Youtube Product Reviews

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 1 out of 5
Yeah, but: Hey, internets.

The Long Version: Here's something I don't understand: the Youtubed single-take video review. I've been shopping for a new pocketknife recently, and these things are the dominant form of experiential information about it. Let me tell you, most of them are just plain bad, and many of them are much worse than that.

Coughing, bumping the camera, um, let's see, dropping things, focus hunting or locked on the wrong thing; um, background noise, hiss and wind noise; shaky camera, um, I don't know if you guys can see this; helmet-POV, hand-on-each-side demonstrations, um, webcam, hey youtube; missed framing, drifting auto exposure, fidgeting; dumb catchphrases, um, random backgrounds; bad video and worse lighting; scantily researched, improvised, self-indulgent and rambling presentations.

Seriously, I've seen considerably higher production values – and better scripting – from some very average efforts at amateur porn.

Writing a good review is hard work: look at just how rarely I accomplish it despite my many attempts. Taking photos is also an acquired skill, and one that most casual reviewers lack. That's usually okay, since the goal is description, not art, and a still photo can be puzzled out or skipped over as the viewer prefers. But when people take a video camera out to the garage because they think that it's easier than acquiring and/or combining those two other skills, bad things happen.

Making a good video is a lot of really hard work, which is why I don't do it. I can't say that I won't ever create a video review – they have their place and can draw a lot of attention – I absolutely promise that it won't be recorded with my cellphone.

last updated 24 sep 2012

Awareness for Etymotic, Part One: Registration and Installation

Concept: 0 out of 5
Execution: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: I hope getting there isn't half the fun.

The Long Version: As a reviewer, there's a special place in my heart for companies and products that really piss me off. They have reviews that practically write themselves – and Etymotic, with their handling of Essency's "AWARENESS!® for Etymotic" iOS App, has joined this select group.

I very recently bought a pair of Etymotic's HF3 earphones, which is bundled with the downloadable "AWARENESS!® for Etymotic" iOS program by the UK developer Essency. Essentially, "AWARENESS!®" is a clever-sounding program that uses the built-in mic to monitor and optionally transmit ambient sounds. This isn't a review of the app, although that's coming up soon; a review of the earphones themselves may also eventually follow as well. For now I'm just looking at the post-purchase experience: going from the earphones' retail box to the point where the "AWARENESS!®" application is up and running.

There is also a paid "AWARENESS!®PRO" version that unlocks a few additional features. The upgrade process is straightforward, but I won't bother dealing with the anti-customer stupidity of charging $15 in the iTunes Store versus the $5 cost of upgrading through the application. I'll save that for part two.

"AWARENESS!® for Etymotic" requires an account that's created via the Etymotic website. It asks for an amazing amount of personal information, including an email address, phone number, and full mailing address. If something is omitted, don't expect it to be easy to figure out what it is – I'm hardly an idiot when it comes to this internet thing, and I lost track of the number of times I bumped into some unmarked mandatory field or missed a requirement. And incidentally, you also need to type in the UPC and the secret code that's printed on the top of the box. Awesome.

And the purpose of asking for all of this information is made perfectly clear: to create the account to register the product to be able to use the app, the lucky customer must select at least one of Ety's marketing "tell me more" checkboxes. And no, "none of the above" is not an option. Not only is that repugnantly disrespectful, I'll even bet that it's illegal in many jurisdictions.

Once you've pressed "submit" – to the invasion of privacy and blatant disregard of your wishes – you earn the ability to log in to their "free" app.

Download the app, click to log in, and it asks for a user name and password. Hold on – the password is what I laboriously created online, but there was no mention of what the user name will be. Is it my full name, which was a mandatory field? Perhaps it's the required e-mail address? Could it be something randomly generated and buried in the click-this-link verification email? I love guessing games.

