« November 28, 2004 - December 4, 2004 | Main | December 12, 2004 - December 18, 2004 »
-->December 11, 2004
Eric Burns-White: Some fast notes on a good day
So it was a day of meetings and festivities. I'm now slightly liquored up, so I'm feeling cheerful back to the home, while my cat lies on my foot and slowly sands it to the bone with a painful tongue of affection. And now I want to give you all a snapshot of a pleasant day.
First off, I had lunch and saw a popcorn movie with a couple of friends from the world of the Internet. We had good sushi. I'm a fan of good sushi. One of these friends, who shall remain nameless to protect the innocent, is also the one official, on the record fan of Unfettered by Talent. That's right. My webcomic... actually has a fan. She used to bug me to start writing it again, in fact.
To me, this tells me that there is in fact an audience out there for anyone, if they try their best. Even if they draw like a retarded vole.
Secondly, we went to see Blade: Trinity. I can say without fear of contradiction that this movie succeeded on every level it actually tried to succeed on. Particularly on the level where Wesley Snipes kicks someone's ass while making it look like he's affecting nonchalance, followed by his adjusting his coat and preening. Also, Jessica Biel is even hotter when she's killing things.
The movie also had the most mind bogglingly gratuitous product placement known to man. Apple better have paid them a lot of money.
(By the way... if your encryption routine causes the computer to explode when it completes... why do you have to encrypt in the first place. I'm pretty sure when your computer's hard drive is in tiny burning fragments, no one's going to be pulling data off it.)
This evening was a work-related Christmas party. I had scotch, one of my coworkers is a new grandfather, and I discovered a true thing I will now impart to all of you: any song that causes a white man in his fifties, while dancing, to throw a spin into his dance, should be outlawed by the Geneva Convention.
And then, as I was walking home... I stopped to look at the Christmas display at the Dentist's next door. Santa on the lawn, some lights... some kind of light in their lobby... no, wait it's a lamp....
...no wait...
...this was the lamp from A Christmas Story. The Very Special Prize.
I am so getting a teeth cleaning there.
Settling down to Justice League Unlimited. More later.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 9:28 PM | Comments (4)
-->Eric Burns-White: He calls it Microfiction...
...but Pulp Decameron kind of defies easy definition. There's elements of the hitherby about some entries, while others approach prose poem. In any case, this project -- one hundred microfictions playing off of ten classic pulp genres -- has been interesting and intriguing, and Snowspinner (I have no other name for him) has been diligent in producing.
Well, today's entry -- I am Ready to Serve my Country -- is my favorite so far. It's light, it's funny, and it's creepy all at once. It also highlights the chameleon nature of the work. Yes, it's short and pulpy, but it could just as easily be poetry. Taking his Creative Commons License at face value (and making sure I both credit him and release the work under the same conditions, so check the link to see how this particular post varies from my normal Creative Commons license), we have the following:
I have mastered the art of surveillance.For the past four years
I have meticulously watched
The same woman
Through my telescope.I know every bra and pair of panties that she owns.
I can describe, to the millimeter,
The location of every blemish on her body.
I have also learned endurance.
I went the entirety of last March without touching myself as I watched her.My language skills are admittedly below
What you typically ask for in your operatives.
However, I am a fast learner.
In the event of interstellar war,
I am prepared to speak Klingon.In desperate situations,
I have learned that I can kill another man.
A month ago I went out and found a homeless man.
I lured him to the railroad tracks and garroted him.
The police have yet to name a suspect.
I am confident that they never will.
The experience was exhilarating,
But not so exhilarating.
I would not consider myself a psychopath.
I am confident
I can keep my random murders down--
Once a month
With minimal effort.My resume is attached.
See what I mean? (Though for brevity's sake, I cut the paragraph on Final Jeopardy.) Go read the original, and the all the rest. They won't take long, but they convey lots of flavor for the size.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 11:41 AM | Comments (3)
-->December 10, 2004
Eric Burns-White: A brief electronic discussion on City of Heroes
Chris Meadows 02:16: I'm amused that the Kheldian level bump on the City of Heroes test server has been made "permanent". Leading to a request from someone to wipe all the Kheldians after update 3 goes live, for the benefit of the people who use test as their main server.
Eric Burns 02:16: Wait. Things are unstable. Events and inventories get wiped out regularly. Powers vary from moment to moment. There are terrible crashes. Who in their right mind would *want* to use the test server as their main server?
Jesse Taylor 02:17: DC Comics fans.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 2:52 PM | Comments (3)
-->Eric Burns-White: An update on the Websnark Charity Auction
So, when I told you all I was putting a Snark up for Charity to benefit Child's Play, I honestly thought I could end up looking really stupid. "What if no one bids on this at all," I thought. "Won't you be embarrassed?"
Well, sure, I decided. But what the heck. It was for a good cause and it seemed likely someone would bid... and it might even get up to twenty or thirty bucks, and wouldn't that be nice.
Shows what I know. As of this writing, with roughly two days and twenty one hours remaining, we're up to $147.50 for Child's Play. I have some suspicions of some of the folks who have bid... and I'm honestly kind of stunned.
I've also had a number of people say "boy, I'd love to bid, but it's gone way out of my price range" to me. Which I can understand. I mean... a hundred and fifty bucks? While I heartily encourage anyone who wants to bid that to do so, I can fully understand not bidding that. But it seems to me we should do more of these.
No, I'm not looking to do one where I get the money. That would be hubris. But there's a lot of charities out there, and a lot of them could use our support. Maybe one of these a month would make sense -- say, do one in January for the Cartoon Art Museum....
I wonder if I should do a second Child's Play auction now, too -- I mean, sick children and all -- but would that perhaps make the people who've bid on the current auction unhappy? I'm not sure. In any case, I'm thrilled. Thank you all.
One friend, amused by this, said "hey, Eric. You've promised a thousand words -- at least -- on any moderately safe for work topic, right?"
