text:
« Now, to figure out why my external keyboard has inverted my command and alt keys.... | Main | Of course, now I have to watch the movie again. For... research purposes. Yeah. »
Eric: Channel markers.
Webcomics criticism has grown, since the days we first started putting pen to virtual ink over here at the 'Snark. We weren't the first to talk about webcomics, we're far from the last, we're not the best (unless you think we are -- and if you do... well, thank you!), but we're among the better known.
One sign of growing, in any critical field, is when the field begins to turn on each other and devour each other's sweet, sweet flesh. And we've kind of moved into that realm. There is rending and gnashing and pain. We have reached the point where Webcomics Criticism has Drama of its own. Drama between critics. Drama and hatred and bile.
The great thing about Critical Drama, as opposed to, say, Webcomics Drama, is no one gives a shit except other critics.
Seriously. Oh, a few Webcartoonists stare and shake their head and say things like "what in God's name are you people doing?" But for the most part, the only people who care about internecine warfare between critics are other critics. And, as has been pointed out, it is this very internecine warfare between critics that is the foundation of literary criticism from at least the 19th Century onward.
As a side note, as has often been mentioned, Harold Bloom is insane. But I digress.
Well, I'm not going to add fuel to the fires. For one thing, I have a hard time caring about them. In the words of Wednesday White, I'm going back to bed, blearily eating saltines, and watching Doctor Who. For one thing, Doctor Who is really good, these days. And for another, the arguments hardly need me.
However, I do recognize that, for whatever reason, folks read what we have to say. So, it seems appropriate to offer some advice to the prospective webcomics critic, blogger, journalist or what have you. This is my advice, as opposed to The Websnark Style Guide. I don't necessarily speak for Weds here.
Consider this some channel markers. These aren't rules, because... well, honestly, who the fuck am I to set rules? But these can help keep new critics and bloggers out of the shallows.
If you think I'm specifically writing about you... I probably am. But let's pretend I'm not. This isn't meant to be personal. It's just advice.
Be up front and consistent about what you're writing. Some people write because they really enjoy writing. They don't really care if they get an audience or not -- they just want to put words on the internet. Others really like having people read their stuff -- they want an audience. They crave it. And they're going to shape their writing to that audience. Some people want to be vicious and mean, tearing into the banal and substandard with a vicious glee. Others want to support and promote the things they actually like.
The important thing is to understand what it is you want to do, to be up front about what you're doing, and to be consistent about it. If you're a webcomics review site, wanting to render your opinions (be they positive or negative) about webcomics, and rate them according to your scale, that's fine. But you should make it clear that's what you're doing. If you hate all webcomics and want to take webcartoonists down several pegs, be clear about that. (And if you hate all webcomics and want to take webcartoonists down several pegs, admit it to yourself and others -- don't claim to be a general review site.)
This, by the by, is why Weds and I so firmly say Websnark isn't a webcomics blog. It's not that we don't write about webcomics. We do write about webcomics. But we write about other stuff, too. We write about Bibleman and video games and Jack Chick and my cat. We get to do that because we're up front about it.
If you're not up front about your intentions, people will castigate you. They will call your motives into question, and use it to undermine your credibility. And some people will believe them. If you are up front about your motives and intentions, some people will still castigate them, of course, but you'll remain credible through it all. And credibility is coin of the realm for any kind of critic.
Accept that not everyone is going to agree with you. This one should be highlighted, underlined and circled in your notebook. Not everyone is going to agree with what you say. Your opinions aren't natural laws. You may think something is great. Someone else is going to think it sucks. Accept that. Don't worry about converting them to your opinion. Express your opinion as clearly as possible, accept that some folks will disagree with it, and move on.
Support your thesis. It's easy to write "the webcomic Anime Treacle sucks donkey." Heck, I just wrote it, and it took less than five seconds. However, declaring that Anime Treacle sucks donkey doesn't do anyone any good if you don't support what you're saying. You need to demonstrate why it sucks donkey. You need examples. You need evidence.
Now, you might not understand why this is important. "It's just my opinion," you say. "No one can claim it isn't my opinion." And that's true. No one can.
However, if someone who likes the webcomic Anime Treacle reads that, all they can say is "wow, what an asshole." And then they'll never believe anything else you ever write. They'll assume you're stupid. If you weren't stupid, you'd agree with them about Anime Treacle. They'll tell all their friends "wow, this guy is stupid." The word will spread. The word "stupid" will appear in many peoples' descriptions of you.
And people who agree with you that Anime Treacle sucks won't come to your defense, because there's not enough there to defend. All they can say is "well, I think it sucks too!" And sooner or later, you'll post that one of their favorite webcomics sucks too, and you'll lose them. Ultimately, every person on the planet -- including various people in the third world who have no electricity, will think you're stupid.
Which honestly isn't the point of blogging, now is it?
On the other hand, if you explain why you think Anime Treacle sucks, and give examples, you give people a chance to see where you're coming from. You'll convince some of them. Others will disagree, but they'll have a sense of why you came up with that opinion. And yes, a couple of people will disagree and say you're stupid, but it will be easy for other folks to come to your defense. You will begin to build a reputation as not being stupid. Life will be better.
As a side note -- saying that Anime Treacle sucks, and then linking to a particularly suckful example strip? Doesn't much help if you don't go into why that strip is an example of sucking. Any time you figure it's self evident? It's not.
Don't argue your point on that webcomic's forums. It's absolutely natural. You post a well thought out essay that makes a solid point about a webcomic. You support your thesis. You try to be as fair as possible to your subject. You make it clear you know your subject and you're not doing this out of hate. This is honestly what you felt, and you just hope that -- if it's negative -- it doesn't hurt the cartoonist's feelings as much as it helps him improve.
What's the first thing you do after posting? You go to that webcomic's forums, to see if they're talking about your essay.
Don't lie. We all do it.
And at first, we get upset because no one seemed to notice. "Where the Hell are they," you think. "Someone on this forum must read my site too!"
As a side-note? No. No, that's not true. I don't care how many people you've got reading. We've got a frighteningly large audience over here on Websnark, but that audience pales in comparison to the internet in general. There are vastly more people out there who've never heard of Websnark than those who have, and it's entirely plausible that the majority of a given webcomic's audience would be among those who've never heard of us.
And it's also true of you.
Anyhow. You become tempted to post a pointer yourself. Don't. Let them find it, or not find it.
If they do find it, and they start a discussion, go ahead and read that discussion. Like I said, we all do. We want to feel like we've had impact. We want to feel like our words have been read.
Well, you start reading, and you begin to realize that these people didn't get the point. They're reading things into your essay that you didn't mean. They're accusing you of things that you didn't feel. And some of their responses are clearly wrong. They clearly didn't even read the essay -- you address the very things they're accusing you of! They're lying or they're wrong. And no one's taking your side. No one's explaining just how wrong they are.
You will have an overpowering urge to post your response. To say "no, I think you misunderstood. I'm not saying Anime Treacle is pornography. I'm saying that Anime Treacle's use of nudity can be off-putting to the potential audience." You want to reasonably show them what you meant.
Don't. Walk away. Take deep breaths. Go read Wil Wheaton's blog for a while. But don't go to their turf and try to get them to "understand." They're not going to. And you'll get a reputation for being a defensive hothead who can dish it out but can't take it. And no one will ever -- ever -- take anything you write seriously.
Yeah, they're going to get it wrong. Guess what? That's okay. These are the hardcore fans of the comic strip you just said mean things about. They're not going to kiss you for it. They're going to hate you. Let them. This is their place. The place where Anime Treacle is the coolest damn strip on the web. You've posted your opinion. Let them froth all they like over there.
If you see something you honestly didn't think of -- a clarification of your essay you honestly feel must be made? Do it on your blog. That's your place. If they want to get into it, let them come to you.
But be sparing on those responses, even then. See "defensive hothead who can dish it out but can't take it" above.
Don't take yourself too seriously. Writing is largely ego-driven. We all know it. We want to believe we're carving our words into the living rock of history and the Critical Discourse®. We want to feel that the things we say will be remembered for the decades to come, will bring men and women to tears, will change lives, will out-Oprah Oprah. And in our heart of hearts, we believe that will come to pass, one day.
Leave those sentiments in your heart of hearts. Jesus, guy. It's just blogging. When you see people dismissing you, shrug and move on. Let what you've written speak for itself. If someone makes fun of you, laugh and try to see their side of it.
And don't lose your sense of perspective. Some people really love criticism. Or bloggers. Occasionally, you might get groupies. Enjoy it. (Though, you know. Use a condom.) However, most people who read webcomics criticism are fans of webcomics. They're interested in what you have to say because they're interested in webcomics, and they think it's neat someone's writing about them. Never confuse that with being more important than your subject matter. A hell of a lot more people read Penny Arcade than read your critical site. The minute it seems like you consider yourself the starmaker, the filter through which webcomics fans will see all their work, the person who stands as Editor To Webcomics who must be appeased lest you bring your wrath against the apostates? Your audience will start laughing at you. And then most of them will leave. If you're really lucky, someone will write something making fun of you. Truly lucky people might get a webcomic's daily strip devoted to mocking you.
Hand in hand with that is learning to accept the criticisms made against you, whether they're fair or not. If you get any sort of audience at all, you're going to get some responses to your work. And if you're like most of us, you're going to obsessively look for them. You'll surf Technorati and your site statistics for links, google your site name, and otherwise haunt the halls of fora and blog to find what people are saying.
Well, some of them are going to say some pretty brutal things about you. They're going to accuse you of things, rightly or wrongly. Some of them will be young enough (at least emotionally) to think they're pretty cool if they call you various words that mean "homosexual." Some of the things they say will be very, very hurtful.
And, worse yet... sometimes they'll be right. Sometimes their criticisms will be well thought out, whether they're being reasonable or inflammatory. Sometimes, they'll actually be pointing out your flaws.
The best thing you can do is ignore the idiots and try to learn from the smart people. I don't mean you need to change to suit your own critics -- sometimes they're going to fail to understand where you're actually coming from. Sometimes they're going to be right, but you're going to decide to continue anyway, because it's what you want to do.
Most of all, you should only rarely respond to them. If part of their criticism involves the now infamous phrase "they've lost me as a reader," it's fine to post a polite note thanking them for reading up until now. Don't try to defend yourself. It can't go well. It won't go well. And if they said hurtful things... well, try to get over it, and when you're writing your own stuff, remember what it felt like and try not to dish it out to others.
Unless, of course, that's your bag.
(And for God's Sakes, don't make every conversation you're in be about you. If you're in a forum or comments section of a blog, discussing something, don't phrase every comment to be a thinly disguised self-advertisement. Self-promotion is just fine in moderation. But if you're finding a way to relate a debate folks are having about an essay someone wrote about Anime Treacle, don't use it as an excuse to pimp your own recent essay on Manga Saccharine. That way lies people yearning to have you skinned as a rug.)
