Webcomics Community: A Summary

Nothing in the responses to last week's series on the failures of webcomics did much to alter my conclusions. I see these problems in webcomics:

• poor role models
• exiting and aversion by real talents
• immaturity
• poor performance compared to other comic media
• exaggerated claims of financial success
• hype
• dishonesty
• meager talent in most new arrivals
• embarrassing, abusive behavior, childish behavior and general dereliction of grown-up conduct by those who would tell you what to do
• a pipe-dream community where webcomic dreams not only don't come true, they give many art school grads their first taste of reality
• the corruption of awards
• the failure of responsible parties to acknowledge errors and correct them
• the goofball tone of public nerd romances and open-diary publishing
• the illusion of community
• the intellectual shallowness of gurus
• intellectual cowardice/ suppression of "bummer news"
• uneven internal media
• amateurism that permeates all aspects of what we think of when we think of webcomics

  This isn't much different than many online communities, or from real life places. Go anywhere where civil servants work and you will see similar conduct.

  The main difference is that many people are young and lack the critical skills to recognize these realities. Last week's series was a wake-up call to anyone who has been dozing in the webcomics pipe dream. 

  No one can say I didn't listen to the recommendations, study the history or put my own work on the line. If you think I am a bitter person out to demolish webcomics out of some personal grievance, that's your delusion. I am for what works, as long as it doesn't require stooping to unprofessional conduct.

  I will not pretend to feel compassion for people who could have acknowledged their errors, inappropriate attacks and guidance blunders as early as last year, but chose to stonewall, proudly defiant and confident in their position. I think they regret their actions now, but lack the spine to correct themselves so late in the game. Some practical advice: when you screw up, fix it as soon as you can, and make amends. 

  Soon I will offer my opinion as to what to do if you are a serious aspiring stakeholder in an online comic career. Ironically, I hope the people who most need to listen ignore me, and I think the people who least need to hear me are already in agreement.

Where Are the Others?

You may have noticed more letters from Scott Kurtz following recent posts. Perhaps you join me in wondering why his colleagues in HalfPixel never take up the sword.

  An unprinted letter from Kurtz, sent to me personally last winter, gives a hint. He speaks of Dave Kellett, Kris Straub and Brad Guigar as non-confrontational gentlemen, and faults himself a bit for being the group hothead.

  I've seen this before on the internet, and it's the antithesis of that Penny Arcade bit, the one that says given anonymity and an audience, people online turn into "fuckwads."

  Here, given facts that appear difficult for them to address, let alone admit, they vanish.

  Other webcomics people with dodgy conduct do this too: Gary Tyrrell from Fleen, Jon Rosenberg, R Stevens, Meredith Gran -- though the last two are arguably too daft to know the difference.

  Why does their conduct matter?

  It's amateurish, of course, and isolates us from colleagues in other comic media. It's boorish, and when it is intended to block the progress of others, self-centered. They have worked relentlessly to position themselves as people of significance in webcomics, but their behavior discredits the medium. Many of them have problems with honesty at a fundamental level.

  Science and academia and major publications worldwide are skilled at addressing policy, conduct, method and merit. Certainly, debates do at times turn bitter, even shrill. Most professional people are wise enough to evaluate the strength of their arguments before they start to type, and to concede gracefully when they must concede a point.

  In the world of online comics, where closing your eyes and hoping people will go away seems to be the prime coping method, it seems my argument that our most prominent people are  poorly qualified and lacking maturity is underscored by their unwillingness to address what I say.

  I can only figure that my comments are either irrelevant, of no interest, or too hard to counter.

  I am not eager to bring evasive, circular, emotional letters from conspiracy-theorists upon myself (don't bother, anyone, I doubt I'll print them here). I'm also under no illusion that these people are even capable of understanding why they are being held accountable, and why it matters to some of us.

  Still, I'd like to be awed by a well-reasoned, rational communication from these folks explaining their position. I would like to know how their behavior online advances the cause of comics, and what they are doing blocking the way if they are unable to defend their positions.

  I have reason to view some of these people as slick and manipulative, based on both observation and personal experience. I am not going to be swayed by a charm offensive.

  Nonetheless, anyone who is holding back, worried that my ownership of this blog is going to be used as a crass opportunity to humiliate them simply for standing up, is wasting an opportunity. As I have offered before, you can have a whole day's post to make your case, or more if you need it.

  But if only for your own dignity, this crawling under a rock stuff should stop.*

___________

*Scott Kurtz can take the week off.

Webcomic Success in Brief

 We may be able to distill the qualities of truly successful webcomics into a shorter format than I have achieved in the past.

  A sober reading of webcomic success is probably incomplete if it fails to cite these elements:

• steadily improving execution and quality
• business chops
• ability to detect unsupportable claims by others: *

  The following qualities: **

• enjoyment (example: a good laugh)
• addictiveness (example: desire to see the fate of characters)
• innovation (example: breaking all the rules, and having it work anyway)

  The following attributes:

• reliability (appears on schedule)
• dependability (maintains a high level of quality)
• freshness (continuous self reinvention, without losing essential elements)
• the ability to attract a large audience as if out of nowhere, relying on quality before gimmicks***

  It's time for parties offering rose-tinted glasses projections of your webcomic success to post hard data supporting their claims.

