Fleen Reviews Campbell’s History
by Joey Manley
Fleen has a sort-of review of T. Campbell’s The History of Webcomics up today. I say “sort-of” because it’s more like a copy-edit/fact-checking session than a standard book review. The criticisms levelled at the book are deliberately and safely objective. They complain about the kind of copy-editing and fact-checking stuff that can easily be documented as adequate or inadequate. And, yes, in a book of this sort, that kind of stuff is key. If Campbell didn’t get that stuff right, the whole thing falls apart. But there’s also another level of criticism that can be directed at the book: what about the theme, the vision, the ideas presented? Fleen’s editor carefully states, “As we discuss the book, please bear in mind that we’re not going to argue opinion on this one; whether or not Campbell is correct is for others to fight over.” I completely understand why Fleen wants to avoid a big old ugly flamewar. What makes me irritable, or, well, sad, is precisely that I do understand Fleen’s caution. Webcomics isn’t ready for the kind of conversation that Campbell’s project demands, because webcomics is still too whiny, too selfish, and too immature. Or, at least, many of the people within webcomics are. I do not except myself!
I haven’t read the book yet. I probably won’t. Like I said above, and like I told T in private conversation: webcomics isn’t ready for this kind of project. It’s just too early. I’m no T-basher, and I understand his reasoning, and T’s a great guy and all, but I really, really, really think that the webcomics history book I want to read will be written ten or twenty years from now, by somebody outside the field, immune from its politics.
But that’s just me!
August 21st, 2006 at 4:25 pm
The bit that sticks in my mind is
I’d like to give you a page number here, but Antarctic omitted page numbers everywhere except the table of contents
Presumably that’s Antarctic’s fault and not T’s, but that’s just not acceptable for any kind of serious history book. It would make the index a bit awkward to use, for a start…
August 21st, 2006 at 6:49 pm
“what about the theme, the vision, the ideas presented?”
Maybe I’m reading you wrong, but I’m not sure there is even much of a place for these things in a history book. I certainly don’t expect to find the vision of the author in my art history books. That sounds like more what I’d expect from a manifesto. It strikes me as odd that someone acting as a historian even “lays out his ideas for where he thinks Webcomics (as a movement, a medium, a business) is going.” That sounds like an artist laying out their own personal goals and hopes more than a historian documenting the record of webcomics’ first decade.
August 21st, 2006 at 8:20 pm
I don’t think history books of any sort can be written without a point of view. I also don’t think journalism can be written without a point of view. I’m not talking about bias. Bias is unacknowledged by the author. Bias is what you get when people pretend to be objective.
I could be wrong!
And I haven’t read the book! So I don’t know what I’m talking about!
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:44 am
“The criticisms levelled at the book are deliberately and safely objective.”
I read the review. It stuck me that the only thing they were deliberate about was looking for fault, yet trying to do it in such a manner that they couldn’t be easily dismissed as, “Daddy Jon didn’t like it, lets back him up!” Especially since they time and again fail to bring this level of scrutiny to most of the self-serving tripe their favorite creators spew out frequently. In most cases, doing the exact opposite: “ZOMFG! Teh Penny Arcade Manifesto iz teh roxxors!”
You’re right about there being a need for someone to look at webcomics who’re immune to the petty fanboy politics of it all. Fleen aint it by a longshot. Essentially, Dumbrella’s personal version of Tiger Beat doing what they were established to do. Maybe Steven Grant will evetually get around to doing one.
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:11 am
They were actually fairly critical of the Penny Arcade “manifesto” (more like a “manifestito,” I think — it was, what, two paragraphs long?)
It’s always possible that I don’t remember correctly.
Joey
August 22nd, 2006 at 11:40 am
I haven’t read the printed version of T’s book, but I did read the Comixpedia articles it was based on, and they were extremely helpful to me. For people who were active in webcomics during the period T discusses, the book may not be especially informative; but for those of us who came to webcomics later, it’s very useful for getting a sense of the history of Big Panda and other phenoms.
I also think the controversy over the book has been very useful for what it reveals. The webcomics “establishment” is an exceptionally pissy and mean-spirited lot, and anyone entering the field is better off knowing that from the get-go.
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Trying to do it in such a manner that they couldn’t be easily dismissed as, “Daddy Jon didn’t like it, lets back him up!â€
Will, I haven’t read T’s History in its final version, so it would be difficult for me to have an opinion on it. That would, in turn, make it difficult for me to influence anyone else’s opinions or incite your hallucinatory journalistic excesses.
The truth is that I have no current affiliation with Fleen nor control over what the Fleen writers decide to target, but if they decide to hold a history book to a higher standard of factual accuracy than a webcomic compilation, then that is probably not such a bad idea.
Gary is a smart guy and he is completely capable of reviewing a work and coming to rational and insightful conclusions without my hand up his ass. Whether he would prefer it that way is a separate matter; I know nothing of his anal preferences.
August 22nd, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Just curious, but has anybody but me actually read the book?
If you think my review has an agenda and you haven’t read it, you might want to do so before deciding I’m full of shit.
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Yes, I have. the pictures are pretty, and the book is quite inoffensive and undesrerving of the shit piled upon it.
Regardless Gary, I truely hope you continue with this newly found passion for in depth examination for everything that comes across your table, and not just reserve it for the things the guy (who hand-picked you for your current position from his fanbase) has previously shit all over… Unread as it turns out.
“The webcomics “establishment†is an exceptionally pissy and mean-spirited lot”
Indeed they are. And as long as they got the rubes on their side, there’s nothing to be done about it except getting out of their ways and doing your own thing,
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Joey,
The manifesto was a page long; call it a dozen paragraphs of varying lengths. It’s probably not accurate to say that I was “fairly critical of it.” I did not say that his argument was correct or incorrect. I asked that people read it and make up their own minds.
