Websnark

Comment from: Mithandir posted at June 10, 2005 4:55 AM

Personally I just hope it does die down soon. While there were some interesting poinst made in the beginning of the discussion, now it has degenerated into a shouting match where the amount of swearwords and insults are rapidly reaching saturation. I don't think this is to the benefit of either side in the discussion.

Let's grow up and go back to making comics, all. Please.

Comment from: Alexis Christoforides posted at June 10, 2005 5:53 AM

I can't stand webcomic drama. Comics exaggerate things and situations by nature. They are not a good start for a meaningful conversation. This led to a series of unbelievably idiotic misunderstandings, and a lot of noise from both sides.

HOWEVER. Tycho's newspost was, in fact, on two things, blended together: The impracticality and therefore uselessness of art in many web comics (a highly subjective and provocative statement to say the least) AND

the 'making a living' part of web comics.

He finally makes his second point clear in his latest post (scroll down on the main page).

Now that's what I want to hear more about. I've heard Tycho's side (micropayments don't work, are utopian). Now I really, really want to see Scott McCloud answer to this. Because instead of name-calling and freakin' arrows on pictures, we'll have some good ol' business talk.

And this is why the Goats mini-comic offer on Bitpass is OH SO PERFECTLY TIMED. We may have an answer to this 5 year-old question soon. For this, I'm kinda excited.

Comment from: Steve Bryant posted at June 10, 2005 7:48 AM

Scott hits upon a great point in his essay...the Penny Arcade guys were whining because they weren't included (even though it was by their own choice). Just like when the Penny Arcade guy bitched and moaned about the Eisner nominations a couple of months back.

Wah, wah wah.

Comment from: William_G posted at June 10, 2005 8:23 AM

And that's all it's ever been. Two fanboys whining in the hopes of having other fanboys pat them on the back.

Besides, they hardly need me at this point, do they?

Of course they need you Eric. You make for an easy target for them.

Comment from: SeanH posted at June 10, 2005 8:51 AM

To be fair on Eric, Tycho has more than once described his job as "playing videogames for a living".

Honestly I'm somewhat surprised that Cat Garza himself weighing in (http://www.livejournal.com/users/gatodesnudo/104272.html, and I'm insanely amused to see he now has Gabe's caricature of him as his LJ user icon) seemed to go unnoticed by everybody.

Comment from: Jonathan Rosenberg posted at June 10, 2005 9:21 AM

And this is why the Goats mini-comic offer on Bitpass is OH SO PERFECTLY TIMED. We may have an answer to this 5 year-old question soon. For this, I'm kinda excited.

I think we'll have an answer on that for you, say Tuesday. I think a week is about enough time to give the experiment. I thkn you will all be amazed at the result, though -- the situation what it is, I am really surprised at how it all turned out.

Comment from: Matt Estes posted at June 10, 2005 9:41 AM

Is it just me, or did Scott McCloud basically just end up sounding like a big asshole with this one?

Okay, Penny Arcade made a comic that basically said "you wouldn't catch US in a movie like that!" So then Scott McCloud writes an essay which revolves around two fundamental "facts", which are:

1) Penny Arcade is bitter that they weren't asked to be in the movie

2) Penny Arcade WAS asked to be in the movie

.....um, Scott? Are you listening to yourself?

Also poor form on McCloud's part is that Penny Arcade has already come back and said "um, we weren't trying to make fun of Cat's appearance, guys, sorry. Here, laugh at some funny pictures of us!" and now McCloud is going "making fun of his appearance?! Let's laugh at THEIR pictures!!"

Basically what's happened here is, Penny Arcade, a website that makes fun of everybody, made fun of Scott McCloud disciples, and by association, Scott McCloud, and so now Scott McCloud says they owe an apology to us, the reader, for being mean. What I don't understand is, why didn't Penny Arcade owe an apology to the CEO of the Phantom when they suggested that he couldn't have an orgasm without killing a dog first? And how come that guy took it in stride and had references to Penny Arcade strips taped up at their E3 display later that year? Is it because that guy isn't a friend of Scott McCloud? You know, McCloud used to (maybe even still does) have a link to Penny Arcade as an exemplary webcomic. Does he think it's funny for them to make fun of people as long as they aren't people he knows?

I liked Cat Carza's response in which he said that at least he doesn't have to make fun of people to be popular. So satire isn't a valid form of humor? There's nothing sadder then celebrities who actually take offense at the gags about them on Conan O'Brien and Saturday Night Live and the like. Being made fun of is the price you pay when you become famous - it isn't an insult, it's how you know that you made it. Instead of saying "I guess I should be thanking them for the increased traffic to my site", he should be saying "Man, thanks for all the increased traffic to my site! You guys should make fun of me again some time!" If your feelings are so sensitive that you can't handle a few harsh words from people you've never met, then why on Earth are you putting yourself out on the internet??

.....that is all.

Comment from: Merus posted at June 10, 2005 10:10 AM

If this is such an important issue, why is it being buried in political pointscoring?

Comment from: Wednesday posted at June 10, 2005 10:13 AM

If your feelings are so sensitive that you can't handle a few harsh words from people you've never met, then why on Earth are you putting yourself out on the internet??

Actually, this is rubbish. There are lots of good reasons to do this, not the least of which is getting to a place where such things don't get to you quite so badly (because, before it comes up, for a lot of people? "Just don't let it affect you" is like saying "just don't let the rain hit you when you're walking outside in a tropical storm without any kind of shelter at all." It doesn't work that way).

And besides, there's a pretty huge difference between "a few guys I've never met" and "a few guys I've never met who run rather a a high-profile site, and whose mockery is disseminated amongst hundreds of thousands of people who may or may not concur. Never mind the fallout drama which is going to center, at least in part, on the minutiae of their mockery." It's not like this is some pissant high school moron's blog that half a dozen people read. Yeah, you know, I can see why it would upset Mr. Garza. 'Cause it's not the same thing as what you describe at all.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at June 10, 2005 10:17 AM

If this is such an important issue, why is it being buried in political pointscoring?

What, like the Gomery inquiry?

Comment from: Hungry J posted at June 10, 2005 10:31 AM

Tee hee. 'Nuck.

I want to see the next Grit take the stand and have to defend dropping $300,000 in the great Webcomics movie scandal.

Hell, Gomery'd be fun to see settling this crap right quick. Funny guy.