Be confident. The flip side of the last point, however, is a need for confidence. You have to be confident in what you write. You have to stand by your words. If you participate in a forum discussion or a comments section of your or another blog, you need to have the courage of your convictions.
Does that seem self evident? It's not. It's not because it's very, very easy to discount yourself. After all, you're talking about webcomics, and that means you're talking about webcartoonists. You're talking about Scott Kurtz and Kris Straub. You're talking about Gabe and Tycho. You're talking about Jon Rosenberg and R. Stevens. You're talking about people who tens of thousands of people read every day. (Sometimes hundreds of thousands of people. Sometimes millions.)
Hell, even in the critical community there's folks everyone's heard of with loud voices and loud opinions. There are Phil Kahns, William Gs, Fleen Folks, and yes, Eric Burnses and Wednesday Whites. People who've been in any number of screaming matches with each other and with the aforementioned webcartoonists.
And here you are. Thirty people read your blog. You have no street cred. Who the Hell are you? No one.
Weirdly, it's a safe place to be in. "No one's going to give a damn what I have to say, because I'm nobody." It's a way of posting opinions which you can then disavow. And, it's a way to fish for affirmation -- if you say "no one gives a damn about me -- I'm just a guy with a blog," it's an opportunity for people to post back "of course you're someone."
The problem is? It doesn't work. At all.
Trust me. I've been there. "I'm just a guy with a blog" was my rallying cry for the first nine months of Websnark's existence. And the best thing I ever got for it was an eyeroll. It was a mistake, because what it really says is "I'm not important enough to take seriously."
Well, if you're not important enough to take seriously, why are you wasting everyone's time by posting essays and comments in the first place?
You know that list of names I put up above? Kurtz, Straub, Tycho, Gabe, Rosenberg, Stevens, G, Kahn and the like? They play streetball. They go full on balls to the wall. When they show up, they show up to play, and they will tear your throat out if you pull that "I'm nobody" shit on them. I know. I've seen it. I've been it. If you want to participate, participate. It doesn't matter if they've never heard of you -- make your points, support your points, and have faith in your points. And if you're wrong, you're wrong. But at least you brought your A game.
Don't try to rewrite history. Look, we make mistakes. We all do. Sometimes we post an essay and we get stuff wrong in it. Sometimes that stuff makes the whole essay wrong. Sometimes, we put up an essay innocently and it turns into a firestorm of controversy we never meant. Sometimes, we find ourselves in a crucible on all sides.
The temptation is to go back. Revise. Reword what we said. Take the essay down entirely.
It is never a good idea. Ever.
For better or for worse, we live in an ephemeral medium. It's dirt simple to pull down posts, delete comments, go through and re-edit after the fact. One of the truisms of creative writing is "writing is rewriting," and it's so simple to go ahead and edit edit edit.
The problem is, people have responded to what you wrote. If you go and change what they responded to, they're going to remember that fact. Even if you have the best of intentions, any editing or rewriting you do is going to come across as self-serving -- an unwillingness to admit to your mistakes. An attempt to make the record show you made no mistakes, so your critics must be wrong.
Have you ever seen the glee someone takes in posting a Google Cache copy of an original post you've since changed? It's particularly savage glee. And boom -- you have no credibility left. At all. In anything. Congratulations. You have just been demoted to punkass bitch.
And then, there's the deleted post. Or comment. Or whatever. You know the one. You made a mistake. You took a ton of heat for it. A controversy has brewed. It's not what you meant, at all. So you pull the post down. Maybe you post an apology as well, but you get the mistake out of the record.
Well. The people who hated your post don't forget it because you deleted it. They remember it. Only now, they remember their version of it. And their version of it is vastly worse than what you actually wrote. And they're more than happy to tell the world about this horrible version of what you wrote, and here you are completely unable to refute them, because you took down the evidence. Even if you put it back up, it's trivial for your critics to say "hey, they rewrote that while it was down!" You have absolutely no way to win if you do this. And all too often, you seem like a coward when you do it.
It's not right. It's not fair. But that's how it is.
The best thing -- the only thing -- you can do is post a correction. "I said this in my last essay. I was wrong. I didn't mean for it to go where it went. I'm sorry." If you want to absolutely make certain you acknowledge the areas you were wrong, add html strikethroughs to highlight the areas you were mistaken in. If you need to add a correction to the essay itself, put it at the bottom next to a clearly marked edit marker.
We all make mistakes. Sometimes, you have to own your mistakes, in order to keep your credibility.
Everything counts, and your audience has a memory. This goes with the very first point. Remember how I said to be up front? Well, the reason for that is over time your intentions -- your real intentions -- will become clear.
If you start your blog claiming loudly that you're going to be a critic who's highlighting the problems and issues you see in sequential art today, that's fine. If, however, you spend the next four weeks trashing Anime Treacle or Manga Saccharine, over and over and over again? No one is going to believe you're trying to make sequential art better. They're going to believe you have a vendetta against Anime Treacle and Manga Saccharine. They're going to believe this because they're right.
I'm not saying your vendetta against Anime Treacle or Magna Saccharine are wrong, mind. I haven't even read your vendetta yet. However, the simple fact is, you have a hate on for those webcomics and that hate is eclipsing everything else you do. And people aren't going to look at you as a reasonable webcomics critic with good credentials in the field and credibility in various matters. They're going to look at you as the guy who hates Anime Treacle and Manga Saccharine. They're going to see everything you do through that filter. Even if you end your blog and launch a new one where you never, ever talk about Anime Treacle or Manga Saccharine, a core group of people will dismiss everything as being part of your vendetta. Or will remind people of your vendetta. You will be seen as having an agenda.
Understand, this has nothing to do with whether you are right or wrong. This has everything to do with credibility. I've said before that there's no such thing as objective criticism. This is true. However, there is still a capacity to be deceptive in your criticism. When you're seen as having an agenda, people become suspicious of your work, regardless of that work's intention. They'll question whether you're being selective, to build support against the objects of your vendetta. And even if there's no evidence of that, they'll bring that bias to whatever you write.
The same thing can happen when you cut a swath across broad sections of webcomics. If you rail against gamer comics, or sprite comics, or furry comics, or Keenspot comics, or any group... and if you do it often enough... then you stop being seen as a critic and you start being seen as "anti-gamer" or "anti-sprite" or "anti-furry" or "anti-Keenspot." Or whatever. And again, what happens is that then defines you. You can post about how much you like Sluggy Freelance, and they'll come back at you and say "but Bun Bun and Kiki are talking animals, and you hate furry comics. So either you're lying now or you were lying then! Which is it? Huh? Which is it, Skin Boy?"
Remember, you'll get back what you give out. A couple of times up above, I made mention of "being able to dish it out but not take it." That's actually a rhetorical fallacy. Our capacity to gracefully accept criticism has no bearing at all on whether or not our own criticisms are valid.
But, remember that word I keep using? "Credibility?" Credibility doesn't care if we're discussing a fallacy or not. If you're giving a sense that you don't have as thick a skin as you're expecting your own targets to have, you're going to lose credibility. It's not fair, but it's true. And that's mostly true when you're posting vitriol.
It's a simple relationship. If you post reasonable essays, with well thought out points that are well supported, you'll get back comments that engage those points in a reasonable way. (With, admittedly, a few people flinging feces against the walls. It is the internet.) If, on the other hand, you mock people, you're going to get back anger and mockery of your own.
If you give your audience the capacity to comment, understand that means you're going to get comments in kind. (You'll also sometimes get purely dickish comments, because sometimes people can be dicks, but I digress.) If you're not emotionally ready to be torn to shreds every time you post... don't tear into other people with your posts.
Be prepared for thunderous silence. Sometimes, we put a lot of work into our essays. We really, really research them. We bring our A game writing wise. We make it entertaining. We have just the right touches of humor. We make them accessible. We do all the things that we're supposed to do. And we post, and we read the post, and we know... we know we hit that one right out of the park.
And we wait for comments to arrive.
And we wait.
And wait.
And wait.
And sleep on it.
And check in the morning.
And where the fuck is everyone?
It happens.
Sometimes it happens because you didn't resonate with people as much as you thought you had. It's sad, but true. Sometimes, we don't actually do as well as we think we have. Sometimes we do nail a given essay, but no one cares about the subject matter.
And sometimes it's just as good as we thought, and everyone loves it... but no one has anything to say. It's easier, sometimes, to comment when you disagree than it is when you agree. If you get it absolutely one hundred percent right, persuading everyone who sees it... sometimes that leaves no room for anyone to provide feedback.
It can drive you completely insane. But there it is. Sometimes people are just going to be quiet. Anything you do to drum up discussion will only weaken the original essay. You're stuck.
It sucks. But as there's nothing to be done for it, we move on.
Finally, no one is under any obligation to you. This might be the hardest one for people to admit. Remember above, when I said not to take this stuff too seriously? This is why.
No one is under any obligation to you.
They're under no obligation to agree with you.
They're under no obligation to respond to you.
They're under no obligation to link to you.
They're under no obligation to acknowledge you.
The subject of your essay is under no obligation to listen, to change their ways, to acknowledge, to point their audience in your essay's direction or to in any way make any indication they know who you are.
Your audience is under no obligation to give you feedback, to agree with you, to get the point of your essay, to understand you, or to come back for more, tomorrow.
Your peers are under no obligation to consider you a peer.
No one is under any obligation to take you seriously.
No one is under any obligation to you whatsoever.
If you spend time, and energy, and have a little luck, you will build up a reputation... you will slowly build credibility. You will get return visitors. You will get people agreeing with you, and arguing with you. You will get linked. You will get influence. You will get acknowledgment. You will get an audience. Whether that audience is 30 people or 30,000 doesn't matter. You will get them.
But you don't get them for free, just by showing up. It takes time, and work, and effort. It takes accepting when people misunderstand you, and being thick-skinned when they insult you. It takes working damn hard to get your facts straight and admitting when you get it wrong. It means being honest about what you're doing and accepting that not everyone will agree with you. And it means having a sense of humor about yourself, but also standing by your work.
It can be pretty damn cool. It can also suck. And it can be hard. How do I know those points above are channel markers? I've screwed them all up at some time or other. If you go through the past, you can see where.
So. Maybe these will help others as they move along their way. In the meantime, I'm not going to trash any other critic right now. Not when there's a bed, and crackers, and Doctor Who.
Good luck. And if you run aground, mean to.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at March 12, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 12, 2006 10:13 PM
And keep it under a million words. ;)
Comment from: mckenzee posted at March 12, 2006 10:18 PM
...will think you're stupid.
Which honestly isn't the point of blogging, now is it?
Drat, I missed the point again.
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 12, 2006 10:22 PM
And keep it under a million words. ;)
I own my verbosity! ;)
Comment from: Joe Zabel posted at March 12, 2006 10:55 PM
Good grief, Eric, this is the third Websnark this week on the subject of webcomics criticism! What on earth is going on?
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 12, 2006 10:59 PM
I think I'm going to become a webcomics criticism editor.
