Calamity, Jane!
“Calamities of Nature” has one of the shortest archives of any of the webcomics we’ve reviewed. That’s a good thing in my book. Not because my attention span struggles with longer-lived (or more frequently updated) series, but because …. well, Piro actually explains it well in one of his earliest pages. Yeah, reading the archives felt kinda like that.
I get that these funny animals are supposed to be outside of humanity and commenting on it; the problem is they’re too much a part of the civilization they’re meant to be mocking. There’s the super-cool aloof one, the insecure one, the obnoxiously dumb one, and the outcast oddball one … all the standard “types” for a strip like this. Turn them into people instead of funny animals and readers would be complaining about how stereotypical they are. And none of them seem to really like each other very much. The aloof one complains about how stupid the rest of them are; the obnoxious one treats everyone badly; and they all pick on the outcast oddball one.
Then there’s the fact that I can’t really tell what animals they’re supposed to be. It turns out Harold is a pig (but I honestly needed a guest strip by a different artist to help me realize that), Ferd is a groundhog (okay, could have called that one as he is drawn to look at least a little like Bloom County’s Portnoy), Brian …. I mean, Aaron is apparently a dog (although I don’t think that’s every made clear; he looks like the dog on Family Guy if he wore oversized earmuffs that hid his eyes), and Alp is … well, even the character page says no-one really knows what Alp is.
The fact that most of the jokes aren’t incredibly original doesn’t bother me (didn’t Lewis Black do this joke a few years back? so much as the odd pacing of the comic. Early on there are several jokes that take two pages to develop, with the downside that not only is the end of the first page not funny it also gives no indication that it’s leading to a second page. Not that I need to be spoon-fed directions to “turn the page” so to speak (insert your own “the reviewer is old” joke here … I’ll wait.), but something to show that the page is a set up for an upcoming punchline seems to be called for.
So … for me, this comic just doesn’t work. Odd pacing, characters I don’t really find interesting, and art that seems kind of squashed … I’m going to have to give it 1 star for me, but your mileage may vary. Rating: 
Calamities of Nature
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com
by Tony Piro
review by Anthony R. Cardno
(6 votes, average: 3.83 out of 5)
Loading …
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
September 26th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Well said. Seems like the reviews ran pretty much along the same lines this week.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:48 am
As I was writing my review, I was trying to put two incongruous ideas together: My opinion and the number of visitors that Calamities gets.
By sheer visitor numbers alone, I would have to define Calamities as a successful comic. I figured that I was overlooking something that was a big reader draw.
Curiously, we (reviewers) all had the same basic opinion so for once, I’m not the lone wolf. I wonder what pulls that many daily readers in?
September 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
At the risk of sounding argumentative (which is NOT my intent) I don’t think the number of readers or lack of them should figure in a review. It’s not a popularity contest, it’s the reviewer’s opinion on what they thought of the comic. Give the reasons why you liked it or didn’t, and the devil with the numbers.
Sounds too much like “I didn’t like it, but golly, they have SO many readers, well I must be wrong.”
September 26th, 2008 at 11:03 am
If you use the evidence of television, after all, people have and always will for the most part like formulaic, inane plots and shows. That doesn’t make them good or worthy, though. (Just for clarification, rather than editing my previous post)
September 26th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
That’s a good point worth mentioning, but not quite what I was after - I don’t think I am wrong. Usually you guys gang up on me, so I’m accustomed to ignoring negative feedback.
Calamities is not a bad comic per se. I can easily imagine it having a number of regular readers. However it has many more readers than seems likely given the ratings we all gave it.
Usually you can pin a comic’s popularity on the fantastic art, gripping characters or something specific like that. I can only speculate that Mr. Piro has successfully found a way to reach his desired core audience. If you read any of the other material on his site, you can see he’s clearly a practical and intelligent guy.
That’s partly why I thought I missed something obvious about Calamities. It wouldn’t be the first time…
September 26th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
*Blows his whistle”
Time out!
No one called you wrong, just in passing
I see now what you were saying, and I think I got it incorrectly myself. Seemed to me like you were backing off because it had a lot of readers and I see now that isn’t so.