I type something in and get an error message: unable to connect to network. Check your internet connection. That's not unreasonable; two bars are showing on my iPhone 4S, but I'm on the Rogers Wireless network in downtown Toronto, so failure is always an option. I move to a place with better reception and type in my first guess again. Same 'bad network' result. Now I have to consider that "AWARENESS!®" could just be an idiotic program, so I ignore the second warning and take another guess at what my user name might be. Third time lucky: now it thinks that the Internet connection is just fine and I'm in.

And no, I'm not going to spoil the surprise by saying what worked.

I'm sure someone will helpfully point out that I don't need to use the app, and that I could choose to ignore it and continue to exist in anonymity. If I did that then I would still resent Etymotic for having the audacity to ask such impertinent questions as a condition of deriving the advertised benefits of their product, but I would also feel like I'm being cheated out of some features that they promote as "included with purchase" simply because I won't accept their blatantly unreasonable terms. That's not an improvement.

What's more, the "AWARENESS!®" app is important enough to Etymotic that they heavily promote it. They market isolation as a unique product advantage for their earphones, which makes the features of the app seem useful and appealing: it's in their interest for me to want it, associate it with them, and like it. It's absolutely not in their interest for me to be so dissatisfied with the process that I investigate further and discover that Essency also markets a generic version that makes Etymotic's vaunted isolation seem much less remarkable, and come away feeling cheapened and deceived.

It takes an unconscionable amount of hubris for companies like Essency and Etymotic to demand personal information in this post-LulzSec era. Linkedin, eHarmony, and Last.fm all fell to hackers in the time that it took me to write this, but I'm supposed to trust that Essency's infrastructure and information is properly secured? Seriously? The etymotic.com/awareness/register page isn't even encrypted.

Do you follow the internet's best practices and use a unique and complex password for every little pissant product registration page? I certainly don't, and although I do try to limit the damage that can be done, it seems inevitable that these small fish are going to get fried.

I have to ask: is the risk to Etymotic and Essency of non-Etymotic-owners using the limited functions of the free app – or purchasing the $5 Etymotic version instead of the functionally identical $7 unbranded edition – so great that it's worth the liability and effort of having the registration process at all, let alone one so onerously-yet-ineffectually locked down? Is having my email address really worth what it costs?

While I'm yet to form an opinion of the application itself, I do wish that I had found the white-label version rather than following Etymotic's links. It seems to skip the registration step, and the extra couple of bucks seems like a small price to pay for avoiding all of this nonsense.

Even assuming that there is a valid reason for Etymotic and/or Essency to restrict the app via product registration, there's still no excuse for the information that they collect or the platform that they do it with. "AWARENESS!®" is already capable of accepting and confirming login information – asking instead for the UPC and box code, and skipping all of the privacy invasions and marketing hoop-jumping, would be just as (in)effective at keeping the undesirables out. Instead they choose to inflict this anti-customer bullshit on people who either already have or would otherwise like to give them money.

Etymotic, a company with a sterling reputation for sound, thinks that getting my information is so important that they're willing to make me hate them. And to what end? When I do receive their mandatory marketing material I guarantee that all it will do is remind me how much I resent them right now.

Today my earphones are shiny and new. I took the considerable effort to seek out this brand and model, and spent a big chunk of money to own them. This should be the peak of my post-purchase happiness. Instead this terrible software tie-in and registration has me writing a 1200-word rant about just how bad the experience was.

What a massive amount of hassle and effort for such a lousy reward.

last updated 7 june 2012

SOPA/PIPA

Concept: 0 out of 5
Execution: 0 out of 5
Yeah, but: If it's pro-business and the Globe And Mail still hates it, it's really bad.

The Long Version: I have an odd relationship with American copyright law. I'm affected by it without being subject to it, but Canadian copyright law – at least under the Conservative government – will eventually aspire to match it. So I've only been paying minor attention to the current SOPA/PIPA kerfuffle up until recently – frankly, I figured that the DMCA is bad enough that I wasn't really expecting anything much worse.

Life's full of surprises.

I want good copyright protection. I'm generally a photographer, and images are easier to appropriate and use than songs or movies. I'm concerned for the font designers and independent creators who are out there trying to be paid for their work, but that's not who wrote out their worldview and expects it be made into law.

