Fleen: Home Of The Webcomics Action News Team!

Getting Ready To Rumble

Most distasteful thing? That smiley in the O. I guess that makes it internety.

Ironically, I’d been meaning to link over to Scott Kurtz because I really loved his happy anniversary card to his wife. The art’s more refined than his daily efforts and the sentiment is sweet without being cloying, both befitting such a momentous occasion. Let’s all bask in the good feelings as we lower the steel cage onto the ring….

So! Lotsa drama in the webcomics world today, and there was me on-site with a client that had zero net access. You can read various takes on it from Scott Kurtz and T Campbell, but there’s something Kurtz said that caught my attention hard:

The chapter is entitled “The Seven Horsemen” and it details the seven people who were the big guns in the inception of the webcomics community.

The seven horsemen, according to our “world-reknown webcomics historian” are:

Scott McCloud

Pete Abrams

J.D. Frazier

Jerry Holkins and Mike Krahaulik

Scott Kurtz

and Fred Gallagher.

Chris Crosby is not listed. I don’t think Keenspot is even mentioned. Scott McCloud, on the other hand, has EIGHT pages dedicated to him. Scott’s a friend and I respect and love the man. But was he more influential on the early formations of webcomics than Chris Crosby?

See, we all know that Kurtz has problems with certain … interpretations of what webcomics “mean”; no need to rehash that here. But the careful reader will also recall that when Kurtz gets angry, the target is often Chris Crosby and/or Keenspot. And he’s upset that Crosby and Keenspot don’t have a mention commensurate with their influence on the development of webcomics. Could be that he’s wrong about Campbell’s coverage level; Kurtz has admitted to only having skimmed the book, and it may have been an outdated draft. But the fact that Kurtz in high dudgeon on Crosby’s behalf is significant. It’s to his credit that he is able to acknowledge the contributions of somebody that he’s spent so much time criticizing, and would tend to give one the belief that his assessment of Crosby, et. al., is worth further exploration. Fancy-pants Biblical scholars use a similar technique to work through what may be questionable translations — if a quote is uncomplimentary towards Jesus, it’s considered more likely authentic than if it’s fawning. After all, if you want people to follow your new religion, you’re more likely to puff up the founder a bit. So when Scott Kurtz says something nice about Chris Crosby, it’s probably worth noting carefully. The future will tell if he ever has something nice to say about Campbell, but I’m not offering very good odds:

In my opinion….

This book is nothing more than another self-masturbatory project of the new webcomics cognoscenti crowd. Rather than try to make a name for himself by actually CREATING something, Mr. T. has to piggy-back himself on the webcomics creators out there giving it their all.

I adore the fact that Kurtz speaks his mind — it gives me something to fill the column-inches (Scott, if I get to the nerd prom this year, I owe you a beer), plus, if you’ve ever met Campbell, visualizing him as Mr. T. is sure to provoke cognitive dissonance. But here Kurtz is taking to task not Campbell’s work, he’s chewing on Campbell himself. I’m still trying to decide where this falls on the cheap shot-o-meter, but Campbell doesn’t seem to be too bothered by it. The list of people that he’s collaborated with is about as long as your arm, and he always seems to be juggling a bunch of projects about (one that he ought to find some juggle time for: the front page of Graphic Smash still offers congratulations for last year’s CCA winners … I think eight months may be the statute of limitations on that).

Campbell’s got a fairly large reputation in what is, to be honest, a fairly small community. Is he a non-sleeping mutant, able to be a full contributor on everything he undertakes? Probably not. Does he mooch off the efforts of others while grabbing top billing? Also, probably not. We’ll be able to judge what his solo work is like when his History comes out, and it’ll be up to future generations of webcomics readers to decide the mutant/mooch question. In the meantime, if you’ve worked with T in the past and would like to share your impressions of the experience, feel free to add comments down below or use the contact link.

Now, for a fun game the whole family can play: Campbell has claimed, speak his name and he appears. So the time-to-T-appearance clock starts … now!

