On the subject of "Wall of Text"

[RMS Oceanic]

Lately, on other sites I go to, there has been a rise in dislike of, and occasional hostility towards, Order of the Stick. Surprisingly, stick figure art is not their primary grievance - although it does get mentioned - the writing is.

Their accusation is this: Rich's writing style is overly dense, that he could use less words than he is currently using. They say his writing style is not suited for the medium of comics, because "so much" of each page is covered in speech bubbles, and that he should write a novel or something. Basically, they're accusing him of the "Walls of Text" trope from TV Tropes. Some even lump it in with Ctrl+Alt+Del because of this 'problem', which is like lumping Finding Nemo with The Reef because they're both about fish in my book.

I find it funny, because these places (mostly) enjoy Watchmen, which is also pretty word-heavy, but of course they retort Watchmen has good art, and follows the "show, don't tell" rule.

This has had the consequence that I don't normally start threads about Order of the Stick there anymore, because it just gets blasted with "WALL OF TEXT" or "TOO MANY WORDS". That's depressing enough, but now I see the TV Tropes page on Walls of Text, and it now says Order of the Stick plays it "depressingly" straight.

So my questions are this:

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
2. How would you go about arguing against it?

I really hate bringing this up, because I'm worried it looks like I'm complaining about the comic and hiding behind other people, but I'm even more worried that this backlash will stop new readers finding their way here, or even turn some current readers away from it. I feel that open and constructive discussion about the accusation is the best way to defuse it, like when Rich stated his opinion on Stick Figure haters in War and XPs.

[Ceaon]

The people over at other forums and the entry at TV tropes are right. OotS is very wordheavy, and displays huge walls of text.

Is this a bad thing? Only when these 'walls' destroy your enjoyment of the comic. For some people, this seems to be happening. For others, they still enjoy the comic, despite/because of its walls.

A word-heavy text balloon can contain much more jokes than a word-light text balloon. I feel that the multitude of little jokes benefit outweighs the have-to-read-a-lot downside.

If people feel otherwise, I say you should let them.

I do feel bad when people start comparing CAD and OotS as though they are very much alike. Because they aren't.

[Vizen]

Hmm.
The comic is a stick figure comic, thats how its supposed to be. There's only so much one can do with a stick figure comic, and I don't think Rich is going to change it to anything different anytime soon.
So there are times where he can follow the "show don't tell" rule, there are a few strips like that, but the main thing that sucks you in is the story! I think that if we wanted fancy artwork, we wouldn't read OOTS.
What I'm trying to say is that the wall of text those people are complaining about is a needed part of the comics. You try following the show don't tell rules with a stick figure comic. Rich is working with what he's got, and he does it well. If there are people who can't cope with some reading with their comics, then they really shouldn't be reading them at all. Not all comics have to follow a "get to the gag in 3 panels as fast as possible" law.

[Manga Shoggoth]

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
2. How would you go about arguing against it?

At home I have the following:


A copy of "The Hobbit" in comic book form. It is a very close adaptation, but has a lot of text. Is it a bad comic? No. In fact it is the best adaptation of the book I have seen.
An adaptation of "The Magic Flute". Is it wordy? Not very. Is the artwork good? Yes. Is it a good comic? No - it is probably the worst in my collection. And that includes "What's Michael".
"The Cartoon History of the Universe": Very wordy, because it has more to communicate than can necessarly be done in pictures. Is it a bad comic? hell, no. I even like the bits I disagree with.


People who argue that "a picture is worth a thousand words" should remember that text and picture are both mediums for communication. Perhaps they might even be persuaded to try the ultimate wall of text: a book...

Besides, the Giant has produced very good strips with few or no words, and great ones with walls'o'text. I'm going to look at overall quality, not just the word count (or lack therof).

[Atheist_Cleric]

I love a good block of text, so no complaints here. To be quite frank, as a reader of many webcomics, I think OOTS's amount of text makes a good change from the majority which relies on much shorter formats (3-4 panels per comic) and one-word or one-sentence panels. This format works when your comic has a small story, or no real story at all (joke-only comics). But with a webcomic that has a story as big as OOTS, you need a lot of text to get all that needs to be said in. As for the Giant's art style, anyone who thinks it's simplicity lacks any detail or expression isnt looking very closely. Sometimes a simple image carries more power than one that days of detail went into.

[evileeyore]

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?

Every single time I have heard this accusation in person it was someone who couldn't read above a 4th or 6th grade level (from being stupid) or had some sort reading disability like dyslexia.


2. How would you go about arguing against it?

If they are stupid, vegetable skewer to the eye till they are dead from it.

If they have a real reading disability, shrug and suggest they try a different comic.

(I've a friend with dyslexia who valiantly struggles through books he's heard are awesome, but often skips trying with comics as "Books are worth it, I can always find a comic with less words and more action". He tends to read Sejin and Shonen manga when sitting down with a comic - mostly to see if the anime followed the original story well or not. And from i gather, Manga generally steers away "wall of text")


I really hate bringing this up, because I'm worried it looks like I'm complaining about the comic and hiding behind other people, but I'm even more worried that this backlash will stop new readers finding their way here, or even turn some current readers away from it.


Anyone turned away or moved to quit reading it on account of "wall of text" wold likely quit on their own anyway. No loss.

[Iuris]

Of all the Webcomics I follow, OOTS is the first one I always check for updates. That should clearly state my opinion of the comic.


1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
It is a matter of design philosophy. Just like using stick figures was intentional, a matter of style, not a matter of not being able to do better, so is the use of text. Text delivers different content from the drawings. If they don't like the style, they are of course welcome to follow other webcomics closer to their style. I know I will follow this one.



