The following refers to happenings on deviantART, so, if you are not familiar with the site, I don't know how much of this you will follow.
I am not intending to start a war or to offend anyone. Rather, I want to give my opinion on the matter, which is why I'm posting it here rather than my dA journal because there is the risk of causing an uproar.
Now, let's begin.
It's no secret that there are many, many wolf/canine related comics on dA. Anyone who's been on the site for a little while can surely see that, as for the past few years wolves have saturated the popular page and people's favourites extensively. Perhaps it has always been this way and I'm just terribly inobservant, but I don't remember wolves being such a big deal when I started out on dA six years ago.
I'm not here to bash wolf lovers and wolf artists though, especially considering that would be hypocritical on so many levels. Wolves are my heart and soul and a good deal of my own gallery is consumed by them.
Equally, I am not here to bash those who have wolf comics, but rather I am here to discuss this, for it is constantly up for criticism and in the spotlight.
There is no way that I am going to waste my time and yours by listing every single wolf comic there is on dA; for one, I don't know all of them and for two I'm sure it would need an index and a half in itself. Of course, there is one wolf comic that will likely instantly pop into a dA user's mind when asked to name one.
The Black Blood Alliance, by deviant KayFedewa, with backgrounds done by deviant Esda06.
While I have very little problem with the BBA itself (I do read it and purchased the first issue), my vexation stems from the people who constantly compare every other wolf comic in dA existance to it. I understand that we will always make comparisons, and that indeed, there are those who blatantly copy the series, but not every wolf comic is going to be a BBA rip-off or even BBA inspired. It's easy to see that the BBA bears the brunt of being the main comparison piece because of its popularity, however, that does not mean that it is the only wolf comic allowed.
Acutally, I'm not sure I believe that there are people suggesting that, but when every wolf comic bears this scrutiny and comparison to the BBA, it almost seems like it. Every plot point is automatically copyright to the BBA somehow. Every coloured wolf is now BBA rip-off. This, I find, is absolutely ridiculous.
Stories get told and retold. Plot points get recycled in other tales that have nothing to do with the first. Any English major, anyone who reads a lot, anyone who watches a lot of television and movies will tell you this. Hell, anyone who listens to music will tell you it's a lot of the same thing over and over again for the most part. Tropes (common themes used in storytelling) exist; they're also called clichés. While clichés can be terribly annoying, sometimes the author takes a cliché and turns it around for the better. I'm not saying that all authors do, but prejudging a comic or story simply because it has one similar plot point or because it is using a common trope doesn't, for one, automatically mean it's bad, and for two, doesn't make you a better person.
At the same time, every comic shouldn't be under scrutiny just because it features wolves. Yes, they are popular. Yes, perhaps there is an oversaturation of them. That does not mean that we should judge everything that involves them negatively.
Wow, that's a lot of preamble that I hadn't originally intended to be there. Really, there is one circumstance that finally prodded me into writing this and I'm more than certain that the reason I'm acting now is because I am involved with it, however indirectly. Really, I intended to begin this entry like this:
My name is Laura Barton. I'm 19 years old. I read OPAW.
What is OPAW? The acronym itself stands of Of Paws and Wings, a novel in progress by deviant Zraya218 and a comic in progress by Zraya218 and Barkback. Considering the nature of the preamble, I'm sure you can guess that it is a story about wolves. Unlike the BBA (to which I only make the comparison because other critics have), it features wolves and dragons, rather than wovles and sabers. Indeed, both begin by featuring a war, but this is a trope people. Go tell George Bush that his wanting to stay in war is too overdone (that's an opinion for another day, if ever).
Personally, when I stumbled upon OPAW, it was still only in its novel form. I wasn't attracted to it because it had colourful wolves and "sparkledogs", as the EncyclopediaDramatica has come to call them. True, the fact that there were wolves in the story intrigued me, but that is because I like wolves, not because I was looking for "sparkledogs", which I don't think the OPAW characters are anyway.