57 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Gosh, I don’t know who to side with. Kurtz is a cranky-pants, and that is one ass-ugly book cover. I think they both lose.

The reason T didn’t talk about Chris Crosby in that chapter is because it revolves around the webcomics industry pre-2000. KeenSpot was formed in 2000, so they aren’t mentioned. At least, that’s what I gathered from reading some of the posts around the internet on this subject.

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

As a sort of disclaimer, my interest level in this whole thing doesnâ€™t really go beyond simple amusement. But, with that said, I was put off a bit by this comment from Scott Kurtz, â€œRather than try to make a name for himself by actually CREATING something, Mr. T. has to piggy-back himself on the webcomics creators out there giving it their all.â€?
This was kind of funny and yet, at the same time, makes me wonder if Scott has done any research himself. T. Cambell, besides his editorial duties for Graphic Smash, writing duties on Penny and Aggie, as well as Rip & Teri, spent more than a few years as the brains behind the popular webcomic FAANS.

I have had the opportunity to work with T. Cambell on an episode of FAANS, â€œThe Land of Cotton.â€? I found Mr. T to be a very good writer who understands what makes a compelling story. He would have to know somethingâ€¦I mean, FAANS was a pretty popular comic. Not knowing who I am, Iâ€™m not one who does a lot of collaborations for numerous self-indulgent, controlling reasons, but I did collaborate with Mr. T. and enjoyed the experience.

So you donâ€™t think that this is any type of T. Cambell ass-kissing session; I find the fact that weâ€™re about to get a book about the History of Webcomics, which is barely taking its first steps, kind of humorous.

“Speak his name and he appears…”

It would be cool if Mr. T could grant wishes and shit.

Just sayin.

Mr. T is way too busy co-hosting Kids Against Crime with Hulk Hogan on Smile of a Child TV these days.

(Have you ever seen this show? I think it’s supposed to convince kids to be fine and upstanding, but all they seem to do is repeat the words “kids against crime” over and over again. Unfortunately, between pictures and podcasts, I have now managed to mentally splice Mr. Campbell into the show.)

Whoosh! WHAM!

It would be cool if I could grant wishes and stuff.

The piggyback thing bothered me a LITTLE. I got into comics at a time when writers were considered largely redundant.

The Crosby thing is totally nonsensical if you read Chapter Four, or even Chapters Four and Five of the online version.

The Rodney thing cut deepest. It’s only now that I realized

And oh, sooo right about the Graphic Smash page! Let’s fix that now…

Fixed.

Now if I can only get Joey to stop calling that a “note by T. Campbell…” (Let’s see if that’s fixed by the time you read this!)

“The reason T didnâ€™t talk about Chris Crosby in that chapter is because it revolves around the webcomics industry pre-2000.”

I’m not complaining about being left off the Seven Horsemen of Whatever, but I reckon I should note that I was drawing webcomics on-and-off as early as 1995 on my “Crosby Comics” website. I also did a weekly webcomic called SNAP THE PUNK TURTLE for AnotherUniverse.com’s “Mania Magazine” (which seemed to be a incredibly popular site at the time) starting in January 1998, and then SUPEROSITY started in March 1999. I feel very much a part of pre-2000 webcomics history.

Whether I was an IMPORTANT part is for others to decide, of course.

My most well-known contribution to webcomics is obviously the co-founding of Keenspot, which took place in 2000, as you noted. I didn’t do it alone, though: I co-founded Keenspot with Darren “Gav” Bleuel. (Incidentally, his own NUKEES has been running since January 1997, more than two years before SUPEROSITY.)

Whatever the timeframe, I think it’s silly to elect Seven Horsemen and then limit them to pre-2000, or any date for that manner. “The Four Most Influential Webcartoonists” and then in tiny print “between 2002 and 2004″ is bound to get some confused responses.

This is where “My history” of webcomics begins. I remember at that time working on and off for Mr. Crosby rendering a few of those spectacular, somewhat mythical Blatant comics. I can remember Chris mentioning how he was going to take Snap the Punk Turtle to the web.I could only laugh and say that Crosby had lost his mind. Who the hell is going to read comics on the web? Oh that Crosby kid…what a dreamer.

