Websnark

« September 4, 2005 - September 10, 2005 | Main | September 18, 2005 - September 24, 2005 »

September 17, 2005

Wednesday Burns-White: If Ray seduces any of them over the phone, I'm going to cry.

I started out tonight by being disappointed in The Trek Life, a cynical fan-niche comic strip. The characters are Star Trek fans having tepid, faintly amusing Trekkie experiences. The most remarkable thing about the strip is that it's Paramount-sanctioned; it looks for all the world like something they're going to try and pitch to newspapers once they've gotten some buzz out of the startrek.com placement. It does nothing that piles of other geek-subculture comics haven't already done, and usually done better. The poorly socialized protagonist isn't ironic enough to be resonant, but he's too bland to be offensive. And it's obviously a cash grab; there's already t-shirts, for crying out loud.

So, I went and had a look at the character profiles to see what they were setting us up for. (That link goes to the press release, actually; the gallery's in a popup. If you open the page directly instead, it tries to forcibly resize your window. So you're warned.) Got a couple of doughy, ordinary-looking guys. The slightly doughier one is more pathetic than the less doughy-looking one, and the less-doughy one has a bloatee. Okay.

I got to page three -- "Carl has made it his mission in life to catch Kate up on all things Star Trek, even if it means loaning her episodes from his growing DVD collection (with property damage insurance, of course)" -- and thought three things:

1. Wow. That's pink, all right.
2. Yeah, those are definitely some biouxbies up there. Stickin' out and everything. Yep. Those are some hooters.
3. She doesn't match the other two at all. She clearly leads a completely different lifestyle.

Why is this still happening?

We can complain all we want about the range of acceptable humour in geek-subcultural webcomics right now, the limits of characterization and plotting and gags available to female characters there compared to the male ones -- but that situation is improving somewhat. (It's not fantastic. It sucks that the solace there comes from the process existing at all. It angers me somewhat that geek males of all types can find some well-realized representation of themselves in webcomics right now, but women are still comparatively constrained -- and that we still have to think in terms of exceptions there. It pisses me off considerably that I could just cut and paste my Comixpedia article from last year and still have very little else to add. But that's also not the point today.)

Something this targeted and insipid, though, is only going to do what's well within the bounds of safety. I've got a hard time believing that someone -- several someones -- at Paramount didn't sit down, read PvP and Dork Tower and so on, and say to themselves, "Hey, how can we cash in on this 'online comic' lark without pissing off Joe Q. Eighteen-to-Thirty? He's just a regular guy doing the best he can. What about these comics would he like? What makes him uncomfortable?" And, don't get me wrong, that depresses me too.

But the two bland guys in your "Normal" Range of Trek Fans there? They don't have to be attractive. And that's just as problematic as Kate up there, really; why can't a hardcore Trek fan have luck with the ladies, for example, or be less doughy than the midrange fan, or have good hair and decent clothes? Why the hell is the tacit implication that, the less fixated upon Trek you are, the smaller you get, anyways? (Near as I can tell, the smaller I've gotten, the more serious I've been about Trek fandom, and vice versa. At the height of my little Deanna Troi fixation there, my ribs were showing!)

It's just depressing. These are the Generic Star Trek Fans, folks. That's the lowest common denominator; that's the safe, marketable, plush, baby versions right there.

Maybe they're aiming for Dilbert or FoxTrot readers here to some extent. I suspect, though, that The Trek Life, if it lasts that long, is more likely to end up resembling Cathy.

Posted by Wednesday Burns-White at 8:28 PM | Comments (47)

Eric Burns-White: Of course, with my luck this is all a dream

(From User Friendly! Click on the thumbnail for full sized cumulative action!)

I've been reading User Friendly since... well, ever, as near as I can tell. Certainly since early 1998, and I want to say I was reading it in December of 1997, among that very first wave of readers of what was for a time the most popular webcomic on the web, and what continues to be one of the biggest.

Which, no doubt, is why I kept reading it, even though it went on my "Why do I read this webcomic, again?" list before the launch of Websnark.

The reasoning was simple enough. Illiad focuses on gag-a-day, which is easy to hold onto. If you smile at one out of three strips on a seven strip a week comic, there's no real reason to stop reading. But his occasional forays into character development have generally left me a little flat. And top of the list on that was the relationship of A.J. and Miranda.