2. How would you go about arguing against it?
Nothing is meant to please everyone. Everything comes as a whole packege, both good and bad things. You can either take what is available, or you can start your own webcomic.

[lord_khaine]

i find it sad when people actualy dare to bitch about "to many words", they will proberly newer get the chance to read the Hobbit, or any of the other great books out there who have more than a 100 pages.

[Haven]

I can see why someone who doesn't like text wouldn't like Order of the Stick, actually: not just because, you know, there's a lot of text in Order of the Stick, but also because those people are more likely to be visually oriented, looking for a more detailed style to feast their eyes on.

It always seemed to me that "Walls of Text" came out as a "complaining about shows you don't like"-type page. Like a "take that" against verboseness, which is odd.

[Caleniel]

Oooooh, now I found an opportunity to paste this great quote, which I found on Ursula K Le Guin's website recently (in the "Neat Stuff" section). It's a bit long so... some of you might want to skip it! :smallbiggrin:

"One of our universities recently made a survey of the reading habits of the American public; it decided that forty-eight percent of all Americans read, during a year, no book at all. I picture to myself that reader — non-reader, rather; one man out of every two — and I reflect, with shame: 'Our poems are too hard for him.' But so, too, are Treasure Island, Peter Rabbit, pornographic novels — any book whatsoever. The authors of the world have been engaged in a sort of conspiracy to drive this American away from books; have in 77 million out of 160 million cases, succeeded. A sort of dream situation often occurs to me in which I call to this imaginary figure, 'Why don't you read books?' — and he always answers, after looking at me steadily for a long time: 'Huh?'

—Randall Jarrell
Poetry and the Age
1953

[Mike62]

Anyone who complains about the "wall of text" in OOTS is completely missing the subtlety of the Giants artwork. Haleys wound shrinking because of uncanny dodge, Belkars face on the floor during the dream, the small "ping" as the big, bad demon appears. Its their loss.

[pendell]

As it happens, I *like* lots of text. I have no complaints about the Giant's art on that score.

The thing I dislike most about the comic (which is a small thing compared to all the things I like about it) is one that would get this thread locked if I were to voice it. So I won't.

As a wise man once said, someone else not liking the comic won't make it less awesome for the rest of us.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hungryLIKEALION]

The Order of The Stick is by far my favorite webcomic, and I feel like complaints like this are just incredibly petty. Yes, there is a lot of text, but it's all there to serve a purpose. And it does a really good job. There are multiple jokes in most comics, and it's always fresh and interesting, and each character really has a distinct voice. It's incredible irony that someone who disliked OOTS because of its textiness wouldn't also dislike Watchmen... Watchmen is probably even more texty than OOTS, I'd say. How does Watchmen follow the "show don't tell" rule if OOTS doesn't?

And regarding the art, to be honest, OOTS' art is some of my favorite webcomic art because of how distinct Rich's style is. It is instantly identifiable and really looks like nothing else on the internet. Yes, they are stick figures, but they are incredibly well done stick figures.

Do people knock on xkcd or cyanide and happiness for being stick figures too? And despite all three of those comics being stick figure comics, each one looks very different from the others. And I'd say that of the lot, OOTS has by far the best stick figure art.

Anyway... yeah. I just really like OOTS, and it upsets me to think people would bring such petty gripes against it. Grr.

[Lissibith]

Everyone's got their likes and dislikes. Me, I find the writing style effective to conveying characterization. Some characters talk more than others, some are downright wordy, but to me it's not a bonus or a failing of the comic, just the way the author chose to display aspects of their personalities. It feels to me rather like complaining you don't like the color palette he uses...

[Pokemaster]

The problem with CAD is that the walls of text don't contribute anything. Rich's wall of texts managed to successfully explain how the Chaotic alignments work. Seriously, how long have D&D players been waiting for this?

[liuzg150181]

Lately, on other sites I go to, there has been a rise in dislike of, and occasional hostility towards, Order of the Stick. Surprisingly, stick figure art is not their primary grievance - although it does get mentioned - the writing is.

Their accusation is this: Rich's writing style is overly dense, that he could use less words than he is currently using. They say his writing style is not suited for the medium of comics, because "so much" of each page is covered in speech bubbles, and that he should write a novel or something. Basically, they're accusing him of the "Walls of Text" trope from TV Tropes. Some even lump it in with Ctrl+Alt+Del because of this 'problem', which is like lumping Finding Nemo with The Reef because they're both about fish in my book.

I find it funny, because these places (mostly) enjoy Watchmen, which is also pretty word-heavy, but of course they retort Watchmen has good art, and follows the "show, don't tell" rule.

This has had the consequence that I don't normally start threads about Order of the Stick there anymore, because it just gets blasted with "WALL OF TEXT" or "TOO MANY WORDS". That's depressing enough, but now I see the TV Tropes page on Walls of Text, and it now says Order of the Stick plays it "depressingly" straight.

So my questions are this:

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
2. How would you go about arguing against it?

I really hate bringing this up, because I'm worried it looks like I'm complaining about the comic and hiding behind other people, but I'm even more worried that this backlash will stop new readers finding their way here, or even turn some current readers away from it. I feel that open and constructive discussion about the accusation is the best way to defuse it, like when Rich stated his opinion on Stick Figure haters in War and XPs.

Of all the webcomics I have come across so far, OotS is certainly rather laden with words(it is one of the few webcomics which I need to occasionally check the dictionary), though IMO not without good reason.

