Alright, it's kind of a cop-out post today (cut me some slack - I'm in Chicago) but I wanted to take a moment to point out that I've got a Facto account. In keeping with the more Kleefeld angle of this site, I thought some of you might be interested in some of the more obscure/esoteric parts of who I am. Check it out here... http://Facto.me/skleefeld
I just learned of this guy's quest to become a comic book extra. It strikes me as an interesting premise in light of the fact that the largest publishers have not been putting fan letters in their books -- historically, the comic fans best chance of achieving a modicum of fame within a comic. I've made into a few comics myself but not nearly to Jeff's level. He's even got dialogue in a few issues. By my reckoning, he's already made more comic book appearances than Jack Kirby! It's kind of a clever way to be immortalized for a comic fan.Though, obviously, it's not a tactic most people can employ. Jeff's success, I expect, is largely predicated on the fact that he's basically the only guy doing this and it's something of a novelty. I'm sure that if a wave of people starting flooding artists with requests, they'd largely be ignored.
From a bit of a geek perspective, within the context of the stories, it suggests one hell of an interesting cross-over since he's been killed once in Walking Dead, apparently revived, digitized in Tron: Betrayal and brought back out to the real world. A regular Rick Jones this guy is!
Personally, I'd rather show up in a few books that I'm already interested in than any that happen to have an artist that thinks it's a neat idea, but more power to Jeff for doing something a little different.
I started buying classical music in college. Not just randomly, or for a class, or anything. But I went out with some very specific pieces in mind. Giuseppe Verdi's The Troubador. Pyotr Tchaikovsky's Festival Overture The Year 1812.* Gioachino Rossini's The Barber of Seville. The reason I was hunting down those particular pieces (and others) was because they were not infrequently used in Warner Brothers' cartoons. I had a good appreciation of the cartoons, and thought it might behoove me to listen to where some of the music they used came from.
See, the premise is simple. You can appreciate a work of art out of context, as it stands on its own merits. But if you appreciate a work on its own merits, it stands to reason that you would appreciate it more knowing more about it.
This is one of the big hindrances to an appreciation of modern art, I think. People look at the works of Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollack or Keith Herring and don't understand where they're coming from. Do you know what cubism was about? Cubism was about trying to present, in two dimensions, three and sometimes four dimensions of an object. Not just drawing something in perspective, but trying to show the front, the back, the top, the bottom and the sides simultaneously. That's why you wind up with those weird eye placements that are infamously shown; the artist was trying to show a head-on view and a profile with one single image. Knowing that, one is able to see what the artist was attempting, and his/her work can be judged on those values instead of the ones that might be traditionally brought to a piece of art -- does it look like the subject?
That's something I do with comics, as well.
I really liked comics, so I made a point to learn more about them so that I might have a deeper appreciation for the medium on the whole. I've spent time looking into their history, the business practices that are in place, the creative process, the production process, the legal implications... everything I can. Hence, the somewhat eclectic series of posts that wind up on this blog. My interest in is comics, and the more I learn and process -- regardless of the specific sub-set of comics knowledge it's a part of -- the better I'm able to understand and appreciate what's being done now. So I ramble on about what strikes me as interesting within comics, whether that's a story that was published, or a business decision that was made, or a new technology that impacts production, or a reaction within the fan community. It all falls under the purview of this blog because I take an interest in all those varied aspects of comics.
Which means that, when a news items comes along that can cause a visceral reaction -- say, the death of a long-running character or changing the cover price -- I'm able to sit back and discern WHY that decision was made. I may or may not like or agree with it, but I can at least understand it enough that I'm not left figuratively howling in the wilderness. Being able to differentiate between what fans want from what creators want from what publishers want, and understanding how/why those differences exist, is important to understanding and appreciating the industry on the whole.
And that's why, in 2011 alone, I've posted here
Long-time readers are, I'm sure, familiar with my all-over-the-map approach but I thought it might not be a bad idea to call out exactly why I'm all over the map. I hope you stick around for the ride.
See, the premise is simple. You can appreciate a work of art out of context, as it stands on its own merits. But if you appreciate a work on its own merits, it stands to reason that you would appreciate it more knowing more about it.
