Cheshire Crossing

[Miklus]

No fan thread for Cheshire Crossing? Well, now there is! I came across it while plowing though the long list of web comics.

http://www.cheshirecrossing.net/

Dorothy Gale, Alice Liddell and Wendy Darling kick ass! Alice is my favorite. Bad girl!

Favorite quote: "This is the first institution I've been to that let me keep my knives!" :smallamused:

A worthwhile read for sure.

[Fri]

I like it, even if only because It's made by that crazy guy who made casey and andy. And he even managed to finish casey and andy, which gave this guy +100 point in my heart as a webcomic creator.

And the art actually isn't that bad. I remember reading an interview with the author. He said that he actually didn't like the art/doing the art. But it's a necessary evil, because he need it to do his story. If only he could find an artist to do his drawing for him.

[Miklus]

Yes, the art is kind of strange. Clear lines, no shades, almost Oots-like. But he don't shy away from perspective.

[starburst98]

i'll start the snark on the right foot with THIS (http://badwebcomics.blogspot.com/2007/10/cheshire-crossing.html)

[Miklus]

No snarking allowed! :smalleek:

I read that "review" and the only thing that comes into my mind is "That Ted David is really pathetic".

Isn't it funny how people with real talent never seem to poop on those lesser than themselves? While those with no talent or ideas seem to spend a lot of time ripping at those who have?

How does that go again?.. "Those who can't loves to make rules for those who can!"

If that Ted guy knows so much about comics, then why does he not make one himself? Because he can't and he don't know what the hell he is talking about, that's why.

[Arioch]

YWIBAYSFB is not really worth getting worked up about. They're not real reviews, just vitriolic outpourings that aren't even funny. Even when they review genuinely bad webcomics, they often do it in such a way that their criticisms are more about the author than the comic itself, and that's wrong.

I had a quick look at the comic, and it doesn't look too bad. I'll probably have a look at it later.

[idksocrates]

YWIBAYSFB is not really worth getting worked up about.

They do tend to band about profanity way too much, but there wasn't much there that I didn't agree with, although I will admit I probably didn't give this comic a fair shake (seeing as how i couldn't bring myself to read past the first strip).

I clicked the link, and saw the god-awful art on the cover. I shrugged, and clicked through, seeing the first page. The scarecrows dialogue was terrible, to start. Also it's a terrible point to start a story-based comic to boot. But i was willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, and kept reading. The next panel the Tin Man steps forward and starts speaking in a damn-near unreadable voice, and it was just the last straw and I closed the page.

However, typing this has guilted me into reading more of it, so...

god, the art... is soul crushing... and I can't read this much text when the art is so bad.


I tried, god help me, i tried, but 5 pages in, it was begging me to close the page again.

[Miklus]

OK, OK! So the art is awful! The only thing worse is OotS or maybe XKCD :smallamused:

But I thought the story was amusing. And pretty dark too, actually.

[Lord Seth]

If that Ted guy knows so much about comics, then why does he not make one himself? Because he can't and he don't know what the hell he is talking about, that's why.So I assume that Roger Ebert knows nothing of movies, not having much experience with making them, and therefore is a horrible reviewer?


YWIBAYSFB is not really worth getting worked up about. They're not real reviews, just vitriolic outpourings that aren't even funny. Even when they review genuinely bad webcomics, they often do it in such a way that their criticisms are more about the author than the comic itself, and that's wrong. Well it honestly depends on the review. Some reviews were, while extremely insulting, actually accurate. For all the insults, exaggerations, and profanity in it, the Dominic Deegan review was pretty accurate in pointing out flaws in the comic.

Another one that I thought was fairly accurate was the Abstract Gender review, in which Ted David went through the archives and systematically pointed out all of the comic's many flaws. In contrast, I thought his review of The Wotch was fairly weak. He doesn't really say much other than "there's too much transformation and the art sucks", which really doesn't explain to me WHY he so hates it or why it's so horrible compared to even the other comics he dislikes.

Another weak review is their Bob and George review, which consists of pointing out a few small flaws in the comic (some of which the author flat-out admitted were mistakes), exaggerating them, and then treating them as examples of the whole comic. Not to mention, he takes what's supposed to be a silly comical webcomic WAY too seriously.

Two of the better reviews are Shredded Moose (a webcomic that is in fact so terrible you can't really do much other than toss insults at it) and Dresden Codak (which is actually fairly constructive).

Cheshire Crossing honestly has possibly the worst update schedule I've ever seen, though. I mean, it updates less than twice a year.