Most of the webcomics(I leave out graphic novels as I am not familiar with them) have either a one-liner plot that ends within a strip or two or a rather piecemeal storyline that stretches several strip. On the other hand, OotS has a rather congruent story plot through out, with involvement of several characters, split amongst several sub-plots intertwining together.

Thus it is necessary for it to have a more verbose dialogue as exposition. If you flip through some of the early strips you would find it less wordy since the background of the plot isnt so intricating yet.

Moreover, the personality of individual characters has fleshened over the years, and the dialogues serve to breathe life into the characters to convey their personalities as much as dialogues serve the same purpose to classic RPG game.

[Elanorea]

You know, I never noticed this before, but now I looked at some of the comics and damn, they DO have a lot of text. Though it's never bothered me before, and I doubt it will in the future. I can understand why some people wouldn't like it, but webcomics are a dime a dozen; if you don't like OotS, you can probably find 20 webcomics about a similar topic with different art and writing styles.

[bue52]

Well I LOVE OOTS precisely because of its wall of text, I'm a literature student, and I love visual and verbal stuff, so to me to see all these jokes that are in between the lines of these "wall of texts" is definitely something that I very much enjoy. I have friends that read oots but complain about the wall of texts partly because reading on computer screens isn't very appealing to their eyes, but when u talk to them about it, they appreciate it.

One argument I'd give is that people shouldn't stick with their stereotypes, just because it isn't common doesn't mean it won't work out, and I believe Oots is the success story of an "out-of-the-box", intellectual yet with a good balance between slap stick, irony, subtle "wordy" jokes and plot. In fact, I find it very refreshing that a comic actually uses dramatic irony to make you laugh, rather than just slap stick. (Not that slap stick isn't funny, just that recently, most of media that involves the eyes, tend to use slap stick comedy, maybe its because of where I am from....)

[Mauve Shirt]

I love every single thing said in the walls of Rich's text. You can fit more jokes in there, and more character. And it's not like there's intense artwork to ogle. It's admirable what he can do with stick figure art, but it's the writing that sucked me in.

[Pandabear]

Well, I feel that in extension to the notion of dimensionality in the previous few comics, the walls of text is giving the comic depth.. Stick figure comics are inherently flat, so I guess the dialogue adds to make it feel more 3D..

[Maryring]

OOTS... a wall of text?

...

Are we even reading the same comic? Except for the closing arguments in the trial, I couldn't classify OOTS as a wall of text if I squinted real hard and tilted my head in all kinds of angles.

[Sabin Marcus]

Given the medium (a comic), such detractors may have a point, but I'm rather in the habit of dismissing 'Wall of Text' complaints as coming from people either too lazy or too painfully narrow minded for me to seriously care about their opinions.

[King of Nowhere]

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
2. How would you go about arguing against it?

The man who judges a comic by measuring the area of the speech bubbles rather than what is effectively written in them is a fool.

[Ghastly Epigram]

Firstly, OOTS is my favorite webcomic that I read by far. I check it every day, many times a day, and have three of the books. I love it.

Having said that, it IS wordy. And besides the actual number of words, it does also lack a certain...tightness. You have at least one character making a speech pretty much every strip, and I can understand how that would turn some people off. Indeed, entire conversations are often held with nothing BUT speeches. >.> As a result of this the dialog feels unnatural sometimes (Actually, just the way the characters speak adds to this) and I suspect it may in part be these factors that are being complained about, not just the actual wordiness itself. It can feel like the characters are all relating their every waking thought and opinion to you and explaining everything. While I do not find it so myself, I can see why people could find it grating and honestly, boring.

Also, I suppose that it somewhat stands in contrast to the art. Said art is simple but still high quality and conveys information extremely well, and adds a lot of charm. It really lets you get lost in the world and relate to the characters and such. And then you have all the monologues and speeches and ramblings and it can be rather glaring and create a dissonance. And it is all very well to say "Durrr people are dumb don't wanna bother reading" but comics ARE about the relationship between them after all, and if you do not feel all the elements are meshing together well, or that there is too much of some stuff over other stuff, then yeah, it is understandable that you will have problems.

I do not find any of that to be a problem myself though (Or even necessarily agree with it) as you tend to not notice it once you get into it. You get a lot of content packed into each strip, including many jokes and good characterization/interactions. It gives it space to explore many ideas, get in good plot development, really get in depth, and go in several directions at once that other comics cannot really do, for all their "showing." (And hey, we know he can do that to when it needs to be done). And I just find it to be interesting, entertaining and of good quality. Like I said, I love the strip myself, so I guess I am somewhat playing "devils advocate" or some such.

So to answer the question, "How would you go about arguing against it?"

I am not sure I would. I can give reasons why I am a fan, but I think it is not an unreasonable point of view to say that it DOES have too many words.

Which is just the way we like it. :smallsmile:

[randomnondescri]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html
One of my favorite strips.


http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html
One of my favorite strips.



But would the second one work if the text/action balance were struck in a different place in the comic overall? Several other strips stand out because of spare use of text, but it only works because of the way the strip is normally written. In most webcomics, I tend to groan when action sequences start, because I know I'll be sitting for weeks waiting to find how the action ends. In OOTS, action resolves relatively quickly, and I look forward to those scenes, because of how they stand in contrast to most of the comic. Much of the humor in OOTS comes from wordplay - certainly there aren't a whole lot of visual gags. Given all of that, I think the amount of text in OOTS is just right for OOTS. Other comics may have less text that is right for them.