How I came across OPAW, I don't even remember. Likely I was doing what I call "page hopping"; essentially, exploring people's galleries and going to each next one because something the person has said or his/her icon caught my attention. Nonetheless, I left a comment on the page of the novel that Zraya has posted and essentially haven't looked back for two reasons. One, because I enjoy the story, and two, because Zraya was kind enough to ask me to edit for her. While I consider myself more of a technical editor (grammatically speaking), I do give some input on the plot of the story and such as well. BUT, this is Zraya's story. I don't believe in editors telling the author what I write; I'd much rather guide instead, doing what I can to help bring what she wants in her story. I have this opinion about editors because I, myself, am an author. I highly dislike when people come along and tell me what to write.
Of course, I expect some to now call me biased throughout the rest of this considering my involvement in OPAW, however, I ask that you hear me out. I'm making an effort to be as unbiased as possible and rather use my knowledge of the tale from what Zraya has told me (without revealing any spoilers).
OPAW has recently joined the plethora of wolf comics on dA, with artwork done by Barkback, who I have only spoken with a few times. Because of this transformation into a comic, it of course has come under the eye of critical persons. I have no problem with this at all. Indeed, critique, when constructive, is fantastic. However, I get the notion that people seem to be forgetting something about the first three pages that have been posted to date. Something that is rather important to consider.
This is just a proglogue so far.
The way I've always seen this part of OPAW is as something like a legend. It's giving a little history, brief so you know the important parts about it, before getting into the bigger part of the story. One critic said that the story is being "force fed to the reader in three pages", which I entirely disagree with for the reason I stated above. This isn't the main part of the story, but rather the situation that initiated what is to come. Since I know a bit more of what is to come in the plot, I know that the story isn't being shoved down your throat within three pages.
Not to say that I disagree with all the critic in question says. Indeed, the first few pages do make or break a story (not just comics). It can't be expected that everyone is going to jump onboard with it and that is perfectly fine. No one is asking everyone to jump onboard with the story. That's how stories work. Some like them, some don't.
Also, she has a point about the wolves' pelt colours. Unnatural or unusually patterened colours on wolves is another fad that I tentatively say started with the BBA. I don't know for sure, but it seems that way to me. While perhaps the wolves of OPAW aren't naturally coloured in that they reflect nature, I don't think that they have any outrageous colours on them. Not even Ennov, I feel, is terribly unnaturally coloured. More, her pattern is what makes it unnatural. Perhaps the yellow wouldn't be so vibrant on an actual wolf and be more blonde in colour, but it still exists. Likely, it would be more mixed with the russet.
Yet, groaning about the colour of wolves' fur seems highly inconsequential when you think about something else: wolves and dragons didn't exist at the same time, if dragons ever existed at all. If we're all about being realistic here, let us consider that, shall we? Suspension of belief is a wonderful thing. True, logic is also necessary, however fur colour is the least of worries when you think about it.
Also, if dragons were real, depending on the breed, would that not place them at the top of the food chain as carnivors? I'm in no way saying they're evil, but rather removing our anthropomorphized, human ideals from them and treating them as if they had base instincts and didn't share the same kind of intelligence as humans. If they were animals like anything else, I would think they'd go after smaller prey like wolves. I'm not claiming I know this for sure, indeed, I know very little about dragons, but what I've said here makes sense to me.
Another point that someone brought up that I thought was interesting was that they didn't know who they were supposed to pity. True, most stories assert directly or indirectly who it is that you are supposed to be more sympathetic towards, but when I think about it, that's an interesting aspect about OPAW. Who are we supposed to pity? The dragons? The wolves? Despite their titles of the Savage Wolves and the Tranquil Dragons, due to the nature of the story, we still aren't sure who we should like or dislike. Yet, why do we need the story to tell us inadvertedly through the text? Why not just decide for ourselves based on how we judge the acitons of the characters? I'm a big believer in people making judgements for themselves.
"There is much more to life than revenge." I whole heartedly agree with this; honestly, I do. Revenge is a very common theme in stories across the world and sometimes it is incredibly hard to get away from. However, just because the theme of revenge is used, doesn't mean that we should condemn the story. And perhaps I'm totally out of my mind, but somehow OPAW doesn't scream to me about being a story of revenge.
In any case, I think revenge is a common theme because it is something that we can all relate to on some level. What I mean by relate is not that we all go out seeking revenge, but we understand it to an extent. Whether we agree with the one who is wanting revenge or not, we still can relate. I'm struggling with how to explain what I want to say here.
