Let's start with the positives: It's a great first step, in acknowledging a whole fleet of talented, professional cartoonists who are making their living in a non-traditional way. It's an acknowledgement that things are changing…and that great, great work is being done online. And it's to NCS President Tom Richmond's huge credit that he's taking the bull by the horns and trying to institute change, as there remains a very strong institutional bias in the NCS towards the newspaper world. I'm sure he's getting grief for instituting the change. Cartoonists, like all human beings, are pretty good at complainin'.
But it should be remembered that awards don't really matter. They don't. No award is life-changing, and no award makes you a better artist. You don't wake up the next day, after an award, and find that all your artistic insecurities or over-confidences have disappeared. You're the same artist, doing the same work, the next morning. But they are nice to get, and they are nice to give out. It's a kind thing to acknowledge hard work and late nights and the artistic drive to get better and better. That's a good thing. And in that vein, I'm happy to see this first step taken.
But it's just a first step. It's not perfect. And there will be complaints and bumps in the road along the way. Even I had complaints!
Tom kindly called me a few weeks back, to get my input on the award, and I was happy to chime in. My one big suggestion was (and is) to make it format-focused, and completely ignore distribution systems or business models. Have Penny Arcade compete with Cul de Sac for best comic strip. Put Achewood up against Pearls Before Swine. In my mind, this is the better path…both because:
A.) Distribution models shouldn't matter, at the end of the day. HBO *should* compete with NBC for awards, even though one is paid content and the other ad-supported, and
B.) Distribution models themselves are changing almost year-over-year at this point, so why constantly chase those delineations? And
C.) It just seems a better way to go, to compare apples-to-apples by format. Have all comics strips compete against all comic strips, the editorial cartoons against the editorial cartoons, and the single-panels against single-panels. Otherwise, we separate comics into two parallel worlds, one online, and one in print. It's like setting up separate music awards for "Best Album (on Vinyl)" and "Best Album (on CD).
But ultimately, the NCS took this as a first step, and I can accept it. Support it, in fact. I've worked in enough big organizations to know it's hard to turn a large ship. Things like this don't change overnight, and this will be a good dip of the toe into new waters. I imagine subsequent years will find more changes in how it's structured, especially as the NCS experiences a generational change. Ultimately, I think we'll have awards based on format and genre, like I suggested above…and in the meantime I'll just accept that it'll take a few years to get there.
So! To summarize: A good first step. Imperfect, and there'll be complainin' from all sides…but a good first step. And I support it.
- Dave
PS: I won't be submitting Sheldon or Drive for nomination, by the way. Having given the NCS board my input on the new division award, I think it's only best I sit this one out. There are far more worthy strips, anyway. So it's not like I'm falling on my sword over here.
Nicely put Dave. The fact that 'webcomics' is a distribution distinction only is lost on many. Just like there are many who think 'webcomics' means your comic should be a technological marvel, reinventing the medium, with sounds, animations, popups, etc.
Oh well one step at a a time.
Thanks for sharing,
Rich
I was thinking as I read this, that they might find a different compromise. It sounds like the oscars where there is best documentary, best animated short, etc. But in theory, all can be part of best picture. So they could do best online (for those only published online), best print (for those published primarily for print), and then best comic which would bring all of them together. Just a thought, and might be a nice compromise. But as you said, one step at a time I guess. Thanks for sharing.
If you don't mind me askin', what's your view on content... would volume be the right word? ...On content volume mattering in judging a comic award? Mentioning Achewood made me think because the main page only posted five comics total or 2011. I never subscribed to Onstad's pay site but I noticed it borderline shut down in August and even now it doesn't show in the updates bar anything new in the past two months or so.
The distinction of web vs syndicated is significant not in technical terms but in terms of marketing and hence content. Webcomics can address niche audiences much more effectively than syndicated comics, in part because all the left-handed bassoon players in the world can find their cartoon at a website, but it's not practical to print the cartoon in newspaper for the five or six target readers in that paper's area. More to the point, unless the editor of the paper has a kid who is a left-handed bassoon player, you won't make the sale.
Syndicated strips are tailored to appeal to editors, not readers, and so, while there are some happy accidents in which a artist's personal obsession happens to gibe with a current mainstream marketing meme, more often the successful syndicated strip is as formulaic as a TV sitcom and generally a good deal less adventurous.
You never really know how many people read a syndicated strip. It's nice to add up the total circ of all your papers and claim it as your audience, but that's nonsense. It could be that, at some papers, the editor who bought it is the only person in town who likes it. Unless it reaches a sort of low-tech viral level, like Peanuts or the Far Side, where the coffee mugs are flying off the shelves, there's no real measure of a syndicated comic's audience or popularity.
By contrast, webcomics are sold directly to the reader and you can see the success level quite plainly. The cartoonist also has the freedom to speak directly to the reader, without having to get material past an editor who may worry about what non-target readers think of it.
They really are two different things. I'm thrilled that webcomics are being honored with an award, but am comfortable not to have such divergent forms going up against each other.
(I read all this theoretical stuff in a really good book on the topic. I forget what it was called.)
I just watched The Colour of Magic base on a Terry Pratchett book and the head magicians try to kill each other because it is the way they advance.
Wayfair Promo Code [acailipo.net]
I agree with CSOTD, except in that many strips (Sheldon included, especially before the vertical format) could be, and have been offered as, syndicated strips.
I perceive webcomics as falling into what might be called "short form" and "long form" styles, the one (generally horizontal, and often suitable for a newspaper market) where the story arcs mostly last a week, and the other (mostly vertical) where they last months, at the end of which time they can be turned into comic books. These seem to me to be the most natural division of cartooning. Obviously, a cartoonist can do either, but doesn't have to, and my view of an artist is affected by which I see first from them... with the consequence that I was rather surprised to see a guest strip from Dave on Questionable Content last year...(!)