Clearly, A.J. and Miranda both being into each other but with coincidences always keeping them from out and out admitting it to one another has meant to be a running joke. However, as running jokes go, this one was a wash. Just enough tension was generated that false start after false start served to irritate rather than amuse. This wasn't Charlie Brown's football--

Oh wow. It's a new lexicon term! Another new lexicon term! Right!

Charlie Brown's Football is relatively self explanatory. It refers to a humor strip using a familiar setup and a familiar ending as a springboard for a variety of subtly different jokes. The strip itself was classic: Lucy invites Charlie Brown to place-kick a football. Charlie Brown expresses doubt, given her clear track record in the past. Lucy offers assurances. Charlie Brown believes them, and makes a running start for a kick that will send the football to the moon. Lucy pulls the football away, causing Charlie Brown to go flying, landing painfully on his back. Lucy then points out the fallacy, loophole or other logical point which permitted her to do such an act without violating the earlier assurances.

Charles Schulz got about forty-seven years of strips out of that setup. He performed amazing variations. (Not the least of which was the time that Lucy didn't pull the football away, but Charlie Brown missed, kicking Lucy and breaking her arm.) It's certainly possible some readers got sick of it, but for the most part, people accepted the ritual on face value. Certainly, the running gag worked in the fifties and it worked in the nineties.

Lots of comic strips -- particularly four panel gag-a-day strips -- develop their own examples of Charlie Brown's Football. It's not simply that it's a running gag. Ignatz throwing a brick at Krazy Kat is a running gag, but it's not the same kind of ritual that the football is. Probably the clearest webcomic example comes from PvP. The strips where a panda mauls Brent fulfill the requirement. Some topic is raised. Brent expresses interest, and asks for clarification. The person clarifies in some way that evokes a panda, bamboo or the like. A panda savages Brent. It's not just a panda coming and eating Brent's head. It's the whole ritual.

The A.J./Miranda near-misses had the element of the ritualized about them. However, there was always a sense that the only reason these two weren't getting together was because the artist didn't want them to. Miranda is too self-confident for us to believe she wouldn't walk up and say point blank "are you into me?" to A.J. And if A.J.'s social paralysis was so profound that he couldn't respond to it, then it didn't end up being funny. It was just kind of sad and pathetic, and there was no good reason for Miranda to be attracted to him.

So, whenever the relationship reared its head, I kind of groaned. This isn't going to go anywhere, I would think, and sure enough I'd be right. Once again -- there was no tension, only a sense of annoyance.

And so I went through the last week with a sense of resignation. Here we go again, I thought.

And then on Thursday, there was a nag-strip designed to delay the strip for thirty seconds. And three different times I went through that series of safari tabs, and three different times I lost patience or just needed to do something else, so I never actually saw the strip where A.J. finally said something to Miranda. So it didn't register until yesterday, when I went back and holy shit they're kissing.

So I went back. And I realized I was floored. Illiad was actually resolving it. However many years later, kind of out of nowhere, there was actual movement.

Now... the thing is... it wasn't worth the buildup. Six months to this moment would have rocked. However many years it's been before this kiss made it all kind of meh. And yet, I'm actively interested in seeing what happens next, and that hasn't happened with User Friendly since the missile silo storyline was sidelined because of 9/11.

So, good on Illiad. From here, there's possibility, and that's a cool thing.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at 6:02 PM | Comments (22)

September 16, 2005

Wednesday Burns-White: Organza roadkill.

At first, I thought it some sort of elegant adornment from a well-wrapped birthday present. But that's ridiculous, I thought. Around here, the chic presents bear Purple Ronnie tags, or pink ribbons with sequins. Sequins that spell out appropriate words, such as "bling" or "knickers." Or perhaps "minger."

No, this was most definitely an insect.

I had never really seen a dragonfly before. Not up close. Phobia meant that I'd catch the silhouette, then promptly flee. I remembered their shadows from Bible camp; I'd mistaken them for demons. The boards full of stuck bug corpses at museums were of no interest whatsoever; not only would they be creepy, my reasoning went, they'd also be dried. Phobia jerky. Brittle. Not quite right.

This one was soft. Plump.

It seemed intact, at least until I noticed how it fluttered in the breezes. Something had glued the underside of its head to the sidewalk, tenuously anchoring it there. The rest of the creature fluttered up, forming forty-five degree angles with the ground. I knew its mercury eyes couldn't be holding it down, but it would have made sense if they had. Nothing about it was visibly crushed, but plainly it was broken past repair. As if you could mend a dragonfly.

