, why should they be present? It is extremely possible to grow up in the US and take on the characteristics of the area you live in as opposed to familial traditions. He seems to be under the impression that "default whiteguy" is the only normal and anything else, unless being defined by their color/background/sex is unnatural. Minorities, in his opinion, are all right as long as they know their place:
"Telly, for Christ’s sake, on Salute Your Shorts, is a great example. Here’s someone who is black and a cute girl who is a tomboy who is beating all the other kids at sports. That was really important. You had Joe Torres on Hey Dude who was Hispanic and Native American because he was in Arizona, because there’s going to be someone who is that race there. "
Don't get me started on his attitude towards women:
"You might not like this or care, but it’s very hard to be a man in the publishing world. No one talks about that. My agent: woman. My editor: woman. My publicist: woman. The most successful genre is young adult novels — 85% of which are written by women. That discussion doesn’t really come up when it’s the other way around. It is 2014 now. It’s not 1995. Political correctness needs to change."
Yes, WOMEN being excepted the field are making it hard for men to publish. Then there's the whole discussion on how Clarissa Explains It All was not popular like Pete & Pete, and his dismisses it by saying it was because of Sabrina the Teenage Witch, which came out two years after CEIA.
To his, diversity is a fad, a gimmick, not an actual representation of the "real audience":
"Some of these other shows — My Brother and Me, Diego, and Legend of Korra — it’s great that they’re bringing diversity into it now. Fantastic. But you know those shows are not nearly as good as Ren and Stimpy, which was made by all white people! Or Pete & Pete, which was all white people! I’m not saying white people are better at it or anything, I’m just saying that part of it doesn’t matter. What matters is how good is it and does it hold the test of time?"
This guy has his head so far up his ass he can see his dental work.
I don't know if it was NYCC or Nickelodeon who pulled the plug, but if I was Nick and heard someone was comparing my programming choices to "blackface", I wouldn't want them representing me, either.
Last edited:
fade
Staff member
Dammit, Fade!
