Nope, @ErithEl ...I'm not going to hold anything back on these. I'm going to call them like I see them, as I would like someone to do for me.
For the most part, I feel like the better you get at something creative, the more honest you are with yourself about your own output. I don't think I am going to be hitting too far from where most people see themselves, but in some cases, I might be able to get past egos or blindspots so they can improve.
My own comic has several weaknesses, such as the stiffness of the figures, the looseness of the art, and the simple fact that I am telling a very dense story, so there are lots of captions. If someone points out other problem areas, I am usually eager to fix what I can, and do better in the future with what I can not. The only time I am not is if it's something that is a matter of my personal style, such as the wordiness. The bit about not liking comics with too many words is a recent development, and one that I do not care for, since it robs comics of part of their story telling effectiveness, so I am not likely to change that.
I am also going to make sure that I place any disclaimers that need to be done in the right places, so that if something is affecting me due to my stance on something, such as extreme decompression in story telling (decompression was a good thing, it gave us richer stories, extreme decompression is a bad thing, it gives us more art at the cost of story), I will label it as such.
Also, with a long history of doing critique, I tend to use a lot of literary critique terms, so if anyone has questions either about a term, or the way I am using it, be sure to ask.
Eagle
(The next one will be out tomorrow, I have had a very busy week)