Thewsreviews inherently depends on photographing and describing other people's products, and I usually have some criticism on hand even for things that I love and recommend. But even though I'm nothing more than a tiny fleck of lint in the blogosphere, I've always been a little wary of whose toes I tread on.

The morning after I wrote my review of the NBC Studio Tour I had a half-dozen hits from an internet address that's assigned to their New York headquarters, and I have to admit that I was half-expecting an unhappy letter on very nice stationary as a result. Fortunately, they seem to have an unexpectedly good sense of humour, or they just appreciate that I own the full set of The Pretender DVDs.

But what if taking down objectionable content was easier than a libel suit, with less recourse than a take-down notice? I'm sure that the packaging for Gary Fong's collapsable lightsphere is copyrighted, but I need to reproduce it in order to critique the tremendous implausibility of its before-and-after photos. I was careful not to call it fraudulent or false advertising, because I don't know that and can't prove it, but SOPA/PIPA creates an entirely new concern. A complaint about copyright infringement – asserted, not proven, and without an opportunity for rebuttal – could remove this entire website from the American edition of the internet.

Corporate culture and communications are crowding further and further into public space. There would be no way to take part in the civic discourse about Toronto's "info pillars" without a photograph of the entire installation of an Astral Media advertising billboard, including the copyrighted Bell Canada advertisement. Those photos made it all the way to city hall. Should the companies that are the subject of the criticism have the right to block them from being seen? Fortunately for me, everyone involved in this example is Canadian, but it's a very real scenario for Americans who formerly liked the whole 'free speech' idea.

Thewsreviews is a hobby blog; I hope that people find it entertaining and useful, but it's here because I and a few others enjoy creating new content for it. I'll keep it going for as long as it remains engaging, but that won't include the time between 8am and 8pm on January 18, 2012.

last updated 17 jan 2012

Toronto Fire Services Scanner

Concept: 3 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: This isn't just strange, it's strange-even-for-me.

The Long Version: I blame Roman Mars. His radio/podcast 99% Invisible profiled the streaming web audio from "You Are Listening To…", which combines live radio chatter from the police departments of various cities (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles) with a stream of ambient music. It's a surprisingly effective mix, but as much as I like ambient music – and who doesn't? – I wanted something more lively and more local.

That's why I found Radio Reference and its scanner audio for the Toronto Fire Services. I was very quickly hooked on the feed, and will often have it playing even when I have other music on. To help the radio chatter make sense I've been learning a little more about the TFS and how it designates its trucks; I now some idea of the difference between a Rescue and Pumper (most Pumpers carry foam as well as water, while a rescue will carry more tools) and a Tower and Aerial truck (towers are rare but have an articulated platform and more reach). I'm still not quite sure what makes the Highrise unit of the South Command remarkable – I imagine that they're crewed by the best stair-climbers, but I'd love to know how their equipment is different.

A fascinating picture emerges from combining the live audio feed with the list of active incidents. As an outsider and civilian, I have little to no idea what's involved in being a firefighter, and have only been able to watch them work a few times. But now when I hear the sirens going past I can check out what's happening; recent calls in my neighbourhood have been for someone who lost consciousness at a restaurant, a chemical spill, and a garage fire. These are significant events with lasting impacts for the people involved, while for the fire crews and dispatchers these are part of the routine that's handled capably and without undue excitement. The mix of minor cataclysm and mundane administration is a little confounding.

Naturally, the feed for the Fire department isn't a cornucopia of good news, and there's one call in particular that I wish I hadn't heard. But I've certainly gained a new appreciation for the Toronto Fire Service – and not because of their headline performance at the rare major fire, but because of all of the little things that affect peoples' lives without ever making the news. Stuck elevators, medical calls, power lines down, alarm checks: it's the unglamorous but important day-to-day work that impresses me. And it's a good thing, too – with the stunning performance of the Blue Wall at and after Toronto's G20 conference, it's time for a new hero. I can only hope that Mayor Dob Ford's "Gravy Train" sloganeering achieves its inevitable collapse before he does something foolish.

last updated 5 sep 2011

Thewsreviews: Year Number Two

Concept: _ out of 5
Execution: _ out of 5
Yeah, but: It's still too early for a retrospective.

