Page 35 of 38 < 1 2 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 >
Topic Options
#582290 - 01/13/11 11:09 AM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: MBunge]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7089
Oh, here we go with the dictionary quoting. The last defense of the beaten.

NO, I don't believe the words "arbitrary" and "irrelevant" are interchangeable. I do believe, however, that the point you were trying to make (for no apparent reason) is irrelevant BECAUSE it is arbitrary.

You don't know much about reading comprehension, less about cause-and-effect within conversational flow, you don't care about the thread topic at all, you're a beaten pussy with no recourse but to flog catch phrases... and you have yet to provide evidence that any novelist would want to serialize their work as they are writing it.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
Bob Kane

Top
#582292 - 01/13/11 11:14 AM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Stephen R Bissette]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7089
Originally Posted By: Stephen R Bissette
You act as if it's easy or something. "Just do this!"

It isn't, and it's gotten harder in the past four-five years.

Okay, Steve, you win. Apparently there's no answer. Everybody quit drawing comics and get jobs teaching college. Not enough job openings you say? Okay, the rest of you can curl up and die.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
Bob Kane

Top
#582312 - 01/13/11 12:47 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: MBunge]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361
Mike, I think you are conflating two or more subtly but significantly different assertions here. Lord knows Allen makes it easy to do. He explains his propositions and relates them to what he is responding to so poorly at times it often comes across as a series of non sequiturs and self-contradictions.


Originally Posted By: MBunge
the fact that very few people can do all the things that go into making a comic book themselves at a high enough level to make it worth reading


Allen argued that most people are capable of both drawing and writing words if they were to seriously pursue it and that that the values attached to the assembly mode of making comics that are used to to evaluate the final quality of a comic are a product of commercial conventions rather than intrinsic to the form. In other words, arbitrary. Basically implying that creating comics is a complex task made up of many smaller tasks and that anyone can learn those basic tasks with effort. Ultimately the quality of a comic is not essentially determined by your special ability at one component skill but your ability to employ those skills holistically. Therefore holistic facility in the language of comics is more important than the specialized technical polish often valued under the conventions set by commercial comics traditions. Often the assembly line method tends to fetishize certain non-essential aspects of comics creation and use that as the value by which to judge comics.

Accordingly your second statement..

Originally Posted By: MBunge
There are many more good writers who can't draw and good artists who can't write than people who can do both.


..is irrelevant.

And this isn't such a ridiculous view or all that rare. In Japan almost all creators learn holistically and are expected to be able to make a comic on their own. Most can't afford assistants when they start out and those who eventually do hire assistants do so for expediency. And your statement was regarding aptitude so I'd say that makes your original "very few" assertion fairly dubious while supporting Allen's view of methodology derived from conventions.

That comparative "very few" bit could even be contradicted in the US by the the number of critically highlighted works by holistically able creators this past year.Acme Novelty, Set To Sea, Duncan the Wonder Dog, King City, Picture This, How To Understand Israel in 60 Days or Less. The Wild Kingdom, Love and Rockets, Scott Pilgrim, Mesmo Delivery, Octopus Pie, Hark a Vagrant, Crogan's March, The Abominable Charles Christopher, Pwr Masters, Orc Stain, Bodyworld, X-ed Out, Empowered..

A good comic is a finished thing. When you take in the amount of specialist creators who have managed to not only master the language of comics without any direct practice in a significant portions of it but also then secure a team of equally able specialists who are on the same creative page enough to produce a complete work, I think that's a lot different than simply the total of "good writers" and probably significantly few in its own right. Any comic writer could probably share a few stories about having their ideas butchered or having difficulty finding the right artist and vice versa.

I enjoy numerous comics that are the product of specialists operating in collaboration as well as many works that are products of holistic creators acting in collaboration and entirely single-author works. I think collaborations would exist in some form in any environment. But I personally do enjoy significantly more comics works of art and entertainment by holistically able creators than by specialists so I don't consider your original statement to be any real "fact."

This mostly seems like a tangent,though.

Top
#582313 - 01/13/11 01:19 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Allen Montgomery]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Oh, here we go with the dictionary quoting. The last defense of the beaten.

NO, I don't believe the words "arbitrary" and "irrelevant" are interchangeable. I do believe, however, that the point you were trying to make (for no apparent reason) is irrelevant BECAUSE it is arbitrary.

