What was it like

[LibertyCabbage]

This really doesn't have anything to do with anything I've said.

It kinda leaves me hanging when you're casually throwing around weighted concepts like "success" and "virtue" that are highly ambiguous.

Well, that's great. But it's a different statement than "all you have to do is keep trying and eventually you'll be great". Do what you want and put everything you care to put into it, but persistence simply isn't going to solve all your problems.

You're right that persistence without talent, without skill, and without discipline won't get you anywhere. That's true. But that's not what I've been saying, and that's not what I interpret the Coolidge quote to say. All I'm saying is that persistence is an essential ingredient in the recipe for success. Not having any talent sucks in theory, but as McDuffies pointed out, there's no objective way to measure a person's talent. You can certainly try to guess which people are talented or not, and some people might be better at guessing at that than others, but you're still just guessing. And skill and discipline can be learned, so there's always the potential for improvement.

First of all, props to LC for writing what is probably the longest post ever on these boards. I'm shocked they even let you make posts that long.

I guess I should apologize in advance in case I ever try to submit an even longer post sometime in the future and end up crashing the server.

This is completely true and I think it's the main reason that there are so few collaborations. However, I believe that in theory most writers and artists would benefit from them.

I wasn't really trying to defend single-creator projects as much as just trying to understand the thought process behind them. I agree that more creators should seriously consider collaboration.

I don't quite agree. Sure, humour is somewhat subjective. But I think there is at least general agreement when the difference is large. For example, you'll get an almost 100% consensus that The Simpsons was funnier in seasons 1-10 than it was from seasons 11-18. The quality of the jokes simply isn't as good in those later seasons and everyone picks up on it.

You're basically right, but you're using a rare example, whereas I'm referring to the 99% of cases where quality's more ambiguous. It's important when discussing generalities to not get side-tracked by the occasional exception. I think it's also worth pointing out that just because virtually every reasonable person thinks something is "bad" or "worse" doesn't guarantee that some idiot network executive or producer or publisher won't feel the opposite way.

But at least it gives the rest of us something to aspire to.

Yes. Seeing great work should inspire people, not make them feel useless by comparison. If someone gives up because they're not as good as so-and-so talented person, then it's not their lack of talent that stifled them, it's their negative attitude.

Nah, at least, not of comics that keep going for more than one week. Probably at least 50% of those are capable or better. I'm not in the 95th percentile of artistic ability, that's for sure.

The thing to keep in mind is that the majority of webcartoonists don't post on webcomics forums, don't promote their comics, and barely have any fans, so while they're logistically very common, you don't see or hear about them much. It wouldn't surprise me if more than 50% of webcomics were sprites, and those are pretty much automatically terrible except for 8-Bit Theater. And you also have a significant number of creators in the 14-17 age range who, well, are as bad at making comics as you'd expect someone in the 14-17 age range to be. My estimate's that 95% of webcomics suck, 4% are mediocre, and only 1% are actually worth checking out.

In reality meaningful collaboration is very difficult to come by. I will say it from experience with the band since I've never fully worked on a collaborative comic, but for collaboration to yield any results, all participants have to be attuned to the same vibe, to find the same things interesting, to expect the same thing from what they create. The way I experienced, collaborations with poorly matched partners might end up on one of these notes:
-Collaborators never agree on what is the good idea. They keep rejecting each other's idea until they not do anything.
-One collaborator compromises and agrees on other collaborator's approach. Since he's not satisfied with the results, slowly he becomes less and less interested, more ambivalent and his art suffers for that. The comic is simply not what he wanted to make, so he doesn't put his best into it anymore.
Needless to say, to find people who are on the same wavelength is extremely difficult. Collaborations fail because people, when looking for a collaborator, try to find just anyone. Anyone who'll want to work for them. Starting a collaboration with someone because you click with them in real life is also not a guarantee of anything. Enjoying a chat with someone is different from working with them, if you click with them personally, doesn't mean you'd click with them creatively.
The only reason why collaborations work so often in professional field is money. When salary is one of the motivating factors, other motivating factors like, Idunno, being fulfilled creatively, come into play less.