Comment from: Kail Panille posted at March 12, 2006 11:04 PM
I'm going to become a webcomics criticism critic.
I can see it now:
From today's Websnark. Click for full sized Internet Lifeguard!
I will be huge!
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 12, 2006 11:05 PM
Well, no. This is the first snark this week on the subject of criticism. There were two snarks last week on specific webcomics that took criticism as their subjects.
As for what's going on? Well, this was what was on my mind today.
Comment from: Minivet posted at March 12, 2006 11:06 PM
Steve Troop's webcomics criticism editing sucks donkey!
Comment from: Ford Dent posted at March 12, 2006 11:06 PM
You know, there's the smallest part of me that wonders precisely what the webcomics criticism drama is which the post alludes to.
But honestly, the post is an excellent guideline for any dude looking to toss their own hat into the ring of the tiny niche that is webcomics criticism. That just might be more important than whatever the hell drama is going on.
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 12, 2006 11:10 PM
Steve Troop's webcomics criticism editing sucks donkey!
But notice how it takes the attention away from my lack of updates. ;)
Big puppet interviews this week, by the way. I managed to interview a couple of sci fi celebrities this weekend.
Comment from: College Zoo posted at March 12, 2006 11:16 PM
Editor? Good Luck. I think the very reason Eric writes on the internet is so that he doesn't have to worry about getting his opinion within X number of words so his peice will fit into the allotted area of dead tree matter.
Comment from: Violet posted at March 12, 2006 11:20 PM
Goodness me. It's as though you fellows made a checklist.
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 12, 2006 11:21 PM
But honestly, the post is an excellent guideline for any dude looking to toss their own hat into the ring of the tiny niche that is webcomics criticism. That just might be more important than whatever the hell drama is going on.
You win the kewpie doll! Whoo hoo!
Editor? Good Luck. I think the very reason Eric writes on the internet is so that he doesn't have to worry about getting his opinion within X number of words so his peice will fit into the allotted area of dead tree matter.
I'll have you know I turned in a piece for anthology this weekend. 1,000 word limit on it. No more.
I had 1,000 words on the button.
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at March 12, 2006 11:27 PM
A lot of this applies to running a webcomic as much as it does to running a criticism blog.
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 12, 2006 11:29 PM
You can learn anything you want to know about writing from "Star Trek." Not necessarily about writing per se, but more about how less is more.
Star Trek I had a big budget and was crap.
Star Trek II had a small budget and was great.
Star Trek III had a relatively small budget and was relatively good.
Star Trek IV had a small budget and was great.
Star Trek V had a large budget and was crap.
Star Trek VI had a small budget and was great.
I think that when people are limited by some means -- whether it be by money or by space, they often economize to the point of greatness. Having a large (or infinite as in the case of the web) is actually hurting the writing, because you don't have to edit anything out.
This same lack of editing has hurt Stephen King as well. Ever read any of his earlier 128-page books?
Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at March 12, 2006 11:31 PM
Among other things, this reminds me that I owe Joe Zabel a long-overdue email about various things he and I discussed a few months back. Just have to figure out what, precisely, I want to say in it.
For critics and our little little squabbles, there's a very good reason that nobody cares - no critic has yet shown the capacity to actually physically injure (or kill) another critic. And until our bloated, hated numbers are culled (by either our own hands or those of the artists we've savaged), nobody is going to care about what arguments we have.
On the other hand? If we arranged Healey vs. Burns, battle to the death, I can hand-pick at least a hundred people who have never heard of Websnark who would root for Eric just because it would mean he'd be attempting to tear my fucking face off.
"And for God's Sakes, don't make every conversation you're in be about you."
If there were only one thing on this list I could be found guilty of, it's this one. For whatever else anyone could say about Eric, he's always remarkably tolerant of behavior running afoul of this rule.
Finally, on waiting for comments... I know that pain all too well. (Hey, remember what I said one paragraph above? I'm blatantly in violation.) I'm somewhat mollified by the presence of an editor - she almost always gives me feedback, and she's come through praising some of my most difficult pieces. I recommend finding someone like that as well, because you'll be surprised how many stupid reactions you'll avoid if you can count on getting solid constructive criticism from someone you trust.
Comment from: sqbr posted at March 12, 2006 11:43 PM
Actually I find many of these points apply to the general task of expressing yourself on the internet and being taken seriously, whether it be a webcomic, blog essay or even just a post on a forum on a topic you feel strongly about.
Now if we could just make it required reading...
Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at March 12, 2006 11:45 PM
Point the first: I greatly enjoyed one particular part of this essay. Enjoyed it altogether too much, probably. And that is all I will say.
Point the second: . . . "Skin Boy"?
Comment from: miyaa posted at March 12, 2006 11:46 PM
Any takers that Burns wins in less than 10,000 words?
Comment from: enchiridion posted at March 12, 2006 11:52 PM
I need to go register animetreacle.com right now. The name? Genius. And we've already been mentioned on websnark. We can skip right past step 2 to the lovely lovely profit.
Comment from: mckenzee posted at March 12, 2006 11:57 PM
Yeah, about that, Eric.
I don't think "ThecobblestonesoftheOldPortalleywaywerecool" is really a word.
Comment from: kirabug posted at March 13, 2006 12:07 AM
And until our bloated, hated numbers are culled (by either our own hands or those of the artists we've savaged), nobody is going to care about what arguments we have.
What, like a Great Outdoor Fight for webcomic critics? Freaky. Does the winner have to beat up his best friend to become the winner?
A lot of this applies to running a webcomic as much as it does to running a criticism blog.
I was thinking it ought to be entitled, "How to be a good citizen of the blogosphere" myself. I can think of a couple of totally-non-comic blogs I visit that could use a link into this.
if you say "no one gives a damn about me -- I'm just a guy with a blog," it's an opportunity for people to post back "of course you're someone."
Sometimes I do this -- because I want someone to say, "no, really, anne, you count as a comic artist too." It's fishing for compliments, really, and in and out of the 'net (heh, fish - net!) it rarely works.
But sometimes when listening to the Big Fish it's important to give the perspective of the Little Fish - and it's hard to do give the perspective of the Little Fish without someone misinterpreting it as fishing for compliments.
Oh, and Eric, good essay :) enjoy the crackers.
Comment from: Wednesday White posted at March 13, 2006 12:38 AM
Just for the record, this essay was passed through an editor. Eric bounced the whole thing off of me as it was being written, and I made several suggestions for how it could be tweaked and such.
Not every post he makes goes through me, but many do.
You know. Just for the record. Just in case anyone thought otherwise.
Comment from: Starline posted at March 13, 2006 12:43 AM
I think that last point can go for webcomic creators as well.
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 13, 2006 12:55 AM
According to dictionary.com:
1a. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
1b. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
1c. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.
2. To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).
3. To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing.
4. To eliminate; delete: edited the best scene out.
To bounce ideas off someone is not being an editor. Having someone take a big black pen to something ... now THAT's an editor.
My point is basically this: You have a better chance of people reading your entire article if you hone it down a bit into a concise post. The sheer length of this article will keep a lot of people from seeing all of your good points.
Comment from: Dan Vincent posted at March 13, 2006 12:59 AM
Absolutely echo the "Be honest" vibe. I like to complain. Not much else to it. I'm curmudgeonly. But I also don't pretend to be much more than that.
There was supposed to be more to this comment, but I've forgotten it. Damn.
Comment from: Prodigal posted at March 13, 2006 1:04 AM
Definitions 1a and 1c can both be fulfilled by reviewing softcopies and making useful suggestions and/or criticisms, though.
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 13, 2006 1:06 AM
To bounce ideas off someone is not being an editor. Having someone take a big black pen to something ... now THAT's an editor.
I make money at this. I have worked with a lot of editors in my time.
In this essay, Weds saw every section. I threw an entire point out and reworked another, based on her comments. She had me reword six or seven other sections for clarity.
Trust me. She knows what an editor does. Very well. And she's very, very good at it.
My point is basically this: You have a better chance of people reading your entire article if you hone it down a bit into a concise post. The sheer length of this article will keep a lot of people from seeing all of your good points.
And now, I'm laughing my fool ass off.
The longer posts get far better feedback, have higher pageview counts, and much better links back than the smaller posts. I've seen it dozens of times. If anything, I've found that when I go four to five thousand words, I'm going to have much much better spread and response than anything I've "honed down into a concise post."
I appreciate that you don't like to read the long ones, and I've appreciated your comments. This time? I'm pretty sure you're dead wrong.
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 13, 2006 1:29 AM
I enjoy your writing and I know you're good at it. I mean, when we were doing the telethon book, I sought out one of your articles for inclusion in it.
But... I know from reading a lot of the comments, that it's not the length that really makes people post more comments ... it's the infighting and arguing over minutia in the comments that fuel the fire. I remember one post (albeit, it was about me, so I watched it all day) where there were something 40-80 posts that never referred to the article itself. It was all backstabbing and arguing amongst the posters.
Anyway, I do think that edited down writing (to a point, anyway) is much stronger than rambling writing, which all of us are guilty of any number of times.
I was just trying to help.
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 13, 2006 1:39 AM
Here's the one I was thinking of:
I skimmed through the comments just now, and I don;t know how many there are exactly, but I do now that hardly any of them (if any of them) actually refer to the post.
Comment from: Prodigal posted at March 13, 2006 1:43 AM
Sount me among those who feel that the greater length made this a stronger, rather than a weaker, snark. The thesis he was working on was best-served in a heavily-verbose sauce.
Comment from: PO8 posted at March 13, 2006 2:19 AM
Eric: I hate this about myself, but a couple of early spelling errors really distracted me from the extraordinarily nice collection of writing advice. "Criticial" -> "Critical", I believe, and also "internacine" -> "internecine" (twice). I believe you lose some credibility if you use big fancy words like "internecine" without spelling them correctly. On the bright side, you can blame these mistakes on Wednesday. That's what your editor is for. :-)
Let me be clear, however. I really enjoyed the essay. Thanks for putting it up!
Comment from: Tangent posted at March 13, 2006 2:19 AM
Eric, there's another point you alluded to but I'm just going to focus on. You will inevitably step on someone's toes and piss them off. The only way to avoid that is not to post at all, and if you're doing reviews because you enjoy it... well, you can always write completely for yourself and never post it, I suppose. But I think it's worth risking the ire of others to share your thoughts and beliefs.
I struggled with this recently. It seems lately when I say something, I inevitably seem to annoy someone. I have watched quite a few forums where someone new will show up and just ask a few innocuous questions and get the Old Timers descending upon them, snarling that that topic has been discussed to death. The Old Timers forget, however, that sometimes those discussions were about something entirely different and then tangented into another topic, or are buried beneath dozens of response threads.
No one ever satisfies everyone. Don't let it bother you. If you're doing this for fun... let it *stay* fun for you. That's really what's important here. Having it remain fun.