"Yeah?" I answered.
"Well... that's four standard typewritten pages," he said.
"How 'standard' is a typewritten page in today's world?" I asked. "When's the last time you saw someone typewrite a page of text."
"Shut up," he answered. "My point is... what's to stop some kid from bidding, winning this auction, and telling you to 'snark' on the subject of his history or English paper?"
I thought for a moment, then checked the bidding, which was at $122 at the time. "For a hundred and twenty two dollars to charity?" I asked. "The fucker's getting an A."
Words to live by, old chums.
And please. If this has gone way out of your price range, head over to Child's Play and donate. This is for sick kids. You can't get more Christmas Spirit than that.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 11:05 AM | Comments (8)
-->Eric Burns-White: Of course, Schultz would have had the lettering of the letter much scratchier. But Penguin may simply be precise.
(From Todd and Penguin. Click on the thumbnail for full sized Not Crazy Letter!)
I got paged into work last night, and was there until tennish. I had to be back in this morning for six am, which is where I am now, waiting for the results of a network engineer's tearing through the network with an array of powerful diagnostic tools. I also am drinking coffee like a madman. However, by 1 in the afternoon, I expect to pass out onto the floor. Just, you know, for the record.
Fortunately, there is Todd and Penguin.
This is not the newest joke in the world. But then, they don't have to be. I'm not a member of the cult of "always original, all of the time." Most comedic (and essentially all dramatic) situations are variations on some theme that has come before. The big question is, "does this make you smile."
In particular, this joke reminds me of Peanuts. Charlie Brown or Lucy could be the cat, and Penguin would be Linus or Sally. The joke then could proceed almost completely as written, and be satisfying. As it is satisfying here.
I'm not saying David Wright stole this. He didn't. I'm saying it's a well worn, but perfectly serviceable joke which he has used well. And to be honest, anyone who does a comical strip that makes me think of Charles Schultz and smile is doing something very right.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 6:41 AM | Comments (4)
-->December 9, 2004
Eric Burns-White: Because I don't want today to just be rants about beloved icons of cartooning, here's some happy Sluggy stuff.
(From Sluggy Freelance. Click on the thumbnail for full sized tears in the darkness.)
People ask me why I say Sluggy pulled off the Cerebus Syndrome that so many have failed. That Which Redeems, though it dragged on a bit (as many major Sluggy plotlines do), highlights it well. On the one hand, we have death, and pain, and redemption. On the other, we have Mister Serving Tray and Goddesses in the bathroom. (And the Tarot. The hysterical Tarot.)
And then we have today's strip. We have Zo‘'s profound, unmitigated joy and relief at Torg coming home... we have Torg's emotional reaction. We have Zo‘ sensing it, and adapting to it, comforting and welcoming.
And, though it's not as clear from the art as it could be, as the title says, we have Tears in the Darkness.
A successful Cerebus Syndrome comic can go from Mister Serving Tray one day, to Tears in the Darkness the next, and then back again, and lose nothing. It is depth with purpose, Story with Funny. It maintains its own sense of premise and self even as it explores new dimensions. And it never feels cheapened, like it didn't have the goods, like it ran out of jokes so now they're getting gunned down in the streets.
Today was nice, and poignant. Tomorrow may be as well, or it might have me giggling. Either way, it still feels right.
That's what a Cerebus Syndrome feels like when it's pulled off. And that's why so many people try to pull it off.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 7:30 PM | Comments (3)
-->Eric Burns-White: Sacred hamburger: the role of our heroes in the decline of the newspaper comics page
I'm in a bad mood today. I have a bad headache, I've been fighting technology and politics and idiocy at work, the weather is miserable and icy (it's never fun to plunge to the ground), there are money issues and Christmas issues and technology issues and people calling me to troubleshoot things they bought themselves, didn't jury through our department, and now can't get to work because they're wrong and somehow this is my fault.
Bad. Mood. Everyone got that? Good.
So, it's the right mood to finally write about something that's been bugging me for as long as I've been following syndicated comic strips with some degree of understanding.
We all know the syndicates. King Features. Universal Press. The Washington Post Writer's Group. Et cetera ad nauseam. And we know the continual cry about them. "They're hidebound! They're too conservative! They restrict artistic freedom! They shaft the artists they're working for! They want to make art into nothing more than a commodity! They exalt the bland and restrain the daring! They won't fucking cancel Cathy and Garfield, and they aren't funny!"
All that is true, and all that is a lie.
I'm not a fan of the syndication system. I think it's a relic of a different era, and I think that era has ended. I think we're moving into a new era, not just in newspapers but in all media, where art can flourish and grow and extend without needing the gatekeepers we once did. Distribution is getting too simple. Print on demand is getting increasingly economic. Micropayments are getting closer to reality. The world is changing, and the syndicates are trying to change while holding onto their turf, and that's causing trouble.
But quite honestly, I don't blame the syndicates for what's happening to the newspaper page. I don't blame them at all. I think that, when you consider they're a business making business decisions, the situation we've found ourselves in was inevitable. And I know one of the major reasons it happened, and I know the people responsible.
And their names are Breathed, Watterson, and Larson.
Let's pause for a moment, and give people a chance to blink, reread that, and begin to get mad. While we do that, let's also puncture a myth. It's felt by many -- especially cartoonists who have been rejected by the syndicates -- that the funny pages have no room for controversy, for violence, for sex, or for honest humor in today's world. To those people, it's all Garfield, Beetle Bailey, The Wizard of Id, Peanuts reruns, Nancy and fucking Cathy. The damn Syndicates won't let any real humor or art or controversy on the page any more.
Bullshit.