[Neoriceisgood]

Opened thread.

Looked at Cheshire Crossing.

Kind of put off by the art.

Read anyway.

Kind of liked it after a few comics.

Finished reading all 4 chapters.

Noticed snarking link to YWIBAYSFB.

Read it.

Fully agreed.

----------


I like this comic in concept and it was actually fairly readable, but when you take the YWIBAYSFB site for what it is [a site to bitch about a comic's negative parts if they're noticable and unintentional enough.] I don't see how you can really deny that some if not a lot of the criticism given in it isn't accurate.

If I would imagine reading "Chesire Crossing" with all of the flaws mentioned in that article removed, it'd go from "kinda bad but readable" to "oh this comic's awesome.".


The big problem about the "templating" in this comic is the fact that, as the author actually vaguely hinted at himself, is that the author obviously would like to make this wonderful magical and epic story.

The biggest gripe I'd have with this comic is the fact that unlike OoTS which has a good balance between what'd be fitting for the comic & what the actual style ended up being, this comic's art style and characters purely appear to work as ways to show what's happening, rather than really being a ..lovable style.

This is all subjective of course, but how much effort a style takes isn't necessarily a good indication of how effective and likable the style is.

I don't think I have to explain on the forums associated with OotS how this'd pan out.

[Ravens_cry]

Initial thoughts on the art.
Someone has cloned Kim Possible, and made marionettes out of the bodies.

[Sneak]

I read it for a bit.

It's not funny. It doesn't have a good plot. The art is bad. The updating schedule is possibly the worst idea ever.

Conclusion: don't read.

And this is sad, because I liked Casey & Andy.

[DanielX]

Whoa.

I remember reading volume 1 of this years ago, but forgot the name of the comic and couldn't find it anywhere - trying to search for webcomics with Alice, Dorothy, and Wendy didn't come up with this one, for some reason.

Thanks!

[Lord Seth]

I read it for a bit.

It's not funny. It doesn't have a good plot. The art is bad. The updating schedule is possibly the worst idea ever.

Conclusion: don't read.

And this is sad, because I liked Casey & Andy.The art was better in C&A, also.

[sun_tzu]

I have to admit I was amazed by the negativity. I read Cheshire Crossing a while ago, and loved it.

[doliest]

Both my friend and I are fans of Your Webcomic is Bad, and we are also fans of some of the comics they review, and we find that they are usually right. I like chessire crossing, but the art, unlike oots, is not used encouragingly but seems to be there simply to give him a medium to convey his message, sorta like MGS4 is for it's creator. I'd honestly call the comic a guilty pleasure....also because It's a manditory mention with this comic, waiting for an update is, to paraphrase yathzee, it's like walking along a road stopping every five steps to hit yourself in the face with a hammer...and the road is a million miles long...and the hammer is made of wank.

[Neoriceisgood]

but the art, unlike oots, is not used encouragingly but seems to be there simply to give him a medium to convey his message

As I tried to say, OotS's style really benefitst the comic and I'm sure most fans would actually dislike it if it'd suddenly change styles for something realistic [or even if Rich decided to try and give 3D shading to the characters, which'd just conflict with the more simplistic charm of his style]

When I look at Cheshire Crossing I cannot imagine any person who wouldn't be happy if it's art suddenly changed with a gross quality increase as main noticable difference.


The main problem I have with Cheshire Crossing is how lifeless and templated the style is right now, beyond that, the backgrounds are just hilarious at times, it's like they live in a huge world of empty.

Above that, all 3 alternative words are pretty much big empty planes as well.


On the bright side, for a "templated" style the author at least seems more capable of drawing females than the guy from Dominic Deegan [sorry for bringing it up :smallcool:]

If the guy's entire style concept wasn't one that removed any chance of ever improving at art I'm sure he'd be able to surpass Mookie pretty fast, at least in terms of not making females look like guys with boobs. :smallamused:


As Doliest said though, it also seems like a bit of a guilty pleasure to me, my conscious tells me it's a bad comic, but still I felt strangely compelled to read it.

[Fri]

Nah. Actually the author even agree that the art is bad. He said that he just really can't draw, but he have a story to tell, and it need comic medium. That's why I said before, if ONLY he can find someone to draw for him.

[Paragraph]

After I saw this thread, I just read through the entire archive. I like it. Even the art - I don't have high expectations, I even liked Dominic Deegan's, until I noticed that it actually got worse.
I also love the story, those interconnections between the fantasy worlds intrigue me.