Comment from: alienpriest posted at June 10, 2005 10:33 AM

ItÌs only been 9 days? That sounds right. The William G vs. PA/PvP drama went on for a full two weeks if I can remember that far back. Besides, if this dies down IÌll have to go back to getting my daily drama fix from things like filibusters vs. judiciary appointments until the new season of Desperate Housewives starts up again. And I am sooo bored with caring about judiciary nominations.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at June 10, 2005 11:06 AM

Besides, they hardly need me at this point, do they?

Of course they need you Eric. You make for an easy target for them.

Actually, I haven't been a target for them at all during this. They linked to the essay, along with almost (though not quite) every discussion that was going on, but there weren't shots taken at me. (I honestly don't count the Twain quote as a shot.)

Just keeping the record straight.

Comment from: scrubbo posted at June 10, 2005 11:31 AM

Actually, the Goats micropayment test is inherently flawed.

If you buy the mini-comic for 25 cents digitally, you get a buck off the 4 dollar paper version. So... what you've got is a 'click here to get 20ish% off the comic book you want' instead of a true micropayment test.

So, it's a 'try before you buy' thing where you pay a quarter to see the whole thing digitially before you plunk down a few bucks for the real product.

Anybody who buys the digitial version and the paper version could have bought the digital version for the discount.

Anybody who buys the digitial version and NOT the paper version could just be deciding they don't really want the book, (much as somebody who reads the 5 page preview of a 32 page comic book and doesn't order it, only it cost him a quarter.)

I think Goats will see a lot of people buying BOTH, and that the numbers will be about the same as for their last mini-comic which sold without a bitpass. I seriously thought about buying the digital version just for the 75 cent discount. (Cause I'm CHEAP!)

But I could be wrong.

If they were offering content SOLELY for bitpass/etc consumption, well, then that'd be an interesting test.

Comment from: William_G posted at June 10, 2005 12:11 PM

The William G vs. PA/PvP drama went on for a full two weeks if I can remember that far back.

Three weeks, with minor aftershocks.

he should be saying "Man, thanks for all the increased traffic to my site! You guys should make fun of me again some time!"

Are you willing to provide me with a picture of yourself and a list of your passions so I can "satarize" you? I can use it to later try to disguise the chip on my shoulder for clueless fanboys as a much later developed argument, like.. um... the use of the color purple in web design.

I know you'll thank me for it.

(I honestly don't count the Twain quote as a shot.)

Eric, if you feel this way, then fine.

Comment from: Tangent posted at June 10, 2005 12:20 PM

Pshah. You called T&G on their being assholes. Nothing wrong with that. And no, I don't think you further instigated things. Instead, you rode the wave that was starting to crest.

I must admit, however, to being so freaking glad I didn't post about this on Tangents. It's turning into a true quagmire, especially with Scott Kurtz trying to defend T&G (and his) rights to be assholes.

Or at least it sounded like that to me. Maybe I just need more caffeine....

Rob H.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at June 10, 2005 12:34 PM

I must admit, however, to being so freaking glad I didn't post about this on Tangents. It's turning into a true quagmire

No, it's not. It's turning into a trip to the beer store.

"It gets better, Lloyd."

"I doubt it. Here, let me show you something really interesting: these balloon animals I've made. Now, see, here is a poodle. And here, here is micropayment theory!"

Comment from: gwalla posted at June 10, 2005 1:10 PM

There's nothing sadder then celebrities who actually take offense at the gags about them on Conan O'Brien and Saturday Night Live and the like.

Since when is Cat Garza a celebrity? Oh wait, I guess since this whole mess.

If your feelings are so sensitive that you can't handle a few harsh words from people you've never met, then why on Earth are you putting yourself out on the internet??

Ah, the "Teh Intarweb is a harsh mistress! If you're so sensitive that you get insulted when somebody insults you, GTFO! LOLZ!" argument. Commonly used by trolls to justify their attempts to fuck with people for no reason.

I'm insanely amused to see he now has Gabe's caricature of him as his LJ user icon

Hey, when you've got lemons...

Comment from: Matt Estes posted at June 10, 2005 2:17 PM

"Since when is Cat Garza a celebrity?"

Um, since he's in a movie? A movie that, to watch the trailer for, you have to click on a picture of his face? And yeah, it sucks that the internet is a harsh mistress (hahahaha, I'm going to start saying that now) and I wish that it wasn't, and that you could post things and people wouldn't screw with you for no reason, but we all know that's not the case. And the more popular you become on the internet, the worse it's going to get. Ask Randy Milholland. Hell, ask Eric Burns.

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at June 10, 2005 2:27 PM

I have to disagree, Weds. When you put stuff up on the net you're pretty much putting yourself on stage and thus can expect criticism. I'll grant that its a reasonable request not to have refuse thrown at you, but this is hardly what's happened to Cat. I think, and indeed hope, that this is going to turn out as a boon for him. I know I hadn't heard of him before.

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at June 10, 2005 2:34 PM

Scott hits upon a great point in his essay...the Penny Arcade guys were whining because they weren't included (even though it was by their own choice). Just like when the Penny Arcade guy bitched and moaned about the Eisner nominations a couple of months back.

Dear Eris, can you really be that stupid? Eric's an intelligent fellow (even if he occasionally goes slightly off the deep end when something gets under his skin), so I'd hope he'd generally attract readers with some semblance of sense. I assume you're referring to this comic, the ones following it, and the associated newsposts. Did it ever occur to you that the comic in question was, in fact, drawn by Gabe? See, the Penny Arcade guys heard about Scott Kurtz's Eisner and wanted to congratulate him, but since they have a long-running and almost entirely not-serious "rivalry" with him, they thought it would be fun to pretend that the magnitude of his one-upmanship had caused a schism, and use it as a chance to do versions of PA that were as if "Tycho" and "Gabe" had done them on their own. More or less like that old Megatokyo comic long before the creative split, where we saw that Piro alone would turn the MT world into a dating sim, and Largo into a survival-horror epic (the former part of which turned out to be rather prophetic, but I digress). So Tycho had a badly-drawn comic about anthropomorphic manifestations of grammatical constructs, and Gabe had a well-drawn one about various horrible things happening to Tycho. All in good fun, and Tycho's accompanying rants are hilarious.

If you still don't get it, then may I inquire as to whether you think they actually have a guitarist named Ben working for them? Sheesh.