______________

* Important because you can waste years doing the wrong things. Recall my own experience relying on faulty projections published by others, and having to discard numbers that turned out useless after months of planning. Years of experience modeling business plans for myself and others did not save me from such a basic mistake because I made the assumption that "authorities" would not print information that was false -- including the numbers they later shared with me in interviews pertaining to their own work. It's also important to recognize that sharing by market leaders and careful analysis of others strongly indicates that popular assumptions of webcomic success are greatly exaggerated. Readers often think that the most popular webcomics are doing much better than they are. By selling a myth of webcomic celebrity, failed newspaper strip creators are embellishing themselves in their fallback careers.

** The first two are from Morgan Wick's Da Blog. 

*** Gimmicks has a broad range, from respectable items, like ads, to less respectable, like obvious maneuverings to win meaningless awards and publicity among the gullible.

  It's also worth noting that organic appeal is likely to mean a higher quality of reader, and a greater chance of successful monetization. Less organic -- people who are attracted via persuasion -- are naturally less loyal and possibly less sophisticated.

Webcomics Scene Teaches What Not to Do

For a while I thought that market expansion and emerging talent might make webcomics a serious medium.

I have changed my mind.

• New webcomics are appearing at an accelerating rate, and the quality is disappointing;
• The market is spreading sideways faster than it is spreading vertically.

What the last point means is more people are getting slices of pie, but the slices are getting thinner. The meme-and-irony t-shirt collectives are getting hurt the most, as they are forced to compete with people who actually can design and make t-shirts.

The effect on webcomics generally:

• A person stumbling onto their first webcomic is more likely to be bored than impressed;
• People with established comics are grinding out episodes long after creative decline, probably out of fear of attempting growth and lack of career options based on mythical self-portraits as successful webcomic creators;
• People who don't get out much are building webcomics around dead-end topics like video games and sterile pop culture;
• Most creators are illiterate about comic history and therefore re-create tired themes while lacking quality standards to compare their work

The best thing for webcomics might be a contraction that forces people to master the craft or do something else. I don't say that as a self-appointed master; I say it as a reader who sees the medium fossilizing just when explosive creativity should be occurring. The cost of print should be driving talent to webcomics, but veteran print artists look and see a tyranny of idiots and a sea of mediocrity. Our best efforts are just barely good enough, and many days I doubt even that.

Leadership does not generally arise in Romper Rooms, it comes from example:

• As an anarchic free-for-all, we don't have appointed leaders, but we don't have standards either, so people emerge to fill the vacuum by hyping themselves;
• Revolutions don't occur when the people in the streets are just tourists. Strivers, posers and art snobs squelch innovation;
• Consultants and other purveyors of Power Point shows and software manuals, you lack soul, or more precisely, "authoriteh." It's only a matter of time before you are parodied on South Park.

What's a creator to do?

• The only way to lead is to lead yourself. Get away from the quagmire - everything I ever said about networking is wrong and should be treated as poison. When everyone is huddled together, either making incremental gains or bracing for circulation declines, it robs you of the desperation that drives brilliance.

I'd like to promise I could supply examples, but Pug and I are in it for the adventure and everything else is expendable. We're handicapped by disappointing site developers who can't keep pace with us at any price, so we're always behind. Bottom line: don't look to us.

• Escape the sweaty embrace of the Mayor McCheese gang and their webcomic hype, from HalfPixel to Fleen - they're pitching daydreams. The webcomics "scene" is an environment that seduces you into thinking you are doing something when you are merely standing in a sweat bath with 10,000 other people who think they deserve fame and fortune more than you;
• Don't bother loathing the foul-mouthed buffoons, like the aspiring Harvey winner who writes me regularly, telling me what a dickwad I am. Save your contempt for the ones who are intellectually unwilling to engage, because they know they have no defense. Mr. Natural would give them a trademark kick in the ass. Odds are, if you haven't learned yet, you never will, but maybe there is some naive soul left to be alerted. Offenders include not just the embarrassed remainder of HalfPixel, but embarrassments like Gary Tyrrell and even Xaviar Xerexes, who clings to meek decorum while embalming a lot of rubbish in his shrine.
• Another source of alarm: generally reserved and unquestionably genius-level cartoonists like Chris Ware and Bill Watterson look at what's online and use uncharacteristically negative language to describe it, like "garbage." I for one am guilty of going easy on substandard work by "that kid who might improve with time." The only ones who improve are the ones who are improving. Blunt critics, like Gary Groth, dismiss the medium despite forgiving a lot of honestly bad stuff published under his own company's imprint (Fantagraphics).
• Finally, I'd be alarmed that an open-minded, truth-seeking sort like myself would enter webcomics, study it round the clock for several years, and find it mostly over-blown, in love with itself and falling out of fashion. I'd be even more alarmed that there are quality comics with quality accounting who far out-perform the alleged self-supporting titles, providing a valuable reality check to the people peddling your bright webcomic career along with your lottery ticket and Brooklyn Bridge. The ignorance deficit -- the difference between what most webcomic people know and what they need to know -- is so gaping, the typical aspirant's chances of success are rotten.