I’m getting a bit weary of these 7 guys. The opinion given of the book, is my opinion of this topic.

T Campbell does not actually appear everywhere his name is spoken.

He sure made it to this blog in a hurry. It’s almost like saying Beetlejuice 3 times in a row.

Tiberius gave me a copy of the book to take a look at a while back. There were some fairly major chronological errors in at least one of the chapters (where I was familiar with the events he was discussing) that I thought undermined his choice of one of the horsemen (an absolutely retarded conceit to begin with, turning what is supposedly a history into a list of personal favorites). To his credit, Campbell said he would review it, but my faith in his research abilities is pretty slim, especially if he is not eager to interview all of the folks featured in the book. I feel bad for all the folks who will get slighted and did not get the opportunity for review that I had.

More criminal than the use of art without permission (or even, perhaps, the wild inaccuracies) is that he has managed to distill the ten most exciting years of my life (and likely for many of you as well) into an unpalatable sludge of dates and statistics. There is not a single amusing anecdote or rememberance to be told anywhere in the book, and I found myself falling asleep during many of the chapters. This book is about webcomics! Some crazy shit has gone down. Let’s hear about it, please.

This is the foundation of what might be considered a new art form, and there has got to be a better way to tell its story than by discussing ad revenue trends.

I think Campbell is more concerned about getting this book to market as quickly as possible than he is about writing a compelling history. He is not concerned about whether it is too early for a history, he is not concerned about accuracy or interviews. He is not concerned when he steals ideas from people and posts them without credit. He is not concerned about taking credit for projects largely conceived of, executed and maintained by other people.

The only thing Campbell is concerned about is his own reputation. At this point, I think it is something he should be concerned about.

Oh, and if T Campbell is the best writer in webcomics, then the lot of us should be rounded up and shoved into a pit of lava.

Mr. Kurtz complains for the joy of complaining. In 40 more years he’ll be rocking back and forth on his hover-chair, shaking his force-cane, and shouting “Get off of my webcomic, you crazy kids!”

I’d be tempted to get him a rocking chair so he could do that now, except he’d probably enjoy it entirely too much and I honestly don’t have the money to spare. I mean, rocking chairs (good ones at least) are expensive!

Oh, and if Mr. Crosby had been in the Seven Horsemen… no doubt Mr. Kurtz would have complained about that as well.

What matters is this: someone is writing a History of Webcomics. This will result in future Histories of Webcomics being written by other people. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with everything T has said about it or not… if you disagree, you can create your own History of Webcomics, after all.

Rob H.

“Dudgeon.” Excellent word. I gotta use it soon.

“Self-masturbatory.” Redundant.

Was Megatokyo even around pre-2000?

No. No it wasn’t. Wasn’t around pre-Keenspot.

What matters is this: someone is writing a History of Webcomics. This will result in future Histories of Webcomics being written by other people.

A premature, terribly written, poorly researched History is not a benefit to webcomics or future webcomics histories as you seem to suggest. Kicking things off in an amateurish, unprofessional, uninteresting and sloppy way will not break ground on a tradition of informative histories. I think you need a review in Basic Causality.

It doesnâ€™t matter if you donâ€™t agree with everything T has said about it or not… if you disagree, you can create your own History of Webcomics, after all.

This is the sort of argument a ten-year-old makes. You don’t like it? Make one yourself!

When the book is representing the history of people who are actually doing the creating of the history discussed, it is perfectly valid (and responsible) for the creators to criticize it if they find it lacking. Personally I think that a volume like this will reflect poorly on everyone mentioned within it, and I should not be required to publish a book on the subject to say so.

Why would someone write a history of a medium where all the participants in said medium are still working, some of which have not even reached their full potential? That’d be like writing a history of Rock and Roll in 1959. Premature indeed, Jon.

Have you even read it?

From what I’ve seen of other people reading it is that it has plenty of good detail in it, and even the areas where it is weak still have potential.

