I can't get onto the blog comments for some reason (not that this post is too long-- I checked ) so my response goes here.

"Do we NEED a HISTORY OF WEBCOMICS BOOK? And for who?"

Good question, but I don't agree with your answer. I'd say webcartoonists first, cartoonists second, and people interested in cartooning third. I do hope that Scott McCloud AND Tycho will lend their support to this one, but it's not just for them... there are less time-consuming ways for me to stroke people's egos.

"I think that’s who I get along best with. The DOERS. Not the do about’ers...
And listen... you’re not a DOER just because you went ahead and DID some things. You dig me?"

I've written over 2000 pages of comics since 2000, and that doesn't even count what didn't get published or what I've edited on Graphic Smash. I don't really agree with your point-- I thought Eric Burns was worth listening to before he started writing comics in earnest-- but I don't see how it applies to me. I mean, how much more do I have to do before I count?

"I’ve met T as well. And his aura of Cheese bothers me. And I was on that webcomic panel with him when he said Keenspot was not a good model for creators."

Here, we largely agree. There have been few times in my life when I made a worse first impression than at SPX '04.

I hated just about everything about my performance there. Hated, hated it. Because you are exactly right-- I was letting my role as Graphic Smash editor conflict with my role as comics commentator. I was also clinging to ideas that I'd had when I first became editor instead of what I'm thinking now. I've done that on my blog too, sometimes. That has to end. Believe me. It WILL end. It's hurting my work, and I won't have that.

I heard some things in '04 and '05 that made me revise my opinion of Keenspot up-- SOMEwhat. It is very good at CERTAIN things that PENNY AND AGGIE needs right now. This is a trial basis, but it'll last a while because the strip needs to stop being the Mexican jumping bean of collectives.

You may have noticed that all I said about the move was that it was good to be back with Maritza and sundry, and that it would last for a while, and that Keenspot works better for some strips than others. A lot of wiggle room there.

I have DEEP problems with how Keenspot and Modern Tales have conducted their business over the long haul, and I'll address those when I'm sure I have all the latest facts. But my real mistake in the last incarnation of the History was treating them like they were as important as the rest of webcomics put together. Companies come, companies go. The new version of the History is squishing Big Panda, Keenspot, MT and the other collectives into one single chapter... there are more important things to talk about.

"Do we need a History of Webcomics so soon?"

That's a legitimate question. To me, the field has changed greatly in the last twelve years, keeping pace with the changes in the Web. We do have Web histories by now, and I think they are useful. I think the biggest mistake of Scott McCloud's career was to treat 2001 like it was 1996. I think the biggest mistake of MY OWN career was to treat 2004 like it was 2002. SPX was a symptom of that, and really it was the beginning of the end for the old ideas I mentioned above.

The idea here is the idea behind any history-- see what happened ten years ago, five, two, one, and try to use that to figure out what's happening today. And tomorrow. As it is, about half the book deals with the past as a narrative, and the other half tries to take some lessons from that past.

"Books can’t be so easily rewritten as a blog post, etc."

Which holds them to a higher standard. I'm glad to see Eric and William G. out there, doing what they do-- but it's hard to get any long-term perspective when you're dealing in the day-to-day.

The notion that the History might go out of date even before it hits the shelves is something I have to live with. I've put in "at this writing" and "as of 2005" in the early draft so often, the phrases haunt my dreams. And yeah, I know those phrases sound pretentious. I'll think of something else.

If the book is a success and the field changes, I hope to follow it up with new editions, like the history textbooks in grade school.

"This is not true. It has a corporate structure: it’s Logan’s company."

Talk to Logan about this. The number of cartoonists was taken from his "about the company" comic. I asked him THREE TIMES what the structure of PV Comics was (because I just couldn't believe it could be that simple and really function), and he gave me the same answer each time. Looking back, there are other things I could have done-- checked business registries in his area, I guess-- but I had no reason to believe he was misleading me. So now I don't know why he said that. We'll talk about it. And I've learned from this: I won't just take ANYBODY's word when there's an alternative.

PV Comics was just getting its PR machine under way when I wrote that chapter, and I had to rewrite it at the very last minute when they switched business models. Which is no excuse for glitchy research, but I hope it's a bit of an explanation.