As to the original subject, as I implied earlier I think Eric overreacted- as he stated himself, he more or less agreed with G&T on their calling bullshit on many of the sentiments that appear in the trailer, and his real objection seemed to be that they were personally poking fun at Mr. Garza. Along with a long spiel about big guys, little guys, jocks and nerds, which I can't help but wonder comes more from Eric projecting his own issues onto the situation than anything else (I love Websnark to death, but let's face it, the guy can whip out a couple thousand words on a tabletop RPG system at will- it's unlikely High School was completely painless for him). But as Gabe noted, the picture was the one from the trailer site itself, and poking fun at a slightly goofy-looking picture of someone (I'm sure we've all had bad pictures before- see most driver's licenses for a likely example) by saying they look like a pothead is not really the ultimate depth of disdain Eric would seem to take it as, especially when the person in question apparently does enjoy that particular form of flora. He also reiterated that neither he nor Jerry are any prizes in the looks department themselves, and linked to a goddamn FARK photoshop thread poking fun at them. So my point is, even if you disagree with their point of view re: Webcomic Utopia 3000Ù, which as far as I can tell Eric doesn't even to a large extent, their transgression doesn't really warrant yelling "fuck you, assholes!" at them. Which is a direct quote from his first post on the subject.

For myself, I'm now looking forward to this documentary because it looks interesting. And I probably never would have heard of it had it not been for Penny Arcade. So even if one still insists for some reason that Mike and Jerry were being utter assholes, one would also have to admit that it has at least done some good, from the standpoint of the movie's creators and contributors.

P.S.- Does anyone have an archived copy of Scott McCloud's thoughts on the subject? I know he later considered it ill-advised and has taken it down, but I'm honestly curious about it...

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at June 10, 2005 2:38 PM

...

Well fuck, apparently the hard returns do show up, just not in the preview, and you don't actually have to use break tags. I guess I've learned my lesson for the next Websnark reply I do.

(Um, might anybody be able to remove half of those spaces? Pretty please? With a homicidal min-lop on top?)

Comment from: Matt Estes posted at June 10, 2005 2:40 PM

To Wednesday: I didn't say "a few guys you've never met", I said "a few harsh words from people you've never met". Why are you twisting my words around?! It's like, I posted my opinions on this high profile site, and now you're telling my opinions are rubbish ("rubbish" being your exact word)?! Why are you being mean to me?!?!?! I'm telling Eric!!!!!!!

*ahem* Sorry, I couldn't resist. Seriously, though, just answer me this one thing about Cat Garza. Is he, or is he not, striving to be in the limelight? Because if he's not, if he's just some average person who only put things up on the web for himself and a few close friends to view, who never had any intentions of being able to feed his family thru his art and never expected some random interview he did to ever see the light of day, then I apologize, I hope this whole thing clears up, and I guess that the only advice I can offer is that he not go to any more websites where negative opinions of things are sometimes expressed. But (and here's the "but"), if you strive for the limelight, then their are going to be people who say negative things about you. It's a fact as old as time. I don't think Penny Arcade was really trying to hurt this guy's feelings. I doubt, if they ever met in person, that Gabe and Tyco or Mike and Jerry or whatever you want to call them would even be unfriendly towards the guy. They were just doing what they always do, never suspecting that this particular controversy would go on as long as it has. And yeah, I agree with you, it is a high profile site. Which is why I stand by my statement that them taking notice and doing a comic about the guy is a compliment. Seriously.

....incidentally, Wednesday, I don't think your opinion is rubbish. Although I do kinda wish that you'd responded to my entire comment instead of just honing in on one little part of it and telling me how wrong it was, but eh, that's the internet!

Comment from: SeanH posted at June 10, 2005 2:43 PM

Everyone calling Gabe and Tycho "G&T"? Quit it, you're making me thirsty.

Comment from: Alexander Danner posted at June 10, 2005 2:44 PM

"1) Penny Arcade is bitter that they weren't asked to be in the movie

2) Penny Arcade WAS asked to be in the movie

.....um, Scott? Are you listening to yourself?"

Isn't the absurdity of these two facts precisely the point that Scott was making? They did make a stink about not being asked to be in the movie. And yet, they were asked to be in the movie. Obviously these facts don't go together, which is why Scott was complaining -- they were making a stink about something that wasn't even true.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at June 10, 2005 2:52 PM

This is a paste from the actual essay comments section, tailored for this comments section as well, because it counts over here too. Because... um... because I'm the God!

And also because there's no good reason for it -- the comment this below paste comes from could trivially have been phrased to make its points without jabs:

Dear Eris, can you really be that stupid?

That stops now.

A reminder of the rules of the road, for everyone. If you want to insult me, that's fair game. This is my place. This was my post.

If you want to debate your differences of opinion, that's also fair game.

If you want to insult each other, find a message board or take it to mail. Don't do it here.

We went through Kurtz v. Keenspot, William G. v. Most Everyone, and most of this round of drama with most people focusing on the issues. Don't tell me at this stage we can't any more.

Only warning. After this, I lock comments on this entry. Take your comments to other entries, I ban folks.

To sum up:

1. Say what you want about me. I'm fair game.

2. Debate issues, rigorously. That's cool.

3. Attacking each other doesn't happen here.

Got it? Good.

Comment from: Montykins posted at June 10, 2005 3:06 PM

I don't think Tycho was mad that he and Gabe weren't in the movie. I think he was mad that they weren't *mentioned* in the movie (trailer). Instead of "comics on the Internet are going to be huge and provide a way for independent artists to make a living!" he wants people to say "there are already some people with a business model for webcomics on the internet, and not only that but micropayments are also a good idea!"

As a related issue (and the one that was actually brought out in the comic), Tycho and Gabe both seem to feel that the sentiments expressed in the trailer are awfully pretentious. And I kind of agree with them, but on the other hand, I kind of *want* artists to be pretentious at times, you know?

Comment from: pagabe posted at June 10, 2005 5:11 PM

Scott McCloud is lying to artists telling them Bit Pass is a viable way to make a living from your digital comic. It's not. A comic that hits the web as a pay strip will never get the audience that a free strip like say CAD or Goats has. The way that comics like PA, Goats, Diesel Sweeties, PVP, CAD, Megatokyo and others have been able to make their comic a full time job is like this:

1- Create your comic strip and allow access to it and all your archives for free.

