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 con-dition 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 accusations of that nature without back-ing them up. One can't rely on unfounded gossip, baseless rumour, or wild imagi-nation 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, bitterness 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 publications 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 lumped together under that category merely for convenience when being allocated shelf space. In this, he's doing exactly the same thing 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 dare miss it - unless you have an important appointment to watch paint dry!
