Calling a Comic Book a “pamphlet” is like calling a comic book a…
“Pamphlet” is a dirty word to me man. It seriously makes an angry chill run down my spine. It’s a very narrow minded, IGNORANT term. And since I’m so passionate about the history of comic books and I generally come from that neck of the woods, the term bugs the shit out of me.
In an article over on THE BEAT, they interview some creators and some hacks about what they think the highlights of 2005 are… and not ONCE but fucking TWICE the word pamphlet comes up. First, it’s Joey Manley– who said:
“This is the start of a trend that will eventually see the death of the comic book pamphlet, and the standardization of online serialization.”
That statement alone puts Joey Manley back a few steps in my book. Always with the agenda that guy. 
Then we hear from Shaenon Garrity:
“The continuing disintegration of the direct market, as evidenced by the scores of creators abandoning the monthly pamphlet format and turning to graphic novels and/or webcomics.”
“Scores of creators abandoning” Say what??? Name the SCORES of people SHaenon? That’s ludicrous. Maybe you mean there are a lot of independent creators who can’t make it now in Diamond’s closed up system…. but they aren’t ALL jumping to the web my dear. They’re doing what they can afford when they choose a TPB or popping something online. And the more tech comes along, the more these same creators will be able to offer regular comic books themselves. RIGHT FROM THEIR OWN HOMES. They won’t even need an overpriced POD service.
So, I’m here to tell them it’s not a fucking pamphlet. It’s a monthly comic book. And it’s not really dying. Sales are in the toilet, YES.. they have been for the past 15 years!!! Anyway KIDS, do your homework before you belittle a fucking mass medium. There are several independent companies doing ok, ask Devil’s Due.
When I hear these web guys/gals toss around the term pamphlet, it’s almost like they feel giddy using it. And I know if I’m a bit insulted by it, I can only imagine what the myriad of comic book readers think about these pricks. It’s almost like saying– “Oh, you’re not reading a book or a magazine.. you’re reading PAMPHLETS! BWHAHAHAH!”
Mostly, this attitude derives from just how easy it is to put TOTAL CRAP on the internet. And the fact that many of the crap creators out there wouldn’t sell at all in the direct comic market. It’s just NOT GOOD. The lot of it! So, they harbor this inner resentment for the comic book form and the indy publishers out there and invent these artsy fartsy insulting terms to throw around….
Ok, here’s a schooling mother fuckers…
THIS….
IS A PAMPHLET, you fucktards. And I swear to god, if Jack Kirby were alive today, he’d be calling you complete jackasses for belittling such an artform.
Comic Books won’t die. Even INDY comics won’t die. Heck YEAH the Direct Market is broken! DUH!!! Anyone who actually KNOWS comics knows this. Anyone who’s actually been listed in the Diamond catalog or worked with DIamond on a regular basis knows this.
I’ve said it before, and I’m saying it again, it’s just going to be up to the creators to get more creative.
Do these folks who have that word in their vocabulary even know why comic books actually exist??? Why they came about? Because, you know, like the old saying goes, history repeats. And it will.
And so… this “pamphlet” talk has got me so fired up again , that I’ve decided instead of thick trades, I’m going to put out a bi-monthly book, all by myself with no direct market to comic shops and I’ll show you stupid fucks out there how to have both a daily Webcomic AND a regular COMIC BOOK. –
We don’t need this segregation in comics. We don’t need the ignorant words they make up.
Comics IS comics, motherfuckers.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:00 pm
I want two of those Books.
…cause I know Grey’s too cheap to get one for himself…
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
A quick check to reveals that “pamphlet” is defined as “an unbound printed work, usually with a paper cover.” That’s pretty much what a comic book is, isn’t it: an unbound printed work with a paper cover?
Personally, I don’t think calling a comic book a pamphlet belittles the medium at all. Pamphlets have a long history of broaching important topics of discussion and discourse in British society (if we reference again our dictionary.com definition, the second offering is “a short essay or treatise, usually on a current topic, published without a binding”). These things were vital to a vigorous and well-informed society.