This is one of the big hindrances to an appreciation of modern art, I think. People look at the works of Pablo Picasso or Jackson Pollack or Keith Herring and don't understand where they're coming from. Do you know what cubism was about? Cubism was about trying to present, in two dimensions, three and sometimes four dimensions of an object. Not just drawing something in perspective, but trying to show the front, the back, the top, the bottom and the sides simultaneously. That's why you wind up with those weird eye placements that are infamously shown; the artist was trying to show a head-on view and a profile with one single image. Knowing that, one is able to see what the artist was attempting, and his/her work can be judged on those values instead of the ones that might be traditionally brought to a piece of art -- does it look like the subject? That's something I do with comics, as well.
I really liked comics, so I made a point to learn more about them so that I might have a deeper appreciation for the medium on the whole. I've spent time looking into their history, the business practices that are in place, the creative process, the production process, the legal implications... everything I can. Hence, the somewhat eclectic series of posts that wind up on this blog. My interest in is comics, and the more I learn and process -- regardless of the specific sub-set of comics knowledge it's a part of -- the better I'm able to understand and appreciate what's being done now. So I ramble on about what strikes me as interesting within comics, whether that's a story that was published, or a business decision that was made, or a new technology that impacts production, or a reaction within the fan community. It all falls under the purview of this blog because I take an interest in all those varied aspects of comics.
Which means that, when a news items comes along that can cause a visceral reaction -- say, the death of a long-running character or changing the cover price -- I'm able to sit back and discern WHY that decision was made. I may or may not like or agree with it, but I can at least understand it enough that I'm not left figuratively howling in the wilderness. Being able to differentiate between what fans want from what creators want from what publishers want, and understanding how/why those differences exist, is important to understanding and appreciating the industry on the whole.
And that's why, in 2011 alone, I've posted here
- A historical Yellow Kid comic
- Financial analysis of a webcomic creator's earnings
- Commentary on a reaction to a publication change
- A brief biography of an old comics fan
- Some mildly snarky comments about some questionable licensing practices
Long-time readers are, I'm sure, familiar with my all-over-the-map approach but I thought it might not be a bad idea to call out exactly why I'm all over the map. I hope you stick around for the ride.
* On a side note, it's since amused me to no end to imagine the following discussion having taken place between Tchaikovsky and the percussionists the first time they rehearsed the aforementioned song...
Tchaikovsky: You've all had a chance to look over the score now; does anyone have any questions before we begin? Yes?
Percussionist: Yeah, um, it says here towards the back that we're supposed to be ringing church bells. Did you mean chimes?
Tchaikovsky: No, church bells is correct.
Percussionist: Like those hand bells they ring at Christmas?
Tchaikovsky: No, church bells. As in, the bells hanging in a church.
Percussionist: ...
Tchaikovsky: Any other questions? Yes?
Percussionist: I'm sorry, does this say cannons?!?
Tchaikovsky: You've all had a chance to look over the score now; does anyone have any questions before we begin? Yes?
Percussionist: Yeah, um, it says here towards the back that we're supposed to be ringing church bells. Did you mean chimes?
Tchaikovsky: No, church bells is correct.
Percussionist: Like those hand bells they ring at Christmas?
Tchaikovsky: No, church bells. As in, the bells hanging in a church.
Percussionist: ...
Tchaikovsky: Any other questions? Yes?
Percussionist: I'm sorry, does this say cannons?!?
You have NO idea how difficult it was to NOT title this post "Have Fun Between Spider-Man's Legs." The image here is of a kids' inflatable bouncer that's commercially available to rent from (among other places, I'm sure) Arizona's A Child's Joy. I suspect this hasn't been formally licensed from Marvel, and it appears that some places are trying to skirt the issue somewhat by simply calling it a "superhero bouncer" without ever actually referencing Spider-Man. (It has a better chance of flying under search engines' radar that way.) But, regardless of the legal aspect of this, why would you want to bounce between Spider-Man's weirdly out of shape legs? Wouldn't it make more sense to make the thing look like buildings and skyscrapers with a couple of life-size Spider-Man images plastered on it, so that kids could pretend they're web-swinging with/like Spidey?
But what do I know from marketing to kids?
Examiner.com has this short article up noting the return of DC's letter pages. The reaction there, like so many others, is positive.
But what I find uniquely interesting about the Examiner's take is the callout of former letterhack T.M. Maple in the title. Maple was indeed a well known name among comic fans throughout the 1980s, but as that was a pseudonym, I doubt very many people outside comicdom are familiar with him at all, so it doesn't make sense to name-check him to a broad audience. Furthermore, he passed away in 1994, which is clearly stated in the article, so why would you premise an article by suggesting that he return, when he obviously can't? It just seems like a very strange approach to the article.