But, for the record, I found it typical of Jerry Holkins’ writing — painstakingly-crafted, uncompromising, clear in its position, and provacative, which I suppose is what a manifesto is meant to be. He’s obviously a man who is firm in his views (not unlike Mr. G) and has a love of (and facility for) language that I admire. He put forth his position in a grab-you-by-the-throat fashion (I believe the actual words I used compared it to a firebomb being thrown through a plate-glass window).
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
“Unread as it turns out.”
I read the version I commented on, months ago, which deserved the criticism it received, as it was factually inaccurate and terribly boring (not to mention a decade or two too early, we still need to wait and see what works of genius Will G will bring us someday!).
The version that Gary commented on in his review is the final version, which I have not commented on because I have not read it. They are two different entities, as far as I know, T having made changes in the interrim. I would not even be posting in regards to it now had you not mentioned my name.
I did not shit on anything I did not read. Pretty simple, eh? But I guess it suits you better to twist things around to support your imagined intrigues.
I gave T my unfiltered criticism, directly and privately, which is the most useful sort of criticism I know how to give. I guarantee it was more useful to him than your unabashed cocksucking.
No offense meant to people who enjoy sucking cocks, of course. I do not mean to group you with G-Dog here.
August 22nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm
William,
Excellent; we have a basis to discuss things, then.
Please acknowledge that I have not (as some have) impugned T Campbell’s motives or intentions; I have not accused him of writing the book for the purposes self-aggrandizement; I have not challenged his place in Webcomics or the appropriateness of writing a book of this scope at this time. My critique was about the effectiveness of his arguments, and I’ve offered him the opportunity to reply (which knowing T, he will do without accusing me of being somebody else’s mouthpiece).
You found the book “inoffensive”; so did I. But “inoffensive” does not equal “clear” or “well-structured”. If you wish to counter my criticisms with citations to THOW, please do so. As for the depth of my analysis, I think you’ll find that I spend more time and effort on things that are of lasting import to Webcomics as a whole. Thus, multiple interviews and followups on the topic of syndication and the alternatives offered by the web. Thus, three articles in a week (including a lengthy interview) and a followup a month later on what might yet prove to be the Great Micropayments Hope. Thus, 7000 words on the Webcomics School panels at San Diego, someday to be transformed into a permanent resource for new and veteran creators.
Thus, a month of doing my homework and carefully reading T’s book; whatever I think of it, it was clearly a labor of love, and he deserved nothing less than my best effort. And I think you’ll agree that for a book as ambitious as THOW, there’s no good that would have been served by a puff piece.
Lastly, I’ll ask you for the courtesy of judging me based on my own actions and words, rather than finding me guilty by association. I’m not trying to defend any entrenched political standpoints, because I don’t have any vested interests more complex than I like to read webcomics (including, by the way, Bang Barstal).
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:17 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Gary.
Like you, I expected a great deal of commotion and conversation around the “manifesto,” (which I read standing up in the aisle at Border’s, so my memory of it is flimsy, though I do recall that, yes, many strong and multisyllabic words were summoned, like spells at the beck and call of a master wizard). I think the most interesting thing about it has been the resounding lack of interest it seems to have received in webcomics circles. Or at least the ones I frequent. It’s always important to remember that webcomics is much, much bigger than any of the circles we inhabit — or even bigger than the combined superset of our circles — though it’s tempting to imagine otherwise. Fleen was the only response I saw after-the-fact. Probably just because it was in print, rather than online, and couldn’t be linked to and forum-flooded or whatever.
But that’s derailing the thread just a teensy bit. Back to debating T’s book!
Joey
http://www.webcomicsnation.com
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:51 pm
“The webcomics “establishment†is an exceptionally pissy and mean-spirited lot, and anyone entering the field is better off knowing that from the get-go.”
FYI, I wasn’t referring to Fleen with this comment, but I can see that the comment is easily misunderstood.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Jon wrote: “…unabashed cocksucking. No offense meant to people who enjoy sucking cocks, of course.”
I just wanted to weigh in briefly to say that I am pro-oral sex since that perspective seems to be underrepresented in this discussion.
August 23rd, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Agreed, Eric! Some of my favorite people engage in oral sex.
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I hope the book is printed in a different font than these comments.
August 23rd, 2006 at 5:56 pm
We’ve never had a serious conversation like this break out in the comments. We’re taking the TAC blog more seriously than we used to these days (maybe one day Eric or I will post and tell you why), so that’s a good thing, but there’s a lot of work to do around here. I’ve tweaked the current template a bit, hopefully to make things more readable. Eric’s submitted a fantastic new WordPress template for the blog, but I haven’t installed it yet (mainly because I want to try to figure out a way to apply it to the phpBB parts of the site as well).
Hope this is better.
Joey
http://www.webcomicsnation.com
August 23rd, 2006 at 7:20 pm
Hey Jon: Sounds like me, you, your friends and my friends need to get together sometime!
Hey Joe Z.: Yeah, I guess the “Webcomics Establishment” is one of those imprecise phrases that’s bound to be misinterpretted and possibly cause some offense without some more detail (though I can appreciate why you might not be precise in naming the pissy people). Anyway, congratulations on that one awesome thing you e-mailed me about — is that public knowledge? If it’s not, I think everyone here should just give you a vague, imprecise “Congratulations, Joe Zabel!”
August 24th, 2006 at 12:52 am
Congratulations, Joe Zabel!
Joey
http://www.webcomicsnation.com
September 25th, 2006 at 12:24 am
The impression that one is left with is that Campbell has made some assumptions as to what’s common knowledge and what isn’t, and a number of those choices are likely at odds with his average reader’s experiences