What the hell is there that’s degrading in these two definitions? If people today have started to think of pamphlets as only flimsy fold-up brochures, then maybe society needs to lay its hands on a dictionary and check its facts.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
since when is a comic not bound dude??? saddle stitch BINDING….
I have a problem that it’s only been called Pamphlet by these uppity pricks in comics who want to segregate everthing —
it’s goddamn propaganda is what it is.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:36 pm
The dictonary definition of things really does not stand up well when it comes to actual use. Do you know what the horrid term “Niggar” is defined as? A useless piece of wood. Now, I’m sure if you ask anyone of African descent what the definition of that horrid word is, you’ll get a much different response.
Dictionaries really do not stand up well when it comes to what words mean in actual use. In the mind of the public, it’s not what some large book says a word mean that counts, but rather the de facto definition of it, or rather, the definition that is put into use. And that definitiong for “pamphlet” is a small piece of literature intended to introduce you to something, be it propoganda, a club, or any other number of things. Certainly not a work that contains many pages and has a plethora of content within it.
Also, comic books ARE bound. Maybe not bound in such a way that a novel is, but certainly bound nontheless. Are they stacks of loose leaf paper? No. Are they one large piece of paper folded to imitate a book? Not at all. They are multiple sheets of paper BOUND together in a magazine-like fashion.
DJ, more power to you, show them what a comic book really is. We’ve all got your back, brother.
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Maybe those nerds at The Beat were referring to Chick Tracts?
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:34 pm
The big problem with de facto definitions over more formal definitions (such as those in a dictionary) is that de facto definitions vary from person to person. If you engage in a discussion with someone else, whose definition of a term do you use if a conflict of meaning comes up? If two people are operating from different definitions of the same word, they work at cross purposes: what I mean when I say a word is not what you mean when you say the same word. It leads to miscommunication and misunderstanding; I think I’m being perfectly clear when I use a term, and you think I mean something totally different than I intended. We’re both using our de facto definitions, both using our own understandings of a word, but it acts as a hinderance to communication rather than an aid. Unless we happen to have exactly the same de facto definition–which isn’t always guaranteed–relying on those understandings of a term isn’t going to do the job.
That’s the strength of formal definitions: unified, coherent meaning. And it’s not like they’re set in stone, either; dictionaries change from year to year, words are tweaked, additional meanings are added, etc.
I’m not arguing that the use of the original use of the term “pamphlet” by Manley and Garrity wasn’t misleading, and Lord knows I won’t even begin to speak to the accuracy of their arguments; DJ is in a much better position to know if they’re spouting bullshit or not than I am. And clearly a strong argument could be made that comic books are, in fact, bound (though I think the way they mean bound is like a hard-cover book). But c’mon, folks, doesn’t it do just as much to segregate the comics community when we immediately jump down each other’s throats for word choice?
January 4th, 2006 at 2:20 am
Chuck, are you talking of some sort of dictionary revolution, where everyone forgets their de facto definitions and just sticks to what’s in the dictionary each year? I don’t think that would work. What if you bought one of those children dictionaries? You wouldn’t be allowed to say ‘cock lips’. You’d have to say *shudder* ‘penis lips’… Acutally that’s funnier than ‘cock lips’. I’m going to start saying ‘penis lips’! Thanks Chuck!
January 4th, 2006 at 2:41 am
Regardless of the dictionary definition, the first thing I correlate “pamphlet” with is “door-to-door salesman fucktard who won’t let me eat my rapidly cooling dinner.” A comic book is referred to as a comic or a magazine; anything else is only used by someone trying to sound elitist, whether they think so or not.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:04 am
DJ swore! HE SWORE! AH! My ears!