Its wings were just shy of invisible. After a summer of crane flies and moths, I hadn't expected them: small silver nets, edged with gold, playing with the dying sun. Tiny organza ribbons on a wine-stained bamboo body. Tiny organza ribbons on a segmented flute, held down by mercury balls.

If I'd taken it home, it might have crumbled, and where would I have put it? Where would I have kept the sun? I had no camera; I could walk home and get mine, then return, but by then the light would have faded. Perhaps a passing cyclist might crush it; perhaps a pedestrian might tread upon it. If I waited til tomorrow, time and wind and rain and foot would grind it into pulp, then dust, and then there would be nothing.

Such is the way of things: I saw a dragonfly today, and it was already gone.

Posted by Wednesday Burns-White at 3:47 PM | Comments (13)

September 15, 2005

Eric Burns-White: We're up!

The Gossamer Commons submission for the Webcomics Telethon went up at 4:00, and is on the main page until 4:20, when the next strip takes the space.

I've been anxious for it to go, because I'm really, really proud to be a part of this telethon. But also because Greg Holkan, who did the art, absolutely blew me away with the first panel of the strip. It's staggeringly good, and it should help people realize what a top talent Greg is.

Sometimes, people get fooled when they look at [nemesis]. [nemesis] is highly stylized -- featuring characters that I can best describe as the Powerpuff Girls after they've grown up and taken up cigarettes and alcohol. However, the stylization and chibiness of the figures doesn't change the level of sophistication that's going on. As with this strip, it's a subversion -- you take the happy-go-lucky elements of comics and animation, and you make them subtly wrong.

I'm thrilled with our entry. I hope you guys like it too. I'm excited we've raised all this money. And I hope that we can do some real good.

But I'm also just proud of the way this came out -- artistically, as a writer and as a collaborator, I couldn't be happier.

I hope you guys like it.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at 4:00 PM | Comments (26)

Eric Burns-White: Sometimes "adult" doesn't mean "tits."

Something kind of wonderful is happening over at the Adult Webcomics Telethon.

See, the Webcomics Telethon (which is in the held-over day and still churning out comics every twenty minutes. And they're not done yet. I know this because dang it, the Gossamer Commons strip hasn't come up yet. And yes, I obsessively check for it on the hour, at twenty after and at twenty-til) has done truly great things -- we're up over twenty-five grand and people are feeling really great about what's going on. But when Blank Label put the telethon together, they decided to keep stuff (mostly) in the Safe For Work/PG-13 category. Which is fine. (Though it meant I had to revise my script, because Trudy? She likes that word "Fuck.") And they also wanted to have everything "in hand" before they actually went to 'press,' so they could set everything up and test it out before the telethon went live. As a result, people who want to jump in and help (or participate) who didn't get something in by deadline don't get a chance.

Well, the Adult Webcomics Telethon was created to be a refuge for people who want to participate in the process but... well, let's just say its for the folks whose comics don't fit into the above. And at first, it was the White Lightning Productions regulars and the like who jumped in. And, of course, there was nudity and sexual content. I mean, duh.

But then... something started happening. Something that's in the beginning stages right now, mind. But something cool.

I guess it started with Chris Crosby and Owen Gieni, who decided to do two crossover strips between Superosity and Sore Thumbs. The Crosby-drawn strip went up on the Webcomics Telethon. The Gieni strip -- which, in Crosby's words, was a little more "spicy" (though I think it would actually run in a PG-13 movie without trouble) appeared on the Adult Telethon.

Then, Ryan "how many hours of the day does he put into comics, anyway" Estrada discovered that Welton Colbert had produced a strip and sent it along (featuring "gratuitous nudity" that doesn't actually show anything that directly ties back into the Webcomics Telethon strip Colbert appeared in). Now Brad Guigar, who was the coordinator of the Webcomics Telethon, has thrown in one of his Courting Disaster strips. Which is... as they all are... "spicy." But again, it's not like it has actual nudity or sex in it.

Now, there's plenty of nudity and sex in the donated strips. I'm not going to claim otherwise. And hey, cool. Long live nudity and sex. But it seems to me that something even cooler is happening here. People are beginning to use the Adult Webcomics Telethon to participate in a broader, more general way. Israeli artist Eva Speranza produced the comic strip I thumbnailed and linked to, above -- a strip with no adult or salacious content at all -- and sent it on in. A strip that seems more to be an expression of grief and pure artistic expression than anything else. A strip that no one at the Webcomics Telethon would have batted an eye at running.