[Kaytara]

"Show, don't tell"? Is that sort of criticism even applicable to a comic? Nearly all relevant events HAVE been shown rather than told at one point or another. With the exception of some narrative tidbits, all of the walls of text are just character dialogue. Every word they say, whether it's V's sarcastic loquaciousness or Elan's cheerful blabber, serve the purpose of furthering the plot, setting up jokes and/or establishing the characters. I wouldn't have it any other way. I LOVE it when I see a strip with lots of dialogue. It takes longer to read, is usually by far more amusing and interesting than an admittedly awesome but simple panel-by-panel show of Belkar slaughtering goblin after goblin, and thus prolongs and intensifies my enjoyment of that particular strip.
I mean, seriously? Think about how many great lines we would've missed if the characters talked less!

In short, bring on the Walls O' Text, baby!!! :smallcool:

[Turkey]

:vaarsuvius: Meh. I found her argument far too brief from my taste.

And TV Tropes lists anything for anything.

[Warren Dew]

There's a lot of text in the comic, but it's there for a reason. I don't think it could be condensed without, for example, reducing characterization by having the different characters talk the same.

I think there is some validity behind the accusations, though: I do think that OoTS does less well on "show, don't tell" than it once did. Before the author went to stock facial expressions, for example, the hand crafted eyebrow arcs conveyed a wealth of information. Someone recently posted an early conversation between Eugene and Roy which really illustrated this. Now we get just a straight line or a V, and all the characters use the exact same expressions.

Now, I do understand that the stock expressions help to get more comic panels per week, and that's a good thing. I don't think it would hurt to increase the number of expressions to choose from, though. A different set of expressions for each character might be nice.

[AKA_Bait]

My (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0470.html)Reply (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html).

More seriously though, OotS is a dialogue heavy comic. However, as others have said, the dialogue is really good and helps define the characters either by an over abundance of it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0010.html) which real people do in certian situations (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0400.html)or by being mostly silent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0085.html). A large part of the reason that a 2D stick figure comic can have characters that are so realistic and compelling is because of all the verbal character interaction. Compare with Looking For Group (http://www.lfgcomic.com) if you like. The artwork is more 'realistic' but there is much less dialogue. Although I like LFG, I don't feel like I know any of the characters or that any are particularly complex.

Also, I'll point out something else regarding the Walls of Text (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WallsOfText) trope. It places the range of the trope as: "At best, they're just a subconscious signal of really heavy exposition. At worst, the form of the speech/paragraph shows the author is soapboxing about something." and neither is really true of OotS. The large text boxes (and more frequently many small text boxes) is not so much soap boxing or plot exposition as just the characters interacting verbally in a realistic way. Real people talk to eachother all the time. OotS dares to reflect that in webcomic form.

[Warren Dew]

Treasure Island, Peter Rabbit, pornographic novels

Doesn't sound like a really strong argument for reading books, there.

Indeed, what LeGuin seems to be getting at there is not so much "people are stupid and can't read" as "authors aren't giving people stuff worth reading."

[AKA_Bait]

Indeed, what LeGuin seems to be getting at there is not so much "people are stupid and can't read" as "authors aren't giving people stuff worth reading."

Which, to some extent, is true, at least in some areas. A good proportion of history, philosophy and other academic publications (including some of the more academic novels) are purposefully written in such a way as to be inaccessable or undesireable (read boring and dense) to the general public. In some disciplies, like the sciences, this can't really be avoided. In others, like literature, philosophy or history, it can but editors and authors don't want to avoid it and in some cases intentionally make their writing more dense.

[Lizard Lord]

I don't mind the "walls of text" at all. I never even considered it could be a problem reading this. Heck, It never even crossed my mind that OotS was so word extensive until now. At the only site I post at allot (other than this one) the "wall of text" was never even mentioned whenever OotS was brought up. Heck, I don't recall hearing anything bad about it at that site.

Of course that site is a fan site for a CCG that is based on D&D and official stories for the game are posted on there, so it is likely that the "wall of text" does not bother any of them either.

[Jophes]

I'm happy either way, although I do like having a story to go along with my comic. *shrug*

[Chazzie]

So what if a comic is wordheavy? That's a good thing. It hasn't messed up the flow of the story, which is a big thing if you think about it- all the characters DO have time to say what they say. I have a feeling all these complaints are because of the people who just want one punchline per comic humor, which I personally find incredibly bland. OOTS has depth, and it's nice to think about a comic for more than half a minute- that's how you fully understand and appreciate the humor.

Maybe it's too sophisticated for them- or maybe they just all saw the trial and freaked out.

I love OOTS.

[Lizard Lord]

On that subject, people who hate the "wall of text" must cringe whenever Vaarsuvious speaks.

[Optimystik]

OotS is wordy by necessity. A great deal of their humor comes from referencing their subject matter, i.e. D&D. Therefore, when characters roll and somersault, they have to make references to their tumble checks; characters that disbelieve other characters talk about Sense Motive; other characters frequently cast spells during dialogue, resulting in MORE dialogue; and the very stick figure nature of the comic makes it difficult to distinguish certain features without the comic itself pointing them out, e.g. Elan's attractiveness compared to other characters.

Yes, I'm aware of the irony inherent in a wordy post defending wordiness.

[Helanna]

The warning for this (http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp07232004.shtml) comic sums it up pretty well for me.

Funnily enough, I wanted to link to that comic because I remembered the warning, but couldn't even remember what comic it was from. So then I went to go re-read the TV Tropes page for Wall of Text, and guess what I found!

[Kranden]

Tldr

Lol :p

[Euron]

Doesn't sound like a really strong argument for reading books, there.

Indeed, what LeGuin seems to be getting at there is not so much "people are stupid and can't read" as "authors aren't giving people stuff worth reading."

Even those simple books are a trial for half the population, is what he's saying.