If it's not fun... if it's become a job, and you're struggling to post new reviews... then maybe it's time to take a break, or to re-examine your goals here. Things change. Maybe what started out as a labor of love has evolved into a desire to create productive output for the webcomic community as a whole. Or it may have started out as a joke, a way to poke fun at people, and then become something more significant, something serious.
Just be true to yourself. If you do that... then it hopefully will work out.
And good luck to you. There are more people reading these reviews than you'd think... sometimes to see what's worth reading, and sometimes just to see what people are saying about comics in general. It doesn't matter if they agree with you or not... if they've read what you wrote, then you've achieved something great.
Take care
Rob H., Tangents
Comment from: Violet posted at March 13, 2006 2:26 AM
It is as though a great defensive field had been projected, so as not to read words.
Comment from: MarvinAndroid posted at March 13, 2006 2:32 AM
On the little mini-debate about bite-sized blogs and word count:
I think that you can use as many words as you like to make your point as long as, and this is important , there is NO FILLER. This is especially important when you're writing a piece with any kind of thesis. The more you stay on-topic with your main theme, the more effective it is. If you go off on a ten-page tangent about your cat in the middle of your essay on how much Anime Treacle sucks donkey, you're going to lose the readers' attention.
Novels are an excellent example of this (since someone mentioned Stephen King earlier). Take this comparison between two very good books. Great Expectations was very long, but it worked since all the parts tied together in the end. Whereasn another excellent book, American Gods (by Neil Gaiman), should have been about a hundred pages shorter. I can point to numerous sections of the book that should be removed (although obviously I won't list them here, since this is, in fact, the kind of tangent I just said you shouldn't have in a blog). I'm a hypocrite.
Back to my original, non-hypocrtical point, you can write all that stuff about your cat. Just don't put it in your Anime-Treacle-sucks-donkey post.
I had a point in there somewhere. But I lost it.
Midnight is not a good time for writing...
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 13, 2006 2:33 AM
For some reason, I've been having problems with 'critical' for about a week. I fixed about five instances of that specific misspelling, but missed a bit.
Internecine is a sheer mea culpa.
For the record, despite my whole thing on errors in the essay? I've corrected the spelling in question now. ;)
Comment from: lucastds posted at March 13, 2006 2:35 AM
What's going on?
This is what's going on.
Comment from: chalcara posted at March 13, 2006 2:38 AM
This post was very enjoyable. :)
Honestly, I always thought that's just what common sense dictates if you interact with people in general - being honest, true to oneselves and standing up for one's mistakes - but like so often:
It's the INTERNET. Common sense isn't all that common here.
Sad isn't it? Who knows, maybe this essay will help to spread what should be common courtsy. :)
Comment from: Tangent posted at March 13, 2006 2:41 AM
By the way. Kirabug? You are a webcomic artist. Maybe your art isn't as pristine as Poe or Gallagher, but it's fun. And heck, if you look at early CRFH, CotC, PvP, or Nukee strips, you will see a rough beginning... but many of the seeds that exist in the artwork of those comics years later.
Don't sell yourself short. If you keep updating... and manage to keep drawing every day or other day at least, even if not posting those doodles as comics, your art will improve by leaps and bounds from what it is today. And your early artwork is better than early CRFH, for instance.
Rob H.
Comment from: dormouse77 posted at March 13, 2006 2:49 AM
Back to Mr. Troop for a second....
Um... I dunno, but... it seems like the first time you said how long the post was, that was about trying to help. At around the fifth post (which, to be honest, was pretty insulting. I mean, quoting Dictionary.com to make it seem like they don't know what *editor* means?) it seemed you were more trying to be *right.*
As for me? I like the long posts.
Comment from: HumanSockPuppet posted at March 13, 2006 2:57 AM
Well said, Tangent. Heh, that's what I keep telling myself with my stupid webcomic too.
Just keep drawing, and improvement will come with time, as with anything else.
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 13, 2006 3:09 AM
Um... I dunno, but... it seems like the first time you said how long the post was, that was about trying to help. At around the fifth post (which, to be honest, was pretty insulting. I mean, quoting Dictionary.com to make it seem like they don't know what *editor* means?) it seemed you were more trying to be *right.*
It wasn't really to be right or wrong as much for me to see what it meant. ;) Like it or not, I do have a journalism background and it pains me sometimes (and not in Eric or Wednesday's case specifically) to see some of these blogs in action. I know I've gone off about journalistic integrity in other comments and libel in others.
I'm not about to start writing my own blog because I really don't have much to say regarding comics. But I do have something to say about journalism and writing from time to time. Maybe I should just shut up.
Comment from: Tangent posted at March 13, 2006 3:16 AM
No. There's no reason to shut up, Steve. Well, other than the fact that I'm saying there's no reason to shut up and I do a grand job of pissing people off so obviously if I'm suggesting something you probably would want to do the opposite. ;)
You've valid points of view. You believe what you're saying. That makes it worthwhile.
And now I'm headed off to bed before I make a bigger fool of myself. Or start typoing. Or something.
Rob H.
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 13, 2006 3:27 AM
Steve -- I have no desire to see you shut up, for the record.
(I also apologize if my last response to you seemed overly snide. It wasn't meant such.)
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 13, 2006 3:35 AM
Not a problem, Eric. ;)
Like I said earlier, I keep forgetting that these comments are rarely about the article -- and more about picking apart one another's posts.
I like the idea of raising the bar of comics and blogs, but just because we can do something without restriction, isn't always a good thing. That's all I was trying to say.
Man, I gotta start drawing comics again. I'm starting to get really opinionated again, aren't I? ;)
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 13, 2006 3:55 AM
Man, I gotta start drawing comics again.
Yes. Yes you do. They've been in that hold for how long, now? ;)
Comment from: Steve Troop posted at March 13, 2006 3:57 AM
Just since Christmas. I think I've been going through puppet obsession since my grandmother died the same way I went through Gilligan's Island obsession when my grandfather died.
I guess I don't do well with depression and other parlor tricks.
Comment from: coldcut posted at March 13, 2006 4:01 AM
"Ultimately, every person on the planet -- including various people in the third world who have no electricity, will think you're stupid.
Which honestly isn't the point of blogging, now is it?"
This is less of a rhetorical question than you might imagine.
Comment from: Pooga posted at March 13, 2006 4:12 AM
I will say for the record that in the general case, Steve is 100% correct. I am often a victim of my own verbosity. Even after editing a post, removing obvious tangents and places where I can see I've muddled my point, I usually end up taking three times as much comment space to make a point as most other posters. Which is a significant reason I post so infrequently in the many blogs and fora I read. It is also generally true that when I see a long entry on a blog, I might read the first few paragraphs, but generally will skip to the next entry.
However, that is rarely the case on Websnark. Even on subjects with which I am barely familiar, I find Eric's and Wednesday's writings to be fascinating. For example, my last MMORPG experience was acting as a beta tester for the original Ultima Online, but I love reading Eric's "City of ..." sagas. That's not to say E&W never miss, but the ratio of fascinating long posts to boing or repetitive ones (and Eric's long posts go well beyond the length of "long" posts on just about any other blog I follow) is remarkably good. At this point, I would say Websnark's track record gives them more freedom to post longer essays because, as was mentioned above, there's not much filler. Even the bits that seem like tangents early on usually get tied into the overall theme of the essay.
I don't think this would have been a good essay to kick off Websnark (in terms of length), but after a year and a half of establishing his strengths in this area, I'm not at all surprised to see the number of people who've defended Eric's longer posting. Yes, it breaks with standard blog conventions (which tend to favor short entries), but when it happens here, you generally know it's going to be good.
Comment from: Doc posted at March 13, 2006 4:26 AM
Three points:
1: You are so incredibly right about not deleting things, do you know how hard it is these days to actually find out about what actually went down with megatokyo if you weren't reading it at the time? I tried for ages out of pure curiosity but it's all second hand and never specific and you just end up with the feeling that everyone involved is an arsehole (though I am sure this is not the case but second hand accounts generally only include the bad stuff).
2: Skin Boy. Seriously man. Awesome.
3: Thank you Steve, 'Depression and other Parlor tricks' is now the title of my next.... well, something. The next time I need a title, that is so it.
Comment from: Moony posted at March 13, 2006 6:29 AM
Eric, I always saw your 'I'm just a guy with a blog' statements as you keeping your ego in check, which is something I can really respect. :)
Comment from: Peter C. Hayward posted at March 13, 2006 7:26 AM
Hey, are you talking about Weekly Webcomic Reviews? Because you know Weekly Webcomic Reviews is a webcomic criticism blog. And I hear that Weekly Webcomic Reviews is totally into the webcomic drama. If you haven't seen Weekly Webcomic Reviews, you should go and check it out.
Comment from: O.M. posted at March 13, 2006 7:33 AM
Honestly, posts like this honestly impress me. I'm akin to someone that would agree with the "shorter is better" rule, but in this case I don't.
The voice of experience carries a lot of weight, and you've got it down to a T, to the point where even your fictional examples smack of "....did he really diss Anime Treacle?"
In fact, upon reading this, I feel as if I could do something similar based on these guidelines. I likely never WILL, but I actually feel like this would be a good basis to actually use if I were going to.
And given I rarely can read anything non-fictional this long, your keeping of my attention span through the whole thing is commendable.
Comment from: TasteMyHouse posted at March 13, 2006 7:35 AM
Eh, i really haven't liked the background music of the new series. The acting is great, the writing is solid, but the MUSIC totally kills it for me, i can't stand it. Its almost to the point where i watch it one mute.
/music student.
Comment from: Bahimiron posted at March 13, 2006 7:40 AM
I think I might start my own webcomics criticism-based blog. 'Cept instead of following any of the suggestions Eric lists above, my blug will be a mish-mash of libelous accusatious, ad hominem attacks and jingoistic pedantry. Why should I point out the specific reasons that Megatokyo 'had me and then lost me' when I can just jump all over its creator for being an anti-American Hollywood leftist?! Or, barring that, an anti-American east coast liberal elitest! Yeah. It's gonna be an awesome column. Whenever anyone says something in the comments I don't like, I'll just shout SHUT UP! SHUT UP! YOU DON'T GET TO TALK HERE! and then ban them. I'll be the Bill O'Reilly of webcomics. So cool.
Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at March 13, 2006 7:54 AM
Maybe, Kira, maybe. Though beyond Eric and Wednesday, how many people deal with their best friend in webcomics criticism?
Of course, if we just expand it to critics in general (which is what we'd need to do to see Eric and I face off to the death), you'd see any number of potential final matchups.
At this point, I only want to see this because I want to see someone name attack moves after Bloom or Derrida.
Comment from: Robotech_Master posted at March 13, 2006 8:27 AM
They should make people read this entry and then pass a multiple-choice quiz on it before they are ever allowed to post anything to the Internets (sic). Very nicely done.
Comment from: djcoffman posted at March 13, 2006 9:21 AM
I think anytime we can get people talking about webcomics, be it drama, good stuff, bad stuff... it's good for webcomics.