There are strips with rampant gunplay and death, violence, terrorism, buckets of sex, racism, sexism, gays and lesbians, political and cultural commentary and bellylaughs, all to be found. There's Mister Boffo and The Fusco Brothers and Doonesbury and The Boondocks and Zippy the Pinhead and motherfucking Annie and Dick Tracy and Non Sequitur and Overboard and all the rest. The Syndicates aren't afraid of quality, or humor, or controversy. That's not what this is about. That's not what the problem is.
Comic strips, since at least the twenties, have been chock full of iconic creators. Segar. George Herriman. Chester Gould. Alex Raymond. Chic Young. Al Capp. Charles Schultz. Walt Kelly. Garry Trudeau. And many, many others. These were giants. Their strips were adored. Their presence or absence could make or break a newspaper as competing papers fought for the fickle public.
And the syndicates made a lot of money off of them. They merchandised and published collections and licensed the strips to Hell and back. There were Popeye lamps. There were Blondie movies (I used to watch them afternoons on WLBZ back in Maine -- they weren't bad, for 50's fluff). There were enough pieces of crap with Schmoos on them to fill a collector's basement to the door. And, while the cartoonists weren't particularly happy with the arrangement (I remember an Al Capp penned "Li'l Abner" where a cartoonist has a Syndicate head break his door down in the middle of the night, and demand immediate changes before the next morning, regardless of the public's desire or the cartoonist's desire. "Yessir," the cartoonist said, terrified. "After all, you own the strip. I just created it and have drawn it all my life."
But even that didn't capture the true heart of the problem -- that mythical syndicate head wanted changes in Fearless Fosdick because he didn't like the content, even though the public did. And while that's certainly not unknown in Comic Strip History, it's always been more about the comic strip as product that's driven syndicate decisions. It's not that controversy would offend the editors and publishers -- it's that the public might stop buying newspapers, or newspapers might stop running the strip. It was a business decision.
And honestly, it didn't lead to the collapse of the art form. Peanuts, Pogo, Li'l Abner, Doonesbury and all the rest were still great. There are ways they may even have been better -- unrestrained creativity is unedited creativity, and unedited creativity leads to self indulgence. We all know the pain of seeing some writer or artist we love become "too big to edit" or "too big to direct." It's not that they become bad -- it's that they could be better and they're not.
And so, we get to the eighties. And ultimately, we get to the latest three comic strip superstars. Berkeley Breathed, Bill Watterson, and Gary Larson. And they launched just slightly after a couple of other cartoonists you may have heard of: Jim Davis and Cathy Guisewite. Remember those names -- we will be coming back to them.
Bloom County and The Far Side first appeared in 1980. Calvin and Hobbes first appeared in 1985. It's pretty safe to say these three strips would be the most popular strips of their time. Certainly, they're the three strips mentioned again and again and again by current cartoonists and webcartoonists as seminal influences -- only Peanuts gets as many mentions by the current generation, with a few students of history to round things out.
That wasn't the only thing the three strips had in common, however. Not only were they of an age... they were written and drawn by a pack of troublemakers. Breathed and Watterson were champions of creator control for opposite reasons (Breathed enthusiastically played the merchandising game, and wanted to guide those efforts, while Watterson endlessly fought to keep Calvin and Hobbes from being merchandised in any way) but with similar goals -- both were vocal opponents of shrinking art space for comic strips, and both eventually were able to make demands in that area. Larson was less contentious but the most likely to be censored, according to the published anthologies. (Breathed had more than a few brushes with his editors in that regard, of course.) Larson was clearly most interested in drawing what he wanted to draw -- though he was happy enough to be merchandised. Both Larson and Watterson took long sabbaticals during their strips' runs. Breathed, on the other hand, reached a point where his disputes with his syndicate and with the grind of six strips and a sunday were too much and jumped from the Washington Post Writer's Group to Universal Press Syndicate, a mostly new cast of characters and Sundays only with Outland. (Of course, as WPWG's contracts with Breathed ran out, his characters sidled over from Bloom County to Outland along with.) Watterson demanded and got a concession for more room on Sundays -- half the page would be his, no compromises, if Calvin and Hobbes ran -- and began bringing Herrimanesque layouts and imagination to the page.
Now, let's look at the list of the ways our heroes caused trouble: they demanded rights over their creation and its merchandising. They demanded space and creative control. They demanded their own forms of artistic creativity and integrity. If you think I'm coming out against any of these things, you're nuts. They took a stand and they held firm, and they were popular enough that they got their own way. Sure, the syndicates might not have made all the money they wanted (especially from Calvin and Hobbes), but they were still making more money from these properties than from their others, and they wanted that to continue.
But it didn't continue, did it?
Let's stop and consider the giant comic strips. Peanuts went on decades. As did L'il Abner. Annie and Dick Tracy and Popeye have been in newspapers since the 20's through the 40's. And even second tier strips (comparatively) like Blondie and Beetle Bailey and Hi and Lois and Nancy and all the rest bring in money over a very, very long term -- owned by the syndicates, with new people coming it to replace retirees, they represent investments with tremendous return. The merchandising might not be the bonanza Bloom County or the Far Side represented, but it's there and bringing in money. In short, these strips are all good for business, and more to the point they're good for business over a very, very long time.
Bloom County, Calvin and Hobbes and The Far Side, on the other hand, were excellent for business... but honestly didn't last that long. Especially when one remembers the sabbaticals (where reruns took place -- and Larson's syndicate actually took criticism because they charged the same price for the reruns of the Far Side as they did for new strips) and the jumping from one syndicate to another. By the mid-nineties, they'd all ended. The shift from Bloom County to Outland had slowed the Breathed property merchandising up a lot, so there wasn't much left to continue. The Far Side kept merchandising for a long time, though when they put out their Last Ever Desk Calendar a couple of years back, I remember seeing it and thinking "they're still making those?" instead of being sad. And of course, Calvin and Hobbes doesn't bring in any kind of money except for print collections, and hasn't since the last, memorable strip.
