Submitted by The William G on May 2, 2006 - 09:06
As some of you may know, I make a longform webcomic (thanks for clicking). And I'm using the term "longfom" as to mean serialized story comics.
I've been thinking about webcomics, as I always do, and though I'm lacking access to Rob Balder's holy grail of data, I have managed to notice a few things. First off, gag-strips dominate the webcomics. And second off, longform comics don't.
Now, this isn't meant to be a debate over Art vs. Entertainment, nor Quality vs. Quantity. We all know those topics have been done to death, and have no value save their acting as a platform to launch pissing contests.
This is meant to air a thought/ reinvention of the wheel, I had that I think may be discussion-worthy.
Longform comics have no place in what we now know as webcomics.
DC and Marvel have dominated the comic book marketplace for decades with tales of radiated, atomic, DNA-scrambled, mutant superheroes. Can they dominate the web as well?
Chances are you like comics and you like music, but do you want them fused together?
Tym Godek takes a look at music and comics and examines how they interact, what creators have come up with to date and where we might go in the future.
A little love letter to the magazine that could.It's the third anniversary of Comixpedia this issue.
2006 is the fourth year we've been writing about webcomics. We've put out 38 monthly issues of the magazine and published more than 600 reviews, interviews and other articles about webcomics. We've posted more than 2500 news posts (that's not counting the magazine).
Submitted by Xaviar Xerexes on January 16, 2006 - 01:03
This week we have a review by Alexander Danner of the webcomic Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life by Adam Reed and Phil Kahn takes a look at the book Webcomics: Tool and Techniques for Digital Cartooning by Steven Withrow and John Barber.
We also have a brand new column from regular contributor Alexander Danner called Word (And More Words) that explores writing for webcomics. And this month Welton Colbert goes back to the future in honor of the Future Issue!
Last but not least, Al Schroeder interviews Faith Erin Hicks, the creator of the futuristic dystopian webcomic Ice.
The book Webcomics: Tool and Techniques for Digital Cartooning by Steven Withrow and John Barber is a comprehensive overview of the state of webcomics. Webcomics: Tools and Techniques for Digital Cartooning is a helluva book. If nothing else, it's full of a ton of useful information and thoughts on webcomics art and business. It's got tutorials, round table discussions, theory, and even a big ol' gallery of webcomics.
But in writing this review, there's been one thought sticking in my mind: namely, this is a wonderful book... but who is it for?
Joe Zabel is both a webcomics creator (most recently he finished The Ice Queen: A Trespassers Mystery) and the founder of The Webcomics Examiner. I really enjoyed our conversation - the topics ran all over -- from Joe's webcomic work to Harvey Pekar and journal webcomics to the future for webcomics in general.
Submitted by Reinder on December 5, 2005 - 19:06
Out on your virtual newsstand - a new edition of the Webcomics Examiner featuring "The Best Webcomics of 2005" and Part 2 of "The Artistic History of Webcomics", a rountable with T Campbell, Shaenon Garrity, William G., Phil Kahn, Bob Stevenson, Eric Burns, Wednesday White, A. G. Hopkins, Rob Balder, Tim Godek, Zabel, Alexander and Brandy Danner.
Lee Adam Herold's Chopping Block is back with a new story (and a different art style).
Power restored to whichever one of those Dakotas houses Keenspot World HQ and Chris Crosby returns to updating Superosity and Sore Thumbs.
Eric Burns weighs in on the recent Questionable Content storyline with an extra-biscuity biscuit. I've been impressed with QC all year really. It's a fantastic strip and Jeph Jacques just gets better every month. EVERY MONTH!
Webcomic pioneers John Barber and Brendan Cahill are in cahoots at Marvel in bringing forth a new Cahill-penned comicbook called Sable & Fortune. CBR has an interview with Cahill.
Super-reporter Jen Contino has an interview with David Alvarez, creator of Yenny.
Submitted by Xaviar Xerexes on October 25, 2005 - 00:52
Work on the forthcoming Comipedia webcomics directory is rolling along. I just discovered tonight, however, that former Comixpedia contributor and all-around webcomics genius John Barber does not have a wikipedia entry.
If anyone can fix this please post an entry for Mr. Barber at the wikipedia and at our own Webcomics Encyclopedia. Barber's entry should go here.
No Daniel "Merlin" Goodbrey entry either! Aspiring fans and scholars put that one here.
UPDATE: As it happens, Eric Burns was snarking about non-experts' campaign of deletion on webcomics in the wikipedia this morning.
UPDATE #2: C'mon on! No Lea Hernandez entry? I threw up a stub on the Webcomics Encyclopedia but you could write pages about Ms. Hernandez.
UPDATE #3: A thread at Digital Strips has an apparent reply from the main non-expert nominating webcomics for deletion. I also had the impression, like T Campbell, that Wikipedia was more akin to a HHGTG than a much more selective, limited document. More troubling to me, however, is that this whole episode brings into stark relief the issue of generalists versus specialists that often plagues such projects. This is a particularly egregious example of (at best) a generalist making decisions without sufficient input from specialists (people who actually have any knowledge about webcomics). Not saying people can't talk about things they aren't expert on. but they sure as hell ought to at least listen to the experts a little.
Webcomics have been receiving a surprising amount of mainstream media attention this year. The Washington Post column, which was reprinted in several other papers, and the G4techtv feature on the WCCA both painted webcomics in a fairly favorable light. But when the New York Times critic Sarah Boxer's article on Infinite canvases and webcomics was published in August, it was not perceived as an endorsement of webcomics by most. It immediately gave rise to some furious discussion, most of which focused on whether the article was well-researched or not.