And it hits me... the Adult Webcomics Telethon is on the cusp of becoming something entirely different. If the Webcomics Telethon is one professional collective's response (doing tremendous work and operating with very specific guidelines), then the Adult Webcomics Telethon, operating without restrictions on content and happy to accept new submissions right now, is on the cusp of becoming a freeform poetry slam. It's on the cusp of becoming interactive, where strips can even react to each other.

I mentioned before that the Adult Webcomics Telethon might be a good place for Fetus-X or other strips where outrage can't be contained by PG-13. And that's of course still true. But it seems to me it could also become the place where, freed of all content restrictions, people contribute strips less in the "please give generously" mold and more in the artistic one.

I know I'm thinking about it. I should get together with Greg or Weds -- someone who knows the business end of a pencil better than I do -- and see if they might be up to doing a strip where Trudy says "Fuck."

And maybe some poetry. Because I have a lot of emotion wrapped around this tragedy that wasn't a good fit for the Webcomics Telethon... and it might be nice to have a place to express it where it might do some good.

EDIT: There's some residual weirdness in the navigation links between strips at AWT. But this page has direct links to all of the currently published strips. Obviously, there is no guarantee that any of the links on that page are even remotely 'safe for work.'

Posted by Eric Burns-White at 9:48 AM | Comments (37)

September 14, 2005

Eric and Wednesday: FAQ: About Websnark (Revised 20 April 2006)

What the Hell is all this?

This is Websnark, a commentary weblog. We comment on... well, stuff. Frequently the stuff that we find on the web, though not exclusively. Essentially, we write about whatever interests us at the time of writing.

Who exactly are you people?

Eric Alfred Burns and Wednesday White. Eric started the site in August 2004; Wednesday came on board in February 2005. See the Cast List.

Why all the webcomics stuff?

We like webcomics. A large percentage of the stuff we read online consists of webcomics. So it's often the stuff we're thinking about, which means in turn it's the stuff that we're writing about. You see? Of course you see.

Wait -- I come here for the webcomics stuff. What's all this about superheroes or games or Jack Chick or your personal lives or crap like that? Isn't this a webcomics site?

No. While webcomics make up the (vast) majority of what we talk about, this isn't a 'webcomics blog' so much as it is a place for us to write about whatever it is we want to write about. If that's TV instead, or fandom stuff, or trashy religious entertainment, or pop culture, or the Astronomy Picture of the Day, or even whatever happened to one or the other of us on any given day, that's what it is.

Also, these days? Chick tracts are also webcomics, by some definitions.

Why 'websnark?' What is a snark?

The word "snark" comes from Lewis Carroll's poem "Jabberwocky" "The Hunting of the Snark¹." It's a kind of beastie. In computer terms, a snark is some kind of threat or problem on a computer. However, the word has come to also mean sarcastic commentary or the sarcastic expression of opinions. He snarks, she snarks, they snark. That kind of thing. So, since our humour typically runs to the sarcastic, Websnark becomes our place to snark about the web. Eric picked the name out. (Eric tends to be more positive than negative in his snarks, because he's a wuss. Wednesday tends to be a little less shiny, because she's a fussbudget. Balance kicks ass.)
Elsewhere, 'snark' has come to refer to weblog posts about webcomics; it used to just mean posts from here ("My comic's been Snarked!"), but the term's drifted. It's both appealing and humbling to see how the term's shifted meaning and focus.

So, that means you're a webcomics site, right?

No.

What schedule do you follow when posting?

When you read it, it's been posted. There's no set schedule. Sometimes, if either of us gets a chance to queue things up a little, we'll set them to post through the day at regular intervals, but there's no promise. We'll occasionally disappear for a few days as other commitments or health considerations take precedence. We try to get something out at least once a day, though.

What gives you the right to criticize other people's work?

Well, we pay for our hosting, you see. Which means that we're paying for the press this is printed on. And said press is in the United States of America, where the site's owner lives, which means the right comes from the United States Constitution. (Yes, even for the Canadian in the crowd, what since she's using that American press.) If you're reading this in another country... well, we get to publish it, but whether or not you get to read it is your own lookout.