And OOTS only speaks when it has something to say. There are only 3 situations I can think of that result in these "walls of text":

1) The Trial.
2) Roy's dismissal of Miko.
3) The latest comic.
(4: The OOTS' discussion about what to do with the Linear Guild after defeating them in AC may count.)

Each of these situations, it is required that some actual thought be conveyed. A decent argument, at a TRIAL nontheless? HEAVENS, NO! I have a challenge for anyone: Find a lawyer friend, a decent one, get him/her to read the comic up until that trial scene. And get them to condense both of their arguments. It won't happen, it may even be longer.

In the end though, it's up to interpretation of the reader. In our fine Western world here, we have the right to speech, and the right to disagree with our fellow citizen. Any argument you choose won't work, because it's painstakingly obvious that this comic is one of (if not the best) story webcomics on the net.

[Ulti]

Comparing CAD and OOTS is purely ridiculous, so I wouldn't take anybody seriously who compares the two. Rich SHOULD write a novel- I would read it. It's the fact that his story's are so great that keeps me coming back to follow OOTS. If he didn't have words, there's not much he could do with stick figures, no? To each his own, I suppose.

[liuzg150181]

Even those simple books are a trial for half the population, is what he's saying.

And OOTS only speaks when it has something to say. There are only 3 situations I can think of that result in these "walls of text":

1) The Trial.
2) Roy's dismissal of Miko.
3) The latest comic.
(4: The OOTS' discussion about what to do with the Linear Guild after defeating them in AC may count.)

Each of these situations, it is required that some actual thought be conveyed. A decent argument, at a TRIAL nontheless? HEAVENS, NO! I have a challenge for anyone: Find a lawyer friend, a decent one, get him/her to read the comic up until that trial scene. And get them to condense both of their arguments. It won't happen, it may even be longer.

In the end though, it's up to interpretation of the reader. In our fine Western world here, we have the right to speech, and the right to disagree with our fellow citizen. Any argument you choose won't work, because it's painstakingly obvious that this comic is one of (if not the best) story webcomics on the net.

A rather well-conceived argument,except that you have omitted another that results in "walls of text": whenever there's the presence of V and she/he has at least one dialogue balloon.:smallbiggrin:
For example this instance. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0010.html)

[liuzg150181]

Comparing CAD and OOTS is purely ridiculous, so I wouldn't take anybody seriously who compares the two. Rich SHOULD write a novel- I would read it. It's the fact that his story's are so great that keeps me coming back to follow OOTS. If he didn't have words, there's not much he could do with stick figures, no? To each his own, I suppose.

I like both CAD & OOTS,despite what the detractors are saying otherwise(though quality of CAD strips varies and fluctuates).:smallsmile:

As many previous posters had mentioned,it is wordy due to necessity(due to its epical story plot) and not because it is superfluous. Moreover the stick figure arent just functional but rather expressive, and no doubt due to this fact that there are a few spinoffs created by the fanbase.

[Nightgaunt]

I think more then anything else, I am really getting sick of TVTropes.org and wait for the blessed day when this particular fad gets dropped off the internet.

I think the absolute last thing any type of artistic endeavor needs is yet more specific language to easily characterize an idea or character that is not easy to characterize. Just by putting them in tiny little box's and saying "Card Carrying Villain" or "Xanatos Gambit" takes away from the artistry. I can understand the need to have a proper language to describe ideas, but TVTropes is used like some kind of an abstract bucket system where we toss incredible complex and interesting ideas in to phenominally arbitrary buckets and call it a day.

Enjoy or hate something for what it is, but stop with the incessant need to label everything.

[Assassin89]

It's only a matter of time until some webcomic uses wall of text as an ability in a D&D game

[Euron]

A rather well-conceived argument,except that you have omitted another that results in "walls of text": whenever there's the presence of V and she/he has at least one dialogue balloon.:smallbiggrin:
For example this instance. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0010.html)

That came to mind, however, that Wall was its own punchline and justified simply for the sake of funny. :P

[awibs]

Oooooh, now I found an opportunity to paste this great quote, which I found on Ursula K Le Guin's website recently (in the "Neat Stuff" section). It's a bit long so... some of you might want to skip it! :smallbiggrin:

"One of our universities recently made a survey of the reading habits of the American public; it decided that forty-eight percent of all Americans read, during a year, no book at all. I picture to myself that reader — non-reader, rather; one man out of every two — and I reflect, with shame: 'Our poems are too hard for him.' But so, too, are Treasure Island, Peter Rabbit, pornographic novels — any book whatsoever. The authors of the world have been engaged in a sort of conspiracy to drive this American away from books; have in 77 million out of 160 million cases, succeeded. A sort of dream situation often occurs to me in which I call to this imaginary figure, 'Why don't you read books?' — and he always answers, after looking at me steadily for a long time: 'Huh?'

—Randall Jarrell
Poetry and the Age
1953

That says it very well.

I may be nerdy and elitist here in my own little bubble (I often find myself saying very Vaarsuvius-like things) but my gut reaction to the idea that there was not only a complaint, but *a whole catergory type of complaints* to the effect of "Too many words!" was... a sort of appalled shock. Does anyone really want to display themselves as if they "need more pictures... durr... durr... to much'a dem dere readin's... ya'll talk like ya'll got dat dere fancy book larnin'... "

Far be it me to tell you who you should or shouldn't socialize with, but frankly, I wouldn't waste the brain energy speaking (or posting) to someone who puts themselves forwards as one who gets bogged down by being forced to read "too many words."

