Hhhmmm...I see I have been misunderstood, and deemed ignorant at the same time. Let me clarify a few things.
First, let's agree on a definition. This is a variation on Scott McCloud's definition, and since he is arguably the foremost scholar on comics (and his books should be required reading for all comic creators), there shouldn't be a great deal of disagreement.
Sequential art is an art form that uses images deployed in sequence for graphic storytelling or to convey information.[1] The best-known example of sequential art is comics, especially comic books and comic strips, which are a printed arrangement of art and speech balloons.
Comics do not generally require good art and good story, as any perusal of popular webcomics (XKCD??) or print comics will show. The Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns both are in the top graphic novels on just about any list, and both have average art at best. Look at any top ten list, and the art is usually far from the best in the industry (Kingdom Come being a notable exception).
However, I am pulling a fast one there, as the facts presented in the previous paragraph are pretty much indisputable, but fail to take several factors into account. In most of the cases, the writer was already well-known to the point that it did not matter who they were stuck with, OR the writer was doing a small press (often times autobiographical) work that resonated with people.
So, let me pull this back on point, and back on topic. If I am not engaged in reading a story, then the story is a failure, at least with me as the audience. Since I read comics daily, either print, graphic novels, e-books, or webcomics, across a wide range of styles and genres, I'm not a difficult target audience. I want a well written, well laid out comic, that mixes words and pictures in such a way that it achieves a greater result than either the words or pictures alone could have. In the end, there is no real way of judging comics other than by the story. The art and the words go together to make the story, and if one is lacking, the story suffers. But Story is the heart of a comic. And no, I should not read a book instead, for the simple fact that comics, Sequential Art, tell stories in a better way than a book does for my tastes.
I don't think of a splash page as "showing off drawing skills". Please repeat my actual words instead of editing and paraphrasing. The actual quote was this:
Splash pages. A traditional western comic is 22 pages. If there are more than three splash pages, there had better be a damned good reason. If you are putting in a splash page every 2-3 pages, just to show off your drawing skills? Pretty art. Why am I looking at pretty art, instead of reading your story?
And you are correct, sometimes those splash pages do add to the story. I use splash pages. Every good writer uses splash pages, and every good artist makes the most of them when they appear in the script. My complaint was the overuse of splash pages for no reason other than pretty art.
And any writer that has not hooked a reader on a story by the 10th page, needs to learn how to tell a story. I give webcomics 20 pages. If there is not a reason to care about the characters, the conflict, or the setting by that point, the writer failed. If I let them have the 21st page, then I might as well keep reading the first 50. No, there has to be a cutoff, and 20 pages is plenty. If there has not been a reason to keep reading in the first 20 pages, then it's statistically unlikely that the 21st is going to make a difference.
I will be honest. I TRY to give any comic 20 pages. I hit one yesterday that I dropped after 3 pages. In three pages, I hit 4 of the things people have listed in this thread, including the main couple bumping into each other physically on the street. I couldn't picture doing 16 more, when I could do something fun, like visit the dentist.
Now, your last paragraph, other than the mis-characterization (I may be blunt, have a low tolerance for poor story-telling, and be out-spoken with my opinions, but hardly qualify for ignorant), has a very important and valid point. Yes, most of the web comics are amateur affairs. I'm well aware of that, and take it into consideration. Often times, I am looking for the spark that shows me this person has some talent, and is worth watching and watching them grow. I will grit my teeth, and put up with things that are bad writing and bad story-telling if there are good parts about the series. But that is also why threads like this one are SO important.
People need to question what they are doing. They need to educate themselves on the crafts that they are trying to master, as even if you are just doing it as a hobby, you should be trying to get better at it. That's part of the purpose of a hobby, is to have something that you are good at that relaxes you, and that you enjoy showing off. Even something to be proud of because those cakes you bake as a hobby taste better than anything from a bakery. Hobbyists are usually better at a skill than the big boys.
This thread has been a lot of fun, and I don't mean to bring it down, but none of the criticism here has been mean-spirited, as none of it has been aimed at any specific target. But every comic creator ought to read it, and see how many of the things listed they spot in their own creations, then root them out. It's the way you learn.
Eagle
(And I spotted a few in my work)