I love your site, especially when you really lay into crappy work! Why do you spend so much time saying nice things instead of bad things?

Eric: I hear this more often than you might think. It always surprises me, though. I mean, is schadenfreude really that important to you?

The answer to your question is quite simple, however. I snark about the things I encounter on a daily basis. The things I tend to read are things I like. Now, if I like them, I'm not going to insult them on a regular basis, am I? So, there's going to be a lot more "this is so fucking cool!" from me than me trash talking things. It's the way it is.

Wednesday: Wait. I'm confused. I don't like anything.

How can you say such mean things about [Megatokyo/It's Walky/General Protection Fault/Whatever]? That's my favorite webcomic! You suck and are wrong! And bad! Wrong and bad!

These are, by definition, opinions. They're not 'wrong,' they just belong to one or the other of us. We're not always going to agree. (Eric and Wednesday can't even always agree.) You are perfectly free to like things that we don't. You're perfectly free to keep reading things we've put on the 'You had me and you lost me' list. We respect that. We're also free to dislike them. And to make fun of them. It's what we do.

How can you say such nice things about [Sluggy Freelance/Something Positive/PvP/Whatever]]? That webcomic sucks! You suck and are wrong! And bad! Wrong and bad!

Eric: Once again, you'd be surprised how often I get this one. I like stuff I like. If you read the snarks, you'll figure out what it is I like about them. You might not agree with me, but I hope you'll at least see my point. Still, it all comes down to the same thing as the last point -- I like what I like. Don't sweat it if you don't like it.

You don't seem to read one of my favorite webcomics. Can I suggest it to you?

Absolutely! Some of my favorite recent finds -- like Freefall and Questionable Content -- came from people suggesting comics to me. I can't promise I'll get to them soon or snark them when I do get to them, but I truly enjoy reading webcomics and cartoons of all stripes, and so I'm always glad to have more to check out!

Hey! I know a webcomic that's really terrible! Would you look at it so you can make fun of it?

Um. No. We don't go looking for things to insult just so I can insult them. That's not criticism. That's just being mean. We don't care if you think we're funny while I'm being mean. We don't choose to be mean to people just because we have a website. When we are sarcastic (or even mean) to sites, it's usually after we've been following that site for years and really liked it at one time (or even still like it now). So, don't bother e-mailing us links to Gonterman comics unless you actually like Gonterman's comics and you want us to read them because you think that one of us will like them. There are plenty of all-negative snarksites on the web, if that's what you want. We even read and enjoy some of them. But that's not our thing.

Wednesday adds: This is distinct yet again from trainwreck fascination, which I see as a valuable learning tool. I don't enjoy being mean, but I do enjoy figuring out why something's broken.

Why do you have thumbnails of other peoples' comics on your site? Isn't that a violation of copyright?

Nope. Even though we wouldn't call this a review site, much of it is critical commentary. It's perfectly legal to use examples of art we're commenting on or producing critical work about, under fair use, in the United States of America. Your local laws may vary, of course. Further, we always either thumbnail art (so that the 'salability' of the original image is not diluted' or excerpt bits of it before putting it up, and we also credit our sources. The combination means that we're perfectly able to use the art on my site, even without asking first. (Or even when someone says we can't -- no one gets to restrict fair use.)

Hey -- I clicked on a thumbnail to get the full sized comic, and it took me to the webcomic itself! Why don't you have full sized images on your site?

For several reasons. 1) We don't want to inadvertently overstep the bounds of fair use, so we specifically excerpt or thumbnail only, here. 2) We don't think it's fair for Websnark to become a 'first stop' for people who want to read cartoons -- they should read those cartoons in the context the webcartoonist intended, on their site, seeing their site design, advertisements and so forth. 3) Much of the time, we're extolling the virtues of a webcomic. Naturally, we want to increase traffic to the site in question. 4) Websnark is not made of bandwidth.

You think you're so smart! Do you think you can do better?

Eric:Well, I don't know if I can do better or not. I certainly can't draw. I try to write pretty well. But in the end, that's not really the point. I write criticism because... well, I am pretty good at that. Mostly.

Wednesday: Not yet. I use writing as a learning tool, and part of the reason why I became involved with writing about webcomics in the first place was to sort out for myself what works and what doesn't. It's an ongoing testing process. But many critics aren't themselves primarily creators -- Roger Ebert, to use an overly worn example here, is not exactly best known for his screenwriting, but his film criticism is no less valid.