The Long Version: This website turned two yesterday. It's been a big year: we've gone to a new design, a new URL, and gained a new author. In the past twelve months, we've had another thirty-seven thousand hits, and sixty-five thousand page views. This is post number one hundred and eighty, so we're averaging about two posts per week. The word cluster at the top is generated from just the 27 reviews posted so far this calendar year.

Of course, a lot hasn't changed. Camera gear remains the most popular subject, getting the most interest from regular readers and search engine patrons alike. The Olympus 35-100mm review is a medium-size fish in a small pond, accounting for about a tenth of the site traffic. My first look at the Xootr Mg scooter, written exactly two years ago and currently the first result on google.ca for 'xootr review', remains very popular even though its traffic has been eclipsed by my 2009 writeup of the Xootr Swift folding bike. In honour of that bike, which I just brought out of winter storage, here's a photo of it that has never been published before:

If nothing else, that photo shows that there is a minimum quality standard that needs to be met before I'll use it. I do enjoy taking photos for these reviews, and I take far more than I've used. Some were ideas that never quite blossomed into prose, others were ones that didn't add anything to the review. Sometimes I'll write an entire review simply because I want to use a particular photo, but usually the idea comes before the illustration.

In the past year, I've stopped using most of my Olympus equipment, and even sold both the 35-100/2 and 7-14/4 lenses. (That still astonishes me.) I've added two entirely new camera systems, four new cameras, and ten new lenses to my collection. Some of those have been mentioned here before, and some are still on my 'to do' list. I continue to look for interesting things to review, and more importantly, keep trying to write about the things that interest me instead of trying to anticipate what will get more traffic. After all, I first thought of writing this blog as a personal creative outlet, and never imagined that anyone other than family and friends would ever read it. (For the record, absolutely nobody in my family reads it. Apparently I have a very healthy ego.) So even though I know that nobody's likely to care what I think about dishwasher detergent or a light switch, I'm going to keep writing about them and things like them. When I initially thought about the concept behind the blog - while riding the Spadina Streetcar - I thought I'd eventually review a day of the week. Tuesday's been on my shortlist for a while, but it hasn't happened yet.

So, for everyone who reads this, thank you. You've taken the effort to include my thoughts in your day, which just completely blows my mind. Thanks also to Keith and Bill, my co-authors who add so much to this site and keep it from being completely self-indulgent. This is far more fun than I had any right to expect.

New URL - thewsreviews dot com

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: No further action required.

The Long Version: Almost 24 hours ago, thewsreviews dot blogspot dot com became thewsreviews dot com. The transition seemed to go well, with just a short amount of downtime for people who avoid the 'www' prefix. (It's lame, I know.) All previous links from google searches and bookmarks redirect seamlessly to the new address, and if you see this through a feed, then that's working too.

Ultimately, though, nothing else has changed. The site is still hosted by the Blogger branch of Global Internet Domination, Inc., the same people who drive most of the traffic to this site and provide the advertising that's not expected to actually pay anything until mid-2012. But everyone needs a retirement plan, and I'm going to be starting the slow process of copying the HTML of each review into my own archives just in case there's a need to move. While Strobist redirects their dot com to their blogspot address, I'm still haunted by The Online Photographer's need to shift services mid-stream, giving it both blogspot and typepad incarnations.

The biggest real changes are the new header, a new contact e-mail, and a shorter web address to type and remember. Well worth it, as long as I didn't break the feed links.

Thewsreviews: The First Year In Review

Concept: _ out of 5
Execution: _ out of 5
Yeah, but: It's a little early for a retrospective.

The Long Version: Thewsreviews is slightly over a year old. In a move that will surprise no-one who knows me, I missed its birthday.