The whole point is to keep the conversations going. Some conversations are just BORING though.
Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at March 13, 2006 9:31 AM
Yeah, but the thing is, anything is boring to someone (it's the flip side to the idea that there's always someone who will like a given thing, no matter how awful it might be). The best thing to do is just skip it and go on to the next discussion. At least, that's what I do when the topic in question doesn't hold my interest at all.
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at March 13, 2006 10:02 AM
For the record, despite my whole thing on errors in the essay? I've corrected the spelling in question now. ;)
Oh, that's not what you were talking about at all. There's a difference between revising for language usage - readability - and revising for content.
Comment from: larksilver posted at March 13, 2006 10:43 AM
Excellent essay! I love it when you give us so many lovely words, well-considered, and absolutely reeking of quality. I'm a printaholic, and you, sir, have fed my addiction yet again. Thank you!
I do have to point a wee bit o' fun, or my Smartass privileges might be revoked:
I had 1,000 words on the button.
Did it hurt much?
Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at March 13, 2006 10:50 AM
Dr. Who is good THESE days?
THESE days?
Burns, you think webcomics drama is bad... do you REALLY want Whovian drama? DO YOU???
Comment from: Fabricari posted at March 13, 2006 10:51 AM
Eric, you clearly have a passion for what you do. And this essay is greatly appreciated, if not inspiring.
One of the problems of being a fan and critic of webcomics (or anything) is that your opinion will change over time. Over minutes even, depending on what you've had to drink.
Part of the fun of reading a blog like this is watching you evolve your opinions. You're right. Being wrong isn't a crime. Deleting your posts and getting into comment wars is.
One thing I would add to your list: Don't cross the line between creating webcomics and writing about them. Matt and I created that "other" blog so we could separate the two. I don't think I'd want folks reading my comic to be force fed the crap I blog about. Unless they sought it out.
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 13, 2006 11:14 AM
Burns, you think webcomics drama is bad... do you REALLY want Whovian drama? DO YOU???
I clearly misspoke. Or... er, miswrote.
What I meant was the current run was exception even for Doctor Who.
I have a long standing passion for the Doctor's adventures through all eight of his previous incarnations. And I've just started listening to the audio plays. So... er, there!
Comment from: DarkStar posted at March 13, 2006 11:47 AM
Wow... I need to boil this down to a bullet point list, print it out, and tape it somewhere I'll see it when I'm writing. I need to internalize this. I'm not overly interested in Webcomics Criticism specifically, but there are a lot of general blog survival tips there. A lot of things that I need to work on in my own writing, critical or not.
Comment from: William_G posted at March 13, 2006 12:14 PM
Webcomics, webcomic creators, and webcomics criticism are ass.
Yeah, I said it.
Comment from: William_G posted at March 13, 2006 1:38 PM
Doctor Who = not ass
Comment from: TasteMyHouse posted at March 13, 2006 5:28 PM
Doctor Who = not ass
But whats-her-face is totally fine... you know, the blonde with the union jack.
Comment from: Sandalphon posted at March 13, 2006 6:20 PM
Great post, Eric. HowEVer:
As a side note, as has often been mentioned, Harold Bloom is insane.
Care to elaborate on that? :-D
Comment from: cyco posted at March 13, 2006 6:30 PM
RE: Length of snarks
I think that concisity is almost always something good to strive towards, but in this case it doesn't really apply. When an essay is divided like this into different bullet points, what matters is that each individual point refrains from doing anything other than supporting the thesis or main topic.
Comment from: Doc posted at March 13, 2006 7:35 PM
Eric: The audio plays are one thing, but what about the BOOKS man? Have you read the BOOKS? Specifically the 8th doctor books, start around 'unnatural history' or maybe a bit earlier and you catch most of the cool stuff. Though personally I've got major catching up to do (from about 'Hope', I kind of lost interest after the earthbound arc but still want to see where it went) there was a really good run there for a while.
Not to mention it actually let construct major plot arcs way to complex (though not always in a good way) for the tv show.
Comment from: Thomas Blight posted at March 13, 2006 11:50 PM
Eric? You have to Evergreen this. Like right now.
Comment from: William_G posted at March 14, 2006 12:41 AM
But whats-her-face is totally fine... you know, the blonde with the union jack.
Billie Piper? The new one?
Comment from: Eric Burns posted at March 14, 2006 12:54 AM
Rose rocks. Seriously.
I still miss Ace, though.
Comment from: Prodigal posted at March 14, 2006 1:33 AM
Dr. Who is good THESE days?Compared to the dark days of Eric Roberts as the Master? ;)
THESE days?
Comment from: MikeR posted at March 14, 2006 1:58 AM
It's probably too late, but this essay would be a perfect addition to "The History of Webcomics", by T Campbell.
Comment from: Tangent posted at March 14, 2006 12:10 PM
I wouldn't think that webcomic critics would have much of a place in a History of Webcomics. We're more behind the scenes. Eric and Comixpedia probably would get a place, but the rest of us? I doubt it.
"You need to be this tall to get on this ride" ;)
Comment from: miyaa posted at March 14, 2006 5:47 PM
You know, speaking of Doctor Who. I've always wondered about something. They have the Doctor. They have the Master. Where's the Bachelor? (No, I don't mean that stupid show on ABC.)
And if anyone knows when the Red Dwarf movie is ever going to come out, do please let me know.
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at March 14, 2006 6:10 PM
A Bachelor can't get a job traveling time any more.
Comment from: kirabug posted at March 14, 2006 9:36 PM
Robert, thank you :) It's that grass-is-always-greener thing. Do artists ever get to the point where they can actually draw what their mind's eye sees?
32 -
Though beyond Eric and Wednesday, how many people deal with their best friend in webcomics criticism?
Hell, I can't even get my best friend (husband) into webcomics, forget their criticism. If I could, maybe I'd've actually made it to a freakin' con by now.
Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at March 14, 2006 10:49 PM
Do artists ever get to the point where they can actually draw what their mind's eye sees?
Maybe once or twice a week. I dunno about anyone else.
Comment from: William_G posted at March 15, 2006 5:25 AM
On the topic of wankers, er... critics:
It's probably too late, but this essay would be a perfect addition to "The History of Webcomics", by T Campbell.
I wouldn't think that webcomic critics would have much of a place in a History of Webcomics. We're more behind the scenes. Eric and Comixpedia probably would get a place, but the rest of us? I doubt it.
I guess youse guys shoulda taken up Mr. Campbell's offer ta proofread in order ta improve da book when he made it a week ago. Then ya'd know dat he's gots it covered.
I have no idea why I wrote this as a Batman goon.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


text:
Port Ellen Angling Club
News & Results
Competition Dates
Port Ellen Angling Club
Isle Of Islay
News & Results
News & Results 2019
Ted Burkenshaw Memorial Kinnabus Loch 21/9/19
L/R Ronnie Mitchell, Donny Holyoake, Nigel MacTaggart.
On a cold blustry day nine anglers braved the conditions to take part in the final competition of the season hoping to finish the season of with a win. With this being a pegged competition anglers gathered in the club hut to pick there starting peg all hoping for one of the better pegs on the loch, with pegs picked of the anglers went to there starting point. As the afternoon went on all anglers were finding the conditions hard going so it was a welcome relief when the 6pm finishing time arrived and it was of the the hut for the weights and fish counts to be taken. The club would like to thank Laphroaig Distillery for there continuing support of this competition and Nigel MacTaggart for collecting the prizes.
1st Donny Holyoake 11 Fish 3lb 1.8oz
2nd Nigel MacTaggart 10 Fish 3lb 0.8oz
3rd Ronnie Mitchell 9 Fish 2lb 15.4oz
Heaviest Fish
Ronnie Mitchell 9oz
Total Fish Caught
Number of Rods
Gilbert McCalman Sheild Kinnabus loch 14/9/19
Anglers who took part in the competition
L/R Neil Carmichael, Cathrine McNab, Donny Holyoake.
On windy day ten anglers arrived at kinnabus Loch to fish for the shield to remember a great character and long standing member of the club.Just for a change it was decided that all anglers would fish with one flie instead of a three flie cast used in competition.As the afternoon went on all anglers taking part were catching fish a fitting tribute to Gilbert who would have been proud that members were taking part in a shield in his honour and also it was great to see Cathrine McNab there all though she never took part but enjoyed the day as much as the anglers did, A big thankyou must go to Davie Hastie for all his organisation for this day!!
1st Donny Holyoake 26 Fish 7lb 11.2oz
2nd Ronnie Mitchell 21 Fish 7lb 0.4oz
3rd Willie Leask 11 Fish 3lb 4.2oz
Heaviest Fish
Neil Carmichael 12.6oz
Total Fish
Number of Rods
L/R Davie Hastie,Keith MacDonald,Donny Holyoake.
3rd Club Championship Kinnabus Loch 31/8/19
Eight anglers braved the conditions to attend the 3rd club championship competition of the season hoping to add to there total catch for the season. As the afternoon went on some anglers were catching while others were finding the going tough with parts of the loch giving it's trout up easy while other parts did not. When the 8pm finishing time arrived the anglers started make there way back to the club hut in hope that there catch was in with a chance of claiming the best bag or heaviest fish prizes.As the weights were being taken and the the anglers fish counted it was clear that two anglers were well again of the rest and it was going to be a close call as who ws going to take the spoils for the best bag.With weights taken and fish counted Donny Holyoake was anounced the winner with Keith MacDonald comimg a very close secon.Thanks again must be said to Davie Hastie for doing a grand job off taking the weights and anouncing the prize winners.
1st Donny Holyoake 19 Fish 6lb 13.8oz
2nd Keith MacDonald 19 Fish 6lb 9.2oz
3rd Ronnie Mitchell 6 Fish 1lb 13oz
Heaviest Fish
Keith MacDonald 9.6oz
Kinnabus Quaich winner Donny Holyoake right being presented with the Quaich from Nigel MacTaggart!!
Kinnabus Quaich Kinnabus Loch 24/08/19
Eleven angler arrived at Kinnabus Loch to compete for the chance to represend the club at the menteith championship in 2020, with condition looking good and weather fair hopes were high for a good days fishing and this was proved right as all the anglers caught fish by the end of the 4 hour session!
1st Donny Holyoake 25 Fish 8lb 14.8oz
2nd Willie Leask 17 Fish 5lb 9.2oz
3rd Ronnie Mitchell 14 Fish 4lb 3.4oz
Heaviest Fish
Donny Holyoake 13.4oz
No of Rods 11
Total Fish caught 124
2nd Club Championship Kinnabus Loch 3/8/19
Winner Donny Holyoake centre with Ronnie Mitchell & Jim MacDougall heaviest fish winners!!
A warm day greeted 13 anglers who competed in the 2nd club championship of the season, with it being a pegged event anglers drew there starting peg in hope of getting a good spot to start there day. As the 1pm start was getting near of the anglers went to get ready for the afternoon ahead. With anglers spread right round the loch the wind started to increase as the afternoon went on but fish were getting caught so a few of the anglers were thinking they would be in with a chance when the results were added up at the end of the session!!