2- Consistently update when you say you will with quality content.

3- Work hard for years to build an audience.

4- Use a combination of advertising, merchandise and conventions to make money.

Sure it's a lot harder than charging 25 cents to read your infinite canvas strip but it works. You can't just expect to put something on the net that no one knows about and then start charging money for it and make a killing. This is a business and just like any business it requires a lot of work. Managing merchandise getting advertising and traveling to conventions is tough but if making cartoons for a living is what you want to do itÌs the only way to go.

Even Scott doesn't make a living from digital comics. He makes all his money on books and lectures. There are a lot of artists out there who are actually doing what he only talks about and none of them are using his methods. That should tell you something. If you wanted to go into space would you rather get advice from Neil Armstrong or Orson Scott Card? One has practical knowledge and has done what you want to do. The other writes fantastic stories but has never gotten his feet off the ground.

I think we are having two different conversations. You guys want to talk about the validity of experimental comics. We are talking about the business of making digital art your livelihood.

Gabe

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at June 10, 2005 6:33 PM

Dear Eris, can you really be that stupid?

[...]

If you want to insult each other, find a message board or take it to mail. Don't do it here.

Fair enough, won't happen again. I forgot about the "you can call Eric a bastard, even though you won't because you kind of like him anyway, but not each other" rule there for a minute.

I wonder if I could have gotten away with it by rephrasing it as "can anyone be that stupid" to make it less personal.

<.<   >.>

Oh fine, I'll play nice...

In my defense, I was honestly somewhat uncertain as to whether anyone could actually think that series of strips was serious.

And speak of the devil (or, in this case, faux-creatively-split-and-reunited cartoonists)...

Sure it's a lot harder than charging 25 cents to read your infinite canvas strip but it works.

Bitpass and similar systems may not really be viable at present (I wouldn't know, it's not like I've tried it myself), but it may become so in the future when people become more psychologically used to such things, the initial setup is more streamlined, etc. Scott McCloud may just be ahead of his time, so while he might be incorrect at present to say that cartoonists can get by on such things, you might be incorrect in thinking that they never will be able to. Which of course doesn't really help people trying to make a living in the present, so I can see where you're coming from.

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at June 10, 2005 6:36 PM

... The second sentence in the above post is by Eric.

This site's formatting system hates me.

Comment from: Matt Estes posted at June 10, 2005 7:16 PM

William_G,

When I was on here earlier specifically responding to the people who had responded to my post, I somehow didn't see yours, for which I apologize. Anyhow, you said:

Are you willing to provide me with a picture of yourself and a list of your passions so I can "satarize" you? I can use it to later try to disguise the chip on my shoulder for clueless fanboys as a much later developed argument, like.. um... the use of the color purple in web design.

I know you'll thank me for it.

Honestly, my first initial response was to say "Heck yes!", e-mail you a photo, and give a list of my passions, and tell you to do anything you wanted with it. But then I suddenly had a mental image of my face photo-shopped into gay porn and realized that maybe that wasn't the smartest thing in the world for me to do. So, um, I guess it's a little weird for me to place qualifications on how you are and aren't allowed to make fun of me, so feel free to ignore this, but: if you were going to make fun of me the way that Penny Arcade made fun of Cat Garza? Draw a caricature of me in a comic and make me look like an idiot, and possibly even post a picture of me so people can laugh at how stupid I look? Then heck yes. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think I'd be totally cool with anything just so long as you didn't depict me, in comics, photographs, or otherwise, in some explicit sexual act. I mean, feel free to say that I can only orgasm when killing a dog or whatever, but I'd really hate to see a visual of that. But yeah, the funny thing is, when I was responding to Wednesday earlier, I came really close to saying "I wish Penny Arcade would make fun of me. Hey, Penny Arcade! My name is Matt Estes and you guys suck! Let the mocking begin!"

Also, I'd appreciate it if it was at least a little funny.

....damn, now I'm going to have to come up with a list of things that I'm passionate about.

Comment from: Sam Logan posted at June 10, 2005 7:34 PM

With regards to Gabe's post... for better or for worse, a lot of artists are not interested in running a "business" as you've described. At best they just don't have the apptitude for that kind of thing, and at worst they find the entire idea inherently offensive.

You see it every time a message board fight breaks out between syndicated cartoonists and webcartoonists. One syndicated cartoonist accuses Kurtz's comic of being nothing more than an "advertisement" for his merchandise. Another suggests that you're somehow less legitimate as an artist if you aren't earning your salary directly from your comics. A third says that he doesn't WANT to manage his own merchandise sales or ads. He's an ARTIST; he just wants to make his art and leave the business end to someone else.

The same thing applies to many of the cartoonists online. A lot of them aren't interested in running a big business, making their living selling subsidiary things like ads and merchandise. They just want to get paid to draw comics, like they would if they worked for a print comics publisher. Only they want to do it on their own, online.

You can see why McCloud's model would be so appealing to them. And you can understand why they have so little interest in yours, and so little patience for hearing that McCloud's is unworkable.

I mean, I agree with you. The model you described is the one that I adopted, and I've had great success with it thus far. But I've also learned that it doesn't matter how loud or how often you claim that you've found the solution: the way to make a living as an online cartoonist. There will always be some artists who don't agree that you have found it. No, what you're really doing is selling ads and shirts, they'll say. It's not the same thing.

And so they keep at it, still pushing for the revolution, still striving hard to find the solution to the problem that you thought was solved years ago.

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at June 10, 2005 7:48 PM

The scale of the business is all discretionary. The business model McCloud describes is seems rather a lot like trying to cook a steak by having a bunch of people breathe on it.

(I acknowledge that the simile isn't mine but I find it works here)

Comment from: miyaa posted at June 10, 2005 8:07 PM

Just one question: Does this Drama Dial thingy you've invented go up to eleven, Eric?

Comment from: Maritza Campos posted at June 10, 2005 9:15 PM

Drama aside, I believe there are a couple of things that are flawed in the freecomic vs. micropayment debate. Two different economic models. Let's suppose tomorrow Paypal -by far one of the most popular, quick and safe payment methods available online- implemented something that made micropayments possible. That is, let's eliminate the fact that people are a)lazy and b)paranoid. This is not an insult, I'm the same. That is, let's suppose micropayments are EASY and AVAILABLE for the big paying masses out there.