You don't know much about reading comprehension, less about cause-and-effect within conversational flow, you don't care about the thread topic at all, you're a beaten pussy with no recourse but to flog catch phrases... and you have yet to provide evidence that any novelist would want to serialize their work as they are writing it.



1. The fact you can't express yourself in an intelligble manner is neither my fault nor my responsibility.

2. Observing that it's fairly common for people to be better writers than artists and vice versa is not arbitrary. No matter how many times you say it is, it's still not. It's simply a recognition of reality, something you obviously have trouble with.

3. Allen, if you're so damn sensitive, stop braying like an ass. And the only thing you've beaten in this thread is your own puny pud.

4. I never claimed to know of any author who said he wanted to serialize a novel while he was writing it. Again, you're just making shit up because you can't handle the actual argument. I did offer up an example of one creator who talked about how the prose industry wishes it had viable serialized format for its work and your response was the following...

"Again, we weren't talking about "anybody in comics." We were talking about specifically prose authors. Of course a comics writer is going to wish for a way to put out their work without those pesky artists."

So, you accepted my claim without question. You tried to dismiss it with some silly after-the-fact excuse, but you accepted it. It was only after you began to realize how badly I'm beating your ass in this thread that you started demanding a link to prove something you already acknowledged as true.

Mike


Edited by MBunge (01/13/11 01:40 PM)

Top
#582314 - 01/13/11 01:40 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
I think collaborations would exist in some form in any environment. But I personally do enjoy significantly more comics works of art and entertainment by holistically able creators than by specialists so I don't consider your original statement to be any real "fact."

This mostly seems like a tangent,though.


I'm not sure what you and I are supposed to be disputing. My point is that collaboration is a natural aspect of comic creating because it is an act of creation which involves decidely different skills and abilities, which means people can and do possess differing levels of those skills and abilities. I've never said collaboration is the only or even the best form of comic creation, only that it is a normally occuring practice and not some malevolent scam entirely forced down the throats of creators...with emphasis on the word "entirely".

Mike

Top
#582317 - 01/13/11 01:55 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy

Allen argued that most people are capable of both drawing and writing words if they were to seriously pursue it


Actually, one other thing and let me tell Allen upfront, I don't have a link for this story.

Quite a few years ago, I attended a comic convention where Mike Baron (co-creator of NEXUS) gave a demonstration on how to write comics. As part of his approach, one of the things Baron would do is not just hand his artist words on a page but also a sketch of how he visualized the page in his own mind. That led to someone asking him why he didn't just draw his own comics and Baron essentially replied that when he was younger, he had fooled around with being an artist just long enough to know that while he might with enough work be competent, he wouldn't be very good at it.

Saying that anyone can learn to write and draw is like saying anyone can learn to play basketball. It's technically true, but doesn't mean anyone can become a good high school basketball player, let alone college or pro.

Mike


Edited by MBunge (01/13/11 01:56 PM)

Top
#582321 - 01/13/11 03:30 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: MBunge]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7089
Mike, if my responses aren't good enough for you, read Teddy's again. Or, read it for the first time, rather than just skimming it for a bit you thought you could contest or employ against me.

If I ever "accepted" any of your ridiculous sidebars, it was only in the hopes that you would then quit with them and we could resume the discussion of comics distribution models for the future.

We're done. You're beaten. Get over it.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
Bob Kane

Top
#582325 - 01/13/11 04:18 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: MBunge]
Strenuous Teddy Offline
Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 361
Originally Posted By: MBunge
Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
I think collaborations would exist in some form in any environment. But I personally do enjoy significantly more comics works of art and entertainment by holistically able creators than by specialists so I don't consider your original statement to be any real "fact."

This mostly seems like a tangent,though.


I'm not sure what you and I are supposed to be disputing. My point is that collaboration is a natural aspect of comic creating because it is an act of creation which involves decidely different skills and abilities, which means people can and do possess differing levels of those skills and abilities. I've never said collaboration is the only or even the best form of comic creation, only that it is a normally occuring practice and not some malevolent scam entirely forced down the throats of creators...with emphasis on the word "entirely".

