this is your world. these are your people.
(X-posted to the snarkoleptics community.)
So I'm minding my own business yesterday, and I happen to stop by Websnark just in time to catch up with a snark titled The Snarkographia Webcomicka. And then almost immediately I had to back up and head over to Jon Rosenberg's blog, so that I had a good grasp of the context in which demiurgent was snarking.
And then I had to check the clock on my computer, to confirm that it absolutely was not April Fool's Day. And it wasn't; I had not entered some sort of time warp, I had not missed Christmas, its still late December. I read through Eric's snark feeling dazed, almost as though I had whiplash.
Jon Rosenberg wrote that? Seriously?
I'm not going to go too deeply into my own response, because it mirrors demiurgent's (although mine was at least several notches less pretentious... kidding, kidding). Call me a spoonfed if you like, and I'll concede the point. Eric has already said more or less what I was thinking, probably with greater clarity than I would have. I admire his relentless unassailable use of logic -- logic I happen to agree with. Most of all I admire his restraint.
But there is one point I want to address. Its quoted in the snark in question, but its kind of lost in a block quote, and never directly addressed. Rosenberg writes:In the worst cases, webcomics bloggers have used their bully pulpit to launch their own nascent webcomics initiatives.
I have to take a deep, cleansing breath before I type a response to that. I'll give Rosenberg the benefit of the doubt -- he's a good guy, after all. I'll assume that's not specifically a jab at Websnark. After all, just because its the alpha and the omega of webcomics criticism in my tiny, self-centered universe doesn't mean there aren't other folks out there engaging in this behavior. So for the moment I'll endeavor to respond civilly, as though Rosenberg were addressing all the people who "launch their own nascent webcomics initiatives" from the "bully pulpit" of a blog.
Even making that assumption, that's a mean-spirited and spiteful thing to say. I disagreed with the essay, but I was willing to accept it as just a differing point of view, right up until that line. That one line sticks in my craw something fierce. Its downright bitchy.
In my view this all comes back to a debate that was most recently centered around Orson Scott Card, and commented on by both Queen of Wand's creator Aerie and Something Positive's RK Milholland. The debate, in its simplest form, is about whether what an artist does away from his or her artwork should influence the viewer's appreciation of said artwork, of the thing itself. I come down pretty firmly on one side of that debate. I don't care if an artist is a sociopath serial-rapist compulsive-arsonist nazi, really -- if he makes beautiful works that move me, then they are beautiful works that move me, and nothing changes that.
Admittedly, that's the same side of the argument that Mike, the snivelingest of sniveling jerks from S*P, eventually comes down on. Take that as you will.
If Jon Rosenberg really cares about webcomics as a medium, then what he should care about is the art itself. That's what he wants, isn't it? For people to think of webcomics as art? It shouldn't matter a whit whether the initiatives flow from bright-eyed youths with big hopes and dreams or from jaded webcomics veterans who have been part of "the scene" since its inception. In point of fact, he should want both. And he doesn't, and I can't help but see that as petty and small-minded.
In closing, let me just say this: I love the Dumbrella guys. I love them to death. Jon & John and Jeff and R Stevens are among my favorite webcomics creators. And I guess this is just simple proof that you can love the work, and disagree with the artist. And it breaks my heart a little to do so, but I do.
So I'm minding my own business yesterday, and I happen to stop by Websnark just in time to catch up with a snark titled The Snarkographia Webcomicka. And then almost immediately I had to back up and head over to Jon Rosenberg's blog, so that I had a good grasp of the context in which demiurgent was snarking.
And then I had to check the clock on my computer, to confirm that it absolutely was not April Fool's Day. And it wasn't; I had not entered some sort of time warp, I had not missed Christmas, its still late December. I read through Eric's snark feeling dazed, almost as though I had whiplash.
Jon Rosenberg wrote that? Seriously?
I'm not going to go too deeply into my own response, because it mirrors demiurgent's (although mine was at least several notches less pretentious... kidding, kidding). Call me a spoonfed if you like, and I'll concede the point. Eric has already said more or less what I was thinking, probably with greater clarity than I would have. I admire his relentless unassailable use of logic -- logic I happen to agree with. Most of all I admire his restraint.
But there is one point I want to address. Its quoted in the snark in question, but its kind of lost in a block quote, and never directly addressed. Rosenberg writes:In the worst cases, webcomics bloggers have used their bully pulpit to launch their own nascent webcomics initiatives.
I have to take a deep, cleansing breath before I type a response to that. I'll give Rosenberg the benefit of the doubt -- he's a good guy, after all. I'll assume that's not specifically a jab at Websnark. After all, just because its the alpha and the omega of webcomics criticism in my tiny, self-centered universe doesn't mean there aren't other folks out there engaging in this behavior. So for the moment I'll endeavor to respond civilly, as though Rosenberg were addressing all the people who "launch their own nascent webcomics initiatives" from the "bully pulpit" of a blog.
Even making that assumption, that's a mean-spirited and spiteful thing to say. I disagreed with the essay, but I was willing to accept it as just a differing point of view, right up until that line. That one line sticks in my craw something fierce. Its downright bitchy.
In my view this all comes back to a debate that was most recently centered around Orson Scott Card, and commented on by both Queen of Wand's creator Aerie and Something Positive's RK Milholland. The debate, in its simplest form, is about whether what an artist does away from his or her artwork should influence the viewer's appreciation of said artwork, of the thing itself. I come down pretty firmly on one side of that debate. I don't care if an artist is a sociopath serial-rapist compulsive-arsonist nazi, really -- if he makes beautiful works that move me, then they are beautiful works that move me, and nothing changes that.
Admittedly, that's the same side of the argument that Mike, the snivelingest of sniveling jerks from S*P, eventually comes down on. Take that as you will.
If Jon Rosenberg really cares about webcomics as a medium, then what he should care about is the art itself. That's what he wants, isn't it? For people to think of webcomics as art? It shouldn't matter a whit whether the initiatives flow from bright-eyed youths with big hopes and dreams or from jaded webcomics veterans who have been part of "the scene" since its inception. In point of fact, he should want both. And he doesn't, and I can't help but see that as petty and small-minded.
In closing, let me just say this: I love the Dumbrella guys. I love them to death. Jon & John and Jeff and R Stevens are among my favorite webcomics creators. And I guess this is just simple proof that you can love the work, and disagree with the artist. And it breaks my heart a little to do so, but I do.