Does it mean micropayments would indeed work? I think they would work better than what they're doing right now (ie. not working). Does it mean they would work better than the freecomic economic model? Now that's the interesting question.

I have always said that the freecomic model -that I defend to death, and why not, it's the method *I* use- just doesn't work for everyone. Why? Because not every comic out there has mass appeal (at least, we define "mass" as several thousands of readers, enough to sustain the comic by either ads or merchandising or donations). That is, even if they were free, they will never reach the big audience necessary to make their cartoonists some money. Or let me say it in another way: without the suscription model, or the micropayment model -supported by even a small but loyal audience- comics without mass appeal are doomed. Now one could say: well, heck. If not enough people likes them let them die anyway. But I think that would be bad. We need diversity. We need people experimenting and making diferent comics. A lot of them will be crap, but others won't. As much as I love PA, we don't need a zillion clones of PA. We need PA and the rest of the stuff.

There's something to be said about the suscription model... I think they work better when they're part of a collective. That is, grouping similar comics together make people more willing to pay a small amount to see them all. So far the only succesful pay-per-view things on the net I know are all porn-related.

Maritza

College Roomies from Hell!!!

Comment from: Steve Bryant posted at June 10, 2005 9:38 PM

Me: Scott hits upon a great point in his essay...the Penny Arcade guys were whining because they weren't included (even though it was by their own choice). Just like when the Penny Arcade guy bitched and moaned about the Eisner nominations a couple of months back.

Wandering Idiot: Dear Eris, can you really be that stupid? Eric's an intelligent fellow (even if he occasionally goes slightly off the deep end when something gets under his skin), so I'd hope he'd generally attract readers with some semblance of sense. I assume you're referring to this comic, the ones following it, and the associated newsposts. Did it ever occur to you that the comic in question was, in fact, drawn by Gabe? See, the Penny Arcade guys heard about Scott Kurtz's Eisner and wanted to congratulate him

Dear Wandering Idiot, can I really be that stupid? Nope, I'm not that stupid...and I'm not named "Eris," either. My name's Steve, just like it said at the bottom of the post you quoted.

As far as the Eisner reference I made, I hadn't seen the strip that you linked to. I was, in fact, referencing this blog entry: http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php3?date=2005-04-15

Of course, sensitive artist that I am, I was specifically refering to the paragraph that dealt with me. The one where Tycho says: "Athena Voltaire is a pulp-action serial that could just as easily be printed out if it was presumed anyone would purchase it. It doesn't require this medium. So when they say "digital," do they mean that it was created with digital technology? Whoops, now we need to include virtually every currently produced comic. Let's ratchet it back to manageability: is it just that the shit is hosted online? That's kind of ignorant. Scanning a piece of art and hosting a .jpg of said art is not a mystical process, akin to alchemy. They make machines that will perform this apparently bold feat in under ten minutes. "

'Cause that just sounds like sour grapes to me.

Of course AV could just as easily be a print comic ("if it was presumed that anyone would purchase it"). Tycho's contention that it's somehow less valid as an entry in the Digital Comics category just doesn't hold water.

Looking at other nominees, couldn't Best Serialized story nominee Ex Machina #s 2-5 have just as easily been released as a limited series instead? If Hellboy functions as a series of limited series, Ex Machina could just as easily do that, as well. Hell, couldn't it have been just as easily released as an OGN?

Ditto for the Serialized noms for Y: The Last Man and Planetary.

For that matter, Hellboy could just as easily be an ongoing series (look at the delays in between issues of Planetary, which is considered an ongoing series).

The Originals or Tommysaurus Rex could just as easily have been released in a serialized format instead of as OGNs.

The point being that any number of these could just as easily have been published utilizing a different delivery method, but they weren't.

Wah, wah, wah. Sour grapes. That's what I was refering to.

--Steve

Comment from: pagabe posted at June 10, 2005 11:15 PM

He was questioning their mechanism for determining what a digital comic is. Penny Arcade could just as easily appear in a newspaper if it werenÌt for the language. What he was saying is that maybe an award like that should be given to strips that take full advantage of the medium, stuff like infinite canvas perhaps. Not stuff that is only digital in so far as it is on the internets.

No sour grapes there man. My guess is you stopped reading carefully after the crack about your comic. That's unfortunate.

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at June 10, 2005 11:16 PM

Wah, wah, wah. Sour grapes. That's what I was referring to.

Oh good, some bit of my faith in humanity has been restored. You're still mistaken, though. Tycho's point was not "wah, wah, we aren't eligible for a digital Eisner" or somesuch, but that there shouldn't even be a separate category for "digital comics" in this day and age. A quick glance at, say, the current status of Girl Genius gives a compelling example as to why. It's a paper comic series, which has now become a webcomic, which will be collected into paper volumes and sold at set intervals. Where do you stick that? And why should it matter whether it's read on a monitor screen or a sheet of paper- it's the same comic. Tycho's problem with the designation, as I understand it, it that unlike differentiating between "series" and "limited series", etc., the digital category seems to deliniate an actual different medium. And he believes comics should be judged on their own merits, not "good for a digital comic".

I'm inclined to agree with him, except possibly in the case of something that would only work online, e.g. a comic that heavily involves the use of flash animation in the panels. But even that, as long as it's still a 2-dimensional sequential work, probably doesn't really need to be seperated into its own category.

and I'm not named "Eris," either. My name's Steve, just like it said at the bottom of the post you quoted.

...

I'll ignore that, as I'm not sure whether you're being serious here and I wouldn't want to step over the line of Websnark decorum again.

Comment from: Wandering Idiot posted at June 10, 2005 11:22 PM

Whoops, Gabe beat me to it.

One day, I'll make a Websnark reply that isn't a double-post.

Comment from: William_G posted at June 11, 2005 12:54 AM

Because arguing with fanboys is pointless, I would like to point out something I found interesting after rereading Tycho's original post.

In a post roughly thirteen sentences long, Tycho's original rant had exactly two sentences that could be considered as adressing financial matters. However I counted something like eight of the sentences dedicated to taking a shit on people who produce experimental webcomics. I'm not great at math or anything, but the percentages don't look all that supportive of the "This has always been about getting artists paid" claims being made.

Not that I'm calling bullshit on the spin-doctoring Gabe and his sychophants have been doing. Oh no. I love seeing reconstructionism at work. It's like watching Fox News. And I also admit my breakdowns of it weren't as scientific as some would like. But the facts don't seem to jive with the claims.

