PART FOUR OF UK 'TROLLS': KICKING THE BUTTS (OF BUTT-'EADS)...

Right, let's get straight into it. 'Often used to back up the silly rules' he witters in the screengrab above.  Well, I think I've more than ably demonstrated that these 'silly rules' (or the way that he distorts them at least) exist only in his own head (and in the heads of those who agree with his catalogue of exaggeration, disingenuity and misinterpretation.)

However, there is a case to be made (and I think I've done so) for a comic - in a precise sense - being regarded as a physical, published entity.  Something you can hold in your hands and have a tactile relationship with.  (Oo-er, steady on there, missus.)  In a very real sense, a comic is a combination of 'carton' and 'content', not just one or the other.  (Context would be the determining factor.)  If you apply the term 'comic' to any and all paper-covered periodicals in the comics-section shelves of a newsagent, recognize that the categorization is often the result of simple expediency.

Consider this.  One thing that irks many comic readers is the automatic assumption by many adults that comics are just for kids and is a format aimed at the immature or simple-minded.  Part of the problem, perhaps unique (in degree at least) to Britain, is that both 'carton' and 'content' have traditionally been seen as intended almost exclusively for children, and any periodical for kids is therefore regarded as a 'comic'.  So the word has taken on a much looser, wider, definition.  One can make a claim that this is a legitimate application;  after all, if something is perceived as belonging to a particular category, doesn't it actually become so after a while?  Let me apply my mighty brain.

In one sense 'yes', and in another sense 'no'.  After all, a tomato being perceived as a vegetable when it's actually a fruit, doesn't make it a vegetable  People might think it's a vegetable (and in large numbers too), but it remains a misconception, regardless of whether they're aware of it or not.  Yet chefs still use it as if it were a vegetable.

Now, you may at this point think that I'm confirming the accusation of my 'opponent', but I'm actually trying to give him a fair shake by acknowledging that the word 'comic' has more than one just application.  That's part of the problem, you see, because the two sides often use both senses of the word interchangeably.  The word now has a more general application, as well as a specific one.  So, even were I (and others) to subscribe to the limited definition of a comic as derided on that other blog, his negative classification of that as 'silly rules' is surely a purely subjective one, coloured by his willingness to include just about any magazine in the kids' section of newsagents all across the country.

I'd suggest that his looser definition of what constitutes a 'comic' is equally as open to the charge of being 'silly' as the one he so superciliously mocks.  That fact seems to be lost on him.  He has already decided that his definition of what makes a comic is the 'true' one, making him just as dogmatic on the subject as he accuses the other side of being.  By his own standard, his opinion has therefore no more validity than anyone else's.  Hoist by his own petard, methinks.

But, as I hope I've illustrated, it's a more complicated matter than may at first appear on casual consideration.

So, is the comic strip item shown in the first screengrab a comic or not?  Well, in one way, it is, and in other, it isn't.  It's a digital comic.  But why qualify it so?  Well, when I buy my MARVEL MASTERWORKS volumes, I'm buying a book - but one that contains comic strip material previously published in comicbook form.  So isn't the book a comic because of its content?  Nope - it remains a book, not a comic.  So the item in the above screengrab may (and will) be referred to as a 'comic' in a general sense as a matter of convenience, but it's not one in the specific sense that most people understand it.

Think about it.  If it had been first printed in a book, it would  be a book and not a comic, so obviously the form in which it appears is a relevant factor which must be taken into account when it comes to classification.  Is it silly to give things their own category in order to differentiate between them?  I'd say no.  Let's return to my record analogy for a moment.  A CD is a recording, but it's not referred to as a 'record'.  Why?  Easy.  That's because we all know that a 'record' (as commonly understood) is a black (other colours are available) round disc with a hole in the middle.  "So what?" you say.  "A CD is a silver round disc with a hole in the middle.  They both play music, so what's the difference?"