As for my not having read it, while I’ve been around since 2000, I mostly stayed at Keenspot for the majority of that time, so I doubt I could add a heck of a lot to the process.

And you misinterpret (as people are wont to do *rolls eyes*) my point about creating your own HoW. If I had tried, a couple years ago, to create and publish a History of Webcomics, it probably would have fallen on its face. I’m an unknown, the topic is unknown, and publishers would look at it and no matter how insightful or detailed, wondered if it would sell at all.

T has a work that is accepted for publication. It has set the foundation for futher such works. And while some of you may feel it’s poorly written, others feel it’s well written. If it was the complete and utter piece of trash that you are infering that it is, then I’d think we’d see EVERYONE up in arms about it.

We aren’t. We’ve seen some worries here and there… but we’ve not seen everyone saying “this is trash” and all that.

Besides. It’s not published yet. So if there are significant weaknesses, Mr. Campbell has stated for the record that people can talk to him about it, and if they have viable, legitimate complaints, he will correct it.

Of course, you’ll probably just say “but that’s not my job” but that’s pretty much like complaining about the current President of the U.S. if you didn’t vote in the last election. Pointless and meaningless.

You have an opportunity here. Take it.

Rob H.

Since I haven’t read T’s book, I can’t fairly comment on the book’s quality. I did enjoy his articles for Comixpedia, from which the book is drawn, so I have high hopes for the book.

You asked for word from folks who have worked with T. I have had the privilege of illustrating his comics scripts on two occasions, and both times I had an absolute blast doing it. T is a very adventurous and intelligent writer and a consumate craftsman. He’s also an extremely nice guy!

Have you even read it?

Actually, Jon said in his first comment that he had read the book a while back, probably when T was looking for feedback.

As for me… I find myself thinking that a book of rememberances and anecdotes, like Jon mentioned he wished were in the History, would be a very cool thing. I’m not sure who if anyone would publish such a thing, but I suppose a Luluing wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility.

I did read it, I gave T my feedback, I had my opportunity, now it is up to him to fix what is wrong.

Rob, until you have read it, maybe you should be the one to withhold judgment. Right now you’re looking like an apologist.

I can complain about the president because I did vote in the last election, and I can comment here because I’ve done the required research.

As for meâ€¦ I find myself thinking that a book of rememberances and anecdotes, like Jon mentioned he wished were in the History, would be a very cool thing. Iâ€™m not sure who if anyone would publish such a thing, but I suppose a Luluing wouldnâ€™t be outside the realm of possibility.

I’d read that.

As for the History of Webcomics — while I like T and his projects, I agree that it’s just a bit too soon. Publishing the history of something that isn’t even a decade old? I really like it when he was doing periodic HoW articles for Comixpedia. That made sense to me.

But I know this isn’t some kind of self-masturbatory project. T is genuinely doing this to contribute to the ongoing history of the webcomics community at large. I guess the community just hasn’t decided exactly what it wants just yet.

Publishing the history of something that isnâ€™t even a decade old?

The first histories of Punk Rock were published within that time frame (unless you want to kick the start date of punk back to the Stooges or something, that is). I’d be willing to bet that there was at least one history of the American involvement in World War II published before 1951.

The only meaningful criterion I can see for writing a history of something is “Has enough of it happened to fill a book yet?”

(either that or “Is any publisher willing to pay for a book about it?”)

Actually, Jon, I realize a fundamental problem with my reading this History. I don’t know enough of Webcomic History to give effective input on it. Therefore, I cannot honestly look through this work and realize if it is accurate or not. Thus I’m not about to do so and pretend I can do this. Much of the time I’ve been reading webcomics (since 2000), I remained in a small corner of it. There are plenty of other people who have those insider connections to know this history more fully.

My opinions thus are based on the meta-aspects of this work. A work like this is important. A work like this will open the way for other works on webcomics. A work like this helps bring Webcomics more into the mainstream.