And I'm still laughing about this (http://www.cheshirecrossing.net/page.php?issue=4&pagenum=6) joke. "Nice eyepatch! You'd make a good pirate!" "Nice hook. You'd make a bad masseuse." :smallbiggrin:

Simon

[T-O-E]

Personally, I think Solomon's trying to annoy people. No one can be that offensive.

I agree with all of your points except for this one:


If that Ted guy knows so much about comics, then why does he not make one himself? Because he can't and he don't know what the hell he is talking about, that's why.

The skills needed to be a good critic (not saying that Ted's one of them) are not identical to those needed to make a good web-comic.

[Neoriceisgood]

Personally, I think Solomon's trying to annoy people. No one can be that offensive.

I agree with all of your points except for this one:



The skills needed to be a good critic (not saying that Ted's one of them) are not identical to those needed to make a good web-comic.


I agree with this statement.

I think the best way to look at it may be the fact that for anyone to be a -real good- [product x, say, webcomic] artist, they'd have to be self critical enough and familiar enough with the medium to realise how to make a good webcomic.

By posessing these skills you can kind of asume that they're at least semi capable of giving valid critique and insight on why another comic isn't good.


Although YWIBAYSFB is obviously a negative troll fest in it's own right [and enjoyable if you take it for what it is, rather than seeing it as an attempt at constructive criticism.] it doesn't mean the author isn't right about a lot of things said.


The fact that a lot of the criticism given in YWIBAYSFB is destructive rather than constructive shows a good example of why the author can actually get away with it without his own webcomic.


He's not necessarily making claims about it being easy or workable to do a really good webcomic or giving half assed attempts at "How to do it right".

To do that right you'd -have- to be able to create a good webcomic, as being able is the biggest requirement in being able to explain and elaborate to others how to do it right.

Although it's unfriendly and often not very helpful, "destructive criticism" can be very valid even if it's just given in spite.

In my mind going "Well he can't make webcomics himself so his criticism is invalid" is roughly equivalent to his own rather harsh and ad hominem prone type of journals in it being rather destructive [not to mention unnecessary invalidating].


When I try to look at it objectively I see this:

A "mean spirited" guy is giving destructive, thus unhelpful, criticism to webcomic authors who are often known to spit the concept of criticism in the face anyway.

So in the end of the day it doesn't matter a lot if he's destructive in his style of argument, because the chances of the authors of the comics he's commenting on actually accepting/appreciating valid constructive criticism is extremely slim to begin with.


:smallredface:

[Miklus]

Well, in the end YWIBAYSFB is just totally irrelevant. Why would I care what some self-appointed comic expert have to say? I can make up my own mind wether I like a comic or not.

The only reason to read YWIBAYSFB is if profane language amuses you. The "Reviews" are not even funny.

[Hyooz]

Well, in the end YWIBAYSFB is just totally irrelevant. Why would I care what some self-appointed comic expert have to say? I can make up my own mind wether I like a comic or not.

The only reason to read YWIBAYSFB is if profane language amuses you. The "Reviews" are not even funny.

With that in mind, ANY review or critique of anything is totally irrelevant.

Heck, in that light, why should I care what YOU have to say about the comic?

Why should I care what this self-appointed acid expert has to say? I can make up my own mind about whether its corrosive to the skin or not.

But, I'll give your method a try.

*reads the comic on his own*

*is put-off by the art style*

*doesn't find the writing strong enough to carry the comic either*

*stops reading the comic*

[Fri]

Right. Now can we get back at talking about how hot is Alice in this comic? Mm... dark victorian action girl...

[Gez]

Right. Now can we get back at talking about how hot is Alice in this comic? Mm... dark victorian action girl...

She's supposed to be, what, 14?

[Fri]

crap. foiled by legal age, again!

Curse you legal age and standard creepyness rule (http://xkcd.com/314/)!

[Rockbird]

OK, OK! So the art is awful! The only thing worse is OotS or maybe XKCD :smallamused:

But I thought the story was amusing. And pretty dark too, actually.

I don't know how serious you are with this comment (Telling tone over the internet, blah blah blah) but i'll say my piece anyway.


NO.

I don't know what it is with people saying OOTS's got bad art. It doesn't. It's clean, consistent, clear and aestethically pleasing (Mind you, that's my opinion...). A swift look into the AaC forum shows that it's not as easy to do right as one might think, too...

Now, XKCD i'll give you. But at least that doesn't make me actively want to stop reading, since it's such a minor part of the thing.

