« You know, those rivets on Cutter's eyepatch must have really hurt. Kind of makes labriet piercing look wussy, doesn't it? | Main | Coffee tastes different with a half-numb tongue. »
Eric: Man. Internet drama. It really *does* feel like 2004 again.
So, despite my near total collapse of posting, I do still get e-mail every now and again. And some of it asks about current webcomics doings or controversies or the like. In a lot of ways, it's like people poking at an old wasp's nest with a stick. Maybe the nest is empty and long abandoned, but maybe, just maybe a big ass swarm will sweep out and start stinging everything in sight! And that'll be fun to watch, right?
Anyway.
The hootenannie I'm currently being poked about involves Scott Kurtz. Which, to be honest, is not an unusual situation. See, ultra cool fun person Johanna Draper Carlson reviewed How To Make Webcomics, the book Kurtz and his fellow Halfpixelites (Halfpixies?) put out. It was a mostly positive review, definitely recommending the work, but it did point out some things Carlson thought were weaknesses, including the section on dealing with online critics.
Kurtz -- ironically, given that it goes against most of what the section writes on the subject -- responded to those criticisms on his site.
More stuff happened after that. Apparently the Webcomics Weekly podcast this week got into it too, though I haven't listened to it.
Why do I get pinged about this? I'm a critic. Obviously, I must have an opinion on this issue. And it's true, I do. I have several, as it works out. But I'm not going to write about them, save how they potentially illustrate a point about Scott Kurtz.
A quick aside. Kurtz gave me an early shout-out that absolutely made the site, as far readership goes. I have always been and continue to be grateful. As a second aside, Kurtz and I have gone through periods of high contact -- and periods of no contact at all -- and I consider him a friend. He's good people. That's the kind of thing you need to stick in as a disclaimer when you write something like this.
Whenever -- whenever -- I see Kurtz go off on someone, regardless of the situation and regardless of the justification, my heart just sinks into my stomach. Not because I think he's necessarily wrong, but because there's almost never a need for him to get involved in the first place. And every time I see it, I think the same thing:
God, I wish Scott Kurtz could just let his work speak for itself.
PvP is a good god damned strip. Ding is funny. How to Make Webcomics has become a must-read for budding cartoonists. PvP: The Animated Series was really well done. Essentially everything Kurtz has done in the last several years has been successful on an artistic and generally on a commercial level. If he's had issues, they've been more update related than anything else, and he's been seriously knuckling down on that.
But when someone posts a negative comment about his work, justified or not, it's like Kurtz is drawn to it. It's moth to the flame action, kids. He wants to defend his work. He wants to defend his opinions. He wants to defend himself. He wants to wade in with two fists of justice and make people see, God Damn it.
The problem is, that's almost always a mistake.
When we produce something -- be that a comic strip, a story, an essay, a painting, a building or whatever -- we are putting it out to the world. We make it as strong as we can. And when people see it, they're going to have opinions about it. Sometimes, those opinions will be harsh. Sometimes, they'll be glowing. Sometimes, as with the review I linked above, it will be a glowing recommendation that points out what the reviewer saw as minor weaknesses that don't diminish the overall recommendation. Sometimes, those opinions will be wrong-headed, full of obvious mistakes not only about the artist's intent, but the artist's execution. And sometimes, those opinions come from someone who doesn't like you and lets their dislike or disdain color their opinion of the work.
If the work we have created doesn't in fact suck, those opinions don't ultimately matter. The work is still there. The work endures opinion. The work can and does speak for itself. And if the creator has to respond to the opinions of others, his strongest response is always going to be "obviously, we can't please everyone. However, I'm proud of what I've done and I stand by it." Most of the time, he shouldn't even do that. By responding to criticism -- especially by responding with force or vehemence -- all you end up doing is A) making yourself look thin-skinned, B) drawing way more attention to the critic/jerk/whatever than they deserve and C) making yourself look insecure about your work.
C is often the key. There's a voice in the back of every creator's head that says "wow, this sucks. I don't know why you're inflicting it on the public." When someone criticizes the work, that voice gets incredibly loud. "See?" it shouts. "You suck! They know you suck! You're not fooling anyone! The jig is up! You can't fight city hall!" The voice likes a good cliche, you see. And if you listen to it, it paralyzes you. You lose your ability to produce. I've seen it happen.
And for some people, it's amazingly hard to just shrug and say "welp, that's life," and move on with their business. The voice just screams at them, and plays on all their insecurities, and makes it seem like any mitigation or negative comment is monumentally huge.