DJ, I can't help but feel that a little of this is rooted in the fact that I just don't see PV Comics as all that important compared to MT and Keen. But I thank you for it, nevertheless.

I used to room with a guy whose constant refrain when I was describing new projects was "who the fuck cares?" He wasn't dismissing me, understand. He was trying to get me to THINK about why projects should matter to someone OTHER than me. I've been thinking about that with this one every day, but that's just me arguing with me.

Good to get some feedback. But lose the third-grade rhetoric-- you're smarter than that; it doesn't do your points justice.

I don't know what's up with the blog-- sorry. I actually tried to post a couple times and it wouldnt let me-- maybe I was too long.. hmm...and I think i have a word blacklisted that I can't seem to figure out.

--anyway, it takes a big man to admit he was wrong, in any case, even the smallest. My opinions are just based on what I heard at SPX and read in your blog, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who took you that way-- I can totally understand being mis-read on the internet too, but when you meet someone, talk to them, or hear them speak in public, it seems to cement opinions. -- perfect example, I think Brandon Carr and myself had some weird words on the private PV forums and I'm pretty blunt and honest EVERYWHERE... and so we had "words" or something, but then when we all met at SPX in person, and had our summit meeting in the room, it was really clear the points I was trying to get across... and now Brandon is one of my favorite people to talk to every day online.

So, thanks for owning up to the SPX thing.

On the PV comics thing, heck, it's probably the same reason I left! I was under a different assumption of how things were run, and well, nothing was happening there, and no one seemed to take PV seriously at all, especially after the business model change, which, essentially was just us getting rid of a paid model... but the uh, other model, kinda stalled, thanks to Comixpress getting so busy. If the only thing good that came out of PV was the birth of Comixpress, I can live with that, but even I don't take PV as serious as I once did. Sigh.

Sorry I come off like a 3rd grader. I'm blunt, and honest, and I dont' tend to sit and think about things before I say them. If it hits me that I was wrong, I always own up too. Heck, just today I told someone on the Digital Webbing board where I'm a moderator to "Eat me..." and I was scolded and out of line, and I appologized for the behaviour.

On this history of Webcomics stuff: -- I still think it's too early. It's only MY opinion here, shared by others of course, but I'm just writing how I feel. I think it's ridiculous. Maybe 20 years?? 25??? You don't just run the risk of it being dated and obsolete, it's almost a 100% certainty. Especially for the internet, things ebb and flow so quickly. It would stink if your book came out, and suddenly Keenspot was no more! (that wont happen, but just an example) ---- I think it take much more time for things to shake out. Reporting on the collectives like ModernTales, etc.. might be too early too. 2 or 3 years isn't enough time at all. It's just a blip! --- Writing a column and chronicling the timeline, isn't a bad idea. Like I said, it can be easily ammended... like a Wiki can... but on the business side... it's a BAD business decision. It might make some bank... and thats the whole purpose of putting it to market... but it's just not a right time for something that says "HISTORY" on it.

Looking over your chapter guide or layout, I noticed it seemed really familiar to something like Reinventing COmics, which itself is a bit dated already. I know Im not going to talk you out of it-- but, be mindful, it could make you look like even more of a clown later on.

PS-- I don't HATE you. Kisses!

Thanks, DJ.

The thrust of your argument as I understand it is that printed books just date too quickly to keep up. And that I wouldn't even be doing it in print if it didn't make bank.

You're partly right on both counts. The "History" series at Comixpedia was the most work per word of anything I ever did: concluding it without making a bit more than Comixpedia money would have been hard. And I'll go at least this far: the pace of change in webcomics is the book's biggest challenge.

But it's because of the pace of that change that I think we're ready. The Web's gone through four major phases already-- geek toy, stock-market empire, devalued economic wasteland, and present-day. What's more, I think the pace is beginning to slow.

Regardless, I'll be taking steps to minimize the next few years' impact on the book's usefulness. A wiki supplement is a possibility.

And that's probably about as far as we can go-- except for me to say that I'd love for you to review the pre-edit draft, when it's ready. It could stand a pair of jaded eyes.

What makes you the friggen AUTHORITY.

no I don't Dig you.

Quality and Quantity are 2 different things.

dig me.

as far as a history...you have to take in consideration alot of people you don't want to recognize...or just write a history about your friends and call it that.

this is the world wide web.