[Jan Mattys]

A rather well-conceived argument,except that you have omitted another that results in "walls of text": whenever there's the presence of V and she/he has at least one dialogue balloon.:smallbiggrin:
For example this instance. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0010.html)

Also, I'd add the weighting of Roy's soul in the afterlife.

[kabbes]

Lately, on other sites I go to, there has been a rise in dislike of, and occasional hostility towards, Order of the Stick. Surprisingly, stick figure art is not their primary grievance - although it does get mentioned - the writing is.

Their accusation is this: Rich's writing style is overly dense, that he could use less words than he is currently using. They say his writing style is not suited for the medium of comics, because "so much" of each page is covered in speech bubbles, and that he should write a novel or something. Basically, they're accusing him of the "Walls of Text" trope from TV Tropes. Some even lump it in with Ctrl+Alt+Del because of this 'problem', which is like lumping Finding Nemo with The Reef because they're both about fish in my book.

I find it funny, because these places (mostly) enjoy Watchmen, which is also pretty word-heavy, but of course they retort Watchmen has good art, and follows the "show, don't tell" rule.

This has had the consequence that I don't normally start threads about Order of the Stick there anymore, because it just gets blasted with "WALL OF TEXT" or "TOO MANY WORDS". That's depressing enough, but now I see the TV Tropes page on Walls of Text, and it now says Order of the Stick plays it "depressingly" straight.

So my questions are this:

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
2. How would you go about arguing against it?

I really hate bringing this up, because I'm worried it looks like I'm complaining about the comic and hiding behind other people, but I'm even more worried that this backlash will stop new readers finding their way here, or even turn some current readers away from it. I feel that open and constructive discussion about the accusation is the best way to defuse it, like when Rich stated his opinion on Stick Figure haters in War and XPs.

tl;dr




Oh, I kid.

[dragon95046]

Yea, I always hate these (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0313.html) strips that have walls of text, too. :smallannoyed:

[Mc. Lovin']

Yeah, OOTs does hae a lot of text. However, Ctrl Alt Del does not use the Wall of Text to do such things as character growth, and decent punch/plotlines.

[Kaytara]

Now that I think of it, I think this takes care of itself.

People who are so shallow that they would complain about many words when these words are one of the best features of a very awesome comic probably don't enjoy the comic all that much anyway. If talk about walls of text scares them away, I say let them. It'll spare them the disappointment.

People who can appreciate it when characters talk realistically, however, will probably know better than to pay attention to all those Walls of Text complaints and will thus visit regardless.

Everybody wins.

[Scatman]

I figure that a wall of text makes the comic better.. Just plain art with a bubble on each page would seem horrible to me, personally.

[Roderick_BR]

Agreed on the "people that dislike wall of text doesn't like to read" feeling.
OotS is a comic based on RPGs, primarily D&D, and poking fun at others games, and is story heavy, with surprisingly short battle scenes (the first battles, and Azure City's battles being the longest thus far).
In this contest, the wall of text actually works better than having few texts, because RPGs are, first of all, games about stories, characters, and development (or pretending to have character development :smallwink: ).
So, yes, OotS uses the wall of text. But far, far from "depressingly".

Stop being lazy and learn how to read, people. It's obvious that whoever wrote that thing at TV Tropes doesn't play non-videogame RPGs, you know, that thing you need to read :smallamused:

[Shatteredtower]

I think the problem is that many of the people using "walls of text" as a descriptor don't actually understand the term.

It's not the number of words. Neither is it simple verbosity. It is how impenetrible they are. Something saturated with run-on sentences, bracketed parenthesis, and a lack of formatting is likely to produce a wall of text, even within a mere five lines.

Let me spare you an example. :smallwink:

[Thrudh]

At home I have the following:


A copy of "The Hobbit" in comic book form. It is a very close adaptation, but has a lot of text. Is it a bad comic? No. In fact it is the best adaptation of the book I have seen.



How can I get a copy? Might be perfect to read with my young kids

[Zevox]

I see no reason why the amount of text in any comic should bother anyone. The writer should be able to use however much he deems necessary for his idea, whether that be punch line, story, or whatever. Hell, I saw some in this thread saying Ctrl+Alt+Del has this "problem," yet as a regular reader of that comic, I've never felt it was particularly wordy. Its quality is certainly variable at best, but that has nothing to do with the amount of text involved, at least in my opinion.

I'd tend to agree with those who said their impression is that the argument primarily comes from people who don't like to read for whatever reason or are simply very lazy readers. This would certainly explain their suggestion that the writer write a novel instead (which seems to carry the implication that those are the only form of literature that should contain a word count beyond a certain limit, which is ridiculous).

Zevox

[Scion_of_Darkness]

I can't say that I have noticed many "Walls of Text" in OOTS. However when I think about it, pretty much everything V says is a Wall of Text, but in a good way.

I just realized, I/someone should make a Wall of Text spell! Just for V's sake.

[SPoD]

I, too, have heard such complaints, mostly on other websites. My theory is that the complaint is really a shorthand for, "I'm not enjoying OOTS right now, and I'm not willing to put in the time necessary to read a strip that long that I'm not enjoying." It has less to do with number of words than it does number-of-words-to-level-of-enjoyment ratio, sort of like preferring your favorite author's latest 1000-page bestseller over a dull 300-page literature classic that you need to read for English class.

Thus, I think it's an entirely arbitrary criticism that usually hints at an underlying dissatisfaction that the critic is not able to articulate.

(My feelings on both TVTropes (and such dissatisfaction) are on display below.)

[Archangel62]

I think it has a lot to do with how the person feels when reading. A wordy comic isn't necessarily BAD but many that are tend to be. Fans! also tends to be a bit wordy at times but it works because the images used and the words used don't feel like filler, the same is true of OotS. But I can also see an argument that someone might have when most webcomics tend to be fairly strong on image over text and those that aren't tend to be of poorer quality.