And again, seeing that Mr. Campbell is willing to let people look over his work, tell where it’s flawed or incorrect, and make those corrections if he agrees with it, is significant. And no, it doesn’t mean that he’s saying he didn’t do his work or something. It’s that he listened to complaints and is offering people to have input on the process to rectify any errors that did crop in.

Can you honestly say that the webcomic community will not benefit from a History of Webcomics? And considering the fact that this history WILL be published… that perhaps we should stop complaining about it and make sure that Mr. Campbell knows where it’s flawed and help improve it further?

Because otherwise you’re just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Rob H.

Robert, if you think you have nothing to add to the discussion, cut it out. This passive-aggressive “I’d love to read the book, but I just wouldn’t be valuable” routine is frustrating at best in one blog and baffling to find in more than one. You don’t have to develop mythical levels of entrenchment in order to be able to contribute. If what you’re looking for is for someone to tell you you can be helpful or valuable or whatever, this is not the way to go about it. If you honestly believe that you have nothing to add, let it go.

Can you honestly say that the webcomic community will not benefit from a History of Webcomics?

I honestly believe that the webcomics community will not benefit from an inaccurate, poorly-written and poorly-structured history. I can say that because I read it, and it sucks in the ways I have previously enumerated.

And considering the fact that this history WILL be publishedâ€¦ that perhaps we should stop complaining about it and make sure that Mr. Campbell knows where itâ€™s flawed and help improve it further?

I did tell him what he needed to do to improve it. I continue to do so in the form of these complaints. Are you telling me to shut up and start talking? Because that’s inherently contradictory advice.

Because otherwise youâ€™re just complaining for the sake of complaining.

This is what people say when they are trying to defend something from criticism and have no logical reason for doing so.

. I donâ€™t know enough of Webcomic History to give effective input on it.

Then shut up and let the big boys play. I don’t even know why you continue to say things after you’ve already admitted you are ignorant and incapable of carrying on a discussion on this topic. I also don’t know why I keep responding. It probably has something to do with entertainment value but that value is fading quickly.

Rob, you’re littering this blog with your stupidity. Please go away now. You will be doing yourself a favor.

“As for my not having read it, while Iâ€™ve been around since 2000, I mostly stayed at Keenspot for the majority of that time, so I doubt I could add a heck of a lot to the process.”

So bow out. You have nothing to add, so stop running in like you have something to add.

“A work like this helps bring Webcomics more into the mainstream.”

Robert, you are incredibly deluded. This is like saying the only way to make an indie film a mainstream hit is to release a chronology and collection of critical essays about the movie and its creators.

No. The only way to make an indie film a mainstream hit is to get it out into the public eye. The work ITSELF, not YOUR ANALYSIS of the work. This is the problem I have with the state of the discourse. It thinks it’s more critical to the success of webcomics than the webcomics themselves.

I will continue to believe that there is more than a hint of self-aggrandizement and attention-seeking in all this webcomics review. I have some respect for Burns and White and Campbell. If I were them, I’d be saying “This guy, Tangents, he’s not really part of the discussion. He likes to pretend he is. He’s not representative of us.”

There is an essential truth I think the last several comments has danced around, confident it lurks below the surface for anyone who wants to look at it.

Let me drag it to the top, though, and make it a truism.

Don’t take webcomics commentary too seriously.

I’ve been guilty of it too (which may be the understatement of the year). But in the end, we write commentary because we like writing it. People read it because they’re interested and (and this is crucial) they’re entertained.

If we do it right, we might get lucky enough to get cited in papers written by Freshmen doing art interpretation. And that’s pretty cool. It’s far more likely that we’ll show people some cool stuff they might not otherwise see, we’ll entertain some folks along the way, and we’ll entertain ourselves by doing the writing.

And Kris is absolutely right about one thing: the only way a Freshman will ever cite something we write in these here commentaries and essays is if the webcomics themselves spread out across the land. They’re what’s going to be noticed. They’re what’s going to be remembered.

