Thursday, 10 December 2015
PART TWO OF UK 'TROLLS': ALIVE AND KICKING (THE BUTTS OF BUTT-'EADS)...
Continuing the demolition of the unfounded fantasies of
(ooh, a really alliterative comic name springs to mind) someone
who, when it comes to 'clinically' considering the views of certain
individuals with a different opinion to him on the current condition
of the U.K. comic 'industry', doesn't let the facts get in the way of
telling a good fable. You'll be astounded at his 'insight' into the
motivations of those he seeks to call to account for having the
temerity to hold a viewpoint not in accord with his own.
Why doesn't he spill the beans: Just who are those who,
'through their own mistakes', no longer work in the field? In
exactly what way do they 'blame the industry' or 'attack anyone
successful in it nowadays' and 'claim the only reason they can't
get work is because there is none as the industry here in the UK is
dead'? Let's have the names and details. One can't make accusa-
tions of that nature without backing them up. One can't rely on
unfounded gossip, baseless rumour, or wild imagination to
dismiss those with whom one takes issue on the matter.
Again, his presumption is simply astounding. So some
people don't get work because they don't have what it takes or
have f*cked up, blaming everyone but themselves and resenting
anyone (which surely implies everyone) who works in comics,
causing them to want to tear down the 'industry' out of anger, bit-
terness and envy. Any criticism, observation or assessment
is therefore invalid because it stems from a grudge.
Even if it were true that this was the motivation behind
some people's negative opinion, that doesn't in and of itself
necessarily mean their opinion isn't an accurate one - especially
if there are others who don't fall under that umbrella who think
the same. That's what this guy misses. There are plenty of folk
who've never worked, never wanted to work, and never tried
to work in comics (but who love them) who also opine
that the 'industry' is either dead or dying.
You can't disprove or dismiss an entire argument on
the grounds that the motives of some people on the other
side of it are prejudiced, unless everyone on that other side is
in the same boat. That's akin to saying you shouldn't listen to
what the ol' geezer who lives at number 22 says about global
warming, because he's a 'bit dodgy'. Don't you see the utter
absurdity of such a position? It's a perfect example of
what's called 'playing the man instead of the ball'.
Oh, what a funny guy! Nobody has said periodicals for
children don't exist - only that those ones which do exist don't
constitute an industry in the way the word was once understood
in relation to comics. We'll get to the definition of what constitutes
a comic later, but here's something to consider: Many of the publi-
cations in these photos will be fortnightly or monthly and will sit on
the shelves unsold until the next issues come in. My local WHS
gets in a fair selection of PANINI and TITAN mags every
month, and I can tell you for a fact that most of them are
returned to the warehouse with alarming regularity.
Photos of mainly unsold stock which gets sent back to
be recycled is hardly overwhelming evidence of a 'thriving
comics industry' in my famously humble estimation.
While contemptuously dismissing other people's definition
of a comic, he blithely bestows his own idea of the term upon
any periodical aimed at children. His far wider application isn't
necessarily more accurate 'though, as many kids' mags are lump-
ed together under that category merely for convenience when
being allocated shelf space. In this, he is doing exactly the
same thing that he accuses his 'opponents' of.
Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty - the definition
of 'comics' and 'industry', which I'll address in detail in
the next instalment. Don't miss it - unless you have an
important appointment to watch paint dry!
Posted by Kid at Thursday, December 10, 2015