I haven't seen a topic on this before, but I know it's something we've all encountered and, maybe, are even guilty of.

A disclaimer: Yes, I've been guilty of this a time or two. I'm sure of it.

Anybody else tired of reading a webcomic and scrolling down to the author's comments only to find a full explanation of what you've just read? I know I am.

Yes, I got that Suzie Freaks-A-Lot is upset in this installment, thanks. No, no, I get it. The daggers coming out of her head really helped. I'm not that much of a dunce.

I guess I figure if you feel you have to explain the comic then you probably should go back and fix it. I mean, shouldn't the essentials for understanding your comic be within the comic itself? Yeah, I guess I can see they're in a meadow. Might help if you drew a few flowers though. Just sayin'. I mean, maybe I don't want to read your comments today. Then where will I be?

And don't try to slip your needless post-exposition by me by acting like you're the reader of the comic. Offering up your opinion of your OWN DANG COMIC and adding an explanation point (Oh, the suspense!) does not hide what you are doing.

And here's the thing: (Almost without exception) I can't recall reading a good webcomic that does this. The good ones, by the good creators, they're usually spiced with some nice, brief behind-the-scenes commentary on the creation of the comic, if they have written anything at all.

No, the good ones usually let the comic speak for itself. They understand that if it's not there on the page in the first place, then there's no point in trying to vainly convince people that it is.

Anybody else have a problem with this?

It doesn't bother me. Actually, it can be helpful, especially if I'm just "tuning in" and haven't gotten to the archives. -- Not so much describing the specific page as links to pages with related plot points. After a few hundred pages, it really helps keep things in order. That and/or a list of characters somewhere on the site, so I can jog my memory when one shows up I haven't seen in a while.

My only "pet peeve" about author comments are ones that are non-comic-related emo blogging. (Or super long, multi-paragraph anything.) I'd rather read "behind the scenes" stuff, info about other comic projects, or a few page footnotes -- particularly for new readers.

Oh, and I don't like it when the author makes absolutely no comment at all. It seems like they don't care about the comic/page/strip. (I guess it is more "professional" but also less personal. I like the personal nature of webcomics.)

Generally, I completely agree with Brock here, but I have been guilty of explaining things on a few occasions, and it's always been for the same reason. I basically script Bulletproof as I would a 22-page issue of a comic that you sit down and read in one go, but I publish two pages a week. Sometimes something that happens on a page will refer back to a previous page which, if you read the comic as it updates, will have gone live possibly weeks ago, and I have to assume people won't remember it. Now I can either drop a short explanation in the comments, or I can repeat the information in the dialogue every time, which makes for very heavy-handed writing if and when someone actually does read the archives all in one day. It's kind of a rock and a hard place type situation, really, either way isn't ideal, and I generally tend to err on the side of NOT having my characters explain everything ad nauseam.

Honestly. I feel a need to type something after I post in a desperate attempt to get people to comment back. So far, I've only really talked about craft or something I might be trying format-wise. Most often I can't come up with anything to say even though I'd like to just for the sake of getting a dialogue going.
It hasn't worked well. My average comments per page is .2 lol!

I generally try not to say much about the actual pages myself. I can learn much better if someone is confused or not when a person comments.

It helps me keep an eye on clarity issues.

I don't have anything against it. Then again, I don't think I read any comics where that happens either :P

I try to avoid over-explaining. Instead, I try to focus on lesser known facts about the page that may not have been so obvious. Giving a line-by-line rundown about what people have just seen in the art on the page does seem redundant to me, too.

Oh man, I agree 100%. The only thing I like less than that in comments is when they go a step further and go

"Suzie's really angry in this one. I like how I drew the daggers to show how angry she is. And man, her pose is cool."

What the hell? XD Up yourself much? I'm not gonna mention any names, but I had to stop reading at least one of the comics on here because of the comments.

JustNoPoint
I generally try not to say much about the actual pages myself. I can learn much better if someone is confused or not when a person comments.

That's the biggest motivator for me to not say anything or keep the comments short - I want to know what people think WITHOUT me interfering.

Well...sometimes people just give summaries of the page for the hell of it...like I notice ozone does it with Pinky TA, and I understand his pages without the description fine. It's more just a fun read than an annoyance, even if it is unnecessary.