[Neoriceisgood]

I don't know how serious you are with this comment (Telling tone over the internet, blah blah blah) but i'll say my piece anyway.


NO.

I don't know what it is with people saying OOTS's got bad art. It doesn't. It's clean, consistent, clear and aestethically pleasing (Mind you, that's my opinion...). A swift look into the AaC forum shows that it's not as easy to do right as one might think, too...

Now, XKCD i'll give you. But at least that doesn't make me actively want to stop reading, since it's such a minor part of the thing.


OOTS = very stylistic, it helps the comic a lot

XKCD, Cyanide & Happiness & Dinosaur Comics = The imagery in these has a very big "so bad it's awesome" aspect to it, eventhough it's obviously intentional; you -know- it's drawn like **** [or uses the very same images over and over in the case of dinosaur comics]; but this can either:

a) add to the feeling/idea [I mean, dinosaur comics is like a running gag gone wild; but it works.]

b) not detract from it [ XKCD is a gag based strip, as long as you can read it & find it funny, the art won't matter too much.


The big problem with Ceshire Crossing's artstyle/art quality is the fact that it's undeniable that it obviously detracts from the overal feel/quality of the comic.

As YWIBAYSFB pointed out, and I agree entirely, fight scenes that could be pretty epic & "emotional scenes" either feel boring or just plain outlandish because action and emotion, important parts of the comic, don't translate to the medium at all.

Now I could fully understand someone not reading OotS because it's a templated/stick figure comic, just because they find no real appeal in this, it's fair.

But as someone who draws a lot himself I find it rather weird for anyone to try and correlate simplicity in style & how "bad" it is.


If there's any argument to be made it's probably that it'd require far less artistic skill to be "good" at a style like OotS's style then say, a very realistic fully painted comic.

This in no way implies that OotS's style is bad or anything related though, at best it's less impressive.


I still hope he was joking with that comment though. :smallsmile:

[DanielX]

As pointed out, I don't think this guy is an artist or illustrator, and probably should team up with someone who can do this well. I personally have enjoyed webcomics at all different graphics levels, from Dudley's dungeon (which is in ASCII) to Girl Genius (the Foglios started with dead-tree comics and it shows - they've got serious quality at a quick pace), to everything in betwen (xkcd, Megatokyo, YAFGC, Gods of Arr-Kelaan, etc). The art isn't much, though what there is adequately conveys the story. It needs to be redrawn if its ever published in dead-tree form, but very few webcomics are.

The story is pretty good though, and there are some good one-liners. I like both Alice and Wendy (two very independent young ladies - but utterly different personalities). And I never expected Mary Poppins to be badass (I don't get summoning the spirits of naughty children, though). And I now officially ship Captain Hook/Wicked Witch of the West/Queen of Hearts three-way. :smalltongue:

Question: does anyone know who "Lem", Dr. Rutherford's assistant, is? I may hit myself in the head if its someone obvious, but I don't know...

[Sneak]

She's supposed to be, what, 14?

Really? She doesn't not AT ALL look 14. Well, I suppose I'll just chalk that up to the numerous failings of the artwork.


Now, XKCD i'll give you. But at least that doesn't make me actively want to stop reading, since it's such a minor part of the thing.


b) not detract from it [ XKCD is a gag based strip, as long as you can read it & find it funny, the art won't matter too much.

Why does everyone seem to think that the art in XKCD is so terrible? If you've read the archives, you know that Randall Munroe is really a fairly capable artist. His landscapes are a good example of what he is capable of. He made a stylistic choice, however, and I think it paid off. If he decided to switch to a different kind of artwork, I think his comic would suffer for it—it would just distract you. I think XKCD's artwork actually adds a lot to the comic and goes along with the overall "feel" of the comic.

But back to the subject at hand. Sure, CC's art is plastic, templated, and kind of Uncanny Valley-ish. But really, I don't think the problem with Cheshire Crossing is the the art isn't good enough to support the story. I think the story isn't good enough to support the story. There are no laughs, no tears, no anything! The story just feels bland and generic, and the pacing isn't helped at all by the arbitrary updating system he keeps—plus, I really can't be bothered to keep checking the site without a guaranteed payoff.

In a way, I feel like the artwork actually complements the writing—they're both bland and generic. Any higher quality artwork and the writing would feel out of place in comparison to the art, and any lower quality and it would really actively detract from the comic.

I don't think CC is a BAD comic necessarily—just not one worth reading.