Roger Ebert is as popular and well known a critic as there has ever been. But when Roger Ebert gives a bad review to a teen sex comedy, it still makes two hundred million domestic, because people like teen sex comedies. When Ebert desperately and glowingly reviews indie films — and he does — that doesn’t lead to tremendous mainstream success.

Ebert is what he is. Film is what it is. And with luck, we’ll all have a good time.

…And, of course, Roger Ebert got his start in life doing commentary and criticism of a minority culture and art form that had yet to achieve great critical recognition or acceptance.

Hmmm. That link, didn’t.

Time to try again.

I haven’t read the book as of yet, but I do plan to. My only question is if there is any mention of sprite comics which now run rampid throughout the web? Even though most of those comics came post 2000 ,their presence in a book on webcomic history has to appear at least once.

Also what about David Willis?

Given that David Willis has collaborated with T on two different projects (drawing both a crossover chapter and the Grand Finale of Fans!, and coloring Rip & Teri), I’d have to say that if Willis doesn’t wind up in the book, it won’t be because T is unaware of him.

For what it’s worth, I have a sneaking suspicion that one significant webcomics figure who will almost certainly get shortchanged in the book is T himself.

It’s one thing to work from selected sources instead of trying to suck down all possible sources of information regardless of your opinion of their usefulness. It’s another to make assumptions.

Scott and Jon assume I’m more concerned with reputation than with veracity. They further assume that I just “didn’t bother” to do interviews, as if it were actually EASIER to examine and deconstruct hundreds of records than ask a lot of people to tell me, “so what’s it all about?” Now, finally– after soliciting feedback on this book for half a year and feedback on its predecessors for nearly three years before that– FINALLY I’m hearing “you need to do both,” and I’m responding best I can. But I still place more value on thirteen years’ worth of records than a relatively short span of time’s worth of interviews.

I’m not sure how they think I expect to maintain a good reputation by publishing a bad book. I have more faith in the collective intelligence than they do.

Okay, Jon, you just went over the line.

I DO NOT STEAL OTHER PEOPLE’S WORK. I DO NOT STEAL CREDIT FOR PROJECTS CONCEIVED BY OTHER PEOPLE. And you do not GET to tell me whether I’m concerned with accuracy.

It would have been FAR EASIER to rely on interviews. I didn’t do that because I felt that THE ONLINE RECORD HELD MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION.

I was MORTIFIED that I missed the fact you mentioned and made the mistake to which you obliquely refer. I was READY TO SLIT MY WRISTS OVER THOSE EVENTS, but that wouldn’t have made the mistakes go away, now would it?

The factual error is an easy fix and the mistake you’re referring to has been resolved some time ago, to the satisfaction of all parties as far as I was aware. I’m not sure why you’re even bringing the latter point UP.

I’m guessing you’re also making a vague remark about OhNoRobot. I still grind my teeth at your assumption of my immorality, but there is a kernel of truth here, in that I have been a partner in OhNoRobot in name only for too long now. What’s actually really funny is that there’s a parallel between me and Ryan and ONR– and Rodney and Fred and MT. I conceived the project in its original form, and wanted a 50% role in its development. But it hasn’t worked out that way. It has taken me a long time to accept that, but I have accepted it, and Ryan and I have been preparing a public statement to that effect, and we didn’t require you to guilt me into it. (You may ask him to verify this if you so desire.)

My homepage has a few pull quotes that I’m proud of receiving, and I run those because my own self-assessment is extremely fragile and variable. I guess I don’t see why saying “Maritza Campos says this” is so evil when Maritza Campos actually said that. Readers who assume that it must be true because a pull quote says it are stupider than my target audience.

You and Scott both gripe that the work dwells on details that are too dry. This is a legitimate complaint, and more upsetting to me, I’m not sure I can fix it, because I write about what I find fascinating and/or important but usually both, and it is a bit late to empty out the subject matter of the book and start over.

Jon, I’m grateful to you for actually doing your best to read the book instead of just skimming the sections relevant to you personally and providing actual critical feedback. Most people whom I asked did not do that much.

The petty character assassinations in this thread?

Not so grateful there.

