Comments on: The Webcomic Overlook #30: Achewood

By: Ubik

Ubik — Thu, 10 May 2012 00:15:45 +0000

There’s an important aspect to Ray and Roast Beef’s relationship that you hinted at, but never said outright, and I think it bears explicit expression: Ray and Roast Beef complete each other, and as likable a character as Ray is, he would not be nearly as likable without his undying friendship with Roast Beef.

You already remarked that Ray is “pure Id,” and I fully agree with that. But what would Ray be without somebody like Beef to temper him, to provide the fallibility, humility and humanity to make his antics that much more relatable to the audience? He’d be Rayne from Least I Could Do, that’s what. Do we want to see Ray win the Great Outdoor Fight because he’s already won so many other things? No, we want to see him win because his best friend is helping call the shots. We want to see him win because, just as Beef stands by him, he stands by Beef, even in the face of the Jeeps. Without Roast Beef, Ray would be just a self-absorbed, privileged dick, and even Ray seems to realize that sometimes.

Beyond that, Achewood’s prose is really pretty unique, and does an excellent job of capturing the language and vocabulary that develops between a small group of friends. Onstad develops some truly original and memorable dialogue and phrasing, even when it’s in reference to something as banal as getting shitfaced with your friends. And that kind of simple elegance is part of what makes Achewood unique and exciting for so many people.

By: Esn

Esn — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 05:10:41 +0000

Hm. Well, in my effort to give it another chance, I clicked at a random spot in 2004 and read a stretch of it. Seemed actually pretty comprehensible and mostly funny, though the art style did seem to struggle to clearly portray some actions, and the grammar annoyed me. On the other hand, I read a stretch of comics from closer to the beginning of the strip, and another from closer to the end, and found it to be filled with non-sequiturs and incomprehensible references. Sort of “clever for the sake of cleverness” (to give the benefit of the doubt), and often as obscure as anything you’d see on xkcd.

I also can’t quite get over for my distaste at the fonts that are used.

So it’s not totally bad and can be funny, but overall it’s just not for me.

By: El Santo

El Santo — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:53:42 +0000

I think it’s genuinely good, for reasons I won’t be repeating here since I think I stated it all in the review. Besides, if you click around this site, I’m really not above pissing off people’s fanbases.

By: Esn

Esn — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 13:42:48 +0000

This is one of those comics where I just don’t get what all the fuss is about, at all. I’m completely baffled by its critical respectability and popularity.

To me, it seems like the artwork is terrible, and the jokes are insular, and the writing is badly-structured.

There may be a jewel in there under that, but first and second impressions are off-putting.

Are you sure you didn’t give it 5 stars simply to avoid pissing off the fan base?