I'm just pointing this out so we can be a little more clear on why SOME people would think the original statements on the documentary had nothing to do with the micropayment debate that we've been.. um... debating all along, as I just found out... and why it's been seen as pure tantrum-throwing over not being part of a documentary they snubbed on his part.

Comment from: pagabe posted at June 11, 2005 1:56 AM

I know pretty much all the names here except William G. All I know is you're a guy who posts a lot on websnark and comixpedia in these threads I've been watching. So I apologize because I don't know if you have a web comic or you're just a fan of Eric's or whatever.

They did not snub us we declined to be in their film. They contacted us and we said no. Being in a documentary doesn't interest us at all. Why would we turn them down and then get pissed? We hate being filmed or having our pictures taken. The fact is we turn down opportunities like that all the time. It's just not something we want to do. Partly for fear that we will come off looking like the people in that trailer.

The comic was designed to piss off the most people possible. Mission successful I'd say. We even got cool headed Scott McCloud to make a pissy rant. Getting under people's skin is what we like to do and that comic was obviously perfect because you guys have been bitching about it for weeks. I consider that a win.

Tycho's post elaborated on our position. That is to say the views expressed in the trailer are ridiculous and that people like that (those who subscribe to McClouds teachings) will not be successful in the business of web comics using the tools he has given them.

I too wish you could post cool pictures on the web and get paid without doing any other work. You know how the saying goes though, Wish in one hand - shit in the other. See which fills first.

Comment from: Forsaken_One posted at June 11, 2005 2:02 AM

Rereading the original post, I can't say I agree with that William. I see the first point joking about the picture they used for the link to the trailer (which got Eric all hot and bothered I assume), then he rants a bit about how there is no "The Man" or anyone keeping artists down and complains that a large number of documentaries and/or books on webcomics focus on people who aren't the mainstream and attempt to represent them as the mainstream. He then goes off on McCloud (which I read with a McFly-like yell personally) and his business system.

Then he complains about incoherent art, which I suppose you'd call experimental. PErsonally, I saw as referring to out the two rather absurd statements used in the trailer and repeated in the comic strip.

A gamut of complaints, certainly not all focused on the buisness side of it, but hardly focusing on the experimental side like you seem to make out.

But then when I read the comic it was pretty clear to me they were mocking the outlandish and confusing comments made in the trailer ("reinvent the page when its not a page"? Really?) and the general "We're better because we haven't sold out" attitude that many people in artistic communities seem to have.

In any event both sides are throwing around straw men in this debate.

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 11, 2005 2:15 AM

Because arguing with fanboys is pointless, I would like to point out something I found interesting after rereading Tycho's original post.

In a post roughly thirteen sentences long, Tycho's original rant had exactly two sentences that could be considered as adressing financial matters.

Note - I hate the word fanboy. The way people on the 'net usually use it, it's just a fan, only a fan of something of which they disapprove so they call them fanboys instead because of the derrogatory connotation. As to your other comments:

I can't agree. The original post (here) discusses 2 issues. The first part of the post talks about the film's trailer, raising the comments that:

1) The picture chosen to represent the film looks like a stoned hippy, which it does. Whether or not Garza actually looks like that is immaterial. Taking a screencap from an interview (I work with digital video, I have experience in this), you generally try to avoid an image in which the subject has his eyes closed and appears to be trying to focus somewhere down and to the left of the camera.

2) Scott McCloud's business model does not work, and has driven a legion of his fanboys (hey, there's that word again, so EASY to throw around, isn't it?) away from a model that does work, and instead forced them away from art in general. Which is a viable concern - if your comic wouldn't make enough in a freecomic mass media format, it probably won't get enough in donations from the bitpass format.

And that 'small loyal audience' notion = McCloudian success is bull. If you have a small loyal audience, continue showing your comic for free and request donations. Worked for PA and S*P when they were still growing. If you really have that group, they'll keep you afloat while the rest of us siphon off of your fanboys (dang, AGAIN!) and their foolish good will. If you don't, bitpass won't work anyway.

As for the PA duo themselves - I'd hardly consider myself a fanboy of PA, mostly because... well, I'm not really a fan. I read PA periodically because it's an interesting source of gaming news - the posts give various topics, which interst me for the most part. The entertainment I derive from the comics ranges from somewhat high, to none at all. And I think most of the people defending the PA post - like myself - do so more because I disagree with this "big bad manfolk" mentality that has sprung up against them.

The comic was, in my opinion, actually not that funny. Not because it was mean, but because the joke has been done in the past, and the better. The post, however, was spot-on in its criticisms of a film that deserves to be skewered for its ATROCIOUS job in attempting to present itself professionally. And I agree with their sentiments on Scott McCloud - just because Lenin took an idea that sounded great and got a lot of people to follow him, that didn't actually MAKE it a good idea.

If they're going to pick an image to click on for your trailer, choosing one that is exceedingly unflattering makes me think they're either not very bright - in which case the film will be bad - or they're intentionally trying to make the 'artsy' comic artists look like pretentious hippies. I don't mind that - I rather agree with it on some level, and satire done right can be uproariously funny. But I've gotten no indication that their intention was parody. Which only leaves me with the belief that these guys have no talent at presenting their works, and have in the process made a 'keynote' artist of their film (otherwise why focus on him for the trailer) look anything less than at his best?

That first sentence leads into the Garza picture - you claim he's insulting experimental webcomics. I say that's rediculous, as his issue is CLEARLY (as should be obvious both from the post, and from the multiple confirmations afterwards) with the fact that Cat Garza is shown looking like a moron - not that he actually is one, but that the filmmakers are foolish enough to choose one of the worst possible images to try and positively represent the very experimental comic artists you claim G&T are trying to "hold down."

I haven't seen the movie. None of us have. But here's my guess: if the rest of the film is filled with more protestations of struggles against the man, then the film is pretentious bullshit and should be called on it - it's passe, and would make for an uninteresting movie (I've heard that story before about four hundred and seventy two times, and it's not one that gets better as you go along). If the film is NOT made up of said protestations, then the trailer is a piece of crap as representative of the movie, and bullshit once again needs to be called.