1st Donny Holyoake 11 Fish 4lb 0.8oz
2nd Willie Leask 9 Fish 3lb
3rd Keith MacDonald 8 Fish 2lb 5.6oz
Heaviest Fish
1st Equal Ronnie Mitchell & Jim MacDougall 8.6oz
No of Rods 13
Total Fish Caught 72
Diageo Pairs Winners Calum MacAffer/Neil Carmichael with Andrew Mitchell Centre Heaviest Fish Winner!!
Diageo Pairs School Lochs 13/7/19
On a nice afternoon 8 anglers arrived to compete for the Diageo Pairs competition in hope of lifting the new trophy donated by Diageo,with the draw made each pair headed of to the lochs hoping for a good days fishing, with the two lochs to pick from as the afternoon unfolded the first loch seemed to be the best loch for producing the most fish as word was coming from the far away loch that fish were not being attracted to to the anglers flies, as the 5pm finishing time was nearing anglers started the hike across the field to get there catches weighed and counted!!
1st Calum MacAffer/Neil Carmichael 36 Fish 7lb 8oz
2nd Andrew Mitchell/David Hastie 22 Fish 4lb 1.8oz
3rd Ronnie Mitchell/Martin MacNamara 11 Fish 2lb 3.2oz
Heaviest Fish
Andrew Mitchell
Number of Rods 8
Total Fish Caught 69
Winner Keith holding the Rose Bowl with everyone who took part in the competition!!
Memorial Rose Bowl Kinnabus Loch 6/7/19
Twelve anglers arrived at Kinnabus loch to compete in the competition named in honour of past members who are no longer with us. As the 1pm start arrived anglers made ther first cast in hope of making a good start to the four hour session but as the afternoon went on it was clear the fish were hard to catch and it was going to be a tough days fishing.As the 5pm finishing time was nearing anglers could smell the burgers and sausages cooking on the BBQ at the club house in the good hands of Tom Dunn and anglers were were grateful to Tom for his great skills at the BBQ. After some fine dining the results were anounced with Keith MacDonald as the the top rod of the day and Nigel MacTaggart taking the heaviest fish prize with a fine trout!
1st Keith MacDonald 10 Fish 3lb 8.2oz
2nd Donnie McNicol 7 Fish 2lb 1.4oz
3rd Nigel MacTaggart 4 Fish 2lb
Heaviest Fish
Nigel MacTaggart 15.6oz
Total Fish Caught
Number of rods
Hugh Campbell Memorial Glenastle Lochs 15/6/2019
Competition Winner Keith with heaviest fish winner Neil Carmichael.
Nine anglers arrived at Glenastle Lochs to take part in the Hugh Campbell Memorial Competition in hope off catching a good bag of fish and claiming the spoils.With conditions looking not to bad anglers headed off to find there starting point ready for the 1pm start time,as the first hour past it was looking like Glenastle was once again was not going to give up it's trout very easy and this was proved right as the afternoon went on with all anglers finding the trout were
not to keen on coming to there flies.Meanwhile laugh of the day was Neil Carmichael trying to land a nice trout along with a fair bit of weed attached to his cast. After a struggle he managed to land the trout along with the weed and it must be said that Calum MacAffer who was fishing along side was heard using some choice words for Neil "Land the ....in thing" all in jest i must say. With the 5pm time nearing anglers started heading to the club house for the catches to be weighed and results anounced!!
1st Keith MacDonald 8 Fish 1lb 12.6oz
2nd Calum MacAffer 4 Fish 1lb 8.6oz
3rd Donnie Holyoake 6 Fish 1lb 6.2oz
Heaviest Fish
Neil Carmichael 10.4oz
Number of rods 9
Total Fish Caught 28
1st Club Championship Glenastle Lochs 20/4/2019
Winner Keith MacDonald left receiving is prize from Nigel MacTaggart.
On a day that looked like a good day for fishing nine anglers arrived at Glenastle Lochs to compete in the first club competition of the season.With time nearing the 1pm start time of the anglers went to find there starting point in the hope they would be in with a shout at the 5pm finishing time.With anglers spread out between the two lochs fish were taking the flies early on with the bottom loch being the most productive.However one angler was finding the going tough and left early lol.With the 5pm finishing time nearing anglers started making there way back to the club house for the weigh in and a nice dram out of the winners bottle!!
1st Keith MacDonald 14 Fish 2lb 10.6oz
2nd Ronnie Mitchell 14 Fish 2lb 8.4oz
3rd Jim MacDougall 8 Fish 2lb 3.8oz
Heaviest Fish
Jim MacDougall 11.8oz
Number of Rods
Total Fish Caught
Ardbeg Cast off Cup Kinnabus Loch 16/3/2019
Winners Calum MacAffer and Nigel MacTaggart with the winners trophy and Ardbeg Whisky!
Strong winds and rain was what welcomed six brave anglers who arrived to compete in the first club competition of the season,as the 1pm start time was nearing of the anglers went to find the spot they hoped would tempt the trout to there flies. As the afternoon went on it was clear that any trout caught in the difficult conditions was going to be in with a chance for the anglers who managed to tempt them to there flies As the 5pm finishing time was nearing it was clear that not a lot of trout were being landed and this was proved right at the end when weights and totals were anounced.Once again the club would like to thank Jackie and Ardbeg Distillery for there continued support of this competition.
1st Equal Calum MacAffer
1st Equal Nigel MacTaggart
2nd Ronnie Mitchell
Heaviest Fish
1st Equal Calum MacAffer 7.6oz
1st Equal Nigel MacTaggart 7.6oz
Number of Rods
News & Results 2018
Ted Burkenshaw winner Calum MacAffer right with Bill Barclay presenting the trophy and Prizes!!
Ted Burkenshaw Memorial Kinnabus Loch 22/9/18
A cold day was what greeted eight brave anglers who arrived at Kinnabus Loch to compete in the final competition of the season hoping to increase there total weight in the race to be club champion for the year.This being a pegged event each angler dipped in to the glass hoping to get one of the better pegs and the chance to get of to a good start,with pegs picked each angler head of to there starting peg ready for the 1pm start time with anglers spreaded all round the loch it looked like it was going to be a hard days fishing but Calum MacAffer was finding the fishing easy as at the 6pm finishing time with weights and fish counts added up he was announced the winner and just to make the day even better for him he also to the heaviest fish prize with a nice trout of 9.8oz.
1st Calum MacAffer 21 Fish 6lb 3.6oz
2nd Donny Holyoake 18 Fish 4lb 15oz
3rd Donnie McNicol 16 Fish 4lb 3.8oz
Heaviest Fish Calum MacAffer 9.8oz
Total Fish Caught 86
Number of Rods 8
3rd Club Championship Kinnabus Loch 1/9/18
Winner Keith receiving his winners prize from Rab Fitzsimons!
Eight anglers arrived at Kinnabus Loch to compete in the 3rd championship competition of the season hoping to add to there weight in the race to be champion angler of the year,with condition looking tough calm water and no wind it was going to be a hard days fishing but Keith MacDonald proved that fishing was easy as after the fish totals were taken at the end of competition he took the honours with a nice bag off fish with Callum MacAffer taking the heaviest fish prize with a nice trout of 9.20oz.With presentions made winner Keith lost no time in pouring his fellow competitors a nice large dram out of his winners bottle which was gratefuly apprecated by everyone who took part.
1st Keith MacDonald 25 Fish 5lb 12.8oz
2nd Willie Leask 21 Fish 5lb 8.4oz
3rd Donny McNicol 18 Fish 4lb 12.4oz
Heaviest Fish Callum MacAffer 9.2oz
Total Fish Caught 104
Number of Rods 8
Coillabus Quaich Kinnabus Loch 25/8/18
Kinnabus Quaich Winner Keith MacDonald centre with Left Nigel MacTaggart and right Bill Barclay Heaviest Fish Winner.
A good turnout of 11 anglers arrived at Kinnabus loch to compete in what would be a qualifier for the Scottish Club Championship at The Lake of Mentith, with the top 3 anglers of the day going on to compete for P.E.A.C. With signs early on that it was going to be a difficult days fishing trout were hard to catch early on,but has the afternoon went on some anglers were begining to find the right menu to tempt the troot to there casts,as the 5pm finishing time arrived anglers headed back to the club house hoping they had done enough to make the top 3 and make the team, After weights and catches taken Keith MacDonald was announced the winner,P.E.A.C wishes Keith,Nigel and Jim Tight Lines for Monteith next year!!
1st Keith MacDonald 17 Fish 4lb 13.4oz
2nd Nigel MacTaggart 11 Fish 4lb 5.2oz
3rd Jim MacDougall 14 Fish 3lb 12.6oz
Heaviest Fish : Bill Barclay 12.8oz
Total Fish Caught :85
Number of Rods : 11
2nd Club Championship Competition Winner Andrew Mitchell left with Nigel MacTaggart.
2nd Club Championship Kinnabus Loch (Pegged)
Ten anglers arrived at Kinnabus Loch to compete in the first pegged event of the season in hope of landing some good fish and increasing there overall weight in the race to be club champion at the end off the season.
With the start tme nearing it was time for each angler to draw a peg number, with this done each angler headed of to there starting point. With each angler fishing 1 hour 15mins on every peg allocated to them the competition would end at 6pm. As the finishing time was nearing it was clear that some anglers were doing better than others but it would be only finalised after the weights were taken.
A delighted Andrew Mitchell was anounced the winner with Bill Barclay taking the heaviest fish prize with a nice brown trout weighing 11.6oz. With all the fishing gear packed away winner Andrew poured a nice few drams from his winners bottle whitch went down very well with his fellow anglers!
1st Andrew Mitchell 15 Fish 4lb 5.8oz
2nd Willie Leask 13 Fish 3lb 4.8oz
3rd Donnie McNicol 12 Fish 2lb 12.6oz
Heaviest Fish Bill Barclay 11.6oz
Number of Rods 10
Total Fish Caught 68
Diageo Pairs Winners Andrew Mitchell & Donnie McNicol with Ronnie Mitchell left
Diageo Pairs School Lochs 14/07/2018
On a warm sunny day nine anglers arrived at the car park to compete in the Diageo pairs event with the added bonus of knowing that both lochs could be fished. With nine being a odd number the last name drawn out would fish alone with there catch being doubled and the end of the competition, last name drawn was Ronnie Mitchell so Ronnies catch would be doubled at the end of the event. As the 1pm start time approached off the anglers went across the field with most going to the far away loch with the rest settling for a easier time at the first loch. With the waters calm with very little ripple on the lochs it was going to be a tough days fishing or so everyone thought barr Andrew Mitchell who was catching steady all afternoon. As the 5pm finishing time was approaching the anglers started ending back in the hope that they and there fishing partner had done enough to win the competition. A massive thankyou must be given to Diageo for there continuing support of this competition and to Ronnie Mitchell for sourcing the prizes much apprecated by P.E.A.C.