I'm an webcartoonist, and I'd like your feedback. Will you give it to me?

Glad to! No promises on how quickly we can get back to you, though!

I'm a webcartoonist, and I don't like the snark you wrote about me. Will you take it down?

Sorry, but no. You are fully free to comment on the snark, refuting it. We won't remove your comments unless they're outright inflammatory beyond responding to us. (We've never actually deleted a comment on the posts to date. We don't permit commenters to insult others in the thread, though, and have had to lock a couple as a result.) If you can convince us that we were wrong about something, we'll put up a snark saying so. But the original posts don't come down. For better or worse, when they go up, they go up for life.

Seriously, dude. I don't like what you said. If you don't take it down, I'll sue you for slander.

Okay, first off, slander is oral in nature -- we'd have to publicly speak lies about you to slander you. The term you're looking for is libel. Second off, this is a commentary site. Everything on this site is opinion. And, legally speaking, opinions are not libel, because they don't make a claims about you -- they make claims about one or both of us. They are the truthful assertion of what we think of you. See, if one of us were to claim you fucked dogs, and you in fact didn't fuck dogs, that'd be libel, and you could sue. If, on the other hand, we say that you seem like a dog fucker to us, that's an opinion being expressed -- in our opinion, you have qualities that put us in mind of dog fuckers. I'm not claiming you actually fuck dogs. It just seems, in our opinion, like you're the kind of person who would. That's not libel -- it honestly is our opinion of you. And you don't get to sue us because we have a different opinion from yours, y'damn dog fucker.

What's that phrase in your masthead that changes periodially for?

That's the raison d'etre of the site, as the French say. The reason for its being. And it stays crunchy in milk with the great taste of raisins in every bite. Mostly, it's there to set a tone. We make no claims for its success.

Do you have a list of past raison d'etres?

Sure! A partial one, anyhow:

• We snark, because we love.
• Because "Comixpedia" was already taken.
• No, no one gives a crap what I think.
• Because my cat never comments on my opinions.
• Because Charlie Brown never got to kick that football.
• Less expensive than Scotch and less painful than running your head into the wall; it's win-win!
• Someday we're all gonna get killed by someone who likes Yu-Gi-Oh.
• Noted for its clever turns of phrase, and... stuff... like... you know, that... stuff....
• Fishing for compliments since August.
• 50,000 words in 30 days? Simple. Making them cogent? You've got to be kidding me.
• Jesus Christ, I'm drinking wheat!? How the Hell do you drink wheat!?
• Two writers. One cat. 4000 miles of ocean. Let's do this thing.
• Oh no! I have psychosomatic Kaposi's sarcoma!

What's that creature in the corner of the screen? He's so cute! Where did you get him?

Eric:That's Snarky! He's a Snarkasaurus. He was created by Ursula Vernon, the webcartoonist of Digger, when I asked for someone to do quick doodle art for my Comixpedia column "Feeding Snarky." That I got such a fantastic piece back from that request blew me away, and I later commissioned that more complete piece from Ursula to be the site mascot. He's sleeping because a guy called Mckenzee, who's one of our dedicated readers, coined the term "Snarkoleptics" as a title for the fan base.

I love your site? Can I link to you? Or to individual entries? Or stuff like that?

Sure! Of course! Hell yeah! The only way a site like this grows is if people tell their friends about it, and we like it when people read our stuff. Also, it gives us a serious lift when people like (or hate) something so much they post a link to it. There is no greater joy for a writer than impact. Further, we think "link policies" aren't only unenforceable and potentially illegal, they're just downright rude. It's the Web. Links are what create it. Jesus Christ on a stick, be glad when people want to see your stuff.

Do you have a link button I can use?

Not at this time. A couple of people have created them for me and use them on their own sites, and that totally delights us. Sooner or later, we'll either ask to use one of those officially or make our own, but for now, there's no official one.

Will you link to me? And use my linking button?

Only in the context of a Snark, right now. The closest thing to a links page we have are Eric's daily trawls. (Wednesday's still working on her equivalent ma.gnolia collection, since she finds it easier to make lists when there are extra toys involved.) If you produce something that we read every day, you might end up in one of the trawls. But right now, we pretty much link stuff in the actual snarks. As for linking buttons -- we don't currently use them. It's nothing against you.