So you shout the voice down sometimes. You go to war to defend yourself and your work, because the voice is wrong and you know it's wrong, and you want to shut down the people who are feeding it. Only it doesn't shut them down. It makes the problem worse, and increases the number of people critical about your work.
Ironically, the advice that How To Make Webcomics gives here -- the very section that Carlson tripped on and Kurtz defended in the above mess -- essentially deals with that very voice. The approach the book takes, simply put, is to deflect these criticisms before they incapacitate you and prevent you from working on your strip.
Now, I'm one of those selfsame critics, though I (mostly) use the term's original meaning -- I'm less interested in what an artist does wrong and more interested in what the artist does. While I do indulge in review and opinion, I generally feel like I should wash my hands afterwards. Obviously, like most people who put their opinions online for the world to see, I'd like to pretend my wisdom rains down upon the world and changes all it touches. But, to be blunt, it doesn't and I shouldn't expect it to. The safest thing for any blogger to do is assume the subject of his essay will never actually read what he has to say. If the subject does read it, it's sheer hubris to think your words would make him change his ways. And as Kurtz himself said in his response, it probably shouldn't change his ways. It felt really, really good to have Kurtz say nice things about one of my short essays, but Kurtz didn't owe me that response. And Kurtz doesn't owe this essay any response, either. The only thing a critic has a right to do is publish his criticism. He has no right to expect readers, change or impact from his words. If he does have impact, that's very cool, but it should be the exception and not the rule.
And watching these various controversies over the years, I keep just yearning, over and over again, for Kurtz to just stop taking the bait. It doesn't matter what other people say about his work -- his work is successful. When someone has the wrong impression about his work, he should trust that the right impression will come with time and that his readers can tell the difference. When someone is sniping him or taking personal grudges out on him, he shouldn't lower himself to engage with them -- that just gives the other side credence. And eventually, he gets so used to going nuclear that he does it at any provocation -- like with this review. This was a good fucking review of his book. The only thing he should have said was "wow, Johanna Draper Carlson wrote a nice review of our book at" and been done with it. If he couldn't do that, he should have just ignored the god damned review. His book is selling like hotcakes, and it has their thesis right in the chapter Kellert wrote. Let the book speak for itself. It'll do that. It's a good book. Trust that it's a good book.
By going to war over this, Kurtz has given some potential readers a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to the book. That doesn't do How to Make Webcomics any favors. It doesn't matter if Kurtz was right if people walk away conflating the book and an overreaction to a criticism, especially when the criticism was buried near the bottom of a good review.
More to the point, by getting out his loudspeaker and shouting about this, Kurtz managed to take a good review of his book that only a chunk of his potential audience would have read and turn it alchemically into a negative review of his work by virtue of his reaction which a much larger audience has now been exposed to. Blogs have talked about the issue, word of mouth has spread, it's good Internet Drama. Lots of people are freaking out over Kurtz's attitude towards critics. Others are going and yelling at Carlson for... well, for writing a review that recommended the book to her readers. The sheer feeling of stupidity surrounding this non-issue is palpable, and it was entirely Kurtz's doing. And it was entirely unnecessary.
Like I said above, I just wish he'd let his work speak for itself. It can do that. It's good work.
He just has to trust it.
Posted by Eric Burns-White at August 20, 2008 10:27 AM
Comments
Comment from: Sean Duggan ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.websnark.com/nav-commenters.gif)
posted at August 20, 2008 1:37 PM
In some ways, this reminds me of your piece on Gygax and his faults when it came to D&D house rules (namely that he felt that the rules were perfect as they were and anyone using house rules was not playing Dungeons and Dragons, but some other game) and his tendency to be a bit of an asshole about it. In both cases, you have someone great who doesn't like the idea of criticism. In both cases, their reaction to said criticism is to come up with both fists raised. And, unless I misunderstand their backgrounds, both have essentially had one huge success to their name, which has carried them along. And, frankly, I think that may be at the root of the defensiveness in both men. While they have both succeeded on their own virtues, putting out a damn fine product and successfully continuing the success of said product through continuing to add to it, I wouldn't be surprised if there's still a voice in the back of their head saying, "If it weren't for this, I'd be nothing. So it's everything." And, in both cases, that voice would be wrong. Kurtz has created several successful spin-offs as you mention in your article. Gygax went on to design Lejendary Adventures and contributed to a number of D&D-based systems in the form of books and modules. But still, the heart of their success, what all of their successes stem from, maybe it still feels like a fluke to them. And that scares them.
^_^ Or, of course, it could be they just have quick tempers that they can't control. It's not exactly a rare human condition.
Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at August 20, 2008 3:07 PM
And this failing of his has seriously effected Kurtz's reputation, if not his strip's clear and obvious popularity. Frankly, myself and all the people I know who talk about webcomics have one knee-jerk reaction when someone mentions Kurtz-- "hothead." And this is a man whom we all collectively know virtually nothing about. Don't know his politics, his religion, his relation to his wife or kids. Nothing. We all like PvP. Many of us like Ding (WoW jokes, um... No, I really just don't care.). What do we think of when we hear his name? "hothead." "internet drama." "thin skinned." Note that we think this BEFORE we think about his comic strip. Kinda frustrating.
Comment from: Wistful Dreamer posted at August 20, 2008 3:14 PM
Argh! No! I just read his review! He did! He dropped it! "Entitlement!" Argh!!! Gods! It's the pseudo-intellectual strawman internet meme of the week. Anyone who disagrees with what we've done has a misplaced sense of "entitlement"! Argh! Kurtz you are so much better than that! Sure, some people genuinely do feel a unjustified sense of entitlement, but some just want to be able to put forth their own opinions! I just... Why does he...Argh!!
Comment from: Sili posted at August 20, 2008 4:45 PM
This is sad. I've always heard more about Kurtz' antics, than his work. I've tried looking at PVP, but I came to it after my initial gluttonous introduction to webcomics so it didn't get taken up as unquestioningly as some strip I read (and read - some did get dropped eventually).
I don't know if it's just the amount of backstory, but I'm pretty much just 'meh' about it.
The real problem is that when I then see Kurtz' writing a glowing forword to Kris Straub's first book. And how Straub talks about Kurtz as the best thing since sliced bread. And how they together with Guigar and Kellett formed Halfpixel. I don't reconsider my opinion on Kurtz - I question my liking for the other three guys. In particular Straub.
Which annoys me. I read and very much enjoy 75% of Halfpixel. I have all their books. But Kurtz have in my mind taken on such an aura of ... well ... 'suck', that he tempers my enjoyment of his colleagues' work.
That, of course, is a fault in me, but it bothers me, nonetheless.
(I hope Kellett is writing the forword for the new Starslip collection ...)
Comment from: MaroonedComic posted at August 20, 2008 4:53 PM
I listened to the podcast yesterday where the guys spoke about this issue. I have to agree with you on the cringing part when Scott joins the fray, I think your assessment is fairly accurate. But I can also understand jumping in when you feel like your voice needs to be heard.
Anyway, Scott made it pretty clear that he really had no problem with her making her comments as a critic. It did seem to revolve around who is making the criticism of your work, i.e. - are they "qualified" to give you feedback you should take into account?
I believe it was Dave who made that specific comment. It's funny because they talked about how you can't sit there and take in everyone's criticism because it's just too much to filter and it may not be "good" criticism, but Scott also talked about the fact that you need to be aware when what you're doing might actually suck and it's time to move on to the next thing. How do you figure that out on your own without input?
In the end, I think the guys handled it well in the book (which I did read) and it seemed like decent advice to me.
Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at August 20, 2008 4:59 PM
You know, I agree with Scott here. There is no reason a creator should ever feel [b]obligated[/b] to listen to critics, or why any critic should feel as though they have a right to have their criticism given any special consideration.
And I thought his response was actually pretty even-keeled. Was there a previous version where he flipped out? Because I've seen the posts where he flips out. This was nothing like that.
Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at August 20, 2008 5:01 PM
gah. I've been using bbcode to often, and there's no edit. :P
Comment from: Montykins posted at August 20, 2008 5:11 PM
Wistful Dreamer -- actually, I think the review did display a sense of entitlement. The part Kurtz objected to was an explicit statement that reviewers have a right to be heard by creators and that the creators should change their work to please the critics. That's entitlement, and Kurtz identified it accurately.
Comment from: InkBlot posted at August 20, 2008 5:56 PM
Montykins: Everytime I see a comment like this, I keep going back and reading her review again and I just don't see it. I see this:
And that’s reflected in his categories; not one covers someone pointing out a legitimate flaw or place for improvement in the work. In other words, he doesn’t think critics are ever right.
And I see it imply some critics may be right sometimes. Nothing that they must be listened too, or have any right or entitlement to be heard. Just that it could happen with an underlying note that it might not be prudent to assume it could never happen. I honestly don't understand how this equates to "entitlement" and wish I could.
Comment from: InkBlot posted at August 20, 2008 5:58 PM
That looked very different in preview...