1st Donnie McNicol & Andrew Mitchell 24 Fish 4lb.12.9oz
2nd Bill Barclay & Donny Holyoake 22 Fish 3lb. 8.2
3rd Ronnie Mitchell "Fishing alone catch doubled" 18 Fish 1lb.8.6oz
Heavest Fish Andrew Mitchell 7.4oz
Numbers of Rods 9
Total Fish Caught 67
Winner Neil Carmichael receiving the trophy from Iain Laurie.
Memorial Rose Bowl Kinnabus Loch 7/7/2018
On Bright sunny day 12 anglers arrived on Kinnabus Loch to take part in the competition in memory of past members who are sadly no longer with us. As the 1pm start time aproached of the anglers went to find there starting place in the hope of landind some nice fish. After 4hrs of fishing it was back to the club house for the weigh in, after weights and totals were added up Neil Carmichael was anounced as the winner with Donnie McNicol taking the heaviest fish prize. With presentions to the winner made its was time to relax with a nice dram out off the winners bottle for the anglers. While this was going on Tom Dunn Snr was manning the BBQ cooking the burgers and onions wich was a welcome site to all that took part in the competition and it was not long before everyone was enjoying the fruits of Toms labour at the BBQ!!
1st Neil Carmichael 11 Fish 2lb 15.4oz
2nd Donnie McNicol 7 Fish 2lb 7oz
3rd Equal Donny Holyoake 8 Fish 2lb 3oz
3rd Equal David Taylor 7 Fish 2lb 3oz
Heaviest Fish Donnie McNicol 11oz
Number of Rods 12
Total Fish Caught 55
Hugh Campbell Memorial Winner Donny Holyoake with Iain and Elaine Campbell
Hugh Campbell Memorial Glenastle Lochs 16/6/18
Ten anglers arrived to take part in one of the founder members memorial competition hoping to add there name to list of past winners
As the afternoon went on one man seemed to be catching steady and this proved correct as at the end off a tough 4hrs fishing Donny Holyoake came out as top rod of the day with a nice bag off brown trout. Well done to Donny after 20yrs off trying to win this competition he has finaly got the only trophy he had never won!!
1st Donny Holyoake 12 Fish 4lb 6.0oz
2nd Andrew Mitchell 14 Fish 2lb 2.0oz
3rd Keith MacDonald 4 Fish 12.2oz
Heaviest Fish Donny Holyoake 14.0oz
Number of Rods 10
Total Fish Caught 40
Callum, Keith, Donny and Nigel.
1st Club Campionship Glenastle Lochs 21/4/2018
On a bright breezy day nine anglers arrived hoping the lochs would be more productive than what they have been in the past few seasons. With the 1pm start time getting near of the anglers went to find there spots, as the afternoon went on it was clear that fish were getting caught good news as the past few seasons on Glenastle have been very poor. As 5pm arrived all anglers headed back to have there weights taken and fish counted.
1st Equal Donny Holyoake 6 Fish 1lb 15.4oz
1st Equal Keith MacDonald 8 Fish 1lb 15.4oz
2nd Nigel MacTaggart 4 Fish 1lb 9.0oz
3rd Callum MacAffer 3 Fish 1lb 5.0oz
Heaviest Fish
Donny Holyoake 9.4oz
Total Fish Caught
Number of Rods
Winner of the 2017 Club Championship Donny Holyoake.
Ardbeg Cast Off Cup Kinnabus Loch 17/3/2018
Cast Off Cup Winner Keith MacDonald with Nigel MacTaggart
On a cold blistery day 7 anglers braved the elements to attend the first competition of the season hoping to start there season of in good style,with time nearing the 1pm start time everyone headed of to find what they thought would be the most productive spot. But as the day went on every angler found catching fish was not going to be easy and by the end of the session this was proved right. The club would like to thank Jackie and Ardbeg Distillery for the prizes and there continued support of this Competition.A nice dram was poured by the winner to each of the anglers taking part after the weights were counted and went down very well on a very cold day.
1st Place Keith MacDonald
Heaviest Fish
Keith MacDonald 7.8oz
Orkney trip 23rd June- 30th June
Any member island or mainland wishing to go on the above trip should make there name known the club secretary by 30th March.The trip will be subsidised by the club but members are expected to pay £100 per head towards expenses plus there £30 membership fee.Payment due by 30th April this will allow ferrys etc to be booked well in advance.The entire Birsay Hostel on Orkney has already b
een booked and paid for.
Contact Details
Lauries of Islay (Spar) 19 Charlotte Street
Port Ellen Islay PA427DF
Tel No 01496302264
Email firstname.lastname@example.com
2017 News and Results
Ted Burkenshaw Memorial Kinnabus Loch 23/9/17
On a cold windy day 10 anglers arrived to take part in the last club competition of the season a pegged event. With each angler having drawn there starting peg it was of to see it the trout were in a taking mood.
As the afternoon went on the wind got stronger the day became more suitable for surfing rather than fishing on certain areas of the Loch and making some of the pegs difficult to fish.
After 5hrs of tough fishing it was back to the Club House for the weights to be taken and presentions made. With all anglers fish weighed and counted Nigel MacTaggart was anounced the winner with a bag of 32 fish with Donny Holyoake taking the heaviest fish of the day a trout of 8.8oz.
Thanks must go to Laphroaig Distillery for the prizes for this competition and the drams were very welcome on such a cold day!!
1st Nigel MacTaggart 32 Fish for 8lb.11oz
2nd Donny Holyoake 30 Fish for 8lb.4oz
3rd Callum MacAffer 21 Fish for 5lb.9oz
Heaviest Fish
Donny Holyoake 8.8oz
Total Fish Caught
Winner Nigel MacTaggart right with Heaviest Fish Winner Donny Holyoake.
3rd Club Championship Kinnabus Loch 2/9/2017
10 Anglers arrived to compete in the only day/night competition of the season on Kinnabus Loch in the hope of catching a good bag of fish and increase their chance of adding weight that totals up to decide The Club Champion.
With angler spread round the loch fishing got underway at 4pm, with strong winds and sunshine throughout the 4 hours proved to be much more fruitful than our last two visits to Kinnabus.
With fish counted, measured and weights taken Donnie McNicol was anounced the winner with a bag of 24 fish to add to his total caught so far in competitions in the race for the champion angler of the year.
Heaviest fish caught on the the day was a 8.04oz trout caught by Neil Carmichael.
After presentations were made winner Donnie cracked open his prize and anglers were grateful for a nice dram to warm up.
1st Donnie McNicol 24 fish for 5lb 10.6oz
2nd Donny Holyoake 22 fish for 5lb 8.2oz
3rd Neil Carmichael 15 fish for 4lb 14oz
Heaviest Fish
Neil Carmichael 8.04oz
Total fish caught 124
Winner Donnie McNicol right with Nigel MacTaggart!!
Coillabus Quaich Kinnabus Loch 19/8/17
On a cold windy day 12 anglers braved the elements to take part in the Coillabus Quaich knowing that the top 4 rods would represent the club at the Club Championship on the Lake of Mentieth in 2018.
With fish not keen on taking to any anglers flies early on it was going to be a tough days fishing and this was proved right as the the day went on, after 4hrs of tough fishing anglers head to the weigh in hoping they had done enough to make the the top 4. After all the weights were taken Keith MacDonald was announced the winner with Bill Barclay having the heaviest fish of the day.
With presentions made winner Keith poured large drams for is fellow anglers!
1st Keith MacDonald 10 Fish for 2lb 12.6oz
2nd Bill Barclay 8 Fish for 2lb 1.8oz
3rd Neil Carmichael 5 Fish for 1lb 11.6oz
4th Donnie McNicol 5 Fish for 1lb 5.4oz
Heaviest Fish
Bill Barclay 11.40z
Total Fish Caught 39
Winner Keith with heaviest fish winner Bill.
We now have two dates for this years trips to Inver on Jura, firstly the 26th of August and the second trip on the 30th of September, both dates are Saturdays and both are catching the 8.30am ferry from Port Askaig.
I am also putting these dates into the fixture list.
2nd Club Championship 5/8/17
10 Anglers arrived at kinnabus loch to compete in the first pegged event of the season,with pegs drawn it was of in the hope of catching a good bag of fish. After 5hrs of tough fishing everyone headed back to see if they had done enough to claim victory, it soon became clear that there was not a lot of fish caught on a tough day for all 10 anglers as the fish were not keen on taking any flies put in front of them. After all bags were weighed Mr Bill Barclay was anounced the winner, on receiving the winners prize Bill wasted no time in pouring some good drams to the boys after a tough days fishing.
1st Bill Barclay 7 Fish For 1lb 11.4oz
2nd Jim MacDougall 5 Fish For 1lb 9.4oz
3rd Keith MacDonald 4 Fish For 1lb 2oz
Heaviest Fish Bill Barclay 6.2oz
Total F
ish caught 32
Winner Bill Barclay right with Nigel MacTaggart 5/8/17.
Diageo Pairs School Lochs 15/7/2017
Rain and wind is what faced the 9 anglers who attended the pairs event at the School Lochs.
With fish not being easy to catch on either of the lochs anglers found it more difficult as the day went on, after 4hrs of tough fishing anglers headed back across the field in the hope that they had done enough to take the glory. After reaching the car park and prepairing for the weigh in and looking at each others catches it was going to be close call as to who was going to take prizes.
With catches counted and weighed Neil Carmichael and Callum MacAffer were anounced the winners, 35 fish were caught in total and every angler taking part caught fish on a tough day. Many thanks must go to Diageo for the continuing support of the competition and also club member and Diageo employee Ronnie Mitchell for sourcing the prizes and presenting them to the winners.
1st Neil Carmichael/Callum MacAffer 13 Fish 2lb 8oz
2nd Donny Holyoake/Keith MacDonald 12 Fish 1lb 14.2oz
3rd Iain Farrell/Andrew Mitchell 5 Fish 1lb 1.2oz
Total Fish Caught 35.
Diageo Pairs Winners Neil Carmichael and Callum MacAffer with Ronnie Mitchell holding the winners prizes!!
Kinnabus Loch played host to the Memorial Rose Bowl on a day where the weather was a bit on the breezy side,16 anglers headed out to find there favourite spots hoping to land a good bag of fish.
With all anglers using the same 4 flies supplied by Mr Laurie.(AGM idea where everyone uses same 4 flies)
After 4hrs of tough fishing Donny Holyoake came out as top rod on the day with Donnie McNicol taking the the heaviest fish.
After presentations were made it was burger time washed down with a few drams to finish of a great day!
1st Donny Holyoake 20 Fish 5lb 6oz
2nd Donnie McNicol 9 Fish 3lb 7 oz
3rd Ronnie Mitchell 9 Fish 2lb 11oz
Heaviest Fish
Donnie McNicols 1lb 0.8oz fish below
Winner Donny Holyoake being presented the Memorial Rose Bowl from 2016 winner Gordon "Dod" Dunbar!