`Thew's Reviews started because I needed a hobby. My life as a photographer began when I needed something to get me away from work, both literally and figuratively. It kept me sane and with my former employer beyond all expectations, but eventually it backfired and I accidentally got a job at a camera store. My creative outlet and frivolous forum-surfing turned into something that I had no relief from.

Writing is something that I've always enjoyed, but gave it up when it became clear that I suffer a crippling lack of anything to say. Writing reviews seemed like a good solution to that problem, and unlike every other hobby that has ever appealed to me, it's free. So this is my escape, and I just end up writing a lot about photography.

As a further irony, the photography for this site is one of the things that I really enjoy. I'm a product photographer at heart, and enjoy solving problems about how to present something. But for many of the reviews I'll go the opposite way, and post images that I'd never even put on a MySpace account. (It's not that I can't take good photos, it's that I don't want to.) Other times there are little jokes included in the photo, like the iPod peeking into the corner of a book on photo composition, or the way I left the word "Toshiba" in the photo for Helvetica. I used my TV as a black background for a DVD review. I think I'm funny even when nobody else does.

In one year, this site has had 12,000 visitors and 19,000 page views. It had a very small beginning, with only a handful of hits during the first two months, but in June `08 Keith joined the effort and it took off from there. This is the 89th post, and only the fourth non-review.

The most popular reviews vary over time, with the two scooter reviews being popular during the summer but losing prominence once the cold weather came. The Olympus 35-100 lens review is typically one of the most popular pages, with the Sigma 150 Macro also being a favourite, but the Oly 7-14 barely attracts anyone. Camera bags happen to be really popular right now. But even though they account for a lot of traffic, photography-related reviews are less than a third of the site's content. Keith's Maglite Upgrade is rarely out of the top five pages, and the Omega Seamaster page has turned out to be a surprise hit. I reviewed those two watches together because I didn't think it was worth looking at either one alone.

Some of the reviews are local to Toronto, and 17% of visitors are Canadian. That's also the same percentage of people who do not have English as their default language. 24% of visitors use Macintosh computers; Firefox accounts for about 40% of the browser share. Google accounts for nearly all visits, either through keywords or images, but I can see that there are a couple of people who keep track of the new content here. I hear that the weather in Florida is beautiful.

So thanks to everyone who's visited, and especially those who have left comments that aren't trying to sell me peni senhancers. Thanks also to Keith, who adds an important note to the site that keeps it from being completely self-indulgent. I realize that this site is just a tiny speck in the blog world, with fewer hits in a year than many 'small' sites get in a day, but I'm still amazed at the reach that it has. There are google search results that put this humble little blog above Amazon.com - and that's just absurd.

I'm going to leave the ratings blank on this one, so if anyone wants to leave a comment that suggests some, feel free. Just remember that something serviceable, decent, and reliable gets a ranking of "2", so mark low.

Google AdSense & "Interest-Based Advertising"

Concept: 2 out of 5
Execution: 2 out of 5
Yeah, but: Internet tracking has gone from a Doubleclick to no clicks.

The Long Version: I got an e-mail from Google last night, and it's worth quoting here.

We're writing to let you know about the upcoming launch of interest-based advertising, which will require you to review and make any necessary changes to your site's privacy policies. ... Interest-based advertising will allow advertisers to show ads based on a user's previous interactions with them, such as visits to advertiser website and also to reach users based on their interests (e.g. "sports enthusiast"). To develop interest categories, we will recognize the types of web pages users visit throughout the Google content network.

What this means for you, gentle reader, is that every time you click an AdSense advertising link, Google will use its massive powers to build a profile of what you like. Should you choose to not click any links, Google will still use its massive powers to build a profile of what sort of websites you visit. I have disabled this in the AdSense settings for these pages, so it will not track your activity here, but as an internet user you should assume that this opt-out hasn't been done by any of the sites that you visit. There apparently is an opt-out choice for individuals, but I can't endorse its effectiveness - this is still Doubleclick that we're dealing with. You can visit that page here: google.com/privacy_ads.html

Incidentally, there's no direct benefit to the web sites hosting the ads - they don't get paid more or anything like that. There's a vague promise that the ads will be more tempting to visitors, and lead to more click-through, but that's all the carrot they can offer.