THEN there are those who HAVE to explain it because they failed to have something make sense. I remember that one super-ego dude from a while back, whose name always manages to escape me for some reason (something saturn), even used to go "well if you had read my ten paragraph explanation that I have for every page you would understand my comic". Um, no. People who have to do this all the time need to practice more and/or stop being lazy. Even if you're not a very good artist, at least you put in the effort and are giving it shots.

Though yes, even I am guilty of having to do this a couple of times...or sometimes I think it's understandable and I end up having to explain myself because readers don't get it. (That reminds me...there are some comic pages I need to tamper with still....eh heh.)

I freakin' hate that crap. It showsme one or both of two things: the author has no confidence in their own abilities, & feels the need to compensate for what they perceive is a lack of ability, and/or the author doesn't respect the intelligence of the reader. Either way, I generally am WAY put off by it.

Later,
Chip

I've never done it personnally, never had too. Comic are about showing the reader what's going on visually and having confidence-
if you've got to actually explain a comic to a reader even if you think it's a 'deep' comic: You are a crappy comicker.

A neat thing I like to do is foreshadow what's coming up the next page-get the readers coming back when the page itself doesn't give much away.

I'll admit to being pretty long-winded myself. I have a tendency to make some fairly long posts, though I almost always try to avoid explaining the joke. I typically just might talk a little bit about what I was thinking about when I created it or the events that led up to my creating it.

In my case it's not that I feel I'm a bad artist or that I need to explain it, but rather that I just often feel like making a few more jokes that are semi-related to the topic.

It never seemed to bother anyone who has read my comic before so I just never worried about it.

I used not to. I was of the opinion that what was there should speak for itself... But mine isn't a simple comic or story... There's a lot going on, and concepts like naval action and various historical and foreign things that the average reader has NO idea about. So rather than answer 50 bajllion questions or leave half the people only understanding half the story, it's a LOT easier just to give a quick summery.

It's marked as such so if you don't want to read it you can easily ignore it. ;)
--
Plus, as some have mentioned, it helps people jump in and work out what's happening straight away.

Good cases have been made on both sides of this issue. It seems a particular issue with webcomics that the story is being given out in morsels and you can't count on people reading all the context of previous pages (or even remembering them if they have read it) in order to fully understand what's going on in the current one.

Oddly enough, the responses to this topic (which have been excellent) have brought me back around to remember why I approach webcomicking the way I do. It's because of this simple fact: it irritates me to have to remember.

In my arrogant opinion, there are a lot of webcomics that don't belong on the web. They belong in print because, really, they're meant to be read in chunks, not in morsels. I think the idea of reading in morsels is essential to making a webcomic effective.

Now, several people are going to call hogwash on that. Some of my most favorite webcomickers would no doubt argue that the web is just a vehicle to get their story out there. You can do ANYTHING on the web. Pace things how you'd like, draw donkey butts for panels on end, etc.

Not knowing much about webcomics when I started, I looked at my vehicle of presentation--the web--and made a conscious decision to let it inform my approach.
This is why I do strips and not pages. The onus is always on me to make it stand alone, even while it's part of a whole. (Not that all my strips stand alone, but about 95% of them do.)

What does this have to do with the topic at hand? Just this: I have the luxury of never having to explain myself because of the format I've chosen, which I feel is the best format for the vehicle of delivery.

So...while it's still a pet peeve...some of you have at least shown me there is some value in "overexplaining." If your approach is inherently (again, in my arrogant opinion) print-oriented, then a note here and there might be helpful.

Just please, for my sake, don't overdo it.

I'd disagree with the print oriented thing too though :)
The web gives time for such intensive work to be produced (print has deadlines), and space for extra content, (it's a premium in print), as well as easy collation and organisation -that suits long stories: Print doesn't suit that at all well. You have to wait forever for entire issues of things, and even then it can always be hard to get all of them in the right order.

Whereas strips are totally suited for all aspects of print. - the size, the stand alone aspect, the time it takes to make them, etc, etc... hahaha! You see, you can make arguments like this for either point of view.

Unless you want to talk about newspaper/magazine printing VS comic book/trade paperback. THEN you've got a very good point.

But with web VS print in general... it's not arrogant, it's just a very individual opinion. :)

I usually put in comments about the technical side, how I did something differently than on the previous pages, if I'm happy with the results or not, and, if I think something is unclear, then I can add a note that it should be this and not that. But that happens rarely, usually it's just short note on whether I achieved my goals or not.

STRIP VS PAGE.