Winner Bill Barclay receiving the trophy from Elaine Campbell!
Hugh Campbell Memorial Glenastle Lochs 17/6/2017
On a warm calm day 10 anglers to part in the competition hoping to land some good size fish but found fish very hard to catch with both lochs not giving up there fish with out a struggle,After 4hrs of tough fishing tere were only a total of 28 fish landed!!
1st Bill Barclay 4 Fish For 1lb 3.8oz
2nd Donny Holyoake 6 Fish For 1lb 3.4oz
3rd David Hastie 3 Fish For 14.6oz
Heaviest Fish Bill Barcley 10.6oz
The P.E.A.C boat has been moved to Loch Gorm and is available for hire from Iain Lauries Spar shop, where you can collect the padlock key and life jackets.
If you would like to book the boat
Iain will take bookings
in advance, payment must be made to secure the date.
This is strictly members only, you may invite non member guests as long as the member is present.
Full Day Boat Permit: £10 per rod
Evening Permit (after 5pm): £5 per rod
1st Club Championship 22/4/17 Glenastle Lochs
14 Anglers attended with 51 fish in total landed on a tough day on both lochs
1st Jim McDougall 12 fish 2lb 5.6oz
2nd Donny Holyoake 10 fish 1lb 11.2oz
3rd Donnie McNicol 4 fish 1lb 7oz
Heaviest Fish Donnie McNicol 9.6oz
Ardbeg Cast Off Cup 18/3/17
The first saturday after opening day is always eagerly anticipated and is now our regular Ardbeg Cast Off Cup date at Kinnabus, 11 keen anglers arrived to somewhat mild conditions compared to previous years and hopes were high, those hopes were increased when Donny hooked a fish very first cast of the surface on a Kate Muddler. All in all it was a very successful day where 54 fish were landed with several more under the 7 inch rule being returned, the mild weather proved to be the difference from the previous years near frostbite conditions!
1st Donnie McNicol 10 fish for 3lb 1oz
2nd Donny Holyoake 9 fish for 2lb 11oz
3rd Nigel McTaggart 7 fish for 1lb 15oz
Heaviest fish Calum MacAffer 9.4oz
2016 Club Champion
Congratulations Keith McDonald.
Coillubus Quaich 20/8/16
On 20/8/16 fourteen anglers arrived a kinnabus loch to compete for the Coillubus Quaich with the extra incentive of knowing that the the top four rods at the end would represent the club at the scottish club championship on the Lake of Menteith in 2017. With anglers spread around the loch fishing got underway at 1:00pm after a four hour session fishing ended at 5:00pm,With catches weighed and counted Jim MacDougall was anounced the winner with a fine bag of 21 fish weighing 5lb 1.6oz, Joining Jim on the team for Monteith next year are, Ronnie Mitchell,Donnie McNicol, and Keith MacDonald, Atotal 121 fish were caught on the day with the heaviest at 8.2oz!!
1st Jim MacDougall 21 fish 5lb 1.6oz
2nd Ronnie Mitchell 14 fish 3lb 12oz
3rd Donnie McNicol 12 fish 3lb 8oz
4th Keith MacDonald 10 fish 4lb 5.4oz
Heaviest Fish
Donny Holyoake/Keith MacDonald 8.2oz
Winner Keith with Donny & McNic!!
2nd Club Championship 6/8/16
Kinnabus Loch was the venue for the second club championship of the season a pegged event, each of the 9 anglers taking part drew their starting peg and off they went hoping for a good start. After 5 hours in tough conditions, Keith MacDonald emerged the winner with 25 fish for a total weight of 6lb 14.4oz.
102 fish were caught on the night, Nigel MacTaggart had the heaviest fish of 8.6oz.
1st Keith MacDonald 25 Fish 6lb 14.4oz
2nd Donny Holyoake 20 Fish 5lb 4.8oz
3rd Donnie McNicol 14 Fish 3lb 8.2oz
Heaviest Fish: Nigel MacTaggart 8.6oz
Diageo Pairs 16/7/16
On a cold wet day 5 anglers braved the elements to take part in the Diageo pairs at the school lochs, with 5 being a odd number one angler would fish on his own and as the draw for the pairings were made young Andrew Mitchell was last out the hat and therefore would have his total weight doubled at the end. After 4 hours of fishing Callum MacAffer & Donny McNicol came out the winners. A big thanks to Diageo for their continued support for this competition.
1st Callum MacAffer/Donny McNicol
2nd Andrew Mitchell
3rd Neil Carmichael/Nigel Mac Taggart
Anglers who took part in the Diageo Pairs.
Callum & Donny being presented with the trophy and prizes from Ronnie Mitchell.
Anglers who competed in the Hugh Campbell Memorial!!
Elaine presenting Nigel with the trophy.
Hugh Campbell Memorial Glenastle Lochs 18/6/16
On a bright and breezy day anglers gathered for a competion in memory of one of our founder members. With fish hard to find one man "Nigel McTaggart" had no problem getting the trout to his flies and at the end of the day a bag of 8 fish was good enough to take 1st prize. A big thank you to Elaine and Iain for donating a bottle and presenting Nigel with the Trophy.
1st Nigel McTaggart
2nd Willie Leask
3rd Jim Hairstads
Heaviest Fish Jim Hairstads 8oz
Willie and Davie wondering what flies to try next at Glenastle 18/6/16
Some more photos from our Belgian friend at Inver in 2001.
The famous Jura Paps
No idea why someone had a pineapple with them !!
Willie Leask
Gebe McCalman trying something different.
Neil Carmichael winner on the day.
Donny Holyoake, Gordon Dunbar and Bill Barclay on the Jura ferry.
A nice surprise in my facebook inbox last night were four photos taken by David, a Belgian "passionate hobbyist photographer" as he described himself fifteen years ago when meeting me in the Ardview Inn and accepting my invitation to join us on Jura at Loch Inver for a day with his camera.
David has promised to send me more of the collection and I will post them on here in due course. DH
Inver Loch on Jura, circa 2001
Loch Inver on Jura with Salmon cages in background. circa 2001
1st CLUB CHAMPIONSHIP COMPETITION 23/4/16
On a bitterly cold day 8 anglers attended the 1st Club Championship competition of the season on Glenastle lochs. With fish hard to catch on the top loch it proved at the end of the day that those who fished the bottom loch were the anglers who came out on top. Jim McDougall landing a nice bag to claim victory with Donny Holyoake taking the heaviest fish of 10.4oz. A total off 41 fish were caught on a tough day.
1st Jim McDougall
2nd Donny Holyoake
3rd Calum MacAffer
Heaviest Fish : Donny Holyoake
Donny, Jim and Calum with Glenastle lochs in background.
Donnys 10oz fish and amazingly the size of frog that came out its mouth after he had landed it! (would probably have been a 12oz fish with the frog in its stomach) :-)
12 Anglers arrived at Kinnabus Loch for the first competion of the season the waters were calm at the start but as the day went on it got bitterly cold and most off the anglers found it tough going to get fish. Andrew Mitchell landed a nice fish early on over 9oz which would prove to be the heaviest fish off the day 3 more fish off over 8 oz were also caught out off a tolal off 22 fish caught on a tough day. After the catches were counted Jim MacDougall was anounced the winner. A big
thankyou to Ardbeg for the brilliant prizes!!
1st Jim MacDougall
2nd Donny Holyoake
3rd Andrew Mitchell
Heaviest Fish : Andrew Mitchell
Donny Holyoake, Jim McDougall and Andrew Mitchell.
A brownie of around 10oz is one of 3 fish caught on opening day at Glenastle by Gavin Campbell, all 3 were taken on the Goats Toe and returned for another day.
Good few hours down on the lochs with Callum MacAffer 8 fish caught all in good condition and safely returned to fight another day!!
Ardbeg Cast Off Cup - W Leask
1st Club Championship - D Holyoake
H Campbell Memorial - C MacAffer
Memorial Rose Bowl - D Holyoake
Diageo Cup - N McTaggart & D Holyoake
2nd Club Championship - K McDonald
Coillabus Quaich - D Holyoake
3rd Club Championship - D Holyoake
Ted Burkinshaw Memorial - C MacAffer
Club Champion - D Holyoake
*P.E.A.C purchased this beautiful new trophy in memory of all past members.
Ardbeg Cast Off Cup - D Holyoake
1st Club Championship - J McDougall
H Campbell Memorial - T Dunn Jnr
R Grey Memorial BBQ - D Holyoake
Diageo Cup - C MacAffer & A Mitchell
2nd Club Championship - D.McNicol
Coillabus Quaich - D McNicol
3rd Club Championship - C MacAffer
Ted Burkinshaw Memorial - D Holyoake
Club Champion - D Holyoake
Port Ellen Angling Club
News & Results
Competition Dates
All Rights Reserved...

subset: commoncrawl


text:
By Kara Witherow, Editor
Lindsey Conroy, 15, loves seeing fellow believers as she walks through the halls of Columbus High School. She may not know all of their names and they don't all attend the same church, but they are connected through a shared faith and, for many, through 3rd Night.
A community-wide worship service for junior high, high school, and college students, 3rd Night was conceived by leaders from The Ridge and is led by five Columbus-area United Methodist church leaders.
"It's a place where students can worship, learn, and connect with other Christians," said Jami Conroy, director of education for The Ridge, a United Methodist congregation in Columbus.
More than 300 students attended the first 3rd Night worship service, held on the third Sunday evening in September 2016. When it was announced that the goal of 300 students in attendance had been reached, they witnessed The Ridge's lead pastor, Rev. Jimmy McIlrath, receive a Mohawk haircut on stage.
Seven months in, nine area congregations and youth groups regularly participate in the monthly worship service, with 150 to 250 students regularly attending.
The music is a huge draw, Jami Conroy says, noting that many youth groups aren't large enough to have their own band. Leaders also work hard to teach relevant lessons, engage students in their walk with Christ, and plan fun games and activities.
"We try to meet the students where they are," she said. "And it's like a field trip for their youth group. It's something different that they can look forward to once a month."
Seeing a fellow student at 3rd Night makes it easier to have a conversation about faith the next day at school, they say.
"It's really great to know that there are other people who believe what you believe and who will stand up for you and what you believe," Lindsey Conroy said. "It's really amazing."


text:
Crowd everywhere on weekend. More so with Sushi Teh Fusion Fiesta promotion going on and only knew about it when we visited Playground@Big Splash last Friday night. Overall it took 45 mins waiting time for car park and be seated.
Salmon Mentalyaki - Fried salmon top with a layer of crispy creamy fish roe.
Salmon Ikura Don - A combination of creamy salmon and roe renders richness to the dish
Miso Spicy Ramen - Smooth and crunchy with a good bite. Broth tasty but without kick
Dragon Roll - Sushi roll of avocado, salmon and prawns
Dai Dai Roll for salmon fanatics
Kirishima to share