I feel like what it boils down to is that collaboration's a gamble but potentially very rewarding, while D.I.Y.'s safer and more predictable but also more constrained in what you can accomplish. Will Eisner and Alan Moore both did great stuff, and it isn't necessary to have to compare the two and say that one's approach is better or worse than the other's. It really just comes down to where a creator currently is skill-wise and what they feel the demands of their project are.

[LibertyCabbage]

And you also have a significant number of creators in the 14-17 age range who, well, are as bad at making comics as you'd expect someone in the 14-17 age range to be.

Speaking of 17-year-old creators, check out this person's, uh... "contribution" to webcomics.

http://www.smackjeeves.com/forum/viewto ... 23&t=13393

[RobboAKAscooby]

And you also have a significant number of creators in the 14-17 age range who, well, are as bad at making comics as you'd expect someone in the 14-17 age range to be.

Speaking of 17-year-old creators, check out this person's, uh... "contribution" to webcomics.

http://www.smackjeeves.com/forum/viewto ... 23&t=13393

Oh god...
I don't want to make fun but that talking "lieon" head thing looks like a drag queen.

[IVstudios]

You know what more websites need? Music that starts playing the instant you try to view the page. It's a convenient way to make sure all your coworkers know you're not working on your spreadsheets.

[Terotrous]

"Garfield's 9 lives", on the other hand, was great as far as I remember. But that's because in most of stories they considerably changed art and animation style and, you know, didn't feature Garfield.

The book version of this was awesome. I credit this with getting me into furry art.

You're basically right, but you're using a rare example, whereas I'm referring to the 99% of cases where quality's more ambiguous. It's important when discussing generalities to not get side-tracked by the occasional exception. I think it's also worth pointing out that just because virtually every reasonable person thinks something is "bad" or "worse" doesn't guarantee that some idiot network executive or producer or publisher won't feel the opposite way.

I'm using what is probably the most ubiquitous example, but I don't think it's that much of an anomaly. There simply does tend to be general agreement on what material is pretty funny and what's not.

Consider also Seinfeld, Corner Gas, Arrested Development, Animaniacs, My Little Pony, etc. All of these are acclaimed because they're widely considered to be very funny, despite the fact that people have different senses of humour.

The thing to keep in mind is that the majority of webcartoonists don't post on webcomics forums, don't promote their comics, and barely have any fans, so while they're logistically very common, you don't see or hear about them much. It wouldn't surprise me if more than 50% of webcomics were sprites, and those are pretty much automatically terrible except for 8-Bit Theater. And you also have a significant number of creators in the 14-17 age range who, well, are as bad at making comics as you'd expect someone in the 14-17 age range to be. My estimate's that 95% of webcomics suck, 4% are mediocre, and only 1% are actually worth checking out.

Maybe if we're talking "all webcomics ever made, even those that only ever ran for one week", but the comic scene has died down a lot now. There aren't as many people making comics and most of those who are sticking with them are those whose work has some merit.

[McDuffies]

Not having any talent sucks in theory, but as McDuffies pointed out, there's no objective way to measure a person's talent. You can certainly try to guess which people are talented or not, and some people might be better at guessing at that than others, but you're still just guessing. And skill and discipline can be learned, so there's always the potential for improvement.

I feel like you guys are applying my quote very liberally.
There is still value in watching children's skills and trying to recognize and channel their potential. It's not exact science, much like any psychology, but it's far from guessing. At worst, you could call it a very informed guess.

My estimate's that 95% of webcomics suck, 4% are mediocre, and only 1% are actually worth checking out.

So, pretty much the same as any art field then?