Our reviews are our opinions, mainly, so I don’t think it matters why we liked/disliked it, only that we’re honest in saying why. I think Mr. Piro reaches a target audience because he uses the same formula that sitcoms and just about every other comic out there uses - make fun of the things that are socially acceptable to make fun of, feed people the same ideas they see everywhere else and you’re guaranteed a following.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Exactly. This is the sort of thing people are accustomed to and comfortable with. It’s more of a “blue” sheep comic than a “red” sheep comic, but most comics are aimed for “blue” sheep, so I imagine plenty of “red” sheep follow it without realizing or caring that they’re not the intended audience. It’s the flavor they’re used to. More half-assed socially acceptable “social awareness” patter for the people who like to think they’re in touch. It’s in fashion.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
After Delos started talking about the popularity, I got curious as to how “Calamities of Nature” compared against other comics. So, if you’re curious, here it is against Krist Straub’s Starslip Crisis and Brad Guigar’s Evil Inc. (which I assume has a similar style and possible had a significant cross-over audience):
Calamities of Nature vs. Starslip Crisis vs. Evil Inc.
4K unique visitors is nothing to sneeze at. (I WISH I got that many viewers.) But, you know, it’s not huge. Not sheer numbers, anyway. Just to drive the point home, here’s Calamities of Nature vs. xkcd vs. Penny Arcade (aka “The Big Guns”):
Calamities of Nature vs. xkcd vs. Penny Arcade
So, I don’t know, I’d peg Calamities as a niche comic rather than some indicator that the general populace found something funny that you didn’t.
Incidentally, Doctor, when can we expect to see you on those Dr. Pepper “Trust me, I’m a doctor” commercials? The one with Dr. Frasier Crane was gut-bustingly awesome. (The Dr. J one less so, though.)
September 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I don’t know - they haven’t called me yet!
September 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Neat analytics site. Calamities is more accurately described as a niche comic compared to the big boys, yes.
My standard of success is based on practicality, so once you start getting to thousands of regulars- you’re doing pretty good by my estimation. For example, you can sell a decent amount of books and merch at 4k visitors.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
I hear what El Santo is saying though - that doesn’t make a comic good or bad, or mean there’s ’something wrong’ because you didn’t like it and thousands did. It means you have your own opinion, your own standards, and you expressed them.
Really, the only thing people have to do with that is agree or disagree - and keep it CIVIL, of course
September 26th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
And Sly, I take my hat off to you - I couldn’t have said it better myself!
Or at least…not without using a lot more profanity!
September 26th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I have to say that I disagree with some of your opinions on the Calamities strip. As a fer instance, you feel that the characters are too much a part of the civilization they are mocking, but how can someone mock something they are disconnected from? It’s like saying that someone who bags on TV sitcoms isn’t astute because they watch a ton of tv sitcoms. It’s sort of impossible to provide commentary for something unless you are deeply involved in it, or you’ll just come off as elitist and judging something unknowningly.
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.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Not being able to send comments to the site because it seems to be blocked at work makes it hard to take part in these discussions until they’re over. But I followed that whole discussion of “what I liked vs. what is popular” and I think I agree with the basic assessment, which is once again that all of our reviews are based on our own personal tastes, and none of us here is trying to be all “high and mighty.”
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?
September 27th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
As far as the “unoriginal thing” goes, it’s sticking in my craw that you’re stating as fact that the comic is unoriginal, when it’s unoriginal to you. It might seem nit-picky to call out a qualification on wording, but it makes an assumption on the review reader’s part that they agree. Opinions are fine and dandy, it just gets to me a bit when they’re assigned to me.
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.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I submit the following:
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.
September 27th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Shawn, I have to again say: Thank you for expressing your disagreement with me in polite, clear terms that allow for a basic difference of opinion.
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.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:50 am
You are in good company, Talekyn. Generally, other forums will descend into name calling and the like whenever someone DARES disagree with the idea that a comic is perfection itself, as has been said before. I think people see through that, though, as opposed to those who genuinely disagree with some part of what you’ve said and state the matter clearly, as Shawn has.
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.