I don't have a real opinion on DC's actual letters pages; I don't read DC books with any regularity. But I am curious about the decisions some people make with regard to presenting comic fandom to the rest of the world.
For what it's worth, I did a brief profile of Maple in my book, Comic Book Fanthropology; I've reproduced the page below...
But what I find uniquely interesting about the Examiner's take is the callout of former letterhack T.M. Maple in the title. Maple was indeed a well known name among comic fans throughout the 1980s, but as that was a pseudonym, I doubt very many people outside comicdom are familiar with him at all, so it doesn't make sense to name-check him to a broad audience. Furthermore, he passed away in 1994, which is clearly stated in the article, so why would you premise an article by suggesting that he return, when he obviously can't? It just seems like a very strange approach to the article.
I don't have a real opinion on DC's actual letters pages; I don't read DC books with any regularity. But I am curious about the decisions some people make with regard to presenting comic fandom to the rest of the world.
For what it's worth, I did a brief profile of Maple in my book, Comic Book Fanthropology; I've reproduced the page below...
I've noted twice before how Dorothy Gambrell has been very generous by providing her webcomic income information online to everyone. And while she hasn't updated her income graph yet t include December 2010, she did post this as an explanation of why she'll be cutting her updates down to twice a week...
As you can see, her 2010 income was just above $20,000 (as I predicted back in September) but, more interestingly, she's also providing her yearly Cat & Girl income for the past several years, pointing out that her median floats around $25,000. One adept commenter quickly pointed out, too, that her first real decline in income coincided with the overal economy getting flushed down the toilet in 2007 and likely does more to explain the decline there than anything.
But, from a business perspective, it appears clear to Gambrell that the frequency of her update schedule (twice a week versus three times a week) has little impact on her income. Which means that, for the past several years, she's been working harder without any appreciable increase in income. She can therefore spend the time she has been working on a third comic every week to work on other things that are more likely to help her bottom line. Maybe freelance work, or more hours at a part-time job, or more time promoting her comic instead of creating it, or whatever. The upshot here is that whether she updates two or three times a week has no bearing on her income, and her opportunity costs on anything else are going to be equal to or greater than working on Cat & Girl.
So the real lesson for other webcomic creators out there is to pay close attention to your finances relative to your efforts. You may well be doing a lot of extra work without making any more money. That's not to necessarily say that all webcomics should drop to a twice a week schedule, just that maybe you can continue on a lighter update schedule than you are now while still making the same amount of money.
A sincere thanks to Gambrell for her openness and honesty about her finances with regard to webcomiking.
As you can see, her 2010 income was just above $20,000 (as I predicted back in September) but, more interestingly, she's also providing her yearly Cat & Girl income for the past several years, pointing out that her median floats around $25,000. One adept commenter quickly pointed out, too, that her first real decline in income coincided with the overal economy getting flushed down the toilet in 2007 and likely does more to explain the decline there than anything.
But, from a business perspective, it appears clear to Gambrell that the frequency of her update schedule (twice a week versus three times a week) has little impact on her income. Which means that, for the past several years, she's been working harder without any appreciable increase in income. She can therefore spend the time she has been working on a third comic every week to work on other things that are more likely to help her bottom line. Maybe freelance work, or more hours at a part-time job, or more time promoting her comic instead of creating it, or whatever. The upshot here is that whether she updates two or three times a week has no bearing on her income, and her opportunity costs on anything else are going to be equal to or greater than working on Cat & Girl.
So the real lesson for other webcomic creators out there is to pay close attention to your finances relative to your efforts. You may well be doing a lot of extra work without making any more money. That's not to necessarily say that all webcomics should drop to a twice a week schedule, just that maybe you can continue on a lighter update schedule than you are now while still making the same amount of money.
A sincere thanks to Gambrell for her openness and honesty about her finances with regard to webcomiking.
Hopefully, your first day of the New Year feels better than it does for the Yellow Kid!
Interestingly, this cartoon actually ran on December 26, 1897. Art courtesy of San Francisco Academy of Comic Art Collection, The Ohio State Univeristy Cartoon Research Library.
Here's to hoping your 2011 looks better than your 2010!
Interestingly, this cartoon actually ran on December 26, 1897. Art courtesy of San Francisco Academy of Comic Art Collection, The Ohio State Univeristy Cartoon Research Library.
Here's to hoping your 2011 looks better than your 2010!