Strips originally were used both to tell simple gags and to do very long stories. You could argue that a single-page episode is also a strip (for example Winsor McCay's Little Nemo, in which each page was simply one dream with some very vague plot that supposedly connected them but mostly wasn't there at all).

If you look at old strips like Flash Gordon or Dick Tracy, you get couple of panels every day (or a full page/half page/couple of strips every weekend), and this is sufficient to tell a story that often continued for several weeks or months. And keep in mind we're talking about a medium where it was fairly easy to miss out on the daily strip. Thus a lot of them had some sort of a recap on the first panel (or above it).
There's no need to do that in webcomics as it's fairly easy to jump couple of pages back (I still try to sneak in some bits where the character thinks about what happened, sums up previous things and so on).

I view webcomics as a practice before entering printed comics and whether that means drawing 22-page issues, longer graphic novels or just collecting my future webcomics in a printed volume, that's irrelevant at the moment. Basically this format of storytelling is ok, and as technology progresses and more people (including me, haha) have 22-26' screens displaying ridiculously high resolutions, it'll become possible to see entire pages on screen without scrolling (or squinting at shrunken fonts) and due to their widescreen nature, two-page spreads will be possible too.

I really miss the ability to do the "Vertigo spread" (calling it that way as I noticed it first in Vertigo comics), by which I mean a single horizontal panel spanning through both pages and then the rest of pages below that are normal (you can make a great establishing shot that way and then focus on the talking heads or something.
That's the only bigger problem I have with doing things online.

Brock
In my arrogant opinion, there are a lot of webcomics that don't belong on the web. They belong in print because, really, they're meant to be read in chunks, not in morsels. I think the idea of reading in morsels is essential to making a webcomic effective.

Well, yeah. But let's be realistic here - for the vast majority of people who do webcomics, print simply isn't an option. I actually thought about this a great deal before I decided to move my comic to DD because yes, the format doesn't fit the vehicle. But even so, I'm pretty sure I'm reaching the largest possible audience for Bulletproof with what I'm doing now, and while it would be smarter to adjust the format to the peculiarities of a webcomic that only comes out twice a week... I don't want to. Mainly because I'm doing what I'm doing in hopes of one day being good enough for print, so I'm practicing that format. The page dimensions alone are stupid for a webcomic, but that's why I use them.

Also, I can't produce pages at a quicker pace than I am now unless it makes me money and I can cut down on my dayjob. Simple as that. Even if I went to print, one or two 3-4 issue miniseries a year is the absolute maximum I could produce if I broke even. Anything more than that and I'd have to be making serious money, otherwise I'll end up homeless.

And one final thing - because every individual page of a webcomic is perceived as its own entity to an extent, I don't have to concern myself as much with consistency of style; at the moment, with less than a 100 pages of work under my belt, I feel like I'm still learning so much that it happens very quickly and suddenly sometimes, and when I figure out something new, I'm glad I'm not tied to a certain visual style that has to stay as consistent as possible over 22 pages.

Hi, I'm Al. (Everybody: Hi, Al.) I'm an explainaholic.

No, I'm not going to defend it. I juggle complex themes and ideas sometimes, but the criticism is exactly right...the comic should stand by itself.

I'll watch it in the future.

As an alternative, may I note that I do something in my webcomic that is NOT done by a lot of comics, and I always wondered why---rather than having long-winded recaps of previous storylines or points in the story---I just use the individual panels to link to those previous points.

A good example is http://mindmistress.comicgenesis.com/battle3.htm . In that, as noted at the bottom, if you click on either the second or the fifth panel, it will take you to a point in an earlier story, that this story is the sequel to, and that the current panel is referring to.

How many times have you seen Bruce Wayne's parents gunned down, or Jor-El shoving his kid in the rocket and Krypton blowing up? Wouldn't it be much easier if you could just link to the original story, and not do it all again? Luckily, webcomics can do that. Even link to previous points in the same story, when it's relevant.

I consider that an effective way of using the medium. Too many people use this as a prologue to seeing their stuff in print---a laudable goal---but in doing so miss the strengths of the medium.

---Al

And yes, mine is more a page, than a strip, and I make no apology for that.

alschroeder
No, I'm not going to defend it. I juggle complex themes and ideas sometimes, but the criticism is exactly right...the comic should stand by itself.

That's foolish. You're approaching a point of view on an idea as if it's advice on sound methodology. All you're doing is agreeing with something that arbitrarily limits your art-from and doesn't necessarily apply to your own approach to it in the first place.

Very strange... lol!