It's also worth mentioning that as far as a money-making device for website hosts and authors like myself, it's pretty much a bust. I started showing ads here in September 2008, and since then I have "earned" a mighty $17.71 with 61 clicks on 13,500 page views. Google doesn't issue cheques (checks, I suppose, since it's US dollars) until they break three digits. Assuming some moderate growth, that means I should be seeing some actual money by Christmas 2010. It's better than nothing, and I'd be writing ThewsReviews anyway, but there's really very little incentive for me to continue with AdSense except for how amusing I think it is watching Google try to find relevant ads for the eclectic mix of content on this site.

(As I'm editing this review, the ever-changing ads are for a Toronto IT service, digital camera batteries, a coin counting machine, and a photography school. Apparently Google has seen my photoblog.)

So websites aren't paid more for letting Google track their readers, and 99.995% of visitors (based on my numbers) will be profiled even though they aren't using the 'service'. That sounds like a perfect reason to e-mail web site owners with AdSense ads to ask them to turn this 'feature' off. Tell them it's under the "My Account" tab.

If you can't unjoin them, confuse them?

If I recall correctly, the AdSense terms of service specifically prohibit me from encouraging people to click on ads on pages I control. So remember that I've turned this tracking feature off, meaning that this advice doesn't apply here, and it is only offered as a personal anecdote. When I'm faced with data collection and profiling that I can't avoid, my preference has always been to feed it junk. I'm going to start visiting sites that wouldn't normally appeal to me and clicking on ads for products that don't interest me. Doubleclick dropped its profiling efforts because the data wasn't worth the effort, but with Google's resources and Moore's Law to help out, that might not be the case this time. My hope is that garbage in really does lead to garbage out, but even if it doesn't make any difference in the long run, it might be amusing and lead to some quirky personal results.

ThewsReviews Has No Privacy Policy

Google's e-mail also suggests that I change my privacy policy to reflect their newest endeavor. Apparently I should note the following points:

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on your site.
Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to your users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet.
Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy. (http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html)
(emphasis added. Interestingly they don't call it Doubleclick DART like they do elsewhere in their site.)

Even though I've opted out of this AdSense tracking and profiling for all of ThewsReviews, and don't have a privacy policy for this site, I should also point out that any time you visit a web site with a hit counter (and that's essentially all of them, even if you don't see one) your information is being tracked and aggregated by machines and stored electronically. I've left mine 'open', so you can click on it to see exactly what I know about my visitors. The main stats that interest me are your location (usually identified as city and country), the link or search terms you followed to get here (almost always a google search), and how many pages you looked at (so that I know if what I write is interesting or not), and what the most popular pages are. Tracking my own visits is nothing but pointless astroturfing, so they aren't included, but in the interest of fairness: I usually visit from Rogers.com, am in Toronto, Canada, and get here by a direct link which would show as "unknown" in the stats. There are also some interesting graphs and charts that show hits and page views over time, browser and OS share, and language.

Remember as you browse the internet that any website can collect this information, and probably more. The stats that I see with my free host don't come anywhere close to what I can get from my site that's hosted by godaddy.com, and they're not exactly high-end either. So if people knowing these things is an issue to you, take a look at some of the anonymizing software and services that are out there. Sure, there's the old "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" argument, but that's usually used by those with power to get others to surrender theirs, and is more appropriate for a police state than modern datamining and marketing. The new AdSense is showing that's there's value in knowing everything, so make your personal choices accordingly.

What the Duck #578 (Animated Strip)

Concept: 4 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Does it really need the instrumental laugh-track?