Slight addendum to the last four paragraphs: I’m not sure I can fix the dry thing, but I am working at it, regardless.

Third graf from last: “book” and “personally” should have commas.

I think everyone needs to listen to what Eric said about not taking webcomic commentary too seriously. Also, leaving personal attacks out of this thread would be nice also.

T Campbell is the best writer in webcomics. There’s a lot of other writers I consider good in webcomics, such as Garrity, Willis, Abrams, Gallagher, Kathleen Jacques, Derek Kirk Kim, Jamie Robertson, Jeff Rowland and John Allison. T Campbell remains my favorite. No one is obligated to consider me a source of wisdom.

If someone’s going to blame someone for that phrase, blame me. I said it. It’s my quite not so humble opinion.

I will wait until I read this book so I can form an opinion on it. However, I think it’s very difficult to make a proper History of Webcomics. It’s not like we’re chronicling events that are out there in the open, but rather having facts mixed in with a lot of faulty memories, rumours, heard-sayings, and secrecy. For example, everybody knows when Big Panda ended and Keenspot started, but you’ll hear a lot of versions of the facts that lead to it. Similarly, blog entries and forum posts can be and have been deleted or edited.

To me it’s not a surprise many people are unhappy with this book, right now and when it comes out. Everybody has a different perception of how things happened, after all.

Maritza Campos
CRFH.net

You know, all we need is a webcomic circle jerk at the next nerd prom.

I’m serious. All our “names” ever do is wank off to their own self-importance. I say they have a panel where they all bukkake the book and be done with it.

I say we all bukkakke into the eyes of kids that are sick with cancer. If that doesn’t keep it real…

Maritza
CRFH.net

And now the discussion has gone full circle to penises and penis related activities. I guess that means the drama is over.

I’m glad that we can all come together on the topic of penises.

Heh.

[...] First, a rant. I’ve decided to stop reading Fleen and Websnark. If I hear one more thing about Wigu, I’m gonna barf! All these industry heavyweights do lately is post about, and draw comics of, each other. I’m sick of it! According to their last few days of posting, even posting about this topic now, means I’ve fallen into the catch-22 of “ironic indie culture”. [yawn] Whatever doods. [...]

People say “names” and “industry heavyweights” but I have no idea who they are.

Name names. The drama is dying, we need to steer away from penises and right back on track to Hitler.

So, “Wigu”. Who else?

Maritza
CRFH.net

Why… you, Maritza. Didn’t you know?

Tangent’s lips must be pretty huge if he’s able to plant them so firmly on so many asses at once.

â€œPublishing the history of something that isnâ€™t even a decade old?â€?

Given its transience and stunning evolution, a year on the web is like ten in â€œreal life.â€? I guarantee there have been similar overviews of other web-related niches in the same state of adolescence, as well as books attempting to summarize the entire history of the internet.

T wrote:

â€œBut I still place more value on thirteen yearsâ€™ worth of records than a relatively short span of timeâ€™s worth of interviews.â€?

Not only reasonable but I would say preferable. People have selective memories and itâ€™s a totally valid means of piecing together a story and/or a history. After all when 60 Minutes says â€œJoe Blow would not respond to our requests for an interviewâ€? it doesnâ€™t mean they kill the story. They simply look at what he said prior and what was said about him by other journalists.
Of course the snipes say that T should have interviewed both Caston and Gallagher and then hit them with any inconsistencies in their current memories based on what they have said prior. Thatâ€™s assuming there would be any inconsistency and/or subterfuge; highly unlikely since both menâ€™s accounts still stand on the web. Regardless if T had done this Iâ€™d bet the very same roving band of critics would have faulted him for this method as well.