Mike


This is an example of how I see you shifting between distinct arguments at your convenience. Although perhaps I communicated poorly. I was actually agreeing that I don't see collaborations as due to only one factor. Clearly I was disputing this specific statement which started much of this:

"the fact that very few people can do all the things that go into making a comic book themselves at a high enough level to make it worth reading [relative to people who specialize]"

I gave you an example of one of the largest comics industries in the world operating in complete contradiction of this "fact." I demonstrated that there is a large and growing list of good works by holistically able creators. And I expressed my anecdotal experiences not lining up with the assertion. If you were to assert that there are proportionally few really good comic creators in general I would agree. The same would be true of novelists or painters. 90% rule. But you were speaking relative to specialists in comics. You were claiming that specialism in comics exists in part because it is a fact that more people are likely to create good comics that way.

Your anecdote doesn't offer much in this regard. It's one creator giving an opinion that we could never actually verify. We can't really say if his reason is sound or just self-defeating rational. My understanding may be wrong but this seems like a tautology. "I never tried to be good at art because I was not good at it." (and it has been my personal experience that improvement does not always happen at a steady rate. There are lulls and sometimes unexpected major breakthroughs. It can be very difficult to predict these things)

As far as the basketball bit I agree. I think Allen might agree as well. Basketball is a complex task made up of several composite skills. Most anyone can learn those skills and so that in itself is no real barrier to performing the task. Learning one and only one of them is a significant barrier to performing the task, however. Excelling at holistic comics creation is hard but no harder than excelling at any other complex task. To carry it a bit further, there are elements of mastering prose writing that are not essential to comics storytelling and vice versa.

I'm not sure that there is anything I can say that wouldn't just be repeating myself. But I do want to clarify that I am not addressing the entirety of all your disagreements with Allen. Allen, Mike raised the issue of collaborations and you made a statement about the assembly method in response.This seems to indicate that either you do indeed consider all collaborations synonymous with the commercial assembly model or your response was a non sequitur. Also, while I agree that there are efficiencies built in to the holistic model I think I probably agree with Mike that collaborations can potentially speed up comics creation. There are too many variations, though, to say definitively one way or the other. I seems like the assembly approach has often slowed down comics production in many cases by encouraging creators to be overly preoccupied with matters that have nothing to do with the function of the narrative.

I'm not sure that either one of you (nor myself) can really speak to the specific problems of comics distribution and retail as they affect professionals. But you are experienced comics readers and I'm sure can venture any number of opinions about retail and distribution from the perspective as a customer. I think a lot of pros would like to tell readers what is good for them [readers] and vice versa rather than respecting each others unique positions, listening, questioning, and acting accordingly.






Edited by Strenuous Teddy (01/13/11 04:24 PM)

Top
#582326 - 01/13/11 04:27 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Allen Montgomery]
MBunge Offline
Member

Registered: 07/19/01
Posts: 3386
Loc: Waterloo, Iowa, United States
Originally Posted By: Allen Montgomery
Mike, if my responses aren't good enough for you, read Teddy's again. Or, read it for the first time, rather than just skimming it for a bit you thought you could contest or employ against me.

If I ever "accepted" any of your ridiculous sidebars, it was only in the hopes that you would then quit with them and we could resume the discussion of comics distribution models for the future.

We're done. You're beaten. Get over it.


Allen, as your response to Stephen Bissette showed, you don't care about comics distribution models for the future. You care about these bullshit amateur theories on comics that apparently make you feel smart. Any time anyone tries to show you how your bullshit amateur theories are in error, you throw a little hissy fit. I'd tell you to get over it, except anyone who has ever read anything you've posted here knows that will never happen.

Mike

Top
#582328 - 01/13/11 04:46 PM Re: Comics Distribution: An Historical View and Pr [Re: Strenuous Teddy]
Allen Montgomery Online   content
Member

Registered: 05/08/00
Posts: 7089
Originally Posted By: Strenuous Teddy
Allen, Mike raised the issue of collaborations and you made a statement about the assembly method in response.This seems to indicate that either you do indeed consider all collaborations synonymous with the commercial assembly model or your response was a non sequitur.

As in the specific variant Mike presented a married couple working together I believe there can be collaborations not driven by commercial ends. As I said before, if the relationship of the collaborators supersedes the work, that is supportive of my position. If the relationship is simply formed from one or more persons being hired to do a job, that is what I'm referring to.
_________________________
"The trouble with being a ghost writer or artist is that you must remain anonymous without credit.
If one wants the credit, one has to cease being a ghost and become a leader or innovator."
Bob Kane

Top
Page 35 of 38 < 1 2 ... 33 34 35 36 37 38 >


Moderator:  Rick Veitch, Steve Conley