I think this is quite a good point. I do believe that there are some online comics critics/bloggers out there who *are* more interested in producing that “finished”/definitive piece than initiating conversation. I like to write those guys short notes of appreciation so that they know they’re not launching things into a sea of apathy.

I think it deserves to be said that our dear Mr Groth (and I say that with zero sarcasm; I think he’s fantastic) bemoans the overall state of criticism pretty much regardless of where it shows up, not just on the Web, although he does reserve his most vituperative criticism for blogging-as-journalism.

He made this point at the SPX critics roundtable (transcribed over at Robot6):

“I mean, I’m just not suited to writing every two days. I’m from the tradition where you sit down and you spend several weeks honing some piece.”

I read this as saying that the immediacy of the online medium discourages the sustained thought that results in the sort of criticism someone still wants to read a dozen years later. I think that’s very insightful. I do think it’s as much the constancy as the immediacy — even when your intentions are good and it’s going really well, it’s tiring; it can feel like being in a discussion class that’s in session 24 hours a day.

But I take his point that we do need to discipline ourselves to write the final paper and not just get graded on participation. It’s one thing to appreciate and pay attention to feedback and to engage in a meaningful conversation with other thoughtful people about your work. That conversation can make your work better and more meaningful, and it’s a benefit the Internet provides that traditional criticism didn’t have. But it’s quite another thing entirely to never get to the point that you synthesize the conversation and put something on paper that feels done.

Even YouTube comments can be useful, honestly. I’ve learned a lot from them in terms of this Thai Pop kick I’m on.

Over time the virtual community that springs up around the conversation becomes the most important feature of the blog or website. The community ends up contributing a lot of added value. From a business perspective, it’s also that community that ends up generating revenue for the website. Of course, it takes work to keep the conversation going and not degrade to the level of a typical YouTube comment thread.

To bring it back to TCJ.com, there’s not much there that is inviting or easy to use. Throw in Gary Groth’s post and I get the sense that he favors preaching instead of conversing. There’s nothing wrong with that model, but I find the alternative far more interesting to read, even when I don’t participate myself.

Yeahbut –

It’s easier to GIVE feedback to online sources, and I think people are more – trained, I guess – to give feedback to a blog than write an e-mail.

The problem isn’t that Gary’s sneering at the Internet. It’s that he’s presenting himself as God’s gift to the Internet while seeming to have only the vaguest of ideas where to even find the darn thing. It’s embarrassing for him, for the site, and for everyone who would like tcj.com to succeed — which, I’m pretty sure, includes everyone on this comments thread.