The problem lies with the name-callers, though, not with you - there’s a great difference between disagreeing with someone’s review and cutting them to shreds just because you didn’t like what they said. I believe that more shows a closed mind than anything.

Apparently, in other forums, I am being taken to task as either an egotist, or someone who is “just” a reader and therefore not capable of forming an intelligent opinion that disagrees with others. These accusations have been leveled against other Comic Fencers as well, so I think I’m actually in good company. I am definitely not the only CFer who found “Calamities” unoriginal; I’m sorry if my presentation of that opinion came across as egotistical. Anyone who reads the book reviews I post on my personal blog can tell you that I’m about the least “secure” reviewer there is going. Every single one of my reviews should be read with the thought in the back of your mind that I’m just a guy who likes to read, who likes comics, and who wants to share his opinion, however unpopular it might be, with anyone who will listen. It IS a difficult thing to craft an opinion that does not slip into authoritative voice, which is why I tend to add something like the “your mileage may vary” to every review.

I’m also glad that Tony Piro has such ardent defenders (and such well-spoken ones as yourself). I’d have liked to hear what he thought of the reviews and where he thought we were wrong.

1. A reviewer has the obligation to express their opinions to the best of their abilities, on those areas they are able to comment on
2. A reviewer has the obligation to not make direct, personal attacks on the artist when doing so, even though they may call aspects of the artwork itself into question, or give opinions on how it appears TO THEM. (Caps because that’s the operative term - to them)
3. A reviewer is not - and yes, I said not - responsible for things read into his or her reviews by people who may not agree with them or like them.

The reviews are not stated as fact - that, like the review, is an interpretation and opinion of the reader if they think so. The only “fact” is that this is the opinion of the reviewer, not universal law. Nothing is assumed, other than that you are reading the review for a reason. Maybe it’s simple, but I’m of the school that as long as I know I haven’t deliberately been insulting or unkind, I’m not responsible for the reactions of others, or their assumptions on what they thought was meant. The review needs to be taken at face value. No opinions are assigned to anyone other than the reviewer, and I believe that’s pretty clear.
So yes - I’d have to agree - I think you’re being a bit nit-picky. Thankfully, you’re being more courteous about it than the usual people who dislike a negative review. For my part, I believe it was written tastefully and well, and clearly stated that he invited anyone who read the review to read the comic for themselves.

The Calamities characters do interact with humans (as seen here: http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/index.php?comic=34), so it does fit in with your definition of human/animal activity. Granted there aren’t a ton of appearances of “humans” in the strip, but then that’s getting into an awfully particular complaint (that Piro provides an explanation on the inner workings of his universe.) I totally get that it doesn’t work for you though, I’m certainly not trying to convince you otherwise.

Guess I can’t help but get defensive when I read reviews, and not just of subjects that I dig; it’s just a really difficult thing to provide opinionated commentary that doesn’t slip into an authoritative voice.

Shawn Robare points out some aspects of my review that could perhaps use some clarification, and some that perhaps are open to debate.

First, I’ll point out that I did end my review by saying “your mileage may vary.” Shawn’s mileage obviously does vary from mine.

I will agree with Shawn that, as worded, my comment about the characters being too much a part of the society they are judging rings false. While there are many comic/novel/essay writers out there who bag on things which they’ve never experienced (as witness the plethora of people who claim with certainty that the Harry Potter books support Satanism without ever having read the books), there are just as many that are well-informed/involved with the subject they’re judging. I have no problem with “Calamities” on that score. My point was actually meant to be that these are animals commenting on humanity … which to me is funny when they are either a) animals who know they are animals but interact with humans (ala Bloom County or Get Fuzzy), b) animals who are anthorpomorphic in a world in which humans do not exist (I think Pearls Before Swine fits this) or c)are animals that act like real animals and the humor comes from how the humans around them interact (something like Marmaduke, although I haven’t found that particular strip funny in years). But the “Calamities” characters don’t fit into any of those modes. They’re not interacting with humans but they do talk about humans — so they’re not “stand ins” for us (in which situation their full immersion in our society would make sense), nor are they fully interactive with human characters in a world where humans and animals can speak to each other (which would also make sense in context). So they are “fully a part of human society” in some sort of awkward way that just doesn’t work for me.

My issue with the characters is that they don’t ever rise about the stereotypes they are set up as. Yes, lots of comics start out with stereotypical types — but the ones that work for me are the ones that transcend those stereotypes. Perhaps the “Calamities” characters will grow over time, perhaps they just haven’t had a chance to yet with such a short archive. It might behoove me to check back in a year and see if they have grown in that time. Shawn points out that Charlie Brown was not the first lovable loser in pop culture, and he’s right. The Peanuts gang also outlived their prime and stopped being funny about 10 years before the great Mr. Schulz passed away. I have the hardback collections of the very early years of the strip and they were much funnier than the end-run. Was Calvin the first kid with a wild imagination? No — but Bill Watterson was smart enough to end the strip before Calvin either had to outgrow the stereotype or become hopelessly repetitive and unfunny.

Finally, I don’t think it’s “dirty pool” to point out that I found most of the humor to be unoriginal and then show an example of what I didn’t think was funny, even while saying the unoriginality wasn’t what bothered me. I have long agreed with the assessment that “there is nothing new under the sun,” but I have also always said that there are still new perspectives on old standards — to me, the Starbucks page is an example of that. “A Starbucks on every corner” as a commentary on society has been done to death; had Mr. Piro come up with a different take on that image, I might have laughed. (The gags with the cast possibly wearing Starbucks shirts was funnier. Not fully there, but funnier.) My mistake was in not also linking to the strips that had awkward pacing as an example of what I did find annoying about the page.

Thanks, Shawn, for calling me on my wording and making me defend my opinions. That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it?

As far as the cast of characters being a rogues gallery of “standard types”, well again, that’s a complaint that can be levied against practically every comic strip ever. Do you really think Charlie Brown was the first lovable loser ever? Is Calvin really the first precocious kid with a wildly active imagination? No, and neither will be the last.

I also think it’s dirty pool to point out how “The fact that most of the jokes aren’t incredibly original doesn’t bother [you]…” by then pointing out examples of how it’s not original. Statements like that take opinion and relate them as if they were facts, and to add insult to injury you come off with air of “even though it’s bad, that doesn’t bother me…” as if you letting him get away with something. Also, nothing is original, and no, not even Lewis Black was the first person to point the fact that there are a ton of Starbucks out there, he’s just one of the most popular.

Or at least…not without using a lot more profanity!

Really, the only thing people have to do with that is agree or disagree - and keep it CIVIL, of course