I'll let you decide that for yourselves, but we all know there is one, don't we?   Here's another little something to ponder.  If you're going out to the shops and your kids asked you to bring back a comic and you came back without one, I'll bet you can well imagine their disappointment.  Even if you were to access one on your computer for them to read, you know, in your heart of hearts, that they'd consider it second-best and not quite the real deal (as far as 'carton' goes).  It would be a bit like them asking for a teddy bear and when you forget, showing them a picture of a teddy bear.

True, that's not a perfect analogy, but it serves the purpose of illustrating that there's something about the physical aspect of some things that's essential to their very identity.  And a 'comic', to most people's way of thinking, yet remains a physical thing that can be handled.

Also, consider this fact:  Animated cartoons are nothing more than a series of sequential drawings given the illusion of movement by the application of technology, yet they're called cartoons, not comics.  Why?  Given the more flexible, encompassing definition of that other blog writer, couldn't they, shouldn't they be classed in the same group?

The point being there's a reason for the distinction between similar-but-related art forms, and the erosion of those distinctions is not necessarily a helpful development.  It certainly shouldn't give folk with no regard or respect for those traditional distinctions, licence to ridicule or contemptuously dismiss the point of view of those who do.  (Or invent and ascribe malicious and insulting motivations to them.)

Take a mo to read the caption of the above screengrab.  Now maybe someone will tell me (because I appear to have missed it), but where has it ever been said that a periodical is excluded from being a comic just because it arrives through the post?  In trying to be clever, he's only making a complete prat of himself.  (Do what you're good at is what I say.)  Note that I'm not mocking him for his opinion on comics, but for his ridiculous distortions of other people's views.

  

Let me digress for a moment.  Someone who emailed me recently, said that after talking to the author of the piece, he held the view that it was a 'general article' and 'not targeting anyone in particular'.  Now, see that part in the above screengrab about 'ridiculous rules' coming from those who 'collected these comics or even worked on them' - guess what?  That's me, that is.  Not named, but clearly alluded to.

Now, I'm not claiming to be the only target, but I'm obviously one of them, perhaps even the main one.  If there's anyone else who's worked in comics who's as vocal in his criticisms as I am then I've yet to learn of them, so any claim to it being a 'general opinion piece' (as described by the one who justified his cross posting of it) is patent nonsense in my view.  It was clearly far more than that.

I'd hoped to delve into the definition of 'industry' in this instalment, but I've lingered a tad too long on the above and other concerns now require my attention.  Hopefully I'll wind it all up in the fifth and final part - though that ambition is open to revision depending on circumstances.

See you next time.

BABE Of The DAY - MARTINE BESWICK...

Here's MARTINE BESWICK

doing half an impression of a teapot.

Looks like she wants to be picked up,

 eh?  I'd be happy to oblige.

UK 'TROLLS': KICKING THE BUTTS OF BUTT-'EADS) - PART THREE...

Are you a fan of 'straw man' arguments and spurious 'logic'?  Then you'll love the above screengrab from a blog extolling the 'virtues' of today's U.K. comics scene, as it has them in abundance.  First of all, I've never read or heard of anyone insisting that 'a comic must be a weekly humour title aimed at kids, with cover-to-cover comic strips and must be purchased from a newsagent', so he's foisting his own skewed viewpoint onto those he seeks to discredit.  Comics can be fortnightly or monthly, and can be purchased mail order or by subscription.  Or given away free, even.

I've expressed a preference for the way things used to be when I was growing up, but I've never sought to suggest that the comics 'industry' has to be constricted by that; nor do I know of anyone who has.  Part of the problem, I believe, is the fact that the word 'comic' can be applied to more than just one thing, and this leads to confusion on both sides of the discussion when it comes to understanding just what is being discussed.

For example, the simplest definition of the word 'comic' I've seen online is this: "A periodical containing comic strips, intended chiefly for children."  That's probably still the popular idea of what a comic is among the general public.  However, that's using the word in the specific sense as it's most commonly understood, whereas it also has a looser, broader sense, and this can sometimes lead to people talking at cross-purposes when discussing the seemingly simple subject.