Comment from: Eric Burns-White posted at August 20, 2008 6:52 PM
Christopher -- I don't disagree with Scott here. You're right. Artists don't have to listen to criticism, and critics have no 'right' to be heard.
That said, I still really wish he had just left well enough alone.
Comment from: Prodigal posted at August 20, 2008 6:55 PM
I read it the same way that Inkblot did, not as a decree that creators must listen to critics, but rather an argument that some criticisms are valid ones. Taking that and rewriting it into "Critics play a part in the creation" (of any sort, much less the important one that Kurtz claims is described in the section he quoted) is a fundamental failure of communication that prevents actual discussion from taking place.
Comment from: Montykins posted at August 20, 2008 9:43 PM
I don't think I'm rewriting something just because I have a different interpretation of it from yours. I also don't think that having differing interpretations prevents discussion from taking place. (As evidence of this claim, I point you to all the discussion that has, in fact, taken place!)
I believe that the statement "In other words, he doesn't think critics are ever right" implies that the author has an expectation that that creators will normally listen to critics. I think that's unreasonable, although I'm not as emphatic about it as Scott Kurtz was. Even if a review makes a valid point about a flaw in something, I think the creator is well within his or her rights to disregard the reviews. Indeed, I think it's probably the wisest policy.
If an actor says "Oh, I don't read reviews", does that mean that they're automatically dismissing the possibility of flaw? I don't think so; I think it means they feel they'll act better if they're not thinking about how something will be reviewed.
Comment from: Shaenon posted at August 20, 2008 10:56 PM
If Kurtz doesn't think critics ever have anything valuable to say, why is he reading criticisms of his work and bothering to reply? Man makes my head hurt.
Comment from: Prodigal posted at August 20, 2008 11:47 PM
I don't think I'm rewriting something just because I have a different interpretation of it from yours.Unless you're Scott Kurtz, I wasn't talking about you.
If an actor says "Oh, I don't read reviews", does that mean that they're automatically dismissing the possibility of flaw?No, but neither is this what Kurtz was doing - he was saying that the opinion that critics can be right about things was actually a claim that the critic needs to be as involved in the creation of the comic as the creator is, and that is wrong, because it isn't what the reviewer was saying.
Comment from: LurkerWithout posted at August 20, 2008 11:51 PM
http://blog.newsarama.com/2008/08/17/everyones-a-critic-its-not-about-you/
Comment from: Christopher B. Wright posted at August 21, 2008 1:46 AM
I still don't see how this can be lumped in with the classic Kurtz rants. This piece lacks vitriol. There's no sense of him lighting a bonfire, throwing kerosene on it, then stomping off to find more wood.
Comment from: LurkerWithout posted at August 21, 2008 3:53 AM
So you're saying it needs William G?
Comment from: gwalla posted at August 21, 2008 3:01 PM
@Lurker: Dude, don't even go there.
Comment from: EsotericWombat posted at August 21, 2008 3:14 PM
I'm sort of bothered by the accusation inherent in his repeating over and over again that what the critic does is never more important than what the creator does. Is there anyone who actually thinks that the critic is more important?
And while I absolutely understand the need for insulation, I think that the point made in the review was valid. The reviewer wasn't expressing any feeling of entitlement, rather that the Guide might do well with a blurb about what to do when one comes across a piece of valid criticism. Assuming that the critic is wrong just seems unnecessarily limiting.
Clearly, whatever Scott is doing (there was someone on the PVP discussion board who noted that he has, in fact, taken reader criticism to heart quite often) is working for him, and I wouldn't want him to change. Just the same, I think that at the very least Scott might want to inject some of the views he expressed in his response into that section of the Guide
Comment from: Scott Kurtz posted at August 21, 2008 3:30 PM
Hey guys. I'm here if you want to ask me any questions deliberately.
I think that Eric is right in his assertions about me. I should let my work speak for itself in most cases. And I thought that's what I've been doing since I started Webcomics Weekly and writing the book. I really have made an effort to do a lot of things differently, including knuckling down on my update schedule.
For those of you concerned about my reputation (and I know Eric expressed concern about the rep of the book), fear not. Honestly, most people ONLY know my work. Try to remember that most people don't really frequent all these boards and comments and webcomic related sites. If it's not in my blog or the blog of another webcomic they read, they just don't know about it.
I really felt that the blog post I made about insulating was aimed squarely at new creators and was a part of what we do at Webcomics Weekly and Halfpixel.com. People in forums and comments want to paint it as some attack on Johanna and make me out to be a big baby. But that's not the case.