Some estimates:

• 90% of webcomics are a complete waste
• 9% have redeeming aspects but remain mostly expendable
• 1% require consideration and an investment of time to measure their worth (2% if you have lower standards than me)
• perhaps about 3% are walking dead that won't drop
• less than 1 in 1,000 measure up to the best work from newspapers, monthlies, underground and vintage categories
• comics that temporarily capture the imagination of a large demographic, like Penny Arcade or xkcd, immediately see their creators distance themselves from the "scene." XKCD's author didn't even want it known he was going to drop by the webcomic party in Massachusetts last March. Was it any surprise he was one of the few people there who didn't look like yet another dork with a dumb hat?

I don't regret publishing posts on the potential of webcomics. I do regret publishing anything that portrays me as a cheerleader of what is happening. Set aside the notion that your efforts will be rewarded. If you merely stop to calculate whether this is the best use of your time, the truth is very far from what others would have you believe.

Personally, I love doing comics and strive to improve. I would do them as a hobby or profession. But I wouldn't recommend myself as an example for anything except possibly straight talk. For the 99.9% who are in over their heads, this is a frivolous use of your time. Squandering youth, college, career experience, earning potential, family money and other resources on faux webcomic dreams is simply not in your best interest.

Bill Watterson

I like to clear up errors before someone else comes along and does it for me. Today, after reading about an upcoming unauthorized biography of Calvin and Hobbes cartoonist Bill Watterson, I found myself checking a few facts on Wikipedia.

  Watterson and I attended the same college, and I was under the impression that our tenures overlapped. Wikipedia, however, has him graduating while I was still in high school. Somewhere on the internet is a thread in which I place us in college at the same time.

  It hardly matters, but I like to make corrections when appropriate.  Luckily, I didn't claim we were best buddies or roommates or spray-painted our names on the water tower together.

  Which brings us to the question of unauthorized biographies of living people, especially those who request privacy.

  Schulz and Peanuts, the recent biography of Charles Schulz by David Michaelis, was authorized, and received extensive cooperation from friends and family of the late Charles Schulz. Upon publication, certain issues of event sequence and the space dedicated to an extra-marital affair led Schulz's son Monte to renounce the book. A volume of The Comics Journal was dedicated to articles by Monte Schultz and others working various angles on the debate.

  I read The Comics Journal coverage before I read the book, and it unnerved me. Monte Schultz produced a manuscript the length of a slim book, and compelling. When I cracked the book, I was wary, but it seemed excellent to me. I feel I achieved an understanding of the man surpassing my needs.

  What caused the mess? I can only speculate. My impression is that Monte, as chief advocate for the Michaelis project and liaison to Schultz intimates, was embarrassed by the depth given to Schultz's fling, an offense to Monte's mother. How can the only son live up to a father of Schultz's stature? Embellishing and defining the legacy are common approaches, and the unseemly portions have undermined the mission.

  It is possible, I suppose, that Monte Schulz expected to screen the manuscript as a fair exchange for granting Michaelis unfettered access. The project consumed a chunk of Monte's life, and he may have felt entitlement. If there is a weakness in Monte's TCJ piece, it is of the protests-too-much variety, and I wonder if a deeper grievance, which could not be tactfully included, was driving the attack. Michaelis, for the record, stands by the book, and I find myself in his corner.

  Nevin Martell's upcoming The Search for Calvin and Hobbes: The Unconventional Story of Bill Watterson, is not an authorized biography. In my experience, such works are risky. They usually contain enough easily disprovable blunders to discredit them, especially if friends of the subject remain loyal. This book offers, as part of its pedigree, interviews with "almost fifty" cartoonists. Reading the list, I am more curious to learn whether they were duped into collaborating, and whether they offer excuses for turning on their old colleague.

  Among books I've culled from shelves of treasured comics are volumes in which cartoonists talk about another cartoonist. A few have merit, but mostly this is a quick and dirty way to publish a book, and boring. If Martell's book is about "my letter from Watterson" and "what Calvin meant to me," it's going to be a snooze. It appears just about everyone on your comics page stooped to collaborate in something that will embellish their resume but may remove them from Watterson's Christmas card list. The list is mostly newspaper people, though Nicholas Gurewitch of Perry Bible Fellowship finds his way in.

  Whatever your opinion of the strip, Calvin and Hobbes was a challenging comic to execute and required an extensive run-up to become a hit. Calvin debuted as a fully-developed five-year-old. Watterson is notable for equipping his protagonists with souls. Producing the work for a decade (with one hiatus) probably interrupted the man's ability to embrace everything else that interests him in life.

 I don't have to repeat here that cartooning is often lonely, interminable work; under-respected and littered with failed attempts. What limelight there is is typically usurped by people driven by insatiable egos.  Now, at 51, the man wants to enjoy himself. I can't think of an argument in favor of violating his space.

  Watterson will be remembered in part as the man who passed on a truckload of loot by not merchandising his characters. I am as curious as anyone as to what may be learned from his life, but perhaps the most important lesson -- restraint -- is already before us.