After that, Tycho spends most of his rant railing against Scott McCloud, the man he believes has singlehandedly caused a significant number of experimental webcomics to FAIL. At the end of his post, he tosses in a few sentences about McCloudian disciples, which I agree is a shot at experimental webcomics. Frankly, through I agree with his position, you would be correct in saying that for (by my count) 3 sentences, he personally insults experimental comic creators.

On a final note: I love seeing reconstructionism at work. It's like watching Fox News. HA! I LAFF BECUZ POLOTICAL COMMENARY IS ALWAYS FUNNY! Seriously, man, I HATE Fox News. But it's entirely unnecessary and irrelevant to the discussion, even if your reconstructionist point were valid (and it's not - clarification and reconstructionism are wildly different)

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 11, 2005 2:20 AM

Christ that was long. Sorry.

Comment from: pagabe posted at June 11, 2005 2:23 AM

Sorry William I see now you can click on a persons name and get a profile. Obviously you make comics. You have some interesting stuff in there. Love the name Icon.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at June 11, 2005 4:36 AM

"Getting under people's skin is what we like to do and that comic was obviously perfect because you guys have been bitching about it for weeks. I consider that a win."

Like USENet trolling, only with better graphics.

Comment from: Wednesday posted at June 11, 2005 8:43 AM

Proper USENET trolls rarely, if ever, employed ASCII art (at the point where you're dealing with warlordable .sigs as a weapon, you're emulating kook more than troll).

Comment from: Maritza Campos posted at June 11, 2005 11:03 AM

"And that 'small loyal audience' notion = McCloudian success is bull. If you have a small loyal audience, continue showing your comic for free and request donations. Worked for PA and S*P when they were still growing. If you really have that group, they'll keep you afloat while the rest of us siphon off of your fanboys (dang, AGAIN!) and their foolish good will. If you don't, bitpass won't work anyway."

Uh, I'm a veteran of webcomics now... and I have seen good comics go for years and years in the free model without ever growing the audience to support themselves. I won't get into the argument of the causes, and if it has something to do with bad promotion. I only can safely say: not every good comic out there has mass appeal. Also: some comics, by their own nature, have a *natural* small paying audience. In contrast, for example, comics aimed to college and high school students are doomed in the suscription model, because of course, students have very little access to credit cards.

I *do* agree that at least, both in the micropayment and the suscription model, free stuff is necessary to hook the reader. If it's good enough a comic can find a paying audience -there's a comic named Serenity Rose that comes to mind- , and a small paying audience can be as effective as a huge audience with just a small percentage of paying audience. Of course the advantage of the ad model is that you put the non-paying audience to work for you as well.

I'm not sure if micropayments should trigger such a debate... who has actually started a comic and started using them because McCloud said so? The only person who I have heard has used micropayments is McCloud himself, and now Jon Rosenberg. I guess it will be interesting to see the results. So far, the most widely used models are freecomic vs. suscription.

(personally, I don't have any faith at all in micropayments. I'd feel horrible paying any artist 75 cents for a comic. I'd rather wait for the compilation to come out and pay some good bucks. But that's a different debate)

Maritza

College Roomies from Hell!!!

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at June 11, 2005 11:32 AM

Kyukei wrote

Note - I hate the word fanboy. The way people on the 'net usually use it, it's just a fan, only a fan of something of which they disapprove so they call them fanboys instead because of the derrogatory connotation.

I dunno, in the contexts where I've seen fanboy, it designates the perpetrator of a certain mode of behavior regardless of the object(s) of the perpetrator's admiration, frequently self-referential to the writer. Or maybe I just think that because that's how I use it.

Prodigal wrote

[pagabe wrote] "Getting under people's skin is what we like to do and that comic was obviously perfect because you guys have been bitching about it for weeks. I consider that a win."

Like USENet trolling, only with better graphics.

And with making a living. Don't forget the making-a-living part.

Comment from: pagabe posted at June 11, 2005 12:23 PM

"Like USENet trolling, only with better graphics."

It pays the mortgage on my house :)

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 11, 2005 2:25 PM

Uh, I'm a veteran of webcomics now... and I have seen good comics go for years and years in the free model without ever growing the audience to support themselves.

Right. I'm not saying that all good comics will be successful - sadly, that's not the way the world works. But if a comic has by nature a 'small paying audience' that would be willing to pay to read the comic, than the fear of losing said comic would most likely spur on donations. And if they wouldn't donate to save the comic, the same group probably wouldn't pay to read the comic daily.

So if you're going to be getting money from the same group of people, why lock out the rest of your readers? Because, unlike the real world, there is no such thing as 'freeriders' on the internet. Even if you never plan on moving to a merchandise model, every new reader is one who increases the popularity of your comic. And then maybe one of the 'big boys' stumbles on your work, likes it, and links it on his/her page. I'm not saying that will happen - but that it CAN'T happen if you lock out everybody else, despite the fact that you probably will earn a similar amount of revenue in the short-term, and could possibly end up receiving much greater returns in the long-term through increased site traffic.

I dunno, in the contexts where I've seen fanboy, it designates the perpetrator of a certain mode of behavior regardless of the object(s) of the perpetrator's admiration, frequently self-referential to the writer. Or maybe I just think that because that's how I use it.

That's fair - there are legitimate ways to use the term. But it feels like far too often, I see people who are fans of some work being unilaterally labeled as fanboys, just because the person doing the labelling doesn't like the work itself.

Comment from: Maritza Campos posted at June 11, 2005 3:13 PM

Mmh... it's a myth that having your comic linked by the big fish will really give you an audience. I mean, sure you have a LOT of people checking out your comic. But without mass appeal (or the same kind of appeal the big-fish comic has) people will take a look, maybe check the next day, and leave forever (most of them, at least)

I see your point in the matter of small paying audience vs. big maybe-paying audience. Perhaps my point of view is a bit outdated right now, since it seems bandwidth is down and ad revenue is up. I mean, having an (independent) comic inherently carries some expenses -hosting, domains, bandwidth- and you have to find a way to pay this money before you even think of making a profit. In past years, a big non-paying audience could actively kill your comic, since the ad revenue wasn't enough to cover bandwidth cost. This is/was especially true for those lovely large, full colored comics, that don't have a very efficient ad revenue/bandwidth cost ratio. In this case, a person suscribing/paying to read the comic would inherently be covering the cost of the bandwidth that takes said reading. I know of at least one webcartoonist that had this happening to him, and had to switch from freecomic to suscription model because of it.

Maritza

College Roomies from Hell!!!