Now, if our three troublemakers -- pushing boundaries, advocating for creative and artistic rights, demanding space and time to recharge, creatively -- had stuck the course... some real positive things could have happened. They could have demanded change across the board, not just for themselves but for all creators. They could have used their clout with the papers for the art form as a whole. Or, at the very least, they could have continued to advocate and draw in readers and inspire new generations of artist. But they didn't. Bloom County went nine years, Outland went five more. Calvin and Hobbes went ten years if we ignore the sabbaticals. The Far Side went the longest at sixteen. Which frankly is nothing compared to most of the strips on the comics page. The old school ethic was if your strip remained popular, you kept doing it. And for that matter, when you retired or died, someone else picked it up for you. (Even Peanuts, which ended when Schultz retired -- though as it worked out he died the day of the last strip's publication -- was a situation where the syndicate announced their decision to run reruns after Schultz's death instead of having someone else pick it up. And if you look at their web site, the copyright notice isn't for Schultz's estate. Instead, it's: PEANUTS © 2004, United Feature Syndicate, Inc.)
So. You have three very very popular but troublesome creators, who captured the public's imagination... but made a lot of demands, and then left comparatively quickly.
Now, let's look at Garfield and Cathy.
Garfield is inoffensive. It's designed to be. Jim Davis didn't develop it out of a sense of art or humor... he developed it as a marketing plan, finding an underrepresented pet -- cats -- on the comics page and developing a strip that would be highly accessible, unchallenging, and appealing to a broad demographic. Which is more or less how he presented it to United Features Syndicate in 1978, and they agreed. He managed to secure an early deal with the syndicate over merchandising, which was very friendly to both Davis (and his "Paws, Inc.") and United Features. And he designed it, very calculatingly, to have broad appeal -- no topical humor, no country or regional based humor, a simple, clean art style, and simple, easily grasped characters. And they have never strayed from this. Garfield is lazy and likes to eat. Jon is unlucky in love and is a dork. Odie drools and is stupid. Nermal is cute and annoying. Also, lasagna.
They have sold millions of copies of dozens of different books -- getting on the New York Times best sellers list several times. They have sold posters and signs and car suction cup things. They got a (pretty damn good) cartoon series and a (no idea if good or bad) movie made. Hell, when I walk down the hall past one of the Foreign Language classrooms, there's a Garfield on the door with his hands extended wide and "I love you thiiiiis much" written under it in Spanish. In fact, Bloom County's Bill the Cat was wholly created to be a parody of Garfield's merchandising and commercial intent. That Bill went on to make Breathed and his syndicate buttloads of merchandising dollars has been lost on no one.
No one who has a webcomic claims to have been inspired by Garfield. But we've all read it. People who've never heard of the Boondocks or even For Better or For Worse know Garfield. And Garfield continues to rake in oodles of cash. It's been successful enough that Davis started a second strip -- U.S. Acres -- and successfully merchandised it, though it wasn't as universal and faded out. And later, he was contracted to do Mister Potatohead for the good people at Hasbro.
Which underscores just what kind of operation Garfield is. It fits perfectly in the syndicate model, because drawn or not, funny or not, it's a commodity. It's content, and it never causes controversy and Davis never demands more space or time off (in fact, he doesn't draw the strip any more). It's a brand. And it sells. Well. And it's not going anywhere.
Move over to Cathy. Who's actually the longest running strip of the five we're profiling here -- it started in 1976. Cathy isn't the marketing bonanza that Garfield is but it's solid in that arena (and has an Emmy award winning cartoon in its past). Now, Cathy Guisewite isn't trying to create a marketing machine, the way Jim Davis was. She truly wanted to be a cartoonist, to draw her semiautobiographical comic strip about the overweight insecure woman and her travails.
(Note to the people who followed the snarks over the last few days. I mentioned wanting to see a female protagonist who wasn't a size six? Hi, this is Cathy. Have you met her? She's insecure about being seen in a bathing suit. No, she's not who I had in mind either when I said that, but if we ignore her, we're doing a disservice to ourselves, to the art form and to our argument.)
Most of all... Cathy has been consistent. Guisewite doesn't cause controversy. She doesn't make waves. She doesn't cause outrage. She just produces, day in and day out. And she's recognizable, instantly. She's a brand. And papers run her happily. She's safe, she's a known quantity, and there's a sense that if they dropped her, there would be letters. They're right, too. I don't know who'd write them, but there would be letters.
Now, there's something that needs to be said here. Jim Davis is, from all reports, a very nice man. Well spoken, cheerful, unashamed, and downright pleasant. And Cathy Guisewite loves cartooning. It's her life. I saw her once on the Tonight Show -- she was clearly nervous, but cheerful... and everything she was asked she related back to the comic strip. She's not ashamed of it. She doesn't think it's mediocre. She's proud of Cathy. She's proud of what she's managed to do as a female cartoonist. She's proud of the inroads she's made and her place in cartoonist history. And who the fuck are we to say she shouldn't be.
But in terms of the art form... almost all webcartoonists, cartoonists and creators of our generation look back to the three rebels -- Larson, Watterson and Breathed -- and want to be like them. They want to take up their causes. They want to make a difference and emancipate the comics page.
But look at this from the syndicates and their point of view. What do you want in your syndicate? The three monster huge strips, two of which had merchandising bonanzas, but with cantankerous creators who punched out after ten or fifteen years... or the solid, dependable strips that don't cause trouble and that keep moving along 25-30 years later, bringing in fees and merchandising dollars all the while?
If you look at the 90's instead of the 80's, there's really only one cartoonist who hit that same "iconic" status as Breathed, Watterson and Larson: Scott Adams. And let's be blunt -- Dilbert owes a Hell of a lot to Garfield. It found a receptive niche -- the disgruntled workplace -- and it leveraged and merchandised the Hell out of that niche. It's settled in for the long haul. It gathers strips from its readers (which is a convenient way to avoid needing those sabbaticals to recharge, isn't it?) and it's allowed the almost surreal, whimsical and anarchic humor of its early days -- Phil, the Prince of Insufficient Light; Bob the Dinosaur -- to be wholly replaced with "gosh, managers are stupid boobs, aren't they? Boy, aren't human resources directors evil?" jokes.