I feel like what it boils down to is that collaboration's a gamble but potentially very rewarding, while D.I.Y.'s safer and more predictable but also more constrained in what you can accomplish. Will Eisner and Alan Moore both did great stuff, and it isn't necessary to have to compare the two and say that one's approach is better or worse than the other's. It really just comes down to where a creator currently is skill-wise and what they feel the demands of their project are.

I don't think that it boils down well at all. But if I had to sum it into a blurb, I would say this:

-Don't seek out for collaborators, don't force yourself to working with people with whom you don't have much in common just because you're less good in one field than in the other. Most likely to succeed collaboration is the one that finds you. Unlike some other art fields, comics mean that you always have an option of working by yourself, you are not forced to collaborate.
-But at the same time, don't be afraid to step into collaboration or to break it if it doesn't work. It's very probable that you'll go through several of them before you find one that works. Don't get too emotionally invested too early because break-up of collaboration might hurt some egos, and break-up is a very likely possibility early on.

Oh and also this:
-Don't look at professional comics as example for behavior in webcomics art, where money is not a factor. Collaborations in professional comics are so often because they streamline the process and make making art look more like assembly line, which is what publishers want to see. It has nothing with exchanging creative juices or love of collaborations or whatever.

Will Eisner and Alan Moore both did great stuff, and it isn't necessary to have to compare the two and say that one's approach is better or worse than the other's. It really just comes down to where a creator currently is skill-wise and what they feel the demands of their project are.

Regardless of quality of his work, Moore must be the worst writer for collaboration, though. No respect for artist whatsoever, singularly minded with a vision that has no place for anyone else's input, despite relying on those others to execute that vision. His work process reeks of frustrated unaccomplished artist, a guy who would actually be the the happiest if he was able to execute his comics all alone and not bother with that "collaboration" hassle.

I'm using what is probably the most ubiquitous example, but I don't think it's that much of an anomaly. There simply does tend to be general agreement on what material is pretty funny and what's not.

Consider also Seinfeld, Corner Gas, Arrested Development, Animaniacs, My Little Pony, etc. All of these are acclaimed because they're widely considered to be very funny, despite the fact that people have different senses of humour.

Arrested Development has been canceled for low ratings. Meanwhile, Two and a half men has been rocking the highest ratings for a decade and Charlie Sheen won several EMIs for it.
My Little Pony's existence is coloured with sharp disagreement over it's quality, with people tightly split into obsessive followers and those who revile it. It's as far from consensus as a show can get.
Animaniacs appeals to a certain niche that isn't particularly large.
I don't know what Corner Gas is...
...and shows like Seinfeld or Simpsons, which are both widely popular critically acclaimed and cultishly adored, works which are popular with diverse audiences, are more anomalies than anything else.

Much more often scenario is that when you move in communities of similarly minded people who, naturally, like similar stuff like you, you start getting impression that some things are very universally acclaimed, when they are that only for certain audiences. This is the case for Arrested Development, My Little Pony and Animaniacs (and, I assume, Corner Gas) which are raised on pedestal in internet circles, while they are only blip on a radar of television landscape where reality shows, generic three-camera sitcoms and Modern Family are the ones closest to "universal acclaim".

[Ahaugen]

I don't know what Corner Gas is...

It was a Canadian sitcom about small town life set in rural Saskatchewan

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Stop quoting yourself! *slap* Stop quoting yourself! *slap*

[Terotrous]

It was a Canadian sitcom about small town life set in rural Saskatchewan

It's basically Canadian Seinfeld. It's pretty similar in terms of its overall lack of plot and massive amount of brick jokes.


Also, Arrested Development may have been cancelled, but it was beloved enough for them to bring it back.

[McDuffies]

Also, Arrested Development may have been cancelled, but it was beloved enough for them to bring it back.

Apparently, it was not beloved at the time is was produced. It has a cult audience which was vocal enough to complain it back into existence, but it's not and will never be a hit with general audience. Though even if it was, it'd hardly be a sufficient proof that there is such thing as general consensus of what is good comedy.

