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.

Given its transience and stunning evolution, a year on the web is like ten in “real life.� 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:

“But I still place more value on thirteen years’ worth of records than a relatively short span of time’s worth of interviews.�

Not only reasonable but I would say preferable. People have selective memories and it’s a totally valid means of piecing together a story and/or a history. After all when 60 Minutes says “Joe Blow would not respond to our requests for an interview� it doesn’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. That’s assuming there would be any inconsistency and/or subterfuge; highly unlikely since both men’s accounts still stand on the web. Regardless if T had done this I’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. I’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 MacDonald’s “The Wow of Webcomics�).Therefore you’d think the cantankerous web comics “community� 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 T’s greatest failing is that he’s not as big of a dickhead as seemingly everyone else in webcomics (obviously no one is Kurtz’ 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 they’d written the book instead.