Go to the Dilbert website. Check out the bottom: Dilbert © 2004, United Feature Syndicate, Inc. Look familiar?
One of the few people to really challenge the Syndicates from within since the Rebel Heroes left was Frank Cho. And he ultimately left, too constrained by editors and structures. For the most part, whether some of the strips are wild and controversial or not, the comics page is now made up of sound, long term investments. Investments the syndicates are pretty sure will be here thirty years from now. And strips that have already been here for thirty years. Strips where the creators don't cause too much trouble -- they might fight for a plotline, or to reach their own niche. The Boondocks isn't out there to pander, and For Better and For Worse wasn't afraid to out a long standing character as gay or kill the family dog. But Johnston and McGruder aren't exactly demanding half a sunday page to themselves, are they?
No, the Syndicates have learned their lesson. When Scott Kurtz was approached by a syndicate, he wanted to retain rights -- merchandising, online distribution, the comic book deal with Image -- but the syndicate said "no." This was a proven quantity that would work on the funny pages. The syndicate knew it -- this was low risk stuff for them. But they learned their lesson: either they wanted the whole enchilada, or they'd go somewhere else for Mexican. They learned that from Larson, Watterson and Breathed.
So yeah. I give full respect to Calvin and Hobbes, The Far Side and Bloom County. Hell, I fucking revere those strips. I love what they managed to do. I love the artistry of them. I love the humor of them. I think they're signs of brilliance. And I think we're reaping the artistic benefit of their inspiration today. I really do.
But when you look at the newspaper page, and feel like something's missing... remember those fantastic strips that blew into town, made a lot of demands, caused a lot of trouble, and then blew back out of town. This is part of their legacy too. And the sooner we all recognize that, the better our efforts to retake newspaper comics from the safe and marketable will be.
I told you I was in a bad mood.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 12:08 PM | Comments (65)
-->December 8, 2004
Eric Burns-White: This is the funniest fucking thing I've read in two weeks.
(From Something Positive. Click on the thumbnail for full sized Festival of Lights.)
Chanukkah is one of those interesting traditions in American culture. A relatively minor festival in Jewish Lore, its proximity to Christmas have inflated its importance in popular culture (which is probably for the best -- I think perhaps Yom Kippur greeting cards and Rosh Hashana holiday movies starring Jim Carrey and a nearly nude J-Lo might possibly bring the Messiah down on us. And the Jewish Messiah isn't known for being forgiving). And yet, so many non-Jewish Americans just don't understand the Festival of Lights at all. They don't know what it commemorates, or the miracle of the oil and how it burned for eight days and nights after the Jews rededicated the Temple previously defiled by the Greeks.
Fortunately, Randy Milholland is here to enlighten us, as well as reveal that one of the most popular characters in Something Positive is Jewish! So. Take a moment, click the thumbnail, and steep yourself in the rituals and traditions of all that is Chanukkah. And then come back.
Okay. Are you back?
Milholland's totally getting a biscuit. A tasty, tasty biscuit. I laughed so hard my sinuses almost ruptured.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 10:22 AM | Comments (2)
-->Eric Burns-White: This is an experiment. And it is for a good cause. Good cause + experiment = some fun!
I have an exultant mantra that my friends have heard me say before. It's my touchstone against the darkness. It's the way I manage to keep some sense of self going in this wild world.
It is this: I'm a writer. I write. For money.
Not a lot of money, mind. But still. Every now and again, I get a piece of paper with my name, and an autograph from a publisher, and the phrase "Pay to the order of" on it. It's incredible. It's validation that can often buy you a Happy Meal. And it means a lot to me.
Well, Websnark isn't paid work, and that's okay with me. I like doing Websnark. I like writing about things. Just because I do write for money doesn't mean I have to write for money. For Websnark, money just doesn't enter into it.
Until now.
You see... I've been thinking a lot about Child's Play. You know, the charity founded by Gabe and Tycho over at Penny Arcade. Now, I've donated to it. I donated last year, and I donated this year. I'm all about giving nice things to sick kids. That's just cool. And I've been looking at some of the art that webcartoonists are donating and auctioning and the like, and feeling pretty flush and good about it all. And I wish I could get in on that... only I don't draw. I write.
And then it hit me. I write. Well enough that sometimes, I get paid for it. And I have a website that's developed a measure of popularity, specifically for my writing. And sometimes, I have people beg me to snark a given webcomic, or write about a given topic, or just say they like what words I put together for these things.
All right then. Let's do a little experiment. And maybe... just maybe... help some kids while doing it.
As of 8 AM Eastern Standard Time this morning, I have started an auction on eBay. The opening bid is five bucks. The closing bid? We'll see in five days. And the winner of this auction gets to set the topic of a snark here on Websnark.
That's right. Anything you like. You want me to snark a webcomic you like? You got it. You want me to write a short story about Ants? Fine. Harry Potter Fan Fiction? Sure thing. A poem? Okay! A discussion of the Fugitive Poets and how their philosophy relates to the evolution of critical thought? Bring it on.
Oh, I've put a restriction that it has to be moderately safe for work (I would have a certain cognitive disconnect with writing explicit gay porn for a children's charity, for example). And I've put in a requirement that while you set the topic, the opinions are going to be mine -- so I can't promise I'll love the webcomic you ask me to write about. But I do promise to give it a fair shake.
Is all of this arrogant? Probably. I'm putting out into the world that someone out there likes this well enough to want to drop a few bucks on it. But why not be arrogant if it's for a good cause? Every penny from this goes out of my Paypal account and into Child's Play. Every last penny. (I'll cover the Paypal fees myself.) So you're helping out an exceptionally worthy cause by doing this.