[LibertyCabbage]

Consider also Seinfeld, Corner Gas, Arrested Development, Animaniacs, My Little Pony, etc. All of these are acclaimed because they're widely considered to be very funny, despite the fact that people have different senses of humour.

McDuffies responded to this well, but connecting it back to my comments on persistence, I'm more concerned about those self-titled "gatekeepers" of media, meaning network execs, editors, publishers, producers, and perhaps critics/reviewers as well. When you're having your work evaluated by a person of authority, their take on it's always gonna be subjective. That's why I take offense to the notion that "people without artistic talent" shouldn't pursue artistic careers, because that puts too much confidence in the authority of these gatekeepers to judge who has talent and who doesn't. If your pitch gets rejected, or you don't get hired after an interview, then quitting because that particular gatekeeper doesn't like your work's an immature reaction.

Maybe if we're talking "all webcomics ever made, even those that only ever ran for one week", but the comic scene has died down a lot now. There aren't as many people making comics and most of those who are sticking with them are those whose work has some merit.

Maybe I'll do some research on it for a future article. It feels kinda moot at this point considering the situation without some actual statistics to consider, and, of course, grouping webcomics by quality isn't very objective. (I was actually planning on writing an article later today that's loosely connected to this, so I feel like I should clarify ahead of time that it isn't a response to this discussion.)

There is still value in watching children's skills and trying to recognize and channel their potential. It's not exact science, much like any psychology, but it's far from guessing. At worst, you could call it a very informed guess.

Yes; however, I see it as extreme to base the validity of someone's artistic career solely on "a very informed guess" someone makes. And that's assuming this someone even knows what they're talking about, which isn't at all a guarantee. I'm pro-talent, and talent's very important, but it has to be put in context with other qualities that matter as well. Personally, I'd say the formula for success is talent + skill + discipline + persistence + luck. Defending Coolidge again, he isn't saying that persistence is the only thing that matters, he's just saying that it's an important part of the formula for success that often gets overlooked. Whether or not persistence is the most important of those five aspects is debatable, but I find that less pertinent than accepting that all five qualities are valuable. Much like how we can argue all day whether art or writing's more important in comics, but it should be common ground that having good art and good writing are both important.

So, pretty much the same as any art field then?

Right. Sturgeon's Law.

I don't think that it boils down well at all. But if I had to sum it into a blurb, I would say this:

-Don't seek out for collaborators, don't force yourself to working with people with whom you don't have much in common just because you're less good in one field than in the other. Most likely to succeed collaboration is the one that finds you. Unlike some other art fields, comics mean that you always have an option of working by yourself, you are not forced to collaborate.
-But at the same time, don't be afraid to step into collaboration or to break it if it doesn't work. It's very probable that you'll go through several of them before you find one that works. Don't get too emotionally invested too early because break-up of collaboration might hurt some egos, and break-up is a very likely possibility early on.

Oh and also this:
-Don't look at professional comics as example for behavior in webcomics art, where money is not a factor. Collaborations in professional comics are so often because they streamline the process and make making art look more like assembly line, which is what publishers want to see. It has nothing with exchanging creative juices or love of collaborations or whatever.

You have some good points here.

Regardless of quality of his work, Moore must be the worst writer for collaboration, though. No respect for artist whatsoever, singularly minded with a vision that has no place for anyone else's input, despite relying on those others to execute that vision. His work process reeks of frustrated unaccomplished artist, a guy who would actually be the the happiest if he was able to execute his comics all alone and not bother with that "collaboration" hassle.

That's interesting. I never thought about it.

Meanwhile, Two and a half men has been rocking the highest ratings for a decade and Charlie Sheen won several EMIs for it.

That show came to mind for me as well when this topic got brought up. I don't know how long it's been that I've been seeing ads proclaiming it "the No. 1 comedy in America!" Plus, all the uber-drama that came up when they fired Sheen, when I already couldn't care less about the show.