To me anyway. But then I come from an arts background, not a comic one, so I probably think differently to some?

Oooh, that's far too tech-y and clever for the likes of me, Al!

But I do agree with the principle. When my characters refer back to events that happened earlier in the story, I tend to include a link to the relevant page in the accompanying notes. Same idea, just lower tech! I think this kind of device is useful for two reasons:

Firstly, as you say, it's using the interactive potential of the medium to do something that print comics can't. Yes, Stan Lee used to include cross-references to other issues, but that's not much use unless you happen to have bought those other issues at the time (and had the foresight to save them!)

Secondly, something that happened ten pages earlier in a print comic will have been read by the reader mere minutes before; but something that happened ten pages earlier in a weekly-updating webcomic will have been read ten weeks earlier and so it's quite logical to expect the reader to have forgotten it.

Brock
In my arrogant opinion, there are a lot of webcomics that don't belong on the web. They belong in print because, really, they're meant to be read in chunks, not in morsels. I think the idea of reading in morsels is essential to making a webcomic effective.

I think this is only partly true, Brock, and doesn't reflect the current reading habits of many, many comic fans.

I'm happy to admit that my own preferred way of reading my own comic Shades will be in one sitting when (if?!) it's eventually finished and I can hold a print copy in my hands. But what constitutes the best way for me (or you) isn't necessarily the only way.

Other people do prefer to read their comics online, even if that means reading one page at a time. In fact some prefer it one page at a time, even if the individual pages aren't self-contained episodes. That way it fits in conveniently with their reading of all the other comics on their list of favourites! When I first started serialising Shades at my own website, I used to link to the beginning of chapters only. This was because, like you, I assumed readers would want to read a long-form story-driven comic in chunks. I was soon proven wrong and I was asked by my readers (not too many at that stage, admittedly!) to include links to the latest page.

Whereas I (and, by the sound of it, you) might like to sit and read 22 or 52 pages of a single story, there's a whole other audience out there which is not only used to reading one page of 22 or 52 different comics, but they actually prefer it that way. It's horses for courses.

DAJB
Oooh, that's far too tech-y and clever for the likes of me, Al!

But I do agree with the principle. When my characters refer back to events that happened earlier in the story, I tend to include a link to the relevant page in the accompanying notes. Same idea, just lower tech! I think this kind of device is useful for two reasons:

Firstly, as you say, it's using the interactive potential of the medium to do something that print comics can't. Yes, Stan Lee used to include cross-references to other issues, but that's not much use unless you happen to have bought those other issues at the time (and had the foresight to save them!)

Secondly, something that happened ten pages earlier in a print comic will have been read by the reader mere minutes before; but something that happened ten pages earlier in a weekly-updating webcomic will have been read ten weeks earlier and so it's quite logical to expect the reader to have forgotten it.

Right. On the web, Dick Tracy or Flash Gordon-like recapping is somewhat necessary because the storylines stretch so LONG. That's why when you read something like collected volumes of newspaper adventure strips, the pace reads oddly, because so much recapping needs to be done. Me, I just link. It's easier.

I had another idea of taking advantage of the medium---"alternative pages"---which is sort of specialized fan art. That in exchange for a link on that page, to create a version of a page in someone else's art style. Think how cool it would be to be reading a copy of X-Men, and at a click, see that same page as if drawn by Jack Kirby--or Neal Adams---or John Byrne---or Adam Kubert--or whomever. Or read a Superman story, and at a click, see the same page done with the same dialogue, but in Joe Shuster's style---or Wayne Boring's---or Curt Swan's--or John Byrne---or Jerry Ordway---or Frank Quiteley.(sp?) The idea would be to get as many styles as possible.

It SOUNDED good, and I got a few---for instance, this page of the origin here at http://mindmistress.comicgenesis.com/mind5.htm and you note there is a link to an alternative page here at http://mindmistress.comicgenesis.com/altmind5.htm done in an EXTREMELY different style. (Note if you click on the image on that page, it will take you to their comic, IF it was still up. (It's gone defunct since then.) However, I didn't get as many as I would have liked....same dialogue, but done in a totally different style.

Too bad.
---Al

Brock
In my arrogant opinion, there are a lot of webcomics that don't belong on the web. They belong in print because, really, they're meant to be read in chunks, not in morsels. I think the idea of reading in morsels is essential to making a webcomic effective.