The Long Version: Every Friday, Aaron Johnson - whom I've reviewed so frequently that I barely have to check the spelling on his name - posts an animated version of his "What The Duck" comic strip. They're usually entertaining, and the voices fit my expectations of the characters much better than in those animated Garfield shows. I'm not sure if they really add anything over the original presentation of the strip, but it's nice to see WTD turned into a multi-media empire.

This particular Friday's strip is one of the funniest that I've seen. Since I'm not really clear on how to link to a page, I'm linking to the YouTube animated version instead. Enjoy!

Garfield Minus Garfield

Concept: 5 out of 5
Execution: 3 out of 5
Yeah, but: Who's strip is it, anyway?

The Long Version:

 

Garfield Minus Garfield is a brilliant piece of work. The idea of getting rid of the cat has the effect of removing the punch-line from the joke, leaving only the odd and sad story that surrounds it. As the author of the site writes, "Who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life? "

Jim Davis, quoted in the cleverly-headlined Washington Post article "When the Cat's Away, Neurosis is on Display" has called the remix 'inspired'. I can't really argue, and the article is worth the read. For one thing, the reporter manages to identify the creator of Garfield Minus, which was more than I was able to do. Scooped by the Washington Post -- the story of my life.

But the new strip often turns out to be very dark. Like watching Eeyore instead of Winnie, there's a real melancholy to Jon's life that cuts through the comedy. It isn't that the strip isn't funny, but rather that Jon becomes a sympathetic character. I consider a work of art or satire to be successful if it changes how I perceive its subject. Garfield Minus Garfield has done that for me.

I've actually gone back to the original -- and this review marks it's thirtieth birthday, making it just a few years younger than me -- to find the strips that include the full cast. It's still funny, but now when I see Jon, I also imagine him without a wisecracking talking cat and instead picture just a lonely man with nobody else to talk to.

Garfield Minus Garfield is a brilliant idea, but to find a ranking for it I have to consider that this is a repurposing of the original. The execution is well done, but I'm really not sure who the strip belongs to. I'm just glad that it exists, and hope that the copyright issues don't deprive us of this kind of creativity.

updated september 2008: Jim Davis has to be one of the coolest guys around.  Instead of getting all RIAA'ed over the strip, he's publishing the altered versions next to the originals in a book.  (Details here.)  Now I know what I want for Christmas.

What the Duck

Concept: 5 out of 5
Execution: 4 out of 5
Yeah, but: Is it only a photographer thing?


The Long Version: There are only two comic strips that I read on a regular basis, and the only one that I absolutely must read every day is Aaron Johnson's What the Duck. It's following the career of a photographer who happens to be a duck - or a duck who happens to be a photographer - as he struggles through the difficulties of his profession. There's a healthy cast of characters, and after almost 500 episodes, the strip shows no sign of sharks.


This is going to be a short review simply because there's really not much that I can add. The humour has a large amount of truth to it, and it's not always a happy truth, but it's mostly drawn from the reality of being a 'working' photographer. A clever quirk is the way dialog always covers the faces of any actual people, or they will be too tall to fit in the frame. The hero is a duck, and ducks are short. The way Aaron Johnson never loses sight of the oddity of the situation, while still keeping it unremarkable, is a big part of the charm of the strip.


I've been following the strip for ages, to the point where "Chimpin' ain't easy" is part of my regular vocabulary, and my girlfriend has a list of WTD merchandise that I would like as gifts. (I'll forward my postal address to anyone who wants to send me a Duck U messenger bag.) It's quirky, well written, and consistently funny. It's also free. What more could I ask for?


Here's the link again: whattheduck.net.


For those who remember the beginning of this review, the only other comic strip that I make an effort to read is Garfield Minus Garfield, which I have also reviewed.


The image used to illustrate this review is copyright 2006 Aaron Johnson, and is used with permission. It's cool to get an e-mail from someone famous.

Updated 17 June 2008: What the Duck's home page has announced that it's been picked up by a number of newspapers, including one of my own city's, the Toronto Star. I look forward to seeing all of the characters in newsprint. Today also marks the strip's 500th appearance. Congratulations on it all, Aaron! (Can I call you Aaron?)