I have seen good stuff come and go, just because some one doesn't produce every day doesn't make them sub par.
We arent all in the Iron Man Competition.
and my hats off to those who are, however, not every one has the freedom to put stuff on the web all the time.
with all the viruses, hackers and computer problems out there, some one can get side tracked real easy...pray that it doesnt happen to you.

I'm not sure if the last comment's meant to be a threat or not, Dr. Merlin, but I'll assume the best. Have a care, though; some people are touchy.

Quality and quantity are two different things indeed. I was taking issue with DJ for classifying me as a "do-abouter," that's all. I am proud of my output, but I know nothing I've done holds a candle writing-wise to Marjane Satrapi, who just produced her third work (if you count PERSEPOLIS and PERSEPOLIS 2 as two separate pieces).

What makes me the authority? Nothing. Not a dang thing. Which is why I have to roll up my sleeves and do the RESEARCH. This manuscript has 139 footnotes and counting, not to make me feel all scholarly, but to keep me from putting in my opinions and calling them facts.

I will be leaving a lot of my friends out of this book altogether and putting in some people who are pretty new to me. Still, I'm sure someone will feel slighted. That is, as DJ says, almost a 100% certainty.

Still, I care about this field too much to let something like that stop me. We need perspective, here. Someone has to try.

T -

Why not just call it "History of Webcomics Part I" and plan on a sequel down the road? It would be interesting to see a series of similarly structured books chronicling the living history of webcomics.

b

I have had a lot of steaming plates of lifes lessons shoved under my nose, that has usually been my reward for working hard at something.
and I dont fall down with out getting back up again.
however, I may have jumped into this conversation half blind.
good luck to you, and I think a Part 1 is a great idea.
because there really are alot of unknown struggling people out there, hell, there always have been.
I have seen the glory hounds pick up where others have fallen too many times though.
in business and in art.
there is always those work horses that drag the stones for the wind mill, then the big fat pigs that stand on the top and take the glory.
and actually, sir, I have no Idea what your art work even looks like, I just speak from my own experience.
again and again.
So, god speed on your undertaking, just, do a thorough job.
there is Alot of History to cover.
and it didnt start with Marvel, or Image...or D.C.
it started with individuals.
who just wanted to see something done with thier work! Anything!
Artist have a gift, to give back to the world what they see through thier own eyes. and for many, it is not a choice. you cant just stop. and you see so and so's son or daughter handed a job because they are related to this one or that one. and they Suck.
that is what the Internet has been about for me...
I put a few web comics up, and then, looking at the glowing tube with my pictures on it I thought, hey, why not a cartoon, then after that I said, hey, why not a movie, so thats where I am...
making a no budget movie. the shit just evolved into what I was comfortable with.
that doesn't make me better than any one.
it is art.
but, hey, what's next?

Dr. Merlin-- you confuse me.

T- When I was talking about DOERS and DO ABOUTERS, sure I was aiming that out there at you, but it's something I always remind myself of personally, so I stay focused. I think it's really hard to do both. Is there anything wrong with DOING ABOUT??? Heck no. We need those things too. It's very hard to do both unless you've lived a long life and mastered some artform, craft or career....like, good example, Will Eisner. -- Scott McCloud made some mistakes in his ReinVenting Comics book, but it's still a good read, probably because of the way it's layed out as a comic. But it did help to start the conversation of webcomics as a business. Or "A" conversation.

I didn't actually mean it as a put down, even though it does come off that way. I'm no better because I simpy DO comics.

I think there's also a difference between TALKING ABOUT and DOING ABOUT.... Doing about, usually consists of critics. Movie critics, op/ed pieces, etc. Which is fine. Honing in on ONE subject and taking it to market is "Doing About" -- but it doesn't matter in this case.

We have two sides of a coin here. Both sides LOVE web comics and see the potential. From my side, I'm a bit jaded, yes, especially coming from the print side of the traditional comic book industry-- I'm just weary about how a "History" could be defined this early on, and what that could mean.

A "Part one" IS a good idea Brandon. Volume one-- and mark the dates on it or something. We're talking 12 years? 1993-2006 would be a good thing to put on it. You could probably get away with doing an updated version later on, 2013 maybe for the 20 years of webcomics? Webcomics will be "antiques" then. heh. it's right around the bend.