(I'd offer another one of these to Gabe and Tycho for their live auction on the 9th, but I'm afraid they'd respond by saying "Websnwhat? Never heard of it." Ah, fear.)
So. Check it out. Bid if you'd like. If no one at all bids, I'll drop the 5 buck opening bid on Child's Play myself, in addition to my other donation. And, well, I'll be humbled, which might not be a bad thing. But it'd be nice to have more. So please! Check it out, think it over, and if you want -- bid on!
Oh, and if you find this whole thing ridiculous... go to Child's Play directly and donate, anyway. Even if my little thing seems silly, the cause is good.
But I hope you do bid. Because bidding would make me feel good, and more to the point would mean Websnark could donate something nice as a whole. And that would rock.
EDIT: At Sean Riley's suggestion, I'll set a minimum word count. For any kind of essay or short story, it'll be at least 1,000 words and could go much much higher (I've been known to do 5,000 word snarks. If it's a poem or the like, we'll cap it at 20 lines minimum, maximum whatever seems right.
But the point is, this will be a meaty snark, not twelve words and a thumbnail.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 7:25 AM | Comments (4)
-->Eric Burns-White: Bwah ha bah?
(From Suburban Jungle. Click on the thumbnail for full sized negotiation!)
Okay, this one surprised me a little. Okay, a lot. I know the plan up until now has been to force Woody into a situation where he'd let Leona take the Kitten Kaboodle contract and get some airtime. But I didn't expect Athena to actually make a bid for Leona's full contract.
The thing of it is... Woody'd be nuts to say no. He's had nothing but trouble from Leona. Now, that doesn't mean he won't say no. This is a strip with the mantra "Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" after all. But I think it's at least even odds he'll say yes.
Which raises the issue... just what does Athena intend from all this?
Oh, on one level she intends to make a lot of money. Clearly, that's what she does. But there's also a question of dramatic points. And we just saw Tiffany go through her first spark of jealousy over Leona's singing career....
We could be moving into the Kitten Kaboodle phase... but who's to say Leona won't be the bigger star going into it. And if she is... given that Tiffany Tiger is, at least on paper, the star of this comic strip... where are we going next?
Nice moment of evolution. Nice moment of "What the?' Nicely done, Mr. Robey.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 7:17 AM | Comments (1)
-->December 7, 2004
Eric Burns-White: When did we become the No Fat Chicks club? I think I need to see the bylaws.
So, I was talking about body shapes in one of my snarks, yesterday. Specifically my Questionable Content snark. And it's inspired some lively debate, which I'm good with. Debate means people are thinking about what was said, and there's literally nothing else an essayist can ask for.
But one of the comments threatened to move away from the point of the snark, and into questions of unrealistic body image, sexism... the usual, in other words. And I suggested that particular snark's comments weren't the right place to discuss those issues, because that wasn't the point of that snark.
But, it also occurred to me that it's a good topic of discussion. Because body image and the choices artists make in webcomics, especially in depicting women, is an area strongly worth discussing. And also because the complaint, when ascribed to Questionable Content, actively surprised me.
I read a lot of webcomics. By now, you've figured that out. (Though at least one webcomic creator of note, when discussing Websnark, has indicated he likes the site but wishes my trawl list wasn't so limited. On the other hand, said creator's strip is one of the ones not on said trawl list, so that might have something to do with it. Or it might not.) And one thing I figured out early on in reading webcomics is the women aren't very realistic. They don't act realistically. They don't look realistic. There's lots and lots of bodysuits and bikinis and miniskirts and catholic/japanese schoolgirl outfits. There's breasts that would give Supergirl a backache as far as the eye can see, and they're copiously on display. Female sexuality becomes implicit, in many, many, many webcomics, including some by artists who would vehemently deny it.
The Unsurpassable Wednesday White examined the "Smoking Hot Geek Girl" phenomenon in detail over in her Comixpedia article on the subject. It happens over and over again. Jade and Miranda in PvP (though Marcy is a solid geek girl without the need to be red hot). Ki in GPF. Miranda in User Friendly. The utterly pneumatic Cecania in Sore Thumbs. The seminal, supergenius, supergorgeous Helen, Sweetheart of the Internet.
If we extend the scope of the discussion beyond geek girls in particular, it goes nuts. Josh Lesnick's Wendy (and to a lesser extent, Girly). Any female who was in Exploitation Now (and most of the ones in Errant Story) by Michael Poe. Almost any science fiction babe. (The fact that we can typify them as science fiction babes, for that matter.) And so on and so on and so on and so on. I can name examples pretty much as quickly as I can type. There are acres of gorgeous girlflesh just a-waitin' for you out there.
On the other side of it... there's a significant dearth of plain girls, or of attractive but overweight girls, or of attractive women who are older (and are depicted as older, rather than looking thirty-one with grey hair). But go on the other side of the aisle and you'll find tons of overweight, balding, bearded, misanthropic men. Sometimes dating the gorgeous women, no less.
Which brings me to why the commenter's complaint over Questionable Content surprised me so much. Said complaint was twofold -- the women were unrealistically attractive, and they were uncomfortably sexual. Well, I grant they're both overtly sexual and overtly attractive -- though I think they're far, far, far from most of the women I mentioned above. The former was a little surprising because... well, this is essentially a sex comedy. The central conflict of the series is "will Marten and Faye get together," and it's clearly not to hold hands and discuss poetry. This is a series based on sexual tension. Which is appropriate for young twenty-somethings who're still pretty flush with hormones (when I was that age, I thought about sex pretty much all the time, which my girlfriend of the time could no doubt attest to). In a comedy, you accentuate the points of tension for comedic intent. In a relationship comedy with a core premise of sexual tension, that's what gets accentuated. Further, the men are neither studly nor homely either. There is equality of attractiveness, which sets more of a theme instead of an inequity. This is Romantic (sex) Comedy, not workplace humor where the gorgeous systems administrator is having regular sex with the male hacker who has no sense of hygiene.