Pamphlet…*shudder*
January 4th, 2006 at 4:03 am
I’ve learned time and time again that what the dictionary defines a word to be, isn’t actually how the word should be used. Sound stupid? Look up “Bootylicious”. The credit goes to Beyonce, Kelly Rowland and some Michelle chick, who made up a girl group called Destiny’s Child. The definition for the word in the dictionary, according to DC and the other two, is wrong. I have a tendancy to believe them, since they made up the goddamn word. You’d think the dictionary people would have at least enough courtesy to ask the creator of the word what the word means, as opposed to making up a definition of what they THINK it means, eh?
Mind you, I don’t think “bootylicious” should even be IN the dictionary, but that’s my own personal opinion.
It’s no secret the upper enchelon of comics, not as a whole, but as a divisible group of ignorant ancient douchebags who simply cannot pass the torch, are not impressed with the webcomics medium. When we print our own work, and make our own books, and go to cons to sell them….it probably pisses them off cause we’re not buying the latest issue of Batman or Spiderman.
Mind you, I love both of those superheroes. I really do. I -DON’T- love the writing and endless subjugation to the same supervillians every single issue for the last fourty years. Come on people, REFRESH ME. Don’t bring Norman Osbourne back from the dead saying the one you killed off twenty years ago was a goddamn clone….that shit don’t fly. Don’t bring back the Robin that Joker BEAT TO DEATH WITH A CROWBAR to sell comics, only to probably have some swerve in there in the end. That’s retarded….and these kinds of reasons are the reasons we’re not buying it. Because it’s not fresh, it’s stupid, and I honestly don’t need to spend money on it, when I have THOUSANDS of fresh choices on the internet with insight, art styles, new characters, and FRESH storylines because you assholes won’t pick them up cause they didn’t go to some retardedly overpriced college, hang out with your buddies, or what-have-you.
Good for you, DJ. I’m glad you wrote this article, and I’m glad you went with the decision you did. I -was- aware they call work like my own “unprofessional” (P.S. Fuck you too)…..I wasn’t aware they were calling any possible future printed works of my own “pamphlets”.
Well I guess that makes me a useless piece of wood in the comics world.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:14 am
Maybe someone needed to throw in a touch of comic book history at those two. Comic Books have been in the tank in large part to infighting between Diamond and comic book shops. Diamond strong arm’d shops and knocked off the “other” comic book distributer.
What happens when a company like “Comic Express” starts to deliver monthly comics to comic shops. Or starts to do it on a quarterly basis because it doesn’t have to deliver marvel books so it can damn well deliver when it’s ready to. Suddenly you will have a rush of people (who previously couldn’t get into previews because they lacked backing) selling at a brick and mortor shop. It is still the holy grail of comic artists to have some 12 year old kid get all weepy eyed when he thinks about how his mom threw out his copy of spider man #1 and how much that would have been worth.
Lets see some kid get all excited about any of the digital type comics that are here only as long as they are on the internet or as long as your credit card can keep paying to look at them.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:38 am
I think what DJ is saying, at least what I took from it, is that they are not RESPECTING the artform, but rather saying that it’s becoming useless and everyone is going online for their entertainment. Aren’t they both creators of online content? Wouldn’t it make sense to say that the print form is going the way of the dinosaur and that online serialization is where it’s at if you’re an online creator? It would from a marketing standpoint. It’s not very truthful marketing, but ethics and the internet don’t really go together anyways. I think what DJ’s saying, especially the part about making a comic from your home and skipping the POD is already starting to sputter into existence. VideoTVisioN, is producing Comicasts available for download through iTunes now. Free content, a mix of video, audio voiceovers of the comic content and the work from the actual books. Download it, take it on your iPod or just watch it on your computer. Episodes are 5 minutes, roughly, in length. Doesn’t sound like internet serialization to me, but rather an evolution of the comic BOOK format. I’m sure if you look up the definition of book in the dictionary too you’ll find evidence to support that argument as well. Am I going to bother looking it up? fuck no. To me they’re comic books, not pamphlets and it doesn’t matter who says what because if I WANTED to, I could just as easily find something to support my opinion as they can theirs.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:58 am
Well, I think both can work together seamlessly.