Much more often scenario is that when you move in communities of similarly minded people who, naturally, like similar stuff like you, you start getting impression that some things are very universally acclaimed, when they are that only for certain audiences. This is the case for Arrested Development, My Little Pony and Animaniacs (and, I assume, Corner Gas) which are raised on pedestal in internet circles, while they are only blip on a radar of television landscape where reality shows, generic three-camera sitcoms and Modern Family are the ones closest to "universal acclaim".

Right. And I've personally had to experience the heartbreak of having my favorite shows canceled, which makes me wanna hurl expletives at the network execs responsible.

Also, Arrested Development may have been cancelled, but it was beloved enough for them to bring it back.

Which makes it all the more painfully obvious that people in authority make stupid judgments. Not exactly the kind of people I'd wanna put a lot of faith in to tell me who's got talent and who doesn't.

Apparently, it was not beloved at the time is was produced. It has a cult audience which was vocal enough to complain it back into existence, but it's not and will never be a hit with general audience. Though even if it was, it'd hardly be a sufficient proof that there is such thing as general consensus of what is good comedy.

And going back to webcomics, you'd assume that Penny Arcade, CAD, and VGCatz, all comedies, are insanely hilarious considering how many bazillions of readers they got.

[McDuffies]

That's interesting. I never thought about it.

It really depends of what you imagine the role of artist is in comics. If you think that artist is supposed to be mere illustrator of writer's ideas then Moore's approach is valid, but in my opinion that means basically taking someone who's slaved on honing his skills and then disrespecting that by minimizing his creative input as much as possible without kicking him out alltogether. To my mind, part of artist's job is thinking visually, it stands to reason that he's better at it than a writer, but Moore is a classic failed artist: thinks visually, but doesn't have persistence to develop drawing chops to execute those visuals. Basically, if any artist who hasn't written Watchmen had acted that way, he would be considered a jerk who's difficult to work with, but in Moore's case that's somehow seen as positive quality.

That show came to mind for me as well when this topic got brought up. I don't know how long it's been that I've been seeing ads proclaiming it "the No. 1 comedy in America!" Plus, all the uber-drama that came up when they fired Sheen, when I already couldn't care less about the show.

I watch the Kutcher version of the show, it's sometimes so awful you wouldn't believe it. Like there's an episode in which Kutcher discovers that his brother is a gorilla, where the hell did that come from? Though people who watch it still probably watch it mostly for fart and masturbation jokes and actresses in bikinis. Probably one of the most misogynist shows on tv too.

Right. And I've personally had to experience the heartbreak of having my favorite shows canceled, which makes me wanna hurl expletives at the network execs responsible.

Yeah, I watch how Community is constantly on shaky legs.

Which makes it all the more painfully obvious that people in authority make stupid judgments. Not exactly the kind of people I'd wanna put a lot of faith in to tell me who's got talent and who doesn't.

To be frank, persistent cultist audience makes mistakes too, they brought back Family Guy.

[LibertyCabbage]

That's interesting. I never thought about it.

It really depends of what you imagine the role of artist is in comics. If you think that artist is supposed to be mere illustrator of writer's ideas then Moore's approach is valid, but in my opinion that means basically taking someone who's slaved on honing his skills and then disrespecting that by minimizing his creative input as much as possible without kicking him out alltogether. To my mind, part of artist's job is thinking visually, it stands to reason that he's better at it than a writer, but Moore is a classic failed artist: thinks visually, but doesn't have persistence to develop drawing chops to execute those visuals. Basically, if any artist who hasn't written Watchmen had acted that way, he would be considered a jerk who's difficult to work with, but in Moore's case that's somehow seen as positive quality.

That's some good analysis, but all I meant's that while I was reading Moore's comics, I never wondered what his collaboration process with his artists is like. Now, I'm more interested in it. Maybe I'll do some Google searches on it later and see what I can dig up.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I forget which thread we were using for the "where is everybody" thread, so I'll post here instead: Has anyone heard from Laem lately?

[Cope]

He's still posting on Facebook pretty regularly.