But more to the point, the complaint was about their appearance, and that just floored me. Let's set aside one complaint, which was unreasonable height proportion -- it's cartoon art, and cartoon art is... well, cartoony The same way that we accept Charlie Brown's mammoth skull, we accept that Faye and Marten's heads are larger than normal.
So, taking the cartoony nature of the art as a given, the question is are the women particularly unrealistic. And I have to say that not only aren't they, but that Jacques is actually touching on body image issues far more realistically than I've seen almost anywhere. And that's in the charming little ball of neurosis that is Faye.
Faye is very pretty. There's no denying it. Marten and Steve have both remarked on it. But Faye's little sister grabbed Faye's stomach and made disparaging remarks, which Faye deflected. And then Faye began making remarks about her 'squishiness,' and said the same to Ellen, who she didn't even know. Clearly, Faye is sensitive about her weight, even though she clearly doesn't need to be. And she compares herself to the skinny Dora (who's skinny enough that Ellen described her as "boyish" and put her foot in her mouth over it). And which Dora clearly has some (minor, one hopes) issues about herself.
Yeah, they're all pretty... but they don't know that, it seems. And that's ground that rarely if ever gets covered in webcomics.
Does that make the commenter wrong, in what she (she identified herself as female) said? No, it sodding well doesn't. I might disagree with her opinion, but I understand it. Would I like to see more diversity in feminine archetypes in webcomics? You're damn right I would. Every day, Bruno (the Baldwin version, not the McDonald version) seems lonelier and lonelier out in the webcomics world. Strips like Fans, which takes pains to cover all sides (and shapes) of the SF Fan community, and treat them all as both worthy of attention and attractive in their own right are precious gems, all the more precious because of their sad rarity. And it makes a strip like Lost and Found Investigations, which played with the subjectivity of appearance (Beth gained enough weight that she got dumped by her shallow boyfriend, immediately began seeing herself as much fatter than she really was, but when we saw her from Frank's point of view she was ravishing, because that's how he saw her) intriguing and interesting in the extreme.
But from where I sit, that doesn't mean a strip like Questionable Content (or Scary Go Round, or Diesel Sweeties, or Queen of Wands, or Something Positive, or any other strip that trods the relationship ground) has to fill those gaps. People are going to tell the stories they're going to tell, and there's nothing wrong with using attractive people to do it, if that's what the artists are going to draw.
But at the same time, we need to have an awareness of the issues at hand. And if someone wants to have a sexy, sassy female lead who's also a size 18 instead of a size 6, they'll have a reader in me, at least.
And as for my practicing what I preach? Well, Rhonda, the one female character I drew in Unfettered by Talent, certainly didn't look like the traditional standard of beauty. Of course, that could be because she looked like a sock puppet made by a deranged four year old with a glue gun, but I digress.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 4:24 PM | Comments (38)
-->Eric Burns-White: It's sort of like Gary Larson collaborated on The Collector.
(From Chopping Block. Click on the thumbnail for full sized X the Owl Tee Shirt!)
Have you ever heard of Delusion of Reference? It's a neurosis that can enter into psychosis, to use outmoded terminology that still means something to me, so what the Hell. Delusion of Reference is the delusion that external events somehow relate to or reflect on you. Say you're walking down the hall, and you see a couple of cute girls quietly talking to each other. If you've got a case of the ol' Delusion of Reference, you naturally assume they're talking about you -- and not very kindly, either. At the far end of the psychosis, you start believing that when the news reporter is saying things, he's saying them to you, but he just can't admit it.
I have this particular condition, in its mildest of forms. I've pretty well intellectualized it out of existence -- mostly by learning not to take myself so seriously. But it can crop up from time to time. (Of course, that could also be called "being insecure, sometimes," which pretty much everyone is.)
Well. I started Websnark.com on August 20 of 2004. On August 23, Chopping Block, by Lee Adam Herold, updated for what seemed like the last time. After the 23rd... nothing.
Naturally, I blamed myself. Damn website, convincing Herold to stop updating Chopping Block.
Well, whatever I did wrong seems to be over now, and Butch the Serial Killer with a heart is back, and that makes me a happy panda. This strip is the absolute epitome of dark humor -- with an emphasis on the humor. Its words are sometimes downright gruesome -- today's strip, not replicated above, casually implies the eating of eyeballs stuffed with deviled ham -- but its images oddly aren't, even with the shadows and darkness and heavy crosshatching and shading.
Old Butch has delusion of reference, of course. And delusion of control, delusion of grandeur, delusion of persecution, auditory hallucinations, erotomanic delusions, a pack of associations, psychalgia, anxiety disorders, and good old antisocial personality disorder (what we used to call being a sociopath or just plain old batshit crazy). He really hits for the cycle. He's clearly got chemical imbalances and environmental factors. And he likes to kill people, have sex with their corpses, and eat them. But if you can set that aside, he's such a sweet guy. And it's very, very, very funny to watch him muddle through as best he can. Especially when you factor in how much of a pain in the neck killing people is.
I'm glad to see him back. I'm glad I've been forgiven. I'm sure everything is fine now, and there won't be any more problems.
And if there are? Well... I've been very patient so far, haven't I? But that will have to end, sooner or later....
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 11:19 AM | Comments (2)
-->Eric Burns-White: On the other side, have you noticed there's a lot of single parenthood in this strip? I'm not saying that's bad. I'm just saying it's true.
(From Ozy and Millie. Click on the thumbnail for full sized zen and the art of single parenting.)