I think it's interesting what Warren Ellis is trying with FREAKANGELS, doing it in five-page chunks, a nice compromise between a strip and a comic. However, I'm not so sure how well it would be doing if it wasn't done by someone like Warren Ellis, already a "name" out there. Usually, frequent updates trumps length.

However, since I'm not being paid, I'm arrogantly doing the kind of story I'd like to READ rather than what I know would work. Otherwise I would be doing a strip about two brain-dead slackers playing videogames. Since I'm not being paid, might as well do what I enjoy.---Al

spacehamster
Well, yeah. But let's be realistic here - for the vast majority of people who do webcomics, print simply isn't an option. I actually thought about this a great deal before I decided to move my comic to DD because yes, the format doesn't fit the vehicle. But even so, I'm pretty sure I'm reaching the largest possible audience for Bulletproof with what I'm doing now, and while it would be smarter to adjust the format to the peculiarities of a webcomic that only comes out twice a week... I don't want to. Mainly because I'm doing what I'm doing in hopes of one day being good enough for print, so I'm practicing that format. The page dimensions alone are stupid for a webcomic, but that's why I use them.

This is a good point and one I didn't address because my post was already overlong and I actually wanted people to read it. So, I'm glad you said it, spacehamster.

There's practical side to this whole debate that you've addressed well here. The web is not just a unique vehicle of delivery for comics that can require and inspire an adjustment of approach, it's also--for some--the ONLY vehicle of delivery.

If you have a story you want to tell and you want people to read it no matter what, then the web is for you. What I'm truly arguing is that the most successful webcomics are going to take into account the unique nature of publishing on the web, i.e. parceling out your story in bits at a time. This call can be answered by adjustments to pacing, format, style, etc.

Or not at all. I get that. I get that for some people they just don't care and they want to tell their story their way and damn the internet torpedoes. But...that doesn't change the fact that, for me, it's quite obvious your story, paced and designed for chunks, would work better in print.

I just choose to take the nature of the beast (the web) into account. Not caring is a perfectly legit way to go and you will find scores of readers that agree with you. Probably more than agree with me, by the looks of this thread!

So what is the subject of this thread again?
First its about going off about how long comments or explanations are a major pet peeve.
Now its about web comics vs print comics?

May be you need to make a separate thread for that Brock.

As to discussing long comments or explanations, I think it goes without saying to let the page tell the story. More established comicers already know this. But what about the younger artists, the ones trying to learn the craft?

I do believe that a lot of younger artists, ones really trying to develop their talents and are just starting out are merely trying to find their voice. They may over explain things because they aren't confident in what they are doing. They tear down on their own art. Go into great detail about what's going on. Their just trying to communicate. Now I could respond by criticizing them, ignoring them and complain about them or I could try to be encouraging in my comments trying to help develop their craft. Maybe send them a pq advising of my thoughts on their work and maybe exhorting them to stand behind their work a bit more providing tips to make it better. With some of these younger artists it may be a good thing because then you understand what they were trying to do and if that doesn't come through in the page alone then leaving comments or sending a pq may be very beneficial. Just a thought. :)

Ah, it doesn't bother me when a thread goes off-topic. However...let's do it. I'll start a new thread.

It depends on how enthusiastic an artist is about his/her own work, and his/her personality. You take a person who is very proud of the latest update and wants to share it with the world, add a talkative personality... what are you going to get?

Personally I can be long-winded in my Comments Box. I usually don't think too much about it, because I have this notion that ppl don't really read it, so I just blab about whatever comes to mind.

I've gradually come to learn that ppl do read it. Even ppl who never comment on my comics, read these author's boxes. To date... I've managed to... cause reader bias in the perception of a page... upset my own co-artist when I go into rants about him... unintentionally herd reader discussions into things completely irrelevant to the comic... make myself sound like an ass (more than usual)... etc etc etc.

So I'm trying to be more careful...

That does bother me a bit... but I'm sure I've done it once or twice before without thinking it...

But yes, I've seen pages where I could have just as easily understood what was going on and then I look down and see a paragraph of explainations...

bothersome.

...I'm somewhat guilty of this. I like giving backstory on certain comics, but it doesn't really take place in the comic. I try to avoid explaining stuff that goes in the comic, but sometimes I do by accident. I'm gonna try and cut down on that.

It is something that irks me. Especially when the comic was clear enough without the explanation. As for my author comments, I try to keep it as a commentary on the plot as if I were reading it along with the readers (though I will add in other bits of trivia to enhance the plot every now and then).