by Barb Lien-Cooper

While I'm the last person in the world who wants to cause trouble, something about comic book review sites on the web is starting to bother me. It's the fact that many web sites dedicated to comic book journalism simply refuse -- often without explanation -- to review web comics. Reading between the lines, I suppose the obvious answers are:

1. The floodgate theory. (If you review one webcomic, you have to review them all, which is the excuse a sister comic book journalist used on me, even after she praised my writing as a comic book journalist several times.) I can't really see this, as a reviewer isn't obligated per se to review any work sent his or her way. But the problem could be solved with a note saying that he or she will only review webcomics that have caught his or her interest.

2. The web site reviewers hate comics on the web because they're self-described Luddites and only like comics in print because of the "sensual" experience of being able to turn the pages. One reviewer even said to me that she didn't review web comics because she liked reading comics in the bath. You know what? Me too. But if one can read a news article on the web, one can read a comic.

3. They only have dial up. Now, this is a legitimate excuse. I myself refused to review webcomics when I only had dial up, because it is a pain to read webcomics without cable.

4. They think webcomics universally suck. This is often true even for comic book web sites that claim to support independent comics and even self-published comics. I've seen web sites that will review the sorriest little xeroxed mini-comic and still turn up their noses at some darned good webcomics.

5. They don't know where to begin. Then try doing a bit of research. Read a few issues of Comixpedia or read some webcomics reviews on other web sites and see if any titles jump out at you. Research is part of a reviewer's job, after all.

6. They say webcomics hurt their eyes. Funnily enough, a lot of these people don't find that other types of information on the web do the same, and they spend hours a day looking at web sites with smaller and harder-to-read print than many webcomics.

7. They say that webcomics will never give mainstream comics any serious competition. Since when is this a valid criterion to use to judge a comic? The many good independent comics out there aren't going to put the big three out of business any time soon, but reviewers review them because some of them are good. Shouldn't the worth of a comic be judged on its content instead of whether it can steal a section of the mainstream audience away from the cape and cowl crowd?

8. "Furries! They're all furries!" Well, the webcomic community is not all about furry comics. We're all types of comics. What's more, you know, some furry comics are really worthwhile. Try Digger, if you don't believe me.

I'm sure I'm missing some excuses, but you get the picture.

I just think it's grotesquely unfair to hold a prejudice against a comic's worthiness for review just because of the delivery system the comic is published in or on. It also seems ridiculous because these sites are on the web itself, so these sites are more or less saying that comic book-related publishing on the web is worthless. I wonder if they include webcomics journalism and their own writing in this judgment? If they don't, how can they, with any degree of integrity, prejudge other publications on the web to be unworthy of their time without even bothering to read some of the more representative or critically-praised works? Aren't they acting the same way that the mainstream used to act about comics? Remember those days, when mainstream journalists felt that if it had panels, it couldn't be worthwhile to read, review, or write about?

I guess what I'm asking is: Why are webcomics discriminated against before they even can get up to bat? Are they some kind of affront or threat to print publishing? What would it hurt these sites and reviewers to judge webcomics on a case by case basis?

Can nothing be done to address the issue? Is the only real option to sit back and take this affront to a new and growing medium that is only starting to realize its potential? I understand that many webcomics are not to one's tastes. Some are not "print" quality (although many of those comics are still interesting and original). And I understand that there are so many webcomics outthere that not all of them can be reviewed. And I understand that not every web journalist can be expected to take an interest in the product mix on the web. But I can say the same things about self-published comics, independent comics, and mainstream comics. Why is it that webcomics, of all the types of comics out there, have to say "oh well" when the door is barred and bolted before the creators can even knock?

I hear journalists say that there are a lot of great comics out there if one just looked and that they take pride in bringing these under-publicized comics to readers' attention. Shouldn't their attempts to find the best and the brightest focus on the works themselves rather than the delivery system? Shouldn't they feel a little ashamed that their search for great comics doesn't start in their own backyard, the web itself?

Now, I'm not saying every web site is like this. For instance, Pulse has been extremely kind and generous to webcomics. Jen Contino and Heidi MacDonald cannot be thanked enough. The site I used to work for, Sequential Tart, has also done a fair number of webcomic reviews and interviews. I'm especially glad about that, because a lot of female creators do webcomics and ST is all about supporting good comics, no matter which gender the creator is.

I'm one of the lucky ones. Because of my reputation as a comics journalist, my comic, Gun Street Girl, has received review space and publicity. To the web sites that took the time to review a webcomic such as mine, I can't express my gratitude enough. Not just for me, but for every creator on the web that tries to write quality work in face of some web sites' extreme prejudice against where/how some comics are published. Those who really love good comics do seem to care more about the quality of a work than whether a product has a staple in it or not.

I'm always happy when Gun Street Girl gets a bit of publicity; not because I have an inflated ego, but because positive publicity concerning one webcomic, whatever that comic happens to be, tends to reflect well on the entire medium. I mean, when Nowhere Girl got an Eisner nomination, didn't that give our collective community just a bit more ammunition to use against those who unfairly prejudge webcomics in general?

You can fault me because, at a certain point as a reviewer, I refused to continue reviewing self-published comics and mini-comics (and, sadly, a few webcomics because of the dial-up connection I had at the time). However, I only did so because I had reviewed dozens upon dozens of these comics before saying no more. I did take on a representative sample without ever saying no. When I realized that I was burnt out on so many downright lousy print comics, I finally had to stop being a reviewer at all. When other reviewers do the same with webcomics and decide that, upon reviewing a representative sample, there aren't enough good webcomics to make it worth their time, then I say, go with my blessing.

Because, as I said, it's the prejudging of webcomics without a reviewer considering a single one that seems really unfair.

Why do webcomics deserve to be reviewed? Because it's only fair/just/equitable to do so. Plus, as the webcomics audience already knows, whether it's on a pay site or a free site or someone's web page, there are some pretty fine comics being published on the web. It's not the web itself that should be judged, but as with print comics, the quality of the work within.

Barb Lien-Cooper is a founding member of online webzine Sequential Tart, co-columnist at www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com, and Managing Editrix of the 2004 Eisner-Award-winning magazine COMIC BOOK ARTIST. She writes Gun Street Girl for Graphic Smash.com.