It's traditional, when discussing a comic strip with a certain childlike innocence and pleasantness and great imagination, to compare it to Calvin and Hobbes. Personally, I don't get that at all. Calvin and Hobbes was a triumph on many levels, but part of what made it work so well is Calvin was a perfect child -- selfish, self-centered, with no concept of consequences until it was too late, and largely mindlessly destructive. There's nothing wrong with that. It was funny, and it was accurate (my favorite game to play with my Micronauts was the one where I painstakingly assembled the playsets and vehicles for two hours, then destroyed them all in an orgy of destruction, as the Acroyears and Baron Karza's assault devastated the peaceful home of our heroes, only to be repulsed with a hail of lasersonic fire that also had the effect of hammering the enemy photon sleds and hydrocopters and neon orbiters into shrapnel. Micronaut vehicles were good at shrapnel, because you could so easily disassemble them). A good friend of mine of the time described how he poured gunpowder from his dad's shotgun shells into his Micronauts battle cruiser and literally blew it up -- being lucky he didn't maim himself in the process. That's childhood, in a nutshell, and Calvin and Hobbes captured it perfectly.
Well, the thing about Ozy and Millie is it gets that. Millie is chaotic and destructive and self centered, more than willing to shave all the fur off of Ozy's body for the sake of a good time, then learn a lesson... and then do it again in six months when the lesson has faded. But Ozy and Millie also understands that curious nostalgia that adults feel when thinking about childhood -- that sense of innocence and wonder that people ascribe to Calvin and Hobbes, which is the other side of that chaotic coin.
(And yes, I fully accept that there was a sense of wonder in Calvin and Hobbes. I don't need those angry letters, thanks.)
My point is... with Ozy, Simpson has a character who embodies that sense of inner peace and beauty and wonder. (Senses that also cling to Timulty and perhaps find their perfection in him. On Ozy and Millie's Cast Page, Simpson mentions William Blake and his concept of Primary Innocence in connection with Tim, and that's very apparent.) In other words, he gets both sides of the equation -- he gets both Little Nemo and the Katzenjammer Kids.
I really liked the story of Millie's father, who turned out not only to be a pirate from the dimension found in Llewellyn's sofa, but is aging backwards so that he's around Millie's age now. This is chaotic and whimsical all at once. Well, now we're learning the story of Ozy's mother (there's something about single parents in all of this), who is herself an orderly woman conducting an orderly life. And in today's strip, we learn that Ozy as a baby was already meditating.
I'm enjoying this. And more to the point, I'm enjoying what it represents. And I'm looking forward to what happens next.
And isn't that exactly what Simpson wants? That sense of anticipation, in a story of a single mother ice cream tester and her baby child, who we know eventually gets adopted by a dragon?
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 9:06 AM | Comments (0)
-->December 6, 2004
Eric Burns-White: Also, they're good at banter. But then, they would be, wouldn't they?
(From Questionable Content. Click on the thumbnail for full sized gentrification!)
I want you to have a look at today's Questionable Content.
Then, I want you to click back through the archives for about four days or so.
Go ahead. I'll wait here. I'm good at waiting. I'm patient and I have Propel Fitness Water to drink while you're away.
Back? Oh good.
Jacques has drawn three girls, all within about ten years of age of one another, with Ellen on the young end and (I assume, from today's comments) Dora on the old end. All three girls are attractive.
To draw these girls... Jacques has chosen 2.5 different hairstyles (Ellen and Faye's hairstyles are similar but not exact), three different hair colors, three different skin colors, and three different body types. While all three are clearly pretty, Dora's a rail, Ellen's a bit lusher up top and on the hips, and Faye's heavier in the hip area (to the point that even though Marten has described Faye's butt as capable of giving God an erection after he sculpted it, Faye has made unhappy comments about her weight). And there are subtle differences in the three faces. Eye color's a gimmie.
In other words... Jacques has drawn three different girls... in three different ways, completely.
And none of them look like Supermodels.
This has to be some kind of record.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 4:42 PM | Comments (31)
-->Eric Burns-White: He did a Herriman reference. There is a place in Heaven for those who do Herriman references.
I don't want to oversnark Checkerboard Nightmare just because I'm (part of) the subject matter, but while I won't do the whole download-thumbnail-upload thing, have a look at today's strip. Particularly the first panel.
Now, one of the things Straub is really good at is the emulation of artistic styles. Have a look at all the other panels for a highlight of his versatility, and then have a look back at panel one.
I have to assume Straub took some kind of pointy implement, like a coat hanger, and fed it through his ear into his brain, and then moved it back and forth until he heard the happy angels singing to him, in order to degrade his artistic skills to the point that he could actually emulate what we laughably call my artistic style. Needless to say, if you've never had a look at Unfettered by Talent (and for god's sake, why would you?), Straub nailed the style perfectly, right down to the lack of straight lines, the child like face, the football shaped head, and the tea pot sign.
The tea pot sign, in particular, means he actually read the Unfettered by Talent archives. Which might have been sufficient to instill the necessary brain damage to be able to draw like me.
Needless to say, I'm impressed, and I wish him well on his convalescence and neurological therapy.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 2:43 PM | Comments (5)
-->December 5, 2004
Eric Burns-White: Comixpedia: The Quickening
It's the start of a new week in a new month, and that means a new Comixpedia issue. And it wouldn't be a Comixpedia issue without the latest Feeding Snarky, by me.
Actually... that's a bald faced lie. It would indeed be a new Comixpedia issue without me. I could be hit by a bus tomorrow and Comixpedia would just continue on and on and on and on....
But enough of that. It's a good issue, beginning their Year in Review. My column's... well, it's sort of there. However, two -- count them, two -- new parts to T. Campbell's seminal "The History of Online Comics" are appearing, and they're well worth the read. Part Seven covers the growth of professional webcomics and the movement towards subscription models. Part Eight covers the growth of the post-Keenspot/post-Modern Tales collectives and dropdowns that have grown up. These are incredibly simplified descriptions of complex topics that T. handles excellently, so go read them.
And go read my thingy too. I mean, what the heck. It's right there.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at 11:23 PM | Comments (2)