Comment from: Subhuman posted at June 11, 2005 3:45 PM

"The question of the suppression of innovative or controversial art by society -- or lack thereof."

I'm gonna go with lack thereof. Christ on a pony.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at June 11, 2005 8:55 PM

I dunno, man. Christ on a Pony?

I think that's just too out there. You're pushing too many boundaries with this shit! They'll shut you down!

Comment from: John posted at June 11, 2005 8:55 PM

http://pvponline.com/archive.php3?archive=20050611

Comment from: Tangent posted at June 11, 2005 11:06 PM

pagabe said: They did not snub us we declined to be in their film. They contacted us and we said no. Being in a documentary doesn't interest us at all. Why would we turn them down and then get pissed? We hate being filmed or having our pictures taken. The fact is we turn down opportunities like that all the time. It's just not something we want to do. Partly for fear that we will come off looking like the people in that trailer.

Um... then what was your grief with this documentary? They didn't exclude you. They didn't snub you. You said no. So how is this a problem?

The argument that you had in your rants seemed to be that "they're telling the story of how to make money as a webcartoonist but they're leaving us and PvP out of the loop." Now you reveal you were invited in... and said "nah, we're not interested."

So what does it matter to you what is in this documenary?

Rob H.

Comment from: nukethewhalesagain posted at June 12, 2005 1:02 AM

If you actually read the rant you would not see anything implying they were angry about not being in the documentary. That argument was taken from a joke they IM'ed to Scott Kurtz.

Comment from: nukethewhalesagain posted at June 12, 2005 1:07 AM

William_G

You can satirize me as long as you link to my blog! :)

Comment from: Meagen Image posted at June 12, 2005 8:55 AM

I think more webcomic-related issues need to be settled with a fight to the death.

Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at June 12, 2005 2:43 PM

I have to agree. Back when I was collaborating on a webcomic, I was having issues with the dude illustrating, namely that he had no interest in actually drawing anythiing that I wrote. He did, however, have interest in my HTML coding. I bet things would have been settled rather easily if I threatened the ol' gloveslap.

Comment from: Montykins posted at June 12, 2005 2:48 PM

Incidentally, from The Comics Reporter I see that Scott McCloud has retracted his commentary.

Comment from: Kendra Kirai posted at June 12, 2005 3:33 PM

I believe the point of several of the posts about webcomic artists not being able to support themselves after years on the net is that they either aren't quite doing it right, don't have a large enough audience to support it..which is a sign you either have to make your comic better or market it better..or the artists in question aren't really *TRYING* to make it a viable 'I live off of this' business.

As for the Goats experiment, I think it is fundamentally flawed. Here you've got a popular, longrunning webcomic that a lot of people are reading anyhow...and you're putting extra stuff about that comic up for a micropayment thing. You're basically advertising a special feature to a large amount of people who are reading and thus inclined towards purchasing something *anyhow*.

For it to be a TRUE experiment, one would probably have to take two similar, entirely new comics by an unknown artist (Or two artists, one for each), have one be a micropayment and the other be free. THEN compare the readers after a set amount of time.

The way it is now it's similar to, say...American Idol (Or something else that's currently popular on network TV and thus effectively 'free') and going 'And if you want to see more that wasn't broadcast, go to this website and pay five bucks!' That's not really a proper experiment of how effective micropayments are.

That's not to say it shouldn't at least be ATTEMPTED...I'm all for theoretical, entirely-manufactured tests which only work given best-case scenarios (Several times I've compared compression rates for a 512 meg file filled entirely with '0', just to see what each one would do), just that it isn't really a test of what would happen in the real world. It's a test of what would happen if a given free webcomic started giving out extras for micropayments.

(That said, I haven't gotten around to checking out Goats yet, but I will sooner or later. I have no idea how good it is, or if I'll like it. Either way, I won't be giving anybody any micropayments unless it gives me endless orgasmic pleasure with each and every panel.)

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at June 12, 2005 3:49 PM

I believe the point of several of the posts about webcomic artists not being able to support themselves after years on the net is that they either aren't quite doing it right, don't have a large enough audience to support it..which is a sign you either have to make your comic better or market it better..or the artists in question aren't really *TRYING* to make it a viable 'I live off of this' business.

I agree with that last sentence -- not all webcartoonists are trying to make their strip their living. They have other reasons.

The problem with the former part is there's a limited audience right now. There are only so many people reading webcomics -- the donations model requires a critical mass of fans donating, for example. The advertising model is broader, but there's still a logical limit to how many strips can make a solid living off it.

We haven't found the magic bullet yet. Sadly.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at June 12, 2005 8:03 PM

"I think more webcomic-related issues need to be settled with a fight to the death."

Me too, though I'd like the propose that the winner also gets shot and killed after the fight. That would probably cut down on all this drama about nothing. Probably. Please?

Comment from: Wednesday posted at June 12, 2005 9:47 PM

eab: We haven't found the magic bullet yet. Sadly.

RoboYuji: ...I'd like the propose that the winner also gets shot and killed after the fight.

...dude. We can't have webcomic fights to the death until we find magic bullets.

("No more buwwets?")

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at June 12, 2005 10:13 PM

Does that mean that webcomic creators are actually unstoppable monsters? Because that would be kind of neat actually. And explain a few things . . .

Comment from: Prodigal posted at June 13, 2005 12:03 AM

"Proper USENET trolls rarely, if ever, employed ASCII art"

Exactly. Any actual graphics would be better graphics than what would see use in a USENet troll.

"And with making a living. Don't forget the making-a-living part."

If it had been relevant to my point, I'd probably have included that.

"It pays the mortgage on my house"

That's nice.

Comment from: gwalla posted at June 13, 2005 1:23 PM

...dude. We can't have webcomic fights to the death until we find magic bullets.

There is a light in the forest

ThereÌs a face in the tree

IÌll pull you out of the chorus

And the first oneÌs always free

You can never go a-hunting

With just a flintlock and a hound

You wonÌt go home with a bunting

If you blow a hundred rounds

It takes much more than wild courage

Or you'll hit the tattered clouds

You must have just the right bullets

And the first one's always free

You must be careful in the forest

Broken glass and rusty nails

If youÌre to bring back something for us

I have bullets for sale

  Û Tom Waits, "Just the Right Bullets", from The Black Rider: The Casting of the 12 Magic Bullets (w/ William S. Burroughs)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: