Websnark

Comment from: Robin Z posted at November 4, 2005 12:27 PM

Damn. That's tragic. I'm sorry.

(This is a mighty fine essay you've just written, though.)

Comment from: Crashlander posted at November 4, 2005 12:27 PM

Blimey.

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 4, 2005 12:41 PM

It never *should* be as important as your writing. The minute you suspect it's seriously infringing on your writing, go on hiatus or something. You're a writer. Your priorities make perfect sense to me.

And I swear on this day I will match your NaNoWriMo word count by Sunday. I swear it!

*throws gauntlet on ground*

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at November 4, 2005 12:47 PM

So wait, does this mean you've finally reached the point of not giving a shit what dumbasses on the internet think? Because personally, I think that's a good thing!

Comment from: vilious posted at November 4, 2005 12:53 PM

I don't give a rat's ass about video games. In fact, I kind of despise video games. I still read your stuff about video games when you are on a roll. Just write well, is all.

Comment from: djcoffman posted at November 4, 2005 12:54 PM

Sheesh! Write about what you want. This is the making of a good blog.

I found your blog BECAUSE of webcomics, and I really do like to read you go on about webcomics, but it's not the only reason people read.

I'd reckon you've also dealt with people who only read hoping you'll drop their name or a link, and now that you don't write about webcomics as much anymore, they think you suck, because chances are, you won't talk about their webcomics.

People are selfish. Ignore them and do what you want. Just show the fuck up!

Comment from: Comus posted at November 4, 2005 12:56 PM

You shouldn't pay so much attention to what the wankers say, mate.

If people don't like what you write, let 'em piss off and read something else.

If I come here and don't like the subject matter, I simply don't bother reading the article.

Comment from: Matt Sweeney posted at November 4, 2005 1:01 PM

My inner Milholland was immediately tempted to write a ten thousand word John Stark retrospective and post it, mind.

Here! Here! for the inner Milholland!

I say we need a week straight of nothing but Stark posts!

Comment from: John posted at November 4, 2005 1:12 PM

"I'm not going to neurotically find stuff to say when I'm not in the mood."

Sorry, but by most accounts that's what professional writers do.

If it's a hobby, sure, whatever. Write when you feel like it. But if you want to be a writer, -- and it seems like you do -- you're going to have to learn to write when you're not in the mood. Even when you don't care. Even when the "spark" seems so far away you're not sure it'll ever return.

Seems like Websnark is as good a venue to learn that as any.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 4, 2005 1:13 PM

That's a damn fine essay up there, sir.

It's easy for us to say "hey! Write what you want, and ignore the naysayers!"... because they're not naysaying US. It's you who gets the whiney, bitchy comments in your e-mail when you so much as mention that other stuff you do. It's you who are still inundated with this .. delightful message. To use Wednesday's phrase, it's you guys who have pennies tossed at your head, not me, or the rest of the community. How could you guys, who know more than most that words have power, just "ignore" those words, and pretend they don't have that power?

While I would personally like to smack those who bitch and moan, you won't let me. It's a rule. So... I won't tell you that this won't change the 'snark, because it will, you're right about that. I'm not sure it's a good thing, but I completely understand your reasoning.

I guess I'm writing this to say two, very important (to me, anyway) things, in my usual rambly fashion:

1) I don't care where you write it. I don't care what you write. Joyful words are so rare, your joy in words is so special, any sensible person will just shut the hell up and enjoy the ride (that's BOTH of you, btw).

2) I'm just glad you didn't let this close these doors. Even though you felt compelled to open other doors, I'm glad you haven't shut down the 'snark yet. Thanks for stickin' around. I do hope that your feeling about this place gets better again, and until then, well, I guess I'll just.. y'know.. think happy joy joy thoughts at you both. ow.

Comment from: Peter Venables posted at November 4, 2005 1:14 PM

I'm with DJ up there. Post what you want to post about. Don't let people bully you into turning websnark into what it was a year ago. Websnark is what it is and you don't owe anybody anything.

I read the posts that interest me, skip some, read others that I didn't know I'd be interested in. That what this whole blog thing is about. It's about being yourself on the net. If people aren't interested in the conversations you're having with them they can shuffle on, but don't feel like you need to go into another room because some loudmouth is telling you you should be talking about stuff that interests them.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 1:16 PM

Sorry, but by most accounts that's what professional writers do.

Well, no. We get paid to write.

Honestly. I've gotten the checks.

Want to cut me a check to write something? Send me a proposal and I'll let you know if I'm interested.

All this? Is stuff I choose to do. And much the same as you don't get to dictate what a carpenter builds for his own rec room, you don't get to dictate what a writer writes in his spare time.

It feels like you do. I know that. I understand the seductive lure of entitlement. But you need to understand that's not a binding contract. Just like I need to understand that might mean you won't come back and read, tomorrow.

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 1:17 PM

I know where you're coming from, Eric. I know where you're coming from.

You know, I have people who complain that my reviews are too positive. I'm too optimistic in my reviews. I'm too cheerful, I have nothing bad to say. Hell, I had a reader regretfully inform me that he couldn't read Tangents anymore because I'd addicted him to too many new comics. (Though that's not necessarily a bad thing, having someone tell you that. *grin*)

When I started Tangents, I planned on doing a new review every day. Hell, at first I was doing four, five reviews a day. Fortunately I let several friends talk me into slowing my pace, which unfortunately I've been forced to do even further with the 3x weekly schedule, and meta-review on Sunday. And I might need to find something else to put into Tuesday's slot in a couple of months.

Your snarks, my tangents... these are hard work. It can take an hour or two to write something up. It takes even longer for me to go through comics and find something contemporary to comment on in my tangents. (I mean, today alone I found four or five things I'd love to comment on. Wednesday (well, Thursday) I was struggling to find anything that would catch my attention.)

And we have lives outside of the web. You've a relationship with a wonderful young lady who thinks highly of you and whom you think highly of as well. You've a couple novels you're working on (and Goddess I know how that goes!). You've Websnark. And you've thousands of fans, some of whom get overzealous at times.

Eric, ignore the naysayers who dislike what you've got to say about GC and JS. This is a labor of love you're doing. Don't let these people destroy your love of Websnark or force you down paths you don't want to take.

Me? I enjoy quite a few of your snarks. Those I don't enjoy... I don't bother reading. And if you haven't reviewed something in a little bit... so what? Hey, if your fans are so intent on reading reviews, there are a dozen other review sites out there. There's Comics Rock. There's The Living Comic. There's Webcomic Finds. There's The Webcomicker. There's Honest Webcomic Reviews. There's I'm Just Saying. Heck, there's Tangents. And these are just a half dozen I found (I'm not counting Tangents in that count *raspberry*) in a minute of looking.

Maybe not all of them update daily. Some of them have been fairly intermittent with updates. And not all of them are what people are looking for... but any one of them can give people a fix, if they're suffering Websnark Withdrawal Syndrome.

And I can't say why my fellow critics do this, but I know why I do... it's out of joy of the medium. It's because I love web comics... and want to share this joy with my readers.

I suspect this is part of why you do this, Eric.

So please... just ignore what your critics have to say about this right now. This is your site, and you're doing this because you enjoy it. If a couple outspoken naysayers don't like some of your content... then they have every right not to read it. I know I don't bother reading stuff I uninterested in. They don't need to read everything you write.

Take care, Eric. And good luck with your writing. :)

Robert A. Howard, Tangents Webcomic Reviews
http://www.tangents.us

Comment from: John posted at November 4, 2005 1:28 PM

"Want to cut me a check to write something? Send me a proposal and I'll let you know if I'm interested."

So we can expect you to stop complaining when authors producing free webcomics fail to update regularly?

You don't think the sense of frustration that you and I feel when a site like Megatokyo misses an update is somehow valid?

Sorry to pick on you, but the smell of double standard is strong here.

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 1:33 PM

There is a difference here, John.

Websnark is for Eric's comments on things that interest him. It just so happens that one of the things that interests him is web comics. Thus you can complain when I miss an update at Tangents. Tangents is primarily about reviewing comics. Heck, my mission statement stated I'd do one a day, and that's gone through a forced change due to time constraints and the fact I was burning myself out.

Eric, on the other hand, is doing a blog about whatever should catch his interest. If it's the latest Harry Potter novel? Good. If it's about a movie he enjoys? Great. If it's about a web comic? Then you'll be happy, I'm sure. But Websnark is not about web comics. It's about Eric. And it doesn't have a set update time. Instead, like Malakhim or Alpha Shade, it updates when Eric feels like updating it.

Robert A. Howard, Tangents Webcomic Reviews
http://www.tangents.us

Comment from: Peter Venables posted at November 4, 2005 1:33 PM

//Sorry to pick on you, but the smell of double standard is strong here.//

Dude, have you even READ websnark? Eric's been up, over, and down the other side of this issue, many times. Go, have a read, we'll still be here.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 1:36 PM

You might want to reread the archives a little more closely.

When an artist does a webcomic in his spare time, it is my firmly held contention we should be happy to get whatever he or she has time to give us. Period. They don't owe us anything.

When an author makes a webcomic his job -- when it's how he puts food on his table -- then the expectation that he'll treat it as such appears.

When a site like Megatokyo misses updates, it's shafting the people who are, in the end, putting food in the artist's mouth. In effect, they're cutting him the check.

When a site like the Suburban Jungle misses an update, on the other hand, that's life. Get over it. Robey has a job. He does SJ in his spare time, because he wants to, and it would be the height of gall for you, me or anyone to imply he owes us a thing.

I don't make my living off of Websnark. I don't even merchandise any more. I have a day job which takes between eight and fourteen hours of each and every day. I also have professional writing assignments that I need to produce on time, on spec. Websnark is what I do for me.

I'm honestly glad you've liked parts of it, but I don't work for you and I owe you nothing. In fact, I pay for the privilege of letting you read.

In this particular case, I'm afraid you're wholly, utterly and completely wrong.

Sorry about that.

Comment from: Robin Z posted at November 4, 2005 1:39 PM

I second larksilver's and Tangent's posts first posts up there (darn ninjas!) in their entirety. Including the contradictory bits.

You know, there's basically three reasons I come to this site regularly.

3. You talk about stuff I find interesting. I won't deny that my liking webcomics, science fiction, geek culture, storytelling in general, and so forth are all major reasons for my liking Websnark.

2. You're really perceptive. No question. Many times, I will read an installment of a webcomic and like it, and then come here and find that there's entire layers of meaning and subtlety that I entirely missed. Or implications that I missed. Or even major plot points. You tell me things I didn't realize, and make the comics you read better comics to read for me.

1. You can f'n write.

Your not feeling comfortable to write what you want here – it stinks. Because I want to read the things you write.

Comment from: Benor posted at November 4, 2005 1:41 PM

Oh, internet people. Silly, silly internet people.

Comment from: HKR posted at November 4, 2005 1:45 PM

Well I was going to respond to John, but it seems in the brief seconds it took me to sign in, Eric beat me to the punch.

The fact of the matter is, I love reading everything Eric and Weds write. Whether it's about webcomics, video games, or Sailor Moon. That's why I check Websnark almost 20 times a day. That's why I'm reading Enter The Recluse. That's why I have both Eric and Weds friended on LJ.

In short, Eric could write a ten thousand word essay on his cat, and I'd be begging for more.

Websnark may have started out being about Webcomics, but it's evolved into something more. If it wasn't for Websnark, would we have the wonderful Gossamer Commons? What about John Stark? If the man feels the need to talk about these things on his own blog, then he should feel free to do so.

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 1:47 PM

Eric? Bring John Stark back.

I'd rather you feel comfortable with whatever you write than to have Websnark start to crack and shatter like a piece of crystal that was struck by a jeweler's hammer. Yes, the end-product might be quite beautiful... but the original piece has a beauty and spendor all its own.

Because Websnark is about you. It's not about comics. As such, it should be about what you like to write. If people don't like it... they can take my path. I created Tangents to review comics that I felt needed more comments on (the epic storytelling *grin*). If someone else wants a John Stark-free site... they can make one themselves.

Rob H.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 4, 2005 1:54 PM

You don't think the sense of frustration that you and I feel when a site like Megatokyo misses an update is somehow valid?

Sorry to pick on you, but the smell of double standard is strong here.

Seems to me there's a substantial difference between a lack of updates and a change in topic. Even though we get frustrated when a site doesn't update on schedule, we're still not telling the creator WHAT to write.

Oh, and -

So we can expect you to stop complaining when authors producing free webcomics fail to update regularly?

I don't recall Eric complaining about the "hobbyist" webcomic artist whose sites don't update often. His complaints always centered around those who make their living at this stuff, y'know, like a job. And just for the record, by that definition, Websnark is HIS hobby.

Comment from: RoboYuji posted at November 4, 2005 1:54 PM

As someone who totally CAN'T STAND the John Stark posts, I'll still say that you should continue to post them on Websnark whenever you want to, mostly because you really shouldn't give a shit about what I think.

Comment from: Darrin_Bright posted at November 4, 2005 2:00 PM

Oh, *come on*. This is what got your panties in a bunch...? I'll try to be brief:

1) You started Websnark in what I suspect was a very deep professional jealousy about something you dearly loved but didn't think you could do yourself.

2) I'm one of the folks who gets annoyed when I check Websnark and see huge geysers of frothy text that has absolutely nothing to do with webcomics. Yeah, well, it was pretty dicey there for bit but I think I'll survive. (To be fair, the non-Webcomics stuff is generally just as engaging.)

3) Mr. Burns, you *CREATED* Websnark. It's *YOURS*. If you set out to critique webcomics in your spare time, got really good at it, got some recognition... and now all of a sudden you want to do something else with it, then go ahead. It's *YOURS*.

4) You now have two webcomics of your own. And to all appearances they are just as good as the webcomics you like to critique. See point 1)... doesn't that kinda trump all this whiney "you've compromized the integrity of Websnark" BS?

5) Artists who don't promote their own work every single chance they get are *shitty artists*. Go to town, dude.

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 2:01 PM

Eric, I think this calls for a new T-Shirt.

Have in big letters blazened across the chest...

"Got Drama?"

And then Websnark and Snarkey below it. :D (and maybe the URL)

I'd buy one... :D

Rob H.

Comment from: William_G posted at November 4, 2005 2:05 PM

"someone else does it better than you do"

I tried not to, Eric. I really did. :P

"I'm honestly glad you've liked parts of it, but I don't work for you and I owe you nothing. In fact, I pay for the privilege of letting you read."

Right on, that's it exactly. And that's why I say: CLOSE IT DOWN! For the most part, web people are spoiled babies who deserve all of the mediocre crap they consume and have yet to earn the rare good stuff. Fuck those fuckers. They'll be weeping and moaning and clucking their tongues, but in the end you don't owe anyone on the web crap. Especially if all you get is stress from them whenever you open your browser.

Dammit! Hand in your pocket protector, and be freeeeeeee~!

Comment from: Bequita posted at November 4, 2005 2:06 PM

...so I guess this is a bad time to express my disappointment that we won't be getting anymore Stark-Snarks?

In all seriousness, Mr. Burns, this is your blog, not your day job, and you can write whatever you damn well please in it. If we don't like it, we don't have to read it. We're the guests here - it would be The Height of Rudeness to complain. I do hope you reconsider snarking Stark.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 4, 2005 2:08 PM

William G: CLOSE IT DOWN!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Comment from: protozombie posted at November 4, 2005 2:08 PM

If it makes you feel better I hadn't even heard of the Modern Humor Authority (or whatever it is) until I read about them on websnark. And while I will continue to read websnark, the MHA didn't find its way to my bookmarks list.

Just saying.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 2:08 PM

Bequita -- there's always the LJ community. You don't need an LJ account to read it. ;)

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 2:09 PM

proto -- the MHA has nothing to do with this. I loved that "review." I thought it was hysterical. And I certainly wasn't offended by it. ;)

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 4, 2005 2:09 PM

It's kind of inevitable that I'd comment on this one, I suppose. Also kind of weird to see my nom de plume mentioned in a snark - something I only thought would happen if my friends and I finally got our webcomic off the ground and kicked much ass at it.

I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again regardless - I came here originally for the webcomics snarks. But I stayed here because of the writing, especially the discussion of the writing process. And yes, sometimes I disagree (stridently so) with what Eric and Wednesday say, but that only keeps me coming back.

It disheartens me, however, to see Eric write a post like this. I mean, I couldn't give a second thought to John Stark. It gave me a brief chuckle, but didn't grab me, and I left those posts alone. However, it really saddens me to think that a writer would give up writing what he wanted to write, in his own forum. I figure I can just wait in a holding pattern until he writes on something I do have an interest about and comment then. I really wish other people would learn to do the same.

It is with that in mind that I suggest doing what I do - carry on as before, Eric. Sometimes, the going is rough, I know. And as I said in the thread about the MHA, I just recently dealt with something similar (where people were clamoring for me to change a few of my reviews because they disagreed with my opinion). I fully empathize with you, the anger and frustration that develops when people take your work, which you do for free out of the passion you have for your subject, and demand things out of you like you somehow owe them.

Maybe it's a difference in temprament (I definitely get the sense I'm much more willing to mix it up than you, Eric). But when I deal with situations like this, I have two thoughts which lead to the same conclusion. One is that this person is trying to make changes in what you do. You shouldn't give them the satisfaction, so you should stay the course. The other is that success is the best revenge, and you've been successful by doing what you've been doing. And that might be a petty sort of enjoyment, but it's a damn sight better than than feeling like you've been cowed.

And finally, if you are ever actually interested in writing for Netjak, you know my email, Eric (or could find it again in two seconds). I'll spare the readership of Websnark my recruitment spiel. A readership, I'll again remind you, that is growing because you've been doing what you want and have been doing it well.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 4, 2005 2:09 PM

T-shirts... (SIGH).. I want my snarky shirt. (pout)

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 2:10 PM

William G: I'm familiar with the phenomenon. ;)

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 2:10 PM

William G: Oh stop trying to increase your hits by shutting down the competition! (That's my job!) *grin*

Rob H.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 2:11 PM

Lark -- send me mail about it.

The lack of some shirts getting to people is one reason I don't do them any more.

Comment from: Montykins posted at November 4, 2005 2:14 PM

I demand more Websnark posts about the state of Websnark. Obviously, as a Websnark reader, I am only interested in posts about Websnark itself. If I don't get my way, I shall demand a full refund and also probably cry myself to sleep for a month.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 4, 2005 2:21 PM

Oh, duh, you'd think I would have done that first, rather than pouting here. Sorry, Eric.

Comment from: Bequita posted at November 4, 2005 2:22 PM

A live journal community is one more tab to read and forum/blog to troll. A girl has to have limits, after all.

Besides, LJ is blocked at work.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 4, 2005 2:24 PM

I second Tangent's simile of the crystal cracked by the jeweller's hammer. Now that Eric has moved his Stark commentary offsite, what concerns me is what will happen when someone says, "Dude, stop writing about RPG's,," then "Dude, stop writing about Justice League..."

Eric, I know from personal experience you can't just shut off angry feelings when someone makes a comment that, intended or not, insults you deeply. You're only human, like most people (*grin*). But the response needn't be to give the insulter what s/he wants. I'd rather you turned off comments entirely than do that. (But don't turn off the comments please!)

Comment from: DocN posted at November 4, 2005 2:37 PM

Quote: "5) Artists who don't promote their own work every single chance they get are *shitty artists*. Go to town, dude."

-That being said, I think today's strip is pretty good. Oh, and buy a shirt!

Mr. Burns: I came for the webcomics, I stayed for the writing. There's thousands upon thousands of people on the 'net writing about damn near everything. But there's damn few writers out there writing about anything. Sure, I could care less about radio towers and I honestly don't have any idea what In Nomine is, but that just means I skip an article or two, No biggie.

But you can bet Stark's solid bronze underwear I'll be checking back in a couple of hours for something else. Because chances are that will be something I'll read.

Doc.

Comment from: larksilver posted at November 4, 2005 2:38 PM

Besides, LJ is blocked at work.

I only read about 4 (okay, now FIVE) LJ's, and I still find that very, very sad for thee.

Comment from: Lady Luna posted at November 4, 2005 2:50 PM

William G said:
Right on, that's it exactly. And that's why I say: CLOSE IT DOWN! For the most part, web people are spoiled babies who deserve all of the mediocre crap they consume and have yet to earn the rare good stuff. Fuck those fuckers. They'll be weeping and moaning and clucking their tongues, but in the end you don't owe anyone on the web crap. Especially if all you get is stress from them whenever you open your browser.

This reminds me of a (Language warning! Language warning! I've given you a fair alert now -- it's not my fault if you click on the link and 2 corrupts your virgin ears.). It's a rant on art theft, but I think it applies here since it does deal with the sense of entitlement people build up on the Internet, and the effect it really does end up having

As is said in the rant the people who complain? And take advantage of artists (and I consider writers artists) who are working for free? They're really just hurting themselves, because even if the artist is driven away from them, or even driven off the Internet they (the artists) will not stop producing, everything that they create will still exsist... only it won't be online.

In the end, the complainers are just hurting themselves.

If you want to take Websnark down, do so. If it would make you happier? Do so. I'll miss Websnark horribly, but I understand that the unspoken agreement - the agreement that if you share what you make we will have the good taste to either say something useful that actually pertains to the piece, or keep our mouths SHUT - has been broken.

Keep writing, Mr.Burns, and I hope that you'll keep sharing it, because I love your writing. Even if Websnark is gone I STILL want to hear about John Stark, and Gossamer Commons, and webcomics, and Justice League and whatever it is that you feel like writing - because you write interesting thought provoking pieces.

But, I completely understand if you don't want to share it anymore. You've shared something precious with us, and certain people have (To use the car simile from the rant I linked) taken what you've decided to share, looked it over, and told you what colour you should have painted it. Or that the upholstery should be different. And that you need to make it their way rather than just being thankful that you're just sharing it in the first place.

Comment from: Dave Van Domelen posted at November 4, 2005 2:52 PM

Piffle. You can still talk about Stark here all you want. No poison or pissing there. The LJ group is so WE can initiate Stark discussions too. I mean, you REALLY don't want to let us start threads on Websnark. Trust me. :)

Comment from: Ian K. posted at November 4, 2005 2:54 PM

Burns... you had me at "remarkable breasts."

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 4, 2005 2:58 PM

Eric, do what you need to do. If you need to grow another direction I support you and I'm not alone. You may be right that the whiners have "poisoned" Websnark for from now on, but for a year and a half it's been golden and they can't take that away from you. Or from us your readers. (But I would advise against giving up just yet.)

Comment from: Remus Shepherd posted at November 4, 2005 3:01 PM

I think you should talk about anything you wish, no limits, no excuses.

Even Eric John Stark. And I hate the Eric John Stark posts.

Why? After thinking about it a while, I think it's envy. You have quite considerable clout as a reviewer, and you are successfully leveraging that into attention for your other ventures. Your new comics are getting much more attention than any other comics would at their stage of development or their level of quality. And this, despite having no discernable artistic talent on your part. (Writing talent, perhaps, but IMHO art talent is coin of this realm.)

So I think people are envious -- and I'll certainly cop to it. Envious that you can take masterful skill at one thing and transfer it into promotion for other not-quite-so-masterful things that you do.

Don't let that STOP you, by any means. Enjoy the catbird seat, and feel free to kick anyone who tries to climb up onto it. Envious people are bastards, and you shouldn't let the bastards grind you down. :)

Comment from: Duff the Tragic Wagon posted at November 4, 2005 3:16 PM

First of all, Eric, I think it's sad that you feel, for whatever reason, that you can't write what you want on this site, which you made especially for writing about whatever you want. And I think that you should write about Stark on Websnark if you want to.

However, and I may just be being incredibly stupid here (that should really be my motto), I don't really see how the creation of the John Stark LJ is really such a bad thing. I admit to being biased here, as I love authors' comments about their own work, I love getting an insight into the creative process, I love the way you write, and the way that you write about what you write, and I love the idea that we're getting a site that's going to be mostly devoted to that. I say mostly because it's also a place for people to comment on Stark. And hell, I love that too. (I'll stop gushing now, I promise).

But it's hardly the only thing you're writing that isn't Websnark. John Stark itself is something else you write for fun. So I don't really see where you're coming from when you say this new development is poison to Websnark. Possibly the fact that you've given in to pressure from commenters is poisonous. Which is why I think you should put Stark stuff on Websnark if you want to. But I certainly don't see a dedicated Stark community as poisonous. I see it as more Eric Burns writings to read (obsessively). And to me that's a good thing.

And I apologise if, in the time it took me to write this, other commenters have addressed my points far more eloquently than I have.

Comment from: quiller posted at November 4, 2005 3:35 PM

I really do hate this sort of thing. It reminds me of a recent blowup at Megatokyo's story discussion. Fred tried to add some moderators to the forum. There were a great many welcoming type messages, then 2 or 3 people started objecting about the choices, with what they considered good reason but with strong language and both posts in the forum and emails to Fred. Fred (who is certainly a lot more sensitive about criticism than Eric) wound up removing the new moderators, and himself (who was the only moderator previously) and stating that he didn't feel welcome in Story Discussion anymore and would cease posting in there or reading it.

What's similar is that it sometimes just takes one bit of careless language in a post to cause changes. One bad interaction to cause disillusionment. But I salute Eric for turning a negative into a positive. I'm happy for a Stark discussion outlet, I'm happy Websnark continues. Mostly I'm happy that Eric can generally take criticism, pull out the kernels of truth from it and throw out the rest.

(Sarcasm=on)In any case, I'm sure Eric must be raking in the money from his webcomics with no advertising at all on them. And Websnark, of course, is just the gateway drug that pulls them in. But what we don't realize is that it is all just advance advertising for that John Stark movie starring Ice Cube.(sarcasm=off)

I think most of us realize that you are giving us good writing for free, and most comments about wanting more webcomic stuff is just giving preferences in case they made a difference. Websnark goes with the moods of the authors. Sometimes there's lots of webcomic commentry, other times it is JLA or In Nomine, Chick Tracts or what have you. As someone said, if someone really only wants to read your webcomic stuff, they can link to that focus area. I think the reason most of us don't is that we would rather judge for ourselves on a Snark to Snark basis whether something is worth reading about. Bitching happens, but that's just human nature.

There is a remarkable community here, and I'm glad you didn't just throw that away. And thanks for the Stark group. That's all I'm saying.

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 3:36 PM

About Shame:

Was rereading the original post and something clicked here. "Shameless self-promotion." Or more specifically, "shameless."

At its root, it means "without shame."

However, it does not state that a situation is in fact shameful.

Let's look way way way way WAY back. Let's pretend (or accept) that Genesis is in fact correct (and it's not something I believe in, but as the concept of shame seemed to appear back then, it's a good place to start). Adam and Eve were created and walked around Eden stark naked. They weren't wearing a fig leaf or anything like that. They "shamelessly" walked around in their birthday suits (naked for those who don't know the phrase).

When (supposedly) they ate the Fruit of Knowledge (now-a-days it would probably be plucking an iPod from the trees) (now that would make for an amusing commercial!) Adam and Eve felt a need to cover up. They felt shame in their nudity. And God came back and was like "What the #%(&? Why are you hiding? Great, you got an iPod, didn't you, and now you're downloading music and learning all sorts of wrong information, aren't you. Tsk..." and then made them clothes out of furs. But God did not see Adam and Eve's nudity as shameful. If he had, he'd have created them (assuming you believe God created man and woman complete instead of the more traditional beliefs of evolution) WITH CLOTHES ALREADY ADDED.

Or in other words, there was nothing shameful about Adam and Eve being nude.

Likewise, there is nothing shameful about plugging your comic projects, Eric. You may be acting "shamelessly" but that doesn't mean you did anything wrong or deserve to feel shame.

Don't let people make you feel shame about this. I know that certain big-names in the "industry" made you think that promoting your own comics is wrong, but it's not. You're not going out and each time you post a Websnark say "Oh, and visit Gossamer Commons at http://www.gossamercommons.com/ because it's really good and if you enjoyed this other comic you'll definitely enjoy GC!"

You do good, Eric. Don't let anyone make you feel ashamed of anything you do.

Robert A. Howard, Tangents Webcomic Reviews (for shamelessly positive webcomic reviews!)
http://www.tangents.us

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 3:40 PM

Note: I just noticed the irony of me stating about evolution being more "traditional beliefs" when in fact Creationism (or rather, the story of Genesis) is in fact the "traditional belief" that was usurped by evolution. Trust me, it was unintentional, and please laugh away at it. I know I am...

Rob H.

Comment from: demihappycow posted at November 4, 2005 4:01 PM

Personally, I'd love to see ten thousand words on John Stark here tommorow. Let out the Milholland if you want, we'll stay and we'll love it. If somebody else doesn't that's just to bad for them, but the rest of us will be happier for it, and hopefully you will be too.
I signed up for a typekey account just to say this. Letting a few whiny nay sayers poison something as wonderful as Websnark would be truly tragic.
Shameless self-promotion is something that you shouldn't feel any shame about, it's just one of those things that artists (writers in particular) do, cause it's really neat when people absorb and enjoy your artistic output. And none of us should feel anything resembling shame about it. If someone freaks out about self-promotion, it is really their problem not yours. I just hope that it's possible to undo whatever damage they may have already done here...

Comment from: Dragonmuncher posted at November 4, 2005 4:07 PM

If it helps, just remember that it might seem like a crisis of integrity now, but the half-life of Internet dramais extremely short. As long as you don't dwell on it, this whole incident will just fade into the background hum of "Websnark's not as good anymore" that's been around for what seems like forever.

Psh, I wish Webcartoonist vs. Webcartoonist was still around. They could do their part of stirring stuff up by cataloging and distributing all relevant links and posts.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 4:15 PM

I'm relatively sure "Websnark's not as good any more" started on the Tuesday of the week following my first post.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 4:19 PM

Saith Christopher, way up above:

And I swear on this day I will match your NaNoWriMo word count by Sunday. I swear it!

*throws gauntlet on ground*

My word count as of today... or my word count as of Sunday? ;)

Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at November 4, 2005 4:22 PM

Your word count as of Sunday!

It is, as you are wont to say... on!

:D

Comment from: John posted at November 4, 2005 4:24 PM

"I'm honestly glad you've liked parts of it, but I don't work for you and I owe you nothing. In fact, I pay for the privilege of letting you read."

Look, you found a hit. People have been known to pay money for things they like, even if it's associated merchandise. If you wanted to, you could find ways to capitalize on your fanbase. So a few shirts got lost in the mail and you call it off? Come on.

Regardless of what your duty is, you've built a dedicated fanbase and now you want to say, "You know guys, it's really all about me." Fine, I can't stop you from kicking your fans in the stomach. Your game to lose, and all that. It's just unfortunate to see a good thing come to an end, because you're afraid of selling out or whatever. I'm not saying you're at fault. I'm just saying your decisions suck.

Comment from: Tephlon posted at November 4, 2005 4:33 PM

I signed up to post a comment.

As most people here are saying and as you said yourself: Websnark is free (For your readers, not you.)
I love your writing, whatever it is about. I love the community you have built up here (And I feel you can get at least a bit of credit for that).
Stark has been added to my daily comics tab. The (lack of) art irks me, but still I come back because it's so damn good.
The In Nomine thing? I don't get it, I have no idea how it works. If you write about it, I feel I should know more.

That's because your writing oozes enthousiasm. That's what I come back here for. Every damn day.

Yours truly, Tephlon

Comment from: Chris Anthony posted at November 4, 2005 4:34 PM

Robert:

At its root, it means "without shame."

However, it does not state that a situation is in fact shameful.

This is why there's more to linguistic analysis than etymology. ;) While "shameless" does not mean that a situation is shameful, its use does imply that the user thinks that the situation ought to be shameful, or at least that, in the same situation, he or she would be shamed. (That last is why "shameless" gets applied to Adam and Eve; they had no shame where we, and by "we" I mean "Victorians", would.) Otherwise he or she wouldn't have used the term.

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at November 4, 2005 4:35 PM

Hmm, I can't respond to John's post in the way I'd like to, due to the courtesy rules, so let me find another way to phrase it...

I think you're wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG.

I love my fans. My fans rock. And the day I pander to them and don't do what I want to do, because I'm afraid they won't like it, is the day I cease to be an artist and become a total hack.

Work for hire? Sure. Client owns your ass them. That's life. This isn't work for hire. This is what Eric does for fun, and for love of the art. Your sense of entitlement is absurdly misguided. "I like it, so he owes it to me to keep rehashing the same stuff I like!" Get a GRIP, dude.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 4, 2005 4:45 PM

This probably isn't going to add anything substantive, but if I was going to refrain from recording my emotional reactions to these things merely because I'd had them, well, you wouldn't have called me a core commenter in the thread for the retrospective, which, um, I am totally not gonna remember until my dying day. Obviously, one key facet of this response is where I agree entirely with larksilver in the "NOOOOOOOOOOOO!" about the idea of losing websnark. It is entirely plausible that I would cry. This has been too damn awesome.

Anyway, what I wanted to post is that I'm not telling you what to do. It's obvious from your post that you're between a rock and a hard place, and you're all too well aware of the implications any choice will have, and there just isn't a perfect one. And I'm sorry for that. I hate that that means that things are going to change, because of course I don't want things to change. Not when y'all have brought so much into my life and mean so much to me, um, in some way that doesn't come out sounding totally creepy and stalker-like (Weds is probably safe, if I ran away to Britain I'd die of glee before I made it anyplace).

So, I'm sorry. This sucks. I may not be as devoted, over at stark, because this is mentally where I go for your brain (I haven't even kept up with gc religiously, because I'm just as happy to take it in chunks, whereas this is... coversation.) Then again, I may just get to be that chick who has to post about every single thing on one more piece of the internet! Bwa! Fear me!

So, um, since this sucks for you, I am hereby inventing a commenter privilege. You get tea. tasty, tasty soothing tea.

Sssh, don't ask what kind, you'll blow my cover cuz I'll be all, "Um, liquid?"

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 4, 2005 4:47 PM

John: What UrsulaV said. Also, do the old adages regarding pouring salt in a wound, and kicking a man when he's down, mean anything to you?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 4:51 PM

Ursula -- that's the nature of it, though. Actually, one thing I found amusing in rereading my "Entitlement and the Modern Fandom" snark from last year (linked above) was my assertion that critics didn't actually get a fandom.

Well, we're here now. And I hope everyone's enjoying the vegetable platters and the fondue.

John believes what he's writing with all his heart. I've gotten a couple of pieces of e-mail following the same pattern. Really, there are two sides to the opposition to the essay (beyond those who "oppose" the thesis by saying I should feel free to post whatever the Hell I want -- they're disagreeing with the solution, not the sentiment).

1. You can't do this. You owe the fans something for their weeks and months and year+ of reading. We've made an investment and you don't get to say otherwise now.

(The argument is, of course, fallacious. But that's better described in that essay.)

2. You can't do this. Your pageviews and hitcount and unique IPs will go down if you do this. You can't possibly intend for your pageviews and hitcount and unique IPs to go down. That's crazy talk!

I've gotten quite a bit of 2, because it flies in the face of the conventional Internet wisdom. Said wisdom is twofold: 1, growth is always good and eternally sustainable. You can always attract more of an audience and you should always attract more of an audience. 2, whenever you have a reduction in your audience, it is a death knell. You cannot possibly endure. You will have lost. You will have failed.

Frankly, I think the first point is wrong. Growth is not sustainable. You will find your audience. It will peak. And then it will contract. After a while, you will get new readers in and about the same rate as you lose old ones. And a while after that the balance will tend negative.

And the second point -- the one that drives us all insane -- is folly. If you have any audience, you're doing fine. Let's be frank, here. I think several hundred (and probably several thousand) of the people reading Websnark today will continue reading after this. Maybe not tens of thousands. Probably not tens of thousands. But a good sized chunk of folks. Probably more than most blogs ever get.

I'm going to cry for those who stopped reading? When I have these people who are still showing up? I should be on my knees thanking them, the universe and Tim Berners-Lee every day!

So, absent the idea that I must grow (or at least maintain) my pageviews or the Apocolypse happens and denying that entitlement has any legitimate case to be made, it becomes entirely about what I want.

And what I want is to write what I want to write.

I read another artist's statement of purpose today (her name's Angi Shearstone -- you may or may not know of her. We certainly have friends in common.) In it, she extols painting. She extols paint. It's what she does. And if she had to choose between her friends, her loved ones and painting, painting would win.

I understand that. I really do.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 4, 2005 4:55 PM

You know, I'd be all about that siwangmu, except for one thing. I cannot taste tea. I mean at all. I can smell it just fine, but I can't taste it - it tastes the same to have plain water at the same temperature.

So how could I give out tea when I don't know whether or not I'm giving the good stuff? Am I just going to have to find a personal thing to hand out while everyone else gives out tea? Maybe chocolate milk. Or strawberry milk. Or my favorite, vanilla milk. Yeah, that's what I'll do, vanilla milk.

*Conceptual* vanilla milk.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 4, 2005 4:58 PM

Wait. You live in Boston, and you don't know from the taste of tea?

At some stage, we need to go to Tealuxe. In Cambridge, rather than on Newbury. (Newbury's selection bites, for reasons that escape understanding.) I will introduce you to the taste of tea. And yes, you will taste it.

Whether or not you like it's another matter.

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at November 4, 2005 5:00 PM

I do indeed know Angi--actually, we have the same agent!

We differ a bit in some regards--my paintings are less like my children, and more like punchlines to jokes in my head--but on the whole "I like paint more than any of you," I think most of the artists on earth would agree...

Comment from: Suzanne posted at November 4, 2005 5:28 PM

I'm still scratching my head about all of this, Eric. Because...well, it's your website. Write your stuff. If it's not yours, attribute it. That's all.

When I first found Websnark, I was actually really confused why you were calling a web comic snark blog something so generic as "websnark". A title like that really honestly does leave your topic list so wide open it's not funny. You don't have to focus on web comics. You can switch to writing about internet culture. Or culture in general. Or games. Or blogs. Or books. Or having an internet based relationship. Or writing. Or damn near any fucking thing you want. So why not? You own the name. You're the one with CPanel access around here. Take it wherever.

I'll stick with you even if you start writing about the mating habits of penguins because I'm here to read your writing. I like your writing. Yes, sometimes your subject matter doesn't engage me. True. But the only person who will be engaged by everything you write about is you. They're your interests, after all.

People tell me all the time that I need to make myself happy with my own blog. And everyone else is telling you to make yourself happy with your blog. And you aren't happy with your blog.

So I'm going to stop giving you advice and crap. You have a good head on your shoulders, and you've probably been thinking about this all day.

So here's something:
I like your writing. From what little I know about you, I like you. Your girl is a very lucky one; and the people who get to hang out with you are super lucky, too. I want to keep following your writing. Even if that means you start writing about penguins or start selling a subscription to your blog. When your book comes out, I'll buy that, too.

If you jump somewhere else and start writing something else, we'd appreciate if you'd share the link with us. Because some of us are just here for what you want to give us.

Also, thank you. I appreciate your blog, Eric.

Comment from: gwalla posted at November 4, 2005 5:41 PM

Regardless of what your duty is, you've built a dedicated fanbase and now you want to say, "You know guys, it's really all about me."

Except, y'know, it really has been all about Eric (or rather, all about what Eric wants to talk about) from the beginning, explicitly. The fact that you mistook a large subset of the topic (webcomics) for the entire subject (what Eric wants to write about), is not Eric's problem, it's yours.

Comment from: 32_footsteps posted at November 4, 2005 5:55 PM

While I'll certainly see you at Tealuxe any time you offer, it has nothing to do with the quality of tea. Trust me, I've already been through the "try this at Tealuxe!" stage. It certainly smells nice. It's just an odd quirk that I'm sure has to do with a chromosome missing a protein or something.

I'm just physically incapable of tasting tea. I suppose the bright side is that I could make do with even the lousiest of tea if that's all I had to drink.

Comment from: PatMan posted at November 4, 2005 6:29 PM

While I would hate to add more drama, John's post really pissed me off. Seriously, how many times are people gonna bring up Megatokyo? It says right there in the essay that Megatokyo is Galager's job, and that is why Eric criticized him. Eric makes that point EVERY TIME he brings up Megatokyo. He even has an essay on the subject of why Megatokyo is different than hobbyist comics!

And yet, people continue to call him a hypocrite about it, or worse, say "Piro doesn't have to update, it's not his job!"

Try READING. Pardon me for being rude, but if you folks were in a reading comprehension contest with a 6 year old boy, he would thoroughly trounce you. And then proceed to dance around you shouting, "Herberg Elementary, fool! What? What?"

To reiterate, MEGATOKYO IS GALAGER'S JOB!

Clear enough?

Comment from: Kneefers posted at November 4, 2005 6:38 PM

Now see, Eric, this whole mess makes me feel a little weird, because I am one of *those* people.
I skip the roleplaying stuff.
I skip the video game stuff.
I skip most of Wednesday's stuff unless it's about a webcomic, specifically.
(Although I had no problem whatsoever with the John Stark stuff. I *like* John Stark.)
I found Websnark on a link from Schlock Mercenary, and though I love your writing style, I'm here for what you think of Oceans Unmoving and you gleebling over the return April's Imaginary Floating Wiser Self and your take on the evolution of the character of Monette and why you think Shaenon Garrity is awesome and everything else that comes with that, period.
The decline in the number of webcomics posts has, indeed, distressed me somewhat, but when the point came up in a post, I held my tongue.
Why?
Because Websnark is yours. And you have the freedom to do whatever you want to with it, and that includes John Stark, and that includes Video Games, and that includes Wednesday.
That includes anything you want to do. And though I may not be here for anything but webcomics, the decline in webcomics posts is, ultimately, my problem.
I have no right, as a reader, to dictate to you what goes here. I enjoyed and continue to enjoy your writing style, and if you stop posting about webcomics altogether I would probably eventually stop coming. But that's my loss; you can't think of it as being because of a shortcoming of yours.

Comment from: Daven posted at November 4, 2005 6:55 PM

I can't add much, except to say that as a writer myself, I write what apeals to me.

Yes, Eric, I am going to tell you what to do now, so listen up.

And all the rest of you, listen to this wisdom too.

You write. That makes you a writer. You put it on a website. That's the end of it.

If others like what you write and read it, well and good. If they come back to read more from you, that's better. If they hate what you wrote and leave in a huff, that's their loss. Once you hit "post" that's it. It is YOUR skull we are looking into, it is YOUR insights we want to see.

Everyone who is criticizing you and telling you to write whatever are NOT entitled to your creative musings. Do you HONESTLY think that I would throw away the uncorrected draft of something like "Farenheit 451" or "Atlas Shrugged" simply because I didn't like the content? Get real.

Would I read it anyhow? Maybe, because that would give me an insight into the person writing it.

This journal is like your diary, your creative notebooks, your thoughts and process of working out what you want to actually write about. We are coming behind you and reading it. That's all.

I have a decent sized website, http://davensjournal.com (shameless self promotion here) and I get decent traffic. I get about 50-60 unique hits a day. For the size and the fact that I have never promoted it except for a few banners here and there, that's damned good. But even if it was isolated on my own PC at home, never to be seen by another human being while I live, I would still write it. Am I grattified that people like what I wrote, hell yes. I have an ego that needs feeding too. But if I lost everyone of them tomorrow, I would shed no tears. I would still post those pages to my website, simply because. It's MY site and I can put what I want to up there. If someone doesn't like it, tough. You may put my journal down and move along to the next.

We come to see Eric Burns, not Websnark. That is what everyone has been telling you all day.

Now you have a quandry. Do you delete the Stark community at LJ and move it all back here? Do you let it ride? Personally, I would double post things to there and here for a while, and see if people actually use the LJ community to comment and post their own stuff. But that's me. Do as you will.

Just remember, som_pos kinda went bad because of the fans.

Comment from: Chaomancer Omega posted at November 4, 2005 7:14 PM

I understand completely the frustration that can come about when somebody attacks your work (and it sounds like the tone of the message that spawned this was definitely an attack, and not just a criticism.) It gets the blood boiling, lets a bit of depression set in, and leads to wanting to do something -- anything -- to show up the attacker. At least, that's how I tend to feel, and it looks like there are some similarities in your reaction.

Give it a while. The naysayers won't get any better, but your feelings will. And when and if you feel ready to write about John Stark here again, do so. Even if it's a little uncomfortable. I don't think you'd let different forms of discomfort prevent you from writing here... some of your past essays have definitely had a sense that you weren't wholly comfortable with the subject matter.

But if you don't want, don't. That's your choice, too.

And anybody who thinks that it isn't supposed to be about you missed the point of criticism anyway. When Roger Ebert reviews a movie, he's saying what he thinks of it. He can't tell me what I will think of it. Even when a reviewer picks out a technical flaw, something which might appear to be an objective criticism at first glance... it isn't. The flaw may be objective, but how much that flaw matters isn't. The "set the atmosphere on fire" discussion in Fantastic Four is a technical flaw, but how much it matters to the viewer depends on the individual viewer.

Criticism is inherently personal; this is what forms the basis of the "critical dialogue". And so even in its infancy, even in those times when webcomics criticism was all there was, Websnark was about you. Anybody who objects to that missed the point.

Does this mean I, or anybody else, will always enjoy reading what's here? No, of course not. But if I see that an article is about a topic I'm not interested in... I skip over it. It's not hard. I'd even go so far as to say it's a basic aspect of functional literacy. And I have to ask, as a writer, do you want to cater to people who can't or won't utilize that skill?

Write what you will, where you will. If that means John Stark here, or no John Stark here, that's your choice. But let it be your choice.

Comment from: roninkakuhito posted at November 4, 2005 7:17 PM

Eric, I've commented on this in several places already, but I'm a gonna chime in again right here. Please don't quit putting the John Stark things on websnark. If you must, mirror them at the live journal and comment lock them here, but don't kill them! I read John Stark once every week or two. I usually read it backwards to where ever I last stopped. It isn't bookmarked. Instead, I read it when you comment about it here or in your main LJ, or whens omeone talks about it in the discussions here. I enjoy it, but my webcomics list overflowith. As does my Journals list, even though it is much smaller. The Star entries aren't my favorite part of websnark, but damnit, they are better than the great hole of nothign that we will get when you post ten thousand words on stark over on the LJ group and don't mirror it here. Please!

Comment from: sqbr posted at November 4, 2005 7:17 PM

Yes, another not-so-original opinion but I had an epiphany so nerr. I may be utterly and completely wrong, of course.

The reason so many readers have gotten narky about Websnark is that although (and I checked the first entry to see) Eric never claimed it was a comic site, and was moderately clear that it was just "whatever he felt like doing" the quality and consistency of writing, and all the things like Shortbreads, YHMTYLM etc not to mention the way "being snarked" really started to mean something meant that although many readers may have been aware in a distant way that Websnark was not a Serious Comic Review Blog it really felt like one.

I must say when the "I'm sorry but this is my blog and I'll write what I feel like" posts started I was one of the poeple thinking "But you're ruining Websnark!" (I didn't say so becuase it's his blog to ruin if he wants :)) Because to me Websnark was a Serious Webcomic Blog, and as such things like proffesionalism and consistency (*) are important. This is where the MHA review came from- it is kind of unproffesional for a Serious Reviewer to spend large amounts of time "reviewing" their own stuff.

I'm not saying this isn't Erics site to do with as he pleases, becuase it is. I'm just saying that not everyone who feels upset at the changes is a stupid internet troll, they just fell in love with a comic review blog that never really existed and the fact this blog has the same name and author is making it difficult for them to grieve and move on :)

(*)I'm not saying the writing here is inconsistent and unproffesional...unless you read it through the filter of being Serious Webcomic Reviews.

Comment from: thok posted at November 4, 2005 8:44 PM

We really need a follow up article by MHA that accuses Eric of being an angsty emo catgirl, instead of the trained dancing monkey some people want him to be.

I don't actually have anything else interesting to add to the thread, although I'll point out that around 95% of the comments have been "You go, Eric! Write what you want to write!" Don't let the 5% of the readers who don't understand your mission statement get you down.

Comment from: bartles69 posted at November 4, 2005 8:54 PM

...it is kind of unproffesional for a Serious Reviewer to spend large amounts of time "reviewing" their own stuff.

[Sarcasm Filter=ON] - WE, his adoring public, don't pay Eric in something so petty as CASH but rather in the adoration he so desperately craves. As such, HE owes it to us to write only that which WE demand. - [Sarcasm Filter=OFF] Yarg. I can't even write that with a straight face.

Not to split hairs, but Websnark is not a Professional Webcomic Review Site (TM) and to my knowledge has never claimed to be. While Eric is a professional writer, this website is Eric's hobby. He has been gracious enough to invite us to share his enthusiasm on a multitude of topics. (Matt Sweeny posted the relevant stats here, so I won't bother rehashing them.) Many of us who aspire to the quality of writing demonstrated on this website by both Eric and Wednesday have as much interest in their views on the process of writing as in the final product. In the end, it really doesn't really matter what first brought us here, we stayed for a variety of reasons, all of which have been enumerated far more eloquently than I could hope to.
Eric, Wednesday,
Thank you for incurring all these various expenses solely to give us the privelege of reading your words, a privelege others (by nature of your actually being professional writers) have paid real money for. Thank you for generously sharing what you have, while expecting nothing in return. Thanks for just being nifty.

Now go snark something.

Comment from: Doc posted at November 4, 2005 9:00 PM

I agree with most people, save John (that fuck*ng guy {Achewood reference, not flame, really!}), who has had way too many replies given he only made two posts.
So since I agree with everyone saying write whatever you want it's your blog I'm not going to say that here but instead be entirely selfish.

Your blog is the only one I read Eric (save a couple of 'news blogs' which don't really count and the stuff attached to webcomics), I do not go in for blogs in general, I do not care for them (or LJs or DJs or friendster or whatever). So please understand where I'm coming from when I say I really don't want to read your John Stark LJ. I really like your John Stark stuff, I love historical learning + comedy, and I love hearing about where it came from but damnit I want it all to be right here where I'm used to finding it.
One reason I never really got into any big comics is that I don't like reading multiple series to understand continuity (which I know doesn't happen as often as all that anyway but still) it's the same here, part of the fun of your writing is the continual self reference and if you have two blogs I'm going to start missing some of that.
Like Wednesday's shortpacked post the other day, I could tell it was hilarious, exactly the kind of overdone joke I always enjoy but I couldn't enjoy it because I didn't know what the hell was going on and didn't know her LJ or anything to find out (google might I add was no help at all). That really sucked, not that I'm criticising Weds here, but if you have two blogs this will happen more and more and whats the point? If you have stuff here that people don't want to read people won't read it, if you have stuff in another blog people don't want to read people won't read the blog. What, are we starting blogs now to save people scrolling energy?
I demand you post ALL your trivial crap here for my convenience!

Comment from: Paul Gadzikowski posted at November 4, 2005 9:02 PM

Let's be frank, here. I think several hundred (and probably several thousand) of the people reading Websnark today will continue reading after this. Maybe not tens of thousands. Probably not tens of thousands. But a good sized chunk of folks. Probably more than most blogs ever get.

When I started drawing a cartoon a day, and for twenty years afterward, the only distribution method available to me was to carry them around in a three-ring binder myself; and they were seen by about twenty or thirty people a week at their popular peak. When there was no one to read them I couldn't draw them; I know, I tried. When I started putting Arthur, King of Time and Space on the web some three months before Websnark came online, my daily cartoons were seen by about a hundred and twenty people a day, and nowadays it's about four times that.

I, too, write to be read. God bless the flicking internet.

But if I see that an [Websnark] article is about a topic I'm not interested in... I skip over it. It's not hard.

Speak for yourself.

Comment from: sqbr posted at November 4, 2005 9:11 PM

Websnark is not a Professional Webcomic Review Site (TM) and to my knowledge has never claimed to be

Well, yes. That's what I said. I wasn't saying that Eric is unproffesional, I was trying to explain why other people think he is. ie, they think he is claiming to be a Professional Webcomic Review Site (TM), and if you view Websnark from that (incorrect) perspective, you can see where they're coming from. Though even if they were right they still wouldn't be justified in being rude about it.

To be (hopefully) more clear:
This is a good site. I enjoy it (mostly. Certainly more often than any other blog I can think of off the top of my head) Eric has every right to write whatever he wants and given what a good writer he is chances are it'll be enjoyable. The only "mistake" he made was posting reviews which were so good people mistook this site for a Professional Webcomic Review Site (TM).

Of course the comic reviews are still more frequent and of a higher quality than many other would-be Professional Webcomic Review Site (TM)'s so I don't see that anyone has all that much to complain about anyway :)

*hopes this post is (a) clearer and (b) not superseded by 6 posts made in while I typed it like the last one*

Comment from: cencithomas posted at November 4, 2005 9:26 PM

*after having failed to read the comments...*

Opinion time. The reason I read Websnark in a bottle. Dude, for me Websnark's not about John Stark or Gossamer Commons. It's also not about RPGs or even webcomic reviews/opinions. It's about the mind that produced the opinions. There are a number of issues I disagree about, but you know what? I appreciate an intelligent mind that produces views that give me a new perspective on the world (or at least the piece of it we have in common).

I don't care what you write about. Or where you write it. Or even whether I like it or not (usually, not always). Just tell me where you're at, and I'll go there and read it.

I don't always agree, but I'll always care about your opinions. Write on, brother.

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 4, 2005 9:50 PM

Not to mention the fact we write our comments to Eric's replies just because we're all anxious to actually get recognition from Eric and when he doesn't reply, we get all whiney and uncooporative. ;)

Websnark exists for Eric. Some fans might think otherwise... but let's be honest here. If Eric doesn't enjoy it, it will end. Avalon ended because Josh wasn't enjoying putting it out anymore. Framed!!! ended because other things more important came along and Frank was unable to continue. In time, something will come along and Websnark will end as well. There will be more important things for Eric to do.

But in the meantime... you know, this is an internet community that has developed around two people (initially around Eric alone, but now around Wednesday as well). We're a Personality Cult. :D Weird, that...

Anyway, Websnark will continue... and change. But that was inevitable. I just want Websnark to remain something Eric is proud of and enjoys, and I want him to post ANYTHING he wants here, without worrying about upsetting any of his fans.

Because no matter what a person does, someone will take offense.

Robert A. Howard, Tangents Webcomic Reviews, currently procrastination on the Thursday Fanfic Update...
http://www.tangents.us

Comment from: TheNintenGenius posted at November 4, 2005 10:03 PM

Wow. In fact, to quote Suzy Creamcheese, wowie zowie.

I like the webcomic snarks the best, I will admit, but I still often read the non-webcomic stuff. Even then, I realize that the site's not going to be interesting to me 100% of the time. I figure that I'm not giving him money to write what I want him to write and he hasn't turned this into an actual business where reader expectations would genuinely then count for something.

I know I'm echoing things that have already been said (this is what I get for not checking Websnark all day), but damn it, it's true. I've never felt a sense of entitlement when it comes to what I feel Eric SHOULD be writing about and it irritates me when people do, especially when Certain People I Could Name hijack the thread of a post praising a hilarious, satrical review just so they can bitch about this whole entitlement thing.

Yesterday I was just bemused at the whole thing. Now I'm just pissed. I know that the rules of Internet say that most anything you post when angry is a bad idea, but damn it, I'm going full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes this time.

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at November 4, 2005 10:06 PM

I (and I'm sure lots of other people around here) have seen lots of websites close down, with their owners explaining that they just couldn't put up with the trolls/thieves/idiots in their inbox/forum/comments section. I always gnashed my teeth at this, even when it was a website I wasn't interested in. Ignore it! Don't let the bad apple rule the day!

But then I read this post (and accompanying LJ material), and I finally got it. I finally could follow that thought process. Hey, look at me, learning a completely different lesson over here.

Of course, I don't want Websnark to end. But after thinking about it a minute, I realized that Eric had said it--it wouldn't really end. The man has to write. He might start writing it all on his bedroom walls, and then I'd have to get a plane ticket and a crowbar in order to read it, but it would still be produced.

[UNALLOWED COMMENT TOWARDS OTHERS REDACTED]

Oh, and operating under the theory that if enough of us badger you, you'll go all 10K on us, post Stark stuff here. DOOO it.

Comment from: kirabug posted at November 4, 2005 10:08 PM

hey. still reading. like your writing. do what you gotta do :)

Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at November 4, 2005 10:12 PM

I wonder how long it'll be before I finally stop equating "Websnark posts" with "Eric posts" in my comments. I already don't equate them in my head, but whenever I talk about it in a comment, it comes out the old way. I do love Chick snarks, really I do.

Comment from: Amadan posted at November 4, 2005 10:31 PM

I totally don't get this angst and drama. With this many readers, of course a tiny minority will be trolls, whiners, and detractors. Why let them affect you?

I don't get the John Stark stuff. It doesn't interest me. I skip over it. No biggie. If some other people feel compelled to snivel about posts that don't interest them.... uh, so freaking what?

Comment from: Biddarin posted at November 4, 2005 10:44 PM

The absolute worst thing about the internet is the sense of entitlement that you get when you can talk to the creator. When you pick up a book and you don't like it, there's often no way to go and tell the author that (I'm not saying it's impossible, but difficult at the very least) There's certainly no way to change what they've written, it's been published, it's out there.

But on the Net, the readers, especially of Blogs and Webcomics think they are entitled to get everything they way they want, and to tell someone to change when they don't like something.

Whoever is getting so anal about what you post and so forth, forget about them. This is your site, your blog, your journal, the collection of your writing. They want to whine and complain, tell them to move the hell on, or better yet, ignore them, or do a Mulholland and do something to piss them off even more. It's all about what you want to write. We are your readers, not your publishers, not your editors, we're just readers. It's cool that you like to talk to your readers and get our responces to things you've written, but we shouldn't get any more then that. Like Penny Arcade (quoting Kevin Smith) said, it's just not "for you"

Comment from: Kirath posted at November 4, 2005 11:53 PM

I, too, came here for the webcomic review, and stayed for the writing.

And without John Stark, I never would have heard of the bodaciously hot Peggy Shippen. See how my life has been enriched by but one of hundreds of tiny details? Thank you for writing, Eric.

Also, I adore Gossamer Commons, and while I am sad to see Greg stop drawing it, I am excited by the prospect of new artists. Also, I am looking forward to more of Nemesis.

So yeah, I'll put a chip in the pile for writing whatever you want to write, and actually, yeah, I WOULD like to see the massive post about the good Brigadier General. Right up there on the main page of THIS site.

Comment from: Scott Kurtz posted at November 5, 2005 12:15 AM

Eric,

You know I love you man, and that we're friends, but this is really making you look bad, buddy.

This is so obviously all about how you got your feelings hurt over the fact that most websnark readers couldn't give a flying fuck about Stark.

If the most important thing to you is writing, then go write. You can write all day and stay content inside your home. But that's not the most important thing, is it? Sharing your work with others is the most important thing. That's the high we're all after.

When people connect with your work, it's euphoric. When people reject your work it's devastating. Either way, it's an adrenaline rush to put it out there and await the outcome.

Websnark is not fiction. It's not a novel. it's not a pure genre. It's criticism. A genre dependent on OTHER'S work. And this is criticism on the web, complete with tools for readers to interact with you and enter the discussion. Websnark is an exercise in discourse.

Last week, you spent paragraphs reminding everyone that a person's work, once released, becomes the ownership of the reader and that the reader's interpretation is as valid as the artist's intent.

Now, you're reversing your stance. Now the writing and the process is all that's important. That's what this whole ball of wax is about. And to prove that point to everyone, you're willing to threaten to take it all away...just so you can return things to what you contend to be the original intent of this piece...a creative outlet for you to enjoy writing.

Now that the discourse isn't going your way, you want to remove yourself from it. Or at least you're feeling the sting of wanting to remove yourself from it.

Write what you want to write. We all do that in the end. But don't bullshit us about your motivations. More importantly, don't bullshit yourself about them. There's nothing wrong about the true motivations behind websnark.

This is last week coming to bite you in the ass, Eric. People want websnark to be something you didn't intend. Remember last week when the readers interpretation was as valid as the author's intent?

Chomp!

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 5, 2005 12:34 AM

Scott, I don't see this as having anything to do with last week's debate.

Honestly, what do they have in common? Eric is stating he doesn't like people complaining about the John Stark posts, so he's putting them elsewhere even though he knows this is going to end up hurting Websnark as a whole. Last week was about people interpreting comics, sometimes finding interpretations that the cartoonist may not expect.

So, please show me what links these two differing topics?

Rob H.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 5, 2005 12:36 AM

Mr. Kurtz:

Just because you're a big-wig webcartoonist doesn't give you the qualifications to psychoanalyze the "real" reasons is upset. Stick to what you do the best, and leave the psychoanalysis to whichever licensed therapist Eric or Weds may choose to consult.

Oh, and prefacing your unsolicited, rude advice with "You know I love you man" is like prefacing an anti-Semitic tirade with "Some of my best friends are Jews, but..."

Comment from: Scott Kurtz posted at November 5, 2005 12:37 AM

Rob,

I appreciate that you're trying to back your friend up, but the link is obvious.

PvP is my work that I put out for others to enjoy. It's my art that I hope can connect me to others. That's why I put it out there. It has an intent and message.

Websnark is Eric's work that he puts out for others to enjoy. It's the work he hopes will connect him to others. That's why he put it ou tthere. It has an intent and message.

Really, is it that hard to understand?

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 12:49 AM

Actually, I see where Scott is coming from.

He's conflating the interpretation/intentionality debate with expectation/entitlement, which is a wholly different debate, but I can see how he got from point A to point B.

What I think it comes down to is I'm going to write what I'm going to write. Scott is completely right when he says that how it's received and how people interpret it is out of my control. When I do John Stark, how people respond to that is also out of my control, and when I write an essay or the like about John Stark, that doesn't mean I get to either change how people respond to John Stark or to those essays.

On the other side of that, I'm still going to write what I want to write, and I'm going to do it in the place(s) I feel comfortable writing it. And if that diminishes things or makes them look bad, so be it.

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 5, 2005 1:04 AM

Michael: That's just Scott's style of writing here. He enjoys being confrontational. Heck, I do too. *chuckle* Scott isn't trying to be rude or anything. He's just blunt. And to be honest, sometimes bluntness is refreshing and useful.

Scott: What Eric was talking about with PvP (and other comics) about criticism is interpretation of the comic. While you might not intend for the comic to be intepreted that way, different people see different things when they view comics, read books, or watch movies.

What's going on here is not about interpretation but about who owns Websnark. It would be akin to readers insisting that Brent and Miranda marry, even though you might not want them to. You will write what you want in PvP. While you can't control how readers (and critics) interpret the comic... you do have control over what happens in the comic as a whole.

I think what Eric is stating is that he is going to write what he wants. Websnark is about his interests, not what the readers insist on. But that he'll move John Stark posts to a LJ community because he doesn't want to deal with complaints or cries of "shameless self-promotion" because he talks about things he is working on.

Rob H.

Comment from: Merus posted at November 5, 2005 1:06 AM

People have been advising that those who see Websnark as something other than Eric's personal journal, and not a cunningly written webcomics review journal with occasional asides on a cornucopia of interesting topics, should revise their expectations and/or stop reading.

So, enjoy your journal, guys. I'm going to check those other links.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 5, 2005 1:16 AM

There. Now Merus's stance is one I can respect. He's accepted the situation, and chosen to move on. He's not wasting bandwidth complaining repeatedly about a policy decision that's not his to make (even when 95% of the posters tell him to knock it off). You're okay in my book, Merus.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 1:25 AM

You're okay in my book, Merus.

And mine as well.

Comment from: Scott Kurtz posted at November 5, 2005 1:34 AM

Nehora,

My success of failure as a webcartoonist does not invalidate my having an opinion. We're all stating opinions here and now you want to disqualify mine simply based on the success of my feature?

You want to chastise me for being confrontational in the same breath that you compare something innocuous I said to being anti-semitic.

I believe "go fuck yourself" is the response I'm looking for here.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 5, 2005 1:44 AM

I believe Mr. Kurtz's profanity-laced response makes my point far better than I could.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 1:44 AM

Michael Nehora -- I missed your first response to Scott. That was clearly over the line.

Scott said "you know I love you, man," because Scott and I are friends off Websnark. And like a friend he was speaking his mind.

Further, don't forget the rule. Scott gets to insult me. You and Scott don't get to insult each other. Further, I didn't feel insulted.

(Scott -- same applies to you, of course.)

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 1:46 AM

(Oh, and for the record? I don't think we can call any comments left here "unsolicited," since... well, the commenting system is specifically to solicit comments.)

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 5, 2005 1:50 AM

Well, Eric, it seems to me either people get to insult you or they don't. I had no way of knowing you and he were really friends, and to me his comments about "bullshitting" were no different than Mr. Bishop's accusing you of "shameless self-promotion." I'm not going to apologize for sticking up for you.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 5, 2005 1:51 AM

...Especially when you, quite properly, broke your own rule in responding to Mr. Bishop. Rules shouldn't be ironclad.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 1:56 AM

Which is why I'm not censuring you or locking the discussion. That was a warning, to all involved. Even me.

The reason I specifically say they get to insult me, but you don't get to insult each other, is because this is a place where people comment on essays. If I put binders on them, that hampers that ability.

My response to Chris Bishop, in the other thread was heartfelt. And it was wrong. And I apologize, to Chris and to everyone involved. He didn't deserve that, and it was against the rules I myself laid out to protect people speaking their mind to me in these commentaries.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 5, 2005 1:59 AM

Eric: Agreed. I apologize to you, then.

Scott: I apologize for offending you.

Now. Why don't we all discuss something less controversial, like the status of the unborn? *joke*

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 5, 2005 2:02 AM

Nehora, I'm afraid that your post did come off as rude and dismissive to an extent we usually try to refrain from around here (please don't remember I've totally broken this rule in the past, please don't remember I've totally broken this rule in the past...). I think your heart's in the right place, but you should note that you tell Scott to get his nose out of the psychoanalysis biz and then proceed to claim knowledge of the psychic state behind his "you know I love you." I'm not saying you're not entitled (man, loaded word choice) to say, "This opening came off to me as insincere and it seems like your post is unnecessarily critical of Eric," if that's what you think, and I know it lacks the punch, but, well, that's kind of the point, the whole non-punching thing. And remember, the "either they get to insult Eric or they don't" answer is "they do," although I won't claim I've never posted out of a desire to stick up for him even when he felt like he didn't need it, and, Christ, I spend too much time here, don't I? Like how the instant I saw Merus' name I went, "Ah, yes, the guy who hates the Stark posts?"
I have a problem, don't I?

Comment from: siwangmu posted at November 5, 2005 2:03 AM

Aaaaaand I'm too late :). Yeah, that intervention is clearly going well.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 2:07 AM

A touch, siwangmu. ;) It's under control. And was close to the line on your end, too.

I chalk it up to it being late (at least in my time zone).

Clearly, I need to crack open my hooch Apple Vodka and hit bed.

Comment from: Michael Nehora posted at November 5, 2005 2:08 AM

No you don't have a problem, siwangmu. And I see your point about my having contradicted myself above. Hence my apology to Scott and to Eric.

From now on, I'll let Eric stick up for himself. He is, after all, more than capable of doing so.

Comment from: Horus posted at November 5, 2005 2:09 AM

Firstly: Thanks for paying to let me read your stuff. I liked it before and I'm sure I'll still like it after this.

Secondly: If you are writing for yourself then why pay just to host it on the webs?

I understand that it's not as simple as that. Just because you don't care how many people read it doesn't mean that you don't want it to be read and all that but seriously?

Thirdly: If I get what kurtz is saying correctly (and there's no guarantee) I agree with him that your threatening to shut down websnark sounds a little bit like holding the website hostage so that we'll appreciate it more and so that you can do what you want without people complaining because they're scared you'll take it away.

Fourthly: I don't get it? If, as you said, the snarks about Stark (hehe Stark-snarks) will dwindle over time, as did the Gossamer Commons ones, why not ride out the storm? It won't be long before you're posting about Stark even more rarely than once a month? And if they are dwindling why do they need a Live Journal of their own? Not to mention what's wrong with writing on the Stark site? Maybe I just don't get it.

Anyway, I'm sorry that some people have made it difficult for you to be comfortable writing whatever you want. But I think you should just ignore them. Stiff-upper lip and all that. Do what you wanna do, snark what you wanna snark, yeah. Given it's easy for me to say that from where I am.

I still think if you start splitting between a large audience who are demanding and expectant and a small audience who are grateful just to hear what you have to say then the outcome will be pretty obvious. By putting stark somewhere else you're just setting a precedent for your audience directing what you write. If you really don't care about losing audience then maybe you should prove it?

Or not because y'know I'm just the audience and it is still your blog...

Comment from: Rich Burlew posted at November 5, 2005 2:09 AM

I agree that there is a difference between content and derived meaning. Eric feels readers are attempting to control the actual content of Websnark, as in, what is actually printed in black-and-white. They want to see more of Topic X, less of Topic Y. Some might be attempting to influence the process of creation of the work by the implied threat of leaving. The debate with criticism and PVP was with regards to the meaning the reader sees in the work AFTER it is completed. No critic or reader is trying to alter the objective content of the work in that case. It's the difference between Roger Ebert saying "This movie was too long," on his show, and Roger Ebert showing up at the movie studio and demanding that they cut footage before it goes into general release or he'll give it a bad review. The former is an opinion; the latter is an attempt to force that opinion on the creator as edict.

I recently added a new character to my strip that has turned out to be controversial. Some people really hate her, actually. They say she's ruining the strip. And you know, as far as I'm concerned, they're wrong and don't see the big picture and whatever, but they're allowed to make that judgement. They're allowed to say, "I think this is making the strip bad." But where I got pissed is when a group of people posted on my boards saying that I had better remove the character, or they were going to stop reading. Because that is not criticism or even review, that's an attempt to extort the creator into altering the actual content of the work. I told them that if they wanted a webcomic that never changed and never evolved, mine was not the comic for them and they were free (even encouraged) to stop reading immediately. I believe I suggested they might consider reading Garfield instead.

So, yeah. There ARE pure webcomic review websites out there, and I think it would be great if the people who only want to read webcomic material supported them instead. (I can say that knowing that I'm not taking food out of Eric-and-Wednesday's mouths, since they don't get paid for Websnark.) I equate it to the old First and Ten situation Eric loves to refer to: when the show changed from comedy to angst, viewers who didn't like it (i.e. all of them) turned it off. Websnark is constantly changing; if you don't like it, turn it off.

Comment from: shadowbourne posted at November 5, 2005 2:19 AM

Mr. Kurtz:

I believe the fundamental premise you are basing your argument on is flawed. Websnark exists so that Mr. Burns can give his opinion of web comics (or tuna melt sandwiches) to anyone who cares to read them.

With luck, this makes the reader a bit more well informed, and perhaps they can make a better choice on how to spend their time. (I would go with the tuna melt sandwich.)

As far as his "connecting with the readers" goes, that would be his two web comics!

I believe that's what you say you do with your one web comic.

By the way, the panda bit is no longer funny.

William A. Bellamy V

P.S. - This is only the second time in months that I have posted. The last time was when you were wasting time. Go back to your media empire! Give the Pandas to Nixon. Bill

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 2:30 AM

Okay, we're on full warning in this thread. Insult me if you wish, but not each other. Period.

Also? I think the panda bit's hysterical.

It's worth noting I'm drunk as the Ace of Spades on -- no joke -- General John Stark vodka. So I shouldn't be posting right now. But still. No insulting each other.

Comment from: kirabug posted at November 5, 2005 2:39 AM

I recently added a new character to my strip that has turned out to be controversial.

My readers are currently campaigning (in a friendly, lighthearted, altogether annoying way) to force me to add a new character that they've already devised - a dragon invisible to all but one character - who they've even gone so far as to name "longwang".

Of course "my readers" consists of four or five guys who post to the forum when work gets too boring for words, and Mr. Burlew's readers must number in the tens of thousands by now.

Still, like so many here I've found that no matter what the size of the content portal, regular "viewers" seem to think that the content becomes "design by committee" as soon as they can post publicly-accessible comments. Since we all know that a camel was a horse designed by a committee, well, it just might not be the best of plans.

Comment from: Dragonmuncher posted at November 5, 2005 2:43 AM

I agree with Horus. Ride out the storm (See my previous comment about the half-life of webdrama).

I'll admit I want you to keep everything on Websnark for some selfish reasons, too. It so much more convienent when everything I want to read is in one place...

Comment from: shadowbourne posted at November 5, 2005 2:49 AM

I didn't think I was insulting, I thought I was being condescending.

Bill

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 2:51 AM

That doesn't change the fact that I can't feel my face.

I'm trying to, but it's just not there.

I'm pissing on Guernica!

Comment from: John Lynch posted at November 5, 2005 3:01 AM

I recently added a new character to my strip that has turned out to be controversial. Some people really hate her,

I'm assuming you're talking about Miko. If so, wow. I know Halley hates Miko (which I'm not too sure I get. I'm thinking it's the phenomenon where the alpha female in a group dislikes any new females that come into the group, e.g. Megan from Elf Only Inn, but I'm not too sure), but I'm enjoying the tension this has caused.

Besides which, I don't think Miko is here to stay.

But where I got pissed is when a group of people posted on my boards saying that I had better remove the character, or they were going to stop reading. Because that is not criticism or even review, that's an attempt to extort the creator into altering the actual content of the work.

Thanks for explaining the difference between criticism and extortion. To be honest, I was a little confused about the two (really! No sarcasm here).

Now I'm off to go see what people are saying about Miko :D

Comment from: Tangent posted at November 5, 2005 3:01 AM

I'll have what he's drinking...

Rob H.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at November 5, 2005 3:04 AM

It's the finest vodka New Hampshire has to offer.

I'm moderately sure it's the only vodka New Hampshire has to offer.

Comment from: John Lynch posted at November 5, 2005 3:10 AM

God I hate BLOCKQUOTEs....

One thing I just thought of. Eric's saying "You know what, if you're sick of me posting about stuff not webcomic related, go away" is actually a lot like Darlington of GPF saying "If you don't like this storyline, go away." And (IMO, especially considering a lot of people continue to read GPF) it isn't indicative of Darlington failing in his webcomic (like Eric said in his YHMAYLM, well, that was what I got from that post anyway).

Darlington has elements in his comic that some people like exclusively, he has other elements that other people like exclusively. He wants to tell the comic he does, and his numbers show that his readers want to read it, and if people don't like the current storyline, they can either go for a while, or come back. EXACTLY like Eric's been saying regarding the non-webcomic posts.

Just thought it was an interesting parrallel ;)

Comment from: Denyer posted at November 5, 2005 3:48 AM

to quote Suzy Creamcheese, wowie zowie.

Warpath gets dialogue from Frank Zappa?

Guess it's true about BOOM! learning something KERZAP! every day...

Comment from: Ray Radlein posted at November 5, 2005 5:30 AM

That doesn't change the fact that I can't feel my face.

More to the point, neither can any of us.

Damn, that must be strong vodka.

Comment from: sqbr posted at November 5, 2005 6:55 AM

Oops. I just read the comments on this post which reminded me that Eric clearly stated that Ze Old Vays make him miserable and Things Had To Change and that for someone with a sarcastic sense of humour I suck at noticing satire.

Oh well. Unlike most of the other idiots who spout crap on the interent, at least I admit when I'm wrong :) Maybe I should include large, popular blogs in my self-imposed ban on frequenting internet forums.

Still, if there's one thing this thing has made me realise, it's that I don't ever want a fanbase. My creative obsessions are far too fickle. Luckily this is unlikely to ever be an issue :)

*attempts to go back to lurking*

Comment from: J.(Channing)Wells posted at November 5, 2005 7:08 AM

I also am unable to feel Eric's face. I doubt he'd want me to try, mind you, but just saying.

Rich, for what it's worth, I'm really happy that Miko's in the strip. But I've always been kind of into that whole Paladin thing.

Comment from: alschroeder posted at November 5, 2005 7:34 AM

We all love internet drama, as long as the meltdown is not happening to us.

I was one of those who, in a previous Stark post, said I was getting sick of Stark posts. (Notice I never said that about Gossamer Commons). But then, I prefaced it by saying that kind of comic never appealed to me (and including Dinosaur comics in that kind of comic.)

But no one's disputing your right to put anything on websnark you want to put.

So don't get defensive when ---after months of really good, varied webcomics criticism---the "had me, lost me" articles are pure GOLD, every one of them---when it turns more often than not to self-criticsm of your own works---someone calls it "shameless self-promotion" and admits they're disappointed.

Because you yourself---no one else-- built the idea of what websnark is to be.

Maybe "shameless" is the wrong word. I've gone the on-line journal route myself, years ago, and you HAVE to write what interests you. And when I first started my webcomic, I went ON and ON and ON about it in the on-line journal...

And my brother sent me a very smart email. "Shut up about the webcomic, or at least vary it a bit and only mention it, say, once a month".

Because he liked my writing about what I was best at, and although he LOVED the comic, he already HAD the comic. And he loved ME, and knew I was blind about the trap I was falling into...

And this one you need to EMBOSS over your keyboard...

When you're the creator---when you're not criticizing others' works...

"Let the work of art speak for itself."

Because if you NEED to endlessly explain what you're doing in the work of art, then the work of art---by any measure---has FAILED.

And if you DON'T need to explain it, then you are just wasting space.

I think Gossamer Commons is a WONDERFUL success. Stark is, again, not my cuppa tea, but for what you're trying to do, it's succeeding.

Same for your novel.

Can you imagine Stephen King doing a weblog talking endlessly about his creative process? It would fascinate a few of us, those of us really interested in writing...but for most of us, it would be---again--shameless self-promotion.

Stephen King talking about OTHER horror writers, though, or writers in general, is criticism worth gold. (Or make it a better writer, like Robertson Davies, before his death.) Or Larry Niven. Or whomever.

Can you imagine what we would have LOST if Picasso had done extensive commentary on his every work? Art critics would have had little to write on his work---they wouldn't speculate on what he intended. They'd know, and that knowledge is the death of critical speculation...

Leave a little sense of mystery, won'tcha?

Yeah, Neil Gaiman does a decent weblog, but that's because he DOESN'T comment endlessly on his own work. Ditto Warren Ellis.

If you're turning this from a criticism-of-webcomics blog to a I'm-the-great-author-and-this-interests-me, I suggest you emulate Gaiman's or Ellis'. Because more often than not, they're talking about someone else. Three-fourths of theirs is about their friends' work, or works they admire, or works they hate. Oh, they occasionally talk about their creative process. Enough about their creative process to whet the appetite, but not enough nuts and bolts to make us sick of it.

I admit it. I got hooked on Websnark because of your criticism of other webcomics, and I relished you introducing me to new stuff and reasons to follow it. All well thought-out, reasonably written, and entertaining. Now, you're changing direction...and that's fair. We all change or we die.

But I'll miss what it was, and what it introduced me to. I'll miss the heady feeling of finding a webcomic I never read before, and a dozen reasons to re