But what I'm getting at is that revenge is indeed used over and over, though, not all revenge is the same. Each person's form of revenge is different in that everyone reacts differently to situations. What it comes down to is the author's portrayal of the character's reaction.
Moving on, the reason I mentioned my age earlier is because many associate these wolf comics with "weeaboo" 16-year-old fans, however, I think myself anything but that. For one, I'm not sixteen, and for two I don't believe that I'm a "weeaboo". Perhaps the critic was speaking generally, but I just wanted to put that out there before someone started accusing me of being either thing.
I think I've exhausted all I wanted to say about wolf comics and more specifically OPAW; if I haven't, I can always come back and edit (or more likely post another entry since this one is long as it is).
The next part I wanted to look at is constructive criticism, something that I feel is abused and not well understood. My idea of constructive criticism, and what I look for when I go to critique someone is:
- What has been done well and why? Why did this part stick out to me and make me think, "yeah, that's good"?
- What could use improvement? Why? What suggestions can I give to help this person improve?
Many, many people out there these days, I feel, are saying they're giving constructive critique, but I scarce see the constructive side of it. There is no tell of what has been done well, or, if the critic feels that nothing has been done well (which is a valid response), said critic just points out what they feel is wrong and then tells the person what they "should" do (oftentimes this is "You should just stop").
My opinion is that the only time to tell someone what they "should" do is when it comes to rules of grammar. If someone writes "He went to they're house", I'm going to tell that person that that should be their, and also proceed to explain why. You can tell someone what they "should" do all you want, but if you have not explained why, what does that really amount to? It's more helpful to the person to explain your reasoning behind what you're saying, and personally speaking, I'm more inclined to listen to someone when he explains his thinking to me.
Or, if the critic does give reasoning behind his/her thinking, the entire comment is laced with degrading words and vulgar language. Really, you can express your dislike and reasoning for the dislike of something without resorting to swearing and tearing someone down. "Telling it as it is" or "as it comes to you" isn't an excuse. The way I see it, and the way I believe that studies have shown is that if you degrade someone and be rude, that person will shut down and stop listening. This has been seen countless times through people hiding or even disabling comments on dA. You can be telling the person all the truth of the world, scientific fact that has been proven over and over, but if you're being nasty about it, it's very unlikely that the person'll listen.
There is a difference between harsh constructive criticism and disrespectful [constructive] criticism (I put constructive in square braquets because it is not always constructive, even if the person writing it thinks it is). You can give harsh criticism and still be respectful. When you resort to be tactless, it becomes harmful rather than helpful. If anything, the person will shut down or renegade against you. This has been seen countless times by people celebrating their first "flamers", even if the critique is valid. Or, it could come to the person posting about the critique in a journal and then the dArama starts. Fans become a mob. A war begins. Ultimately, if it is given tactlessly, critique amounts to nothing that helps the thing you are critiquing.
I say that critique has been abused because there are many people who give "harsh critiques" (which are often degrading, unconstructive opinions) and then tell people to "grow some balls" or say that they're "butthurt" because they haven't listened to them or have spoken out against them. As I've said, degrading someone won't get him to listen to you. Any person who speaks out about a rude comment is automatically said to be "butthurt" and that they should "learn to accept critique or else they won't make it professionally." The latter is very true; professionalism does involve receiving critiques, however, critique and bashing are not the same.
I'm not claiming to be perfect in giving constructive criticism, but I try my damnedest to do it well. I was once one of those people that would just tell a person that his work was garbage and that he shouldn't continue (I could probably link you to some of these horrible comments on fanfiction.net). I offered nothing helpful to him (I use "him" as a general pronoun, not saying that it was necessarily a male) apart from my own negative views. I never received a reply from anyone I did that to; if I could, I would take those back, but it is a learning experience. And from it, I feel I have learned to be a better critiquer than I was.
There are several people I've seen that are far superior critiquers than I am. They see things that I don't. Conversely, I sometimes see things that others don't. Multiple sources of input are good.
Thinking about all I've said here, I think I've covered all that I had on my mind. Like I said, if I haven't, I'll either edit it in or just make a new post entirely so that this doesn't become even longer.
I am completely open for even-tempered discussion on these matters. I'm interested to know what others think.
Thanks so much for reading and sticking through this!
Laura.
No comments:
Post a Comment