All this ridiculous carping and blatant jockeying for position. Iâ€™m one of the Horseman, no I am. I was doing web comics before the web even existed. Well my first web comic was drawn on a crypt wall in Luxor.
This book was going to be written eventually, and most likely by some hack freelancer with absolutely no connection to web comics. Not unlike a Christopher Hart art instructional of Manga. (and lookout for Heidi MacDonaldâ€™s â€œThe Wow of Webcomicsâ€?).Therefore youâ€™d think the cantankerous web comics â€œcommunityâ€? would be happy that T got there first. Is the book any good? I have no idea. But does the guy who wrote it exhibit a genuine passion and understanding for comics, both of the print and pixilated variety? Unquestionably yes. Thus far it seems that Tâ€™s greatest failing is that heâ€™s not as big of a dickhead as seemingly everyone else in webcomics (obviously no one is Kurtzâ€™ match in this regard), and thus he seems anxious and willing to try to please all the people all the time. Even the transparently jealous snipes who wish theyâ€™d written the book instead.

It’s worth adding that Jon and I have settled our important differences offline since the fiery exchange above. Far as I’m concerned, all’s well that ends well there.

Good grief.

I usually stay far away from threads. It’s aggravating when my favorite authors are slandered, and even more so when my favorite authors leave their literary talent at the door and start arguing like five-year-olds.

I’m nobody. I haven’t written a webcomic. I am just a fan. That said, I was excited when I stumbled across the news of Campbell’s book. Sounds interesting! About time someone wrote a book about it!

Will it be accurate or compelling or just? I certainly won’t know until I read it! My only point is… I will read it. And if I find parts of it lacking, I probably won’t label them “self-masturbatory.”

Now, it’s a damn shame that authors and the people who write about them always have to fight. Remember, histories are NECESSARILY subjective. Which is why any public library will hold many, many, many history books written by many, many, many different people.

I hope that Campbell’s book is followed by many others. I applaud him for taking this risk. Every other history written after this will critique him because he is the first. Webcomics are worth writing about. Attempting to judge their influence is a worthwhile discussion. I’m glad that someone is willing to take the discussion out of the bastardized syntax of the forums and into publication.

[...] [p.p.s]Gary from Fleen.com chimes in about the History of Webcomics book, and mostly about Kurtz’s response to it. I’m not particularly fond of Fleen, and this post, in particular, doesn’t really offer much. So why did I link it? I guess I just like to share. [...]

[...] Uncategorized So the fine men and women of the United States Postal Service finally got me my copy of Howard Tayler’s first Schlock Mercenary book today (postmarked the 15th, I swear they were faster when they sponsored Lance), so look for a review in the coming days. Also, if rumors are to be believed, the long-awaited and completely non-controversial The History of Webcomics may be dropping in the next day or so; that one will probably take a bit longer. And today, it’s City Limits, the latest webcomics-artists-anthology, this one edited by George Rohac and Katy Ullman. [...]

[...] Gary … and tired as hell. Which is probably why, in the context of this, I find this far funnier than I should. After all, we here at Fleen are all about webcomics community, and not interested in provoking shitstorms or internet fights to the bloody death. That being said, Bunny is owning all over those birds (start here and keep clicking on “next”, through the ten updates that Lem managed in one day). [...]

[...] But first, with a apologies to whichever lit-crit school it is that declares authorial intent irrelevant (I never learned those things; I went to nerd school), I draw your attention to today’s Starslip Crisis. Clearly, Kristofer Straub is taking the opportunity to kick T Campbell while he’s hurting and should be enjoying himself. [...]

[...] Books, Gary Editor’s note: Hoo boy, could this one devolve quickly. I’ve spent a month now very carefully reading and re-reading, very carefully making and cross-checking notes, very carefully writing what you’re about to read. As we discuss the book, please bear in mind that we’re not going to argue opinion on this one; whether or not Campbell is correct is for others to fight over. We will be looking at only whether or not Campbell has effectively made and advanced his points. [...]

[...] explicit exposition. Hooray for middle grounds, and check out Odori Park — it’s good. (time from publication to T showing up in the comments starts: [...]

[...] Campbell’s mysterious, unfathomable, and eerie powers of knowing when he is mentioned appear to be on the fritz. Nearly two weeks to respond? Gotta get back in shape, [...]

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Getting Ready To Rumble

Contact Us

Archives

Search

A Good Start