Hey, I want to send you e-mail. What's your e-mail address?

The best place to send us e-mail is at WEBSNARK at GMAIL dot COM -- decode it and let fly. It's like a reverse rebus, isn't it?

¹As reader NathanielK reminded Eric. Not that he should have remembered that on his own or anything. It's not like he named the fucking website after it or anything.

Posted by Eric and Wednesday at 5:07 PM

Wednesday Burns-White: Sniffle.

(From "How We Got Engaged!" by Dave Roman and Raina Telgemeier. Click to melt.)

Congratulations to the happy couple, recognizable to y'all as the respective authors of Astronaut Elementary and Smile. Roman handed the first five pages of'How We Got Engaged!' on a cross-country flight this summer; later, Raina drew what happened next.

Comments would dilute the meaning. Analysis would subtract from the impact. No justice can be done this one from a distance, because it's real. It'd be stuffing a butterfly in a jar. No matter how eloquently or simply wrought it is, expounding on this comic's simple beauty would be trivializing what it means, and what it's for. It'd be reviewing someone's love letter. So I'm not going to do that.

Just go. Go. Look.

Now.

Posted by Wednesday Burns-White at 10:55 AM | Comments (27)

Eric Burns-White: Naturally, this is the day when we could potentially have a huge new influx of readers....

So, a couple of people have noticed Gossamer Commons seems to be... well, down. A database/WordPress error crops up when you go to the page. Which makes it seem like there's a problem on our end. Only... well, GC's hosted on the same server as Talk About Comics, and Talk About Comics is also down.

So it's not impossible that there's something wrong with our site, but it's more likely to be on a deeply unhappy box that needs some attention. (Which, if I know the landlord, is happening even as we speak). So, patience, all!

(With luck, it'll be fixed before our strip comes up on the telethon...)

Posted by Eric Burns-White at 9:24 AM | Comments (10)

September 13, 2005

Eric Burns-White: Hour 22...

...and the telethon has raised over $17,000. That's just staggeringly cool. Hand in hand with it we have the Adult Webcomics Telethon (not safe for work -- I mean, duh) which covers the comics that wouldn't otherwise fit into the generally SFW telethon. (They haven't racked up -- huh huh huh, he said rack -- the donation numbers that the other telethon has, but there are ways in which I see the two as two sides of the same coin. A person might not be able to make two donations, after all... but that doesn't mean that more adult-oriented webcartoonists shouldn't be able to pitch in without feeling they have to conform to a family standard.)

I'd kind of like to see the more... direct artists contribute pieces to the AWT as well. I know one or two artists, feeling outrage about Katrina in some way that can't really be "safe for work", who would probably broaden it. (Though I suppose people heading over there might not expect to see, say, Fetus-X among the strips. On the other hand, that might be a good reason to include it.)

In any case, people rock. They really do.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at 10:39 PM | Comments (21)

Eric Burns-White: Drawing against the darkness.

The Webcomic Hurricane Relief Telethon has begun. Every twenty minutes, for the next two days, there will be a new comic strip. Some will be funny, some poignant. Some related, some unrelated.

Gossamer Commons has a strip contributed. So does Greg Holkan's Nemesis. Webcomics superstars and virtual unknowns alike have contributed.

I was unhappy to see they don't take Paypal, though having heard of some folks having problems with Paypal since Katrina, I guess I can understand why. I've contributed to the ARC already since Katrina, but I'm putting more money in tomorrow, after I get up. In the meantime, drink deeply. This is an event. Three comics an hour for forty-eight hours. Our community should be proud of that.

Let's make them prouder still, by opening our wallets and our hearts.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at 12:27 AM | Comments (24)

September 11, 2005

Eric Burns-White: 20 days.

I had last Sunday off. I really shouldn't have, but I didn't end up going in. I did work on Saturday, and on Labor Day, however.

And I worked yesterday and today.

And my average workday for the past twenty days has been over ten hours.

I'm very tired. I'm very tired.

But the students started coming back today. A couple more weeks of craziness, and then we settle down into the year.

And I have seen the art turned in for the Webcomic Telethon by Greg Holkan.

It's phenomenal. It's perfect.

We're not going with a political piece. Not for a telethon.

20 days. And five more before it's over.

I'm not getting out of bed on Saturday.

Posted by Eric Burns-White at 10:39 PM | Comments (6)