[Blue Ghost]

Yes, I would agree with your assessments that complaints about verbosity are much misguided. As an avid fan of Vaarsuvius myself, the long dialogues and monologues are some of my favorite features of OOTS. Some people do not enjoy reading period, and as such, OOTS is not the comic for them. But I do believe that people who reject OOTS based on the numbers of words are impoverishing themselves of the richness and nuance of the comic, as well as any good books they refuse to read on that basis. I will now just write some more random words to enlarge the wall of text I have created, because long-winded speeches characterized by sesquipedalian verbosity are the mark of a dedicated wizard and avid Vaarsuvius fan.

[Teatime]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0558.html

Rich has referenced before that the comic is wordy (even if, ironically, through the voice of an idiot orc). I think it's safe to assume he realizes this, and has dubbed it "working as intended."

[Warren Dew]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0558.html

Shaman Vurkle's expression in the last frame is a perfect example of how "show don't tell" can work well. More of that would be nice, even without reducing the verbiage.

[Caleniel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caleniel View Post
Treasure Island, Peter Rabbit, pornographic novels


Doesn't sound like a really strong argument for reading books, there.

Indeed, what LeGuin seems to be getting at there is not so much "people are stupid and can't read" as "authors aren't giving people stuff worth reading."

The Randall Jarrell quote (it wasn't LeGuin saying it) states that it is impossible to "dumb down" your literary production enough to include everyone as a reader. That's why he mentions these not-so-heavy-literature alternatives: The fact that they exist doesn't bring the non-reader to read, so neither should he expect to achieve that by making his own writing more "accessible". He brings home his point again by the reply of the non-reader in his dream scenario: The attitude of this section of his potential audience to literature as a whole is summed up by the phrase "huh?"

And the point, for which I thought the quote was perfect: OotS should NOT aim for the widest audience possible. It's ok if some people are too intellectually lazy to read all the long sentences or all the hard words. There's plenty of nice pictures on the internet; surely they can find alternatives.

But actually I think OotS does reach a broad spectrum of readers. My son is seven, and doesn't know a word of English yet, but he found my OotS albums, and he has been "reading" them over and over again - just for the art. He even has an opinion on Vs gender! I think the text part is sometimes complex and the visual art is very simple, but both are exceptionally well done. Even if they are not for everyone!

[Prowl]

Isn't the whole point of it being drawn in stick figures to drive home the idea that the art isn't the selling point of the comic?

[Manga Shoggoth]

How can I get a copy? Might be perfect to read with my young kids

Look anywhere that sells graphic novels, although I have a suspicion that it may be out of print.

I'll try and look up the ISBN number when I home tonight.

[KevLar]

Boy, do I have a wall of text for you...

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
2. How would you go about arguing against it?
I read a lot of webcomics and I read a lot of printed comics. I read comics from many-many genres and many-many countries. I love this medium of art more than any other, and I regard it as exactly that: a medium of art. And like any other medium, comics allow for a staggeringly wide range of techniques and aesthetic choices and layouts and drawing styles and everything.

So it really infuriates me when people who think of "comics" or "webcomics" restrict themselves to one form and one pattern, as if there are no other ways to do this. Especially if the only form they can grasp is this:

setup->pop culture reference OR geek culture reference->punchline

Comics are not supposed to address exclusively American geeks with the attention span of a goldfish. (No offense to neither Americans nor geeks nor -the very least - goldfish. I love all of you.) Comics can do anything you want them to, anything at all. Why do some people take it for granted that there's a norm the artist must follow, otherwise he's failed? In my opinion, they really need to read more comics. They need to read different comics.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone is obliged to like something out of (what they perceive as) the norm - say, a Wall of Text. If you don't like it, you just don't and no one will blame you. Period. But do not, for the love of all that's good, argue that a Wall of Text (or anything you don't recognize) "doesn't fit the medium". The medium has room for everything.


Some even lump it in with Ctrl+Alt+Del because of this 'problem', which is like lumping Finding Nemo with The Reef because they're both about fish in my book.
+1
As for me, no, I don't mind the extent of written text in OotS. In fact, I think it fits perfectly the drawing style. The constant juxtaposition between Something Simple (stick figures, "fairly simple jokes about the rules") with Something Complicated (long texts, elaborate story) is what makes this comic tick in the first place. IMO.

[Manga Shoggoth]

How can I get a copy? Might be perfect to read with my young kids

Thrudh,

The ISBN is ISBN 0-261-10266-4

...and it is titled "The Hobbit" and published under the "Eclipse Graphic Novels" imprint by HarperCollins.

Good hunting...

[KevLar]

Oh, and here's something relevant (http://www.overcompensating.com/posts/20081112.html) (and recent) about how "the internet has ruined everybody's minds". :smalltongue:

[rayne_dragon]

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?


I never really notice how text-heavy the comic is, so I feel it may be a bit unfair. But since people have pointed out Rich's own referencing to his work in such a way, I guess it's true, but by no means a bad thing.



2. How would you go about arguing against it?


I would suggest anyone who does think that a wall of text is bad go and read the introduction of Strange Wine by Harlan Ellison. Of course, given the opinion being discussed, I doubt its advocates would actually be interested in reading a book.

[Derk_Mcgerk]

Actually this is the only web comic I read. I've tried others but they often take themselves too seriously. Also pretentiousness seems pretty standard online anyway. You get more bang for your buck with oots because of the wordiness. In fact i'd say the writing is primary and the art is secondary. Like the dialogue is lead, and the stick figures play in the rhythm section.

