First off, your reference to, "Your Webcomic Is Bad...." So, basically, since the majority of people in 2002 voted for Megatokya, the awards weren't valid? Or somehow wrong? Aside from my inability to take anything that blog says as the typical trolling for attention, it's shocking and a little embarrassing you hold that up as some sort of standard - that since it's a comic you don't like, it winning Best Writing is somehow "wrong."
This whole blog comes off as the typical whining about the WCCA I hear every year. It's a slightly more polite William G. complaint about popular comics winning and awards being a popularity contest, which is okay as long as the comics that are popular are YOUR favorites.
You're reminding me of the people who emailed me anytime Something*Positive won a WCCA, or was even nominated, to tell me I didn't deserve it because they didn't like my work. That's really pathetic, Shaenon. I expected better from you.
The WCCAs need a lot of work. I won't even pretend they don't. Some of their categories don't make sense and there seems to be a lot of confusion on how things are run, and poor execution in a lot of areas. But griping because the majority of people not liking and nominating/voting for the comics you think are great doesn't help anyone.
Eric Burns (4 months ago)
I have to admit, this was a disheartening essay to read. The weakest of all arguments, in any critical discussion, is "this is not good, it is merely popular." It becomes the cornerstone of the counterargument -- the critic is useful only to critics, not to readers.
I didn't agree with all the WCCAs this year. Nor do I in any year. But all taste is innately subjective taste -- there are comics you vastly prefer which did not get nominated or win. There are comics you hate which have been honored now and in years past. That's true of anyone who has ever read a list of awards, in any medium.
But, if you're going to cover "All the comics in the world," you can't eschew the popular comics. And if a given comic, whether it mentions Super Smash Bros. or not, has built up a substantial readership, then someone out there finds it good.
Better, perhaps, than some of the comics you love.
John Solomon is an entertainer. He writes to his audience. That audience includes you, and you appreciate his entertainment. He says things that you've wished people would say for years, and so you feel a visceral reaction when you read it. If someone were going to be ridiculous enough to give fan-voted awards for webcomics reviews, you might vote for his blog, and so might a lot of other people. But Solomon is also loathed by plenty of people. If his reviews won an award, does that invalidate the award because they hate his stuff? Are they validated because you like it?
If you want to create a series award, with a broad cross section of experts in the field, that is juried and considered, go for it. I'd love to see it. But if you're going to have that award feel legitimate, you're going to need to gather experts from all over the continuum. It would be utterly correct for you, Joey Manley, Lea Hernandez and others to be there -- you guys know your stuff. But you should have the Halfpixel artists there too -- especially in the wake of their new book. You should have Gary Tyrell there. You should mine Dumbrella and Dayfree and independents like Randy Milholland and even Keenspotters like Jennie Breedan or J. Grant. The criteria can't be "people who like what I like" or you end up creating a masturbatory excess with less legitimacy than the WCCAs -- at least those don't have editorial bias.
The WCCAs need work. To their credit, they've clearly been trying to do so. But that work can't and shouldn't be "exclude the popular," even if you can't stand the popular comics.
(And as for Achewood? I'm as big an Achewood fan as anyone on the planet, but last year wasn't their strongest year. This year I have high hopes for -- there's been some really cool stuff so far.)
spamboy (4 months ago)
I hadn't heard of the WCCAs before this article, and after checking them out... well its hard to take something seriously when their site looks like it was done in 1997.
After reading some of the award categories, I have another plus in the "not taking it seriously" category. I understand that they're "trying" but honestly "OUTSTANDING WEBSITE DESIGN" I'm glad to see that Scott Kurtz's PvP merited a nomination in this category, and not for anything else, while Penny Arcade had several nominations and wins (where's the award for "OUTSTANDING NON SEQUITOR HUMOR", cause Penny Arcade would definitely win for that). Granted PvP may not warrant any awards lately (sorry Scott, but you may have jumped the shark)
I have to agree with Shaenon, the WCCAs from an outside glance seem rather pathetic, but one thing they did do, was to introduce me to a list of new online comics I can check out.
And most award shows are generally based on the preference of the judges anyways, its the whole reason why Martin Scorsese won for "The Departed", and not for one of his good films. Mix that with how easy it is to game an online system (see "Pray for Death" at Zuda.com) and you end up with a rather cynical view of the WCCAs.
I mean, come on, "OUTSTANDING ENVIRONMENT DESIGN", are you kidding me? How bout a OUTSTANDING USE OF STICK FIGURES category.
I'll be curious to see the nominee's for next year, if Jeremy Love doesn't get nominated for Bayou (sorry for all the zuda plugs, but Jeremy is awesome) then, yes, the WCCAs are a joke.
XKCD won for OUTSTANDING SINGLE PANEL COMIC, but the link points to a multi-paneled comic... crazy.