Johanna is a blogger. She's not a very good critic. Most of the time what she writes amounts to "check out this book I read and enjoyed." I don't need to worry about if anything she has to say about my work is "correct." I don't need to keep my mind open to the possibility that she could help me.
We don't live in a vacuum. We see what people write about our work. Sometimes people come along like Eric that make you think about your work and write something that really touches you and you appreciate it. But most of the time, it's just noise.
Again, I'm here and reading this. So if you have anything that makes your "head hurt" about what I said, you can ask me about it directly.
Cheers!
Comment from: Scott Kurtz posted at August 21, 2008 3:32 PM
Did I say "deliberately?" in that first sentence? That makes no fucking sense. I meant DIRECTLY. Jesus, Scott.
Comment from: Montykins posted at August 21, 2008 3:58 PM
Scott-
It's my theory that you still had that PVP-specific blog on your mind when you read that thing about critics. Was this related to that at all?
Comment from: Scott Kurtz posted at August 21, 2008 4:03 PM
Monty, no.
I kind of made peace and distanced myself from pvpmakesmesad about a month ago. I did twitter once about someone finding out who the Fake Scott McCloud is, but that's about it.
I used to read that site and enjoyed his insight. He used to make me think. But linking to him ruined the site because suddenly he became popular and people started demanding content from him even when he didn't have anything to say in particular about PvP.
So then the site changed to service the haters who just enjoyed seeing someone take apart my work and the Fake Scott Mccloud bought into his own hype.
That site is poison now and I avoid it. Although a lot of people try to send me twitters and emails about what he says over there. There are a lot of people TRYING to get me to pay attention to it now.
Comment from: Eric Burns-White posted at August 21, 2008 5:43 PM
I used to read that site and enjoyed his insight. He used to make me think. But linking to him ruined the site because suddenly he became popular and people started demanding content from him even when he didn't have anything to say in particular about PvP.So then the site changed to service the haters who just enjoyed seeing someone take apart my work and the Fake Scott Mccloud bought into his own hype.
I can't speak to the site in question (I glanced through it a few times, but never became a regular reader), so I can't directly comment on that.
The concept that he's mentioning, on the other hand, is one I know well. When you start to get traction as a blogger and people start to come back and you build up some popularity, you start to get a ton of pressure to maintain and service those audience expectations. If you go back and reread my archives, you'll see an unfortunate number of posts where I started 'writing Websnark' instead of just blogging when I had something to blog. There are times I think I crossed over into self-parody as part of the process, and I don't think it did either me or Websnark any favors.
One of the things I decided when I jumped back in, this time, was that I was going back to basics. There were no requirements. If I posted thirty posts about my cat because that's what I wanted to write, so be it. If I lost every reader on the site but my wife and my father, so be it. Because otherwise, you start to listen to all the people who scream about writing about Webcomics and why don't you Review X and 'OMG this comic sucks write about it and make fun of him' and....
Yeah. It's not unlike the voice I described up above. Only this time the voice is saying "dude. If you don't pander to their desires, you'll lose them."
Problem is, if you do pander, you'll lose the readers you actually want, and then you'll lose the ones you pandered to anyway.
So, let me generalize what Scott said. If you're blogging, write when you have something to write about. If you're not doing this as your career, it's better to not post weak shit then keep your update schedule up. And when you write -- write what you think, not what you think they want you to write.
Oh, the other universal thing? The day I posted essays talking about leaving given websites behind, the sheer number of e-mails I got from people trying to drag me back to look at how bad those sites had become was stunning. Apparently, 'I'm not reading Megatokyo any more' can also be read 'if Megatokyo is really bad he'll want to read it again!'
People are funny, sometimes.
Comment from: Robert Hutchinson posted at August 22, 2008 12:15 AM
My biggest problem with all of this was something that I didn't even pick up on until the podcast discussion: Scott, I originally thought you were talking about the entire length and breadth of criticism, not just "full critiques presented by self-described critics". I think there's a difference between responding to full-fledged reviews and mentally acknowledging that anyone has a criticism of something you're doing. And I knew for a fact that you do the latter, Scott, so it seemed to me that you were obfuscating a distinction between "negative criticism I agree with" and "negative criticism I don't agree with".
I can see the argument for avoiding all criticism, and I can see the argument for avoiding all negative criticism. But to break it down to "avoiding all negative criticism that I think is wrong" seems to suggest that the danger isn't self-doubt or harming the integrity of the work, but rather that the danger is that it's too hard to mentally sort out "LOL more boooobs" from "I'm surprised Cole got that angry in last week's strips". Which is kinda insulting (intentionally or not) to the folks who take the time to use the latter phrasing.
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)