[hamishspence]

for funniness, XKCD, Darths and Droids, and a few others can be good, though mostly shorter.

for thought-provoking- OOTS for me.

[Mr Chief]

I dont see why people complain about this. I like it when word heavy comics come out. The more words there are the longer it lasts so the more enjoyment you get out of it.

[CaptainIreland]

I may be nerdy and elitist here in my own little bubble (I often find myself saying very Vaarsuvius-like things) but my gut reaction to the idea that there was not only a complaint, but *a whole catergory type of complaints* to the effect of "Too many words!" was... a sort of appalled shock. Does anyone really want to display themselves as if they "need more pictures... durr... durr... to much'a dem dere readin's... ya'll talk like ya'll got dat dere fancy book larnin'... "

This isn't the real issue with Walls of Text, though.

It's not the number of words, but the presentation. It's a valid criticism to say "This comic had long dialog boxes which obscured the panels and were difficult to follow," or "This comic had just a big square box of words with no breaks."

The issue isn't the number of words or the vocabulary used, but the spacial arrangement of a panel.

And as any graphic artist will rightly tell you, that can be a valid critique, that is not at all on the level of, "Durr, too many words."

To say it is the same thing is insulting.

I'm sure some comics of OotS are prone to bad panels, but I'd have to do a deep search to find them.

[HealthKit]

I have noticed that the most recent strips have been on the wordy side, but I'm chalking it up to all the drama that's been unfolding as of late.

And as someone else has pointed out, OotS is the first webcomic I check for updates, so that has to tell you something.

Could Rich tone the wall of text down a bit?
Sure, but he doesn't have to. It's his comic and he'll do what he wants.

Personally I'm favor of him doing whatever it takes to keep the story moving.

[Lissou]

Apart from V's monologues, I've never noticed anything like that.

Normally, when I'm faced with a "wall of text" comic, I skip the text. Seriously. I've done that with many webcomics, and never been able to come back and read.
I oots, it has happened to me exactly twice, that almost count as once: the lawyer speeches at the end of the trial. That's it.

So, no, It doesn't seem very "wall of texty" to me. I mean, there is dialogue, but if there wasn't any people would be complaining that the story isn't moving.

I guess there might be a bit more text due to the graphic limitations, but I can't say I've ever noticed it.

[Fish]

You can't be too wordy in a comic. Now as you ponder what that means ("does that mean it's not wise to be overly verbose, or does that mean it's impossible to use too many words"?) I'll throw another on the heap: you can't tell the readers enough, either.

Comics, being a medium of art and text, have to strike a balance between text and art.

When you have too much text, and little art, the pace seems to be very slow. When you have too much art and little text, it's often unclear what is happening.

Rich is very good at pacing and timing a joke. He knows when to pause. He knows when to leave a panel blank. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that he doesn't know when to edit himself: when that unnecessary sarcastic aside just clutters up the frame, he doesn't always know when to remove it. It's often those little word bubbles that are crammed in, in a slightly smaller font; you could remove about half of those and speed up the comic's pace without losing anything essential.

Personally, I think Rich's dialogue suffers when everybody talks too much. The characters become less distinct. Less is more, usually — but sometimes less is less. It's a hard balance to strike.

[Kaytara]

Rich is very good at pacing and timing a joke. He knows when to pause. He knows when to leave a panel blank. Unfortunately, I get the feeling that he doesn't know when to edit himself: when that unnecessary sarcastic aside just clutters up the frame, he doesn't always know when to remove it. It's often those little word bubbles that are crammed in, in a slightly smaller font; you could remove about half of those and speed up the comic's pace without losing anything essential.

Personally, I think Rich's dialogue suffers when everybody talks too much. The characters become less distinct. Less is more, usually — but sometimes less is less. It's a hard balance to strike.

I respectfully disagree with that. To my mind, those tiny details and off-hand comments that are thrown in are part of what makes this comic so awesome. The characters have life. Then don't just talk when it's convenient for the word-per-panel ratio, they talk when it's in their character to talk. While the focus in a certain strip may sometimes be on the dialogue between two or at most three different characters, I love it when the others show that they're there as well.
Take this comic, for example. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0295.html
Belkar's two little comments in tiny text as well as well as the "Perish the thought" by V could easily have been left out without removing anything essential. Unless I misunderstood you, they're precisely the kind of bubbles crammed in with smaller font that you said removing would up the pace. Bring up the pace, perhaps, but I'm convinced it would still detract from the comic; it's those little reactions and comics that make these characters seem so alive and realistic.

[PePe QuiCoSE]

sorry, haven't read the whole thread, still

i found sometimes that Rich spends too much space explaining things that a regular guy like me (and by that i mean someone who doesn't really know all of the possible application of the rules or possibilities by the characters) doesn't asks himself and does find the amount of text invested in the comic over the top. I figure that keeping a comic funny and fresh is not as easy after 600 strips, so I'm okay with that though i think that if it is possible to get out the strips less wordy, i would go for it as it melds better with the idea of a stick figure comic.

I find that my favorite arc is the one of the wooden forest which honestly, pulls similar jokes and gags that has been done lately, but there they were new and with a much cleaner execution.

[Spiky]

1. What are your feelings on this accusation?
2. How would you go about arguing against it?


1) Typical. So, do they actually know how to read?
2) Why bother? You're just going to use words. Which are too troublesome to read, apparently.

Variety is far more interesting than the alternative. There are many comics that follow the "rules" with less text. I stopped reading them years ago. So a couple comics are different, so what, people need to get over themselves.