How to Measure Success

How can we tell the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful Cerebus Syndrome [G]? This is the question which I set out to answer when I started this project. It seems like a valid question, especially based on how Eric Burns [G] discusses the topic: (from the Websnark lexicon on Cerebus Syndrome) "Done perfectly, one only realizes in hindsight that the strip has turned out to be quite different than it used to be. Done sloppily, the Cerebus Syndrome fails, and the webcomic enters First and Ten Syndrome." [G]

In this quote there is the implicit assumption that it is possible to tell the difference between a successful and a failed Cerebus Syndrome attempt. I would now argue that this is an overly simplistic view of the subject. The problem is that the "success" or "failure" of the attempt all depends on how you define success and failure. For example, Mr. Burns clearly thinks that GPF [G] is a failed Cerebus Syndrome. Mr. Darlington, the author of the strip, not only feels [G] that the storyline [G] in question was a success, but that it was not a Cerebus Syndrome at all. Who is correct?

Neither, and both. More accurately, the question doesn't really make sense. Except in a few borderline cases, it is not only impossible but pointless to try to determine whether such a large feature of a work of art is a "failure" or a "success," because it is made out of so many different elements, some of which succeed, and some of which fail. How, then, can we look critically at the Cerebus Syndrome?

The answer is contained in the downfall of the all-or-nothing way of thought. We cannot find an overall answer because there are so many different elements, so why not look at the elements? The way to look at Cerebus Syndrome critically is to examine the most important elements that contribute to the transition.

There is a brief disclaimer to this next section. You can read it if you like, or go right to the most important elements. They are:

Character Development