I just find it fucking insulting to keep using a term over and over that makes absolutely no sense. Seriously, go tell someone who collects comics or sells them, or has made a living publishing them that they are “Pamphlet brokers” and I’m sure they’ll be offended.
Everytime I hear that word.. I cringe. It’s like taking an uppity shit on the forefathers of comics too. People didn’t call these pamphlets in the 80s and 90s or before that. Only in this fucked up internet age that allows any hawty tawty fuck idiot online to make up words and feel important.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:45 am
PAMPHLET : Comic book history :: NIGGER : Black american history
It ain’t even close.
January 4th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Im only comparing the two words because its the same damn feeling i get when I hear both.
January 4th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
And on dictionary definitions… WTF Man, COMIC BOOK is in the dictionary as well
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=comic%20book
comic book
n.
A book of comics strips or cartoons, often relating a sustained narrative.
And this one:
comic book
n : a magazine devoted to comic strips
See that word? MAGAZINE… if the dictionary would say like PAMPHLET– but you know what, the dictionary isn’t written by fucking MORONS who change the meaning of things.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
In reply to Scott’s comment:
I sincerely hope the future of comics doesn’t involve any sort of “collector’s market”…sure, Diamond fucked up the industry, but they pretty much busted planks out of an already-sinking ship. What originally killed the comic industry (besides Rob Liefeld)? Collectors.
Image, Marvel and DC, with their “COLLECTIBLE FIRST ISSUE!” bullshit were the ones who drove the first nails into the coffin. Don’t even get me started on “zero issues”. Blech.
It would be nice for comics to enjoy a resurgence because they have good stories and decent art, rather than for their future resale value. This is entertainment, not real estate! Fuck!
I’d *love* to see the day where “digital type comics…are here only as long as they are on the internet or as long as your credit card can keep paying to look at them”, because that would (hopefully) mean that people are buying comics for the right reason: to *read* them.
I’m just sayin’.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:57 am
thats fucked up man, pamphlets?! who they hell would call it a pamphlet? my comics are all on a single page that my writer distribute around to frineds and other ppl we hav all the originals onfile butare too lazy to but them in biding or wateveer, so we barely have a comic let alone a comic BOOK. But pamphlet is such gay word, fayg even.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Pamphlet, what the hell? So does that mean that if I end up putting out a collection of my comics at some point I’ll be dealing pamphlets? Man, I don’t want to be one of the guys who wakes you up on Sunday morning asking you if you found Jesus. Everyone knows he’s behind the couch, you morons!
January 5th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I don’t know about the rest of the comics community but I happen to be an avid collecter of comic books, and a reader of the online comic. Seriously when I wake up I check my bookmarked comics for updates and I do the samething before I go to bed. I enjoy the variety that online comics offer me, as well as how offen they’re updated. However the highlight of my week is heading down to the local comic store once a week and picking up the newest issue of Spider-man or whathaveyou.
I for one will not read an online book if I catch wind of it’s creator calling thier printed forrunner a “pamphlet.” The term is belittling and shows a complete lack of respect for those that gave you this foothold you so enjoy on the internet. If printed comics had never been popular would you bastards have ever wanted to be cartoonists?
January 5th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
Joey and Shaenon aren’t exactly unbiased… they’ve got a business agenda they’re pushing… and clumbsily at that. We didn’t stop going to the movies when TV was invented. We didn’t stop listening to the radio when TV came along.
Not very enlightened comments. I expected better.
April 23rd, 2007 at 4:00 am
Thank You
September 7th, 2007 at 8:07 am
[…] noble site now checkup this snippet http://yirmumah.net/calling-a-comic-book-a-pamphlet-is-like-calling-a-comic-book-a-nigger and give comments […] […]
March 25th, 2008 at 3:21 am
postloral baneful remaintain overslight desmodontidae orthognathous unreave unicalcarate
SOL Navy
http://www.whitestudio.co.uk/
April 19th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
postloral baneful remaintain overslight desmodontidae orthognathous unreave unicalcarate
Schott Glass Ltd
http://quicktable.org