It's like the 'music' industry.  Music is accessible in a variety of ways.  Once upon a time, the vinyl record format was how most folk listened to music, or by attending live concerts.  In modern times, it's mainly by CD, or downloading, and all sorts of other ways that I've probably never even heard of or imagined.  (That's because I'm a doddery ol' fart, but that shouldn't be held against me.  After all, I'm a doddery ol' fart who still has his own teeth and hair and that should surely count for something, you impudent young whippersnappers!)

Once there was a record industry.  A 'record' in the way that most people understood it, was a vinyl disc with a hole in the middle - not to be confused with a Polo Fruit or a doughnut.  When someone said that they were going to buy a 'record', we knew exactly what they meant, and, at one time, didn't include a CD or cassette.  That's because, in the sense I've just described, the word 'record' referred to what I would call the 'carton', and not the 'content'.  Although, confusingly, 'record' was also a 'shorthand' way of referring to the original recording.  That's why the word gradually took on a looser and wider application: Someone would hear a song on the radio and say "I must buy that record" and then go out and purchase a CD or a cassette tape (or 8-track).  That's because, in that particular context, their use of the word referred to the 'content' and not the 'carton'.

The word 'record', as I said, was short for 'recording' so, technically, whatever the 'carton' was - vinyl disc, CD, music cassette , 8-track, or whatever - fell within the category, but, for the most part, it was generally understood that a 'record'' was a particular thing in itself - a round, usually black, plastic disc.  However, when referring to their 'record collection', a person's usually talking about their vinyl collection, not their CDs or music cassettes - even though these are 'recordings'.  Different 'carton' you see. 

Confused?  You will be!  First, though, let's deal with the facetious captions on the screengrabs below.  Got to be thorough.  If a job's worth doing, etc...

Well, the fact that I recently referred to LITTLE STAR (which is in the same format) in some fairly recent posts as a 'nursery comic', puts paid to that little piece of misrepresentation.  Would anyone deny that this was a comic?  Has anyone ever denied that this format doesn't fit the category?  If so, I must've missed it.  The absurd examples he mocks are nothing more than fantasies of his own creation.

   

Again, another gross misrepresentation of the other side's point of view.  I used to work on the above title and the first one below, and I, for one, never once challenged or denied its categorization.  Nor have I ever read of anyone else doing so.  Another 'straw man' argument with no evidence to prove otherwise. 

Do I really need to labour the point?  Remember also that these comics are around 20 to 25 years old.  And here I thought we were talking about the state of today's 'industry'?  Talk about misdirection?  And, amazingly, there are some folk who fall for all his tedious twaddle.  Strewth!

On a simple point of logic, it's perhaps worth noting (though I'm not applying it here) that just because a periodical may describe itself as a 'comic', it doesn't necessarily mean that it fits the description.  (After all, The SUNDAY SPORT described itself as a newspaper.)  Once again, these 'silly rules' he likes to ascribe to others seem to be ones he's invented himself.  What a neat way to try and win a debate - argue against what we say the other side said, instead of what they actually did say.

Let's pretend, just for the sake of argument, that every U.K. comic on sale in shops today contained nothing but reprinted U.S. material.  Would they still qualify as comics?  I'm not aware of anybody who would dispute it, though there may be.  So again, this could be yet another 'straw man' argument.  However, he's referring to two comics. Two comics do not, in my book, constitute an 'industry'.  (Though, in fairness, these are comics from around 20 to 25 years ago, when we arguably still had one.  But that was then - we're talking now.)

Ah, but there are other comics out there, you say!  Indeed, which is why, next time (among other things), we're going to explore the idea of just what constitutes an 'industry' in light of how the word was once understood in relation to the comic biz.  Don't dare miss it!  You know how I hate talking to myself.  See you in part four.