T Campbell's Blog

Jonathan Rosenberg is an unmitigated ass who has a tendency to blow things out of proportion and go on the attack for the slightest perceived fault. It is getting to the point that I don't want to read Fleen because when I respond his replies are inevitably written to put my comments in the worse possible light and draw me out into flamewars over nonsensical details.

My suggestion to you, T, is to ignore him. You're not going to make him happy. You're never going to satisfy him. If you did slit your wrists over this and died, he'd probably complain about the mess you made even though he'd not be responsible for cleaning it up and even if you managed to find a way to do so without leaving any mess for people to clean up.

And if he takes umbrage at my words, he can shove it up his constipated ass. I'd suggest laxatives for him except I'm sure he would still be so full of shit that he could fertilize several acres of farmland on his own (assuming his waste didn't just irrevocably pollute the land it was placed on).

Robert A. Howard, Tangents
 

You can't please everyone...

In fact, I found that by pleasing someone, you inevitably displease others.

Learning to accept that is quite liberating, especially for an artist...
 

Rob: it wasn't just Jon who was telling you to pipe down on Fleen, it was Weds and Eric as well. And we were all thinking it. You didn't have your facts straight and your arguments were facile at best. You weren't HELPING.

You're not helping here either by throwing around insults because the guy disagreed with you, though I am glad to see you've abandoned your "I'm Eric Jr.!" writing style at least for a little while.
 

T, it's funny what folks pick up on to get upset about. I give you credit for being upset about my implication that you don't care about your work. I'm sure you do.

But it seems to me, and a lot of other folks, that this History, coming after only a decade of webcomics, is being rushed out there so that you can establish yourself as the premier webcomics historian.

Try to look at it from my persepctive, T -- I met you once, at a panel at SPX, which you were supposedly MCing, but you ended up talking for longer than any of the panelists.

You stole an idea from Jeff Lowrey for your blog after intimidating him into asking you questions before publishing (by yelling at him for not doing his research, by the way, and expecting him to INTERVIEW YOU DIRECTLY when he could not find the information on the Clickwheel website, which it was absent from).

You got the chronology of webcomics wrong and then defended your decision not to follow up on your research by asking questions of the people involved in the events (which, admittedly, will get you biased answers, but will help clear up factual errors (which you did with me, but apprently not many others) and at least introduce you to the possibility that events may have happened differently, or with mitigating circumstances.

And you did one other thing to a fellow cartoonist, which I will not mention here, but which I think was pretty despicable. We can discuss that in email if you like but even a wastrel like me does not want to shame you by mentioning it in public.

This is the sum of my total experiences with you. From my perspective, I would have to guess you genuinely want to be known for your work so badly that you have a tendency to trample on the folks around you, especially the ones who are trying to help. I don't think you do it purposefully, out of cruelty, but pride ain't much of a better reason.

The quotes on your homepage are the badge of a man who needs everyone to know how much he has accomplished and contributed. I understand the need for such marketing tactics (I have quotes on the backs of my books), but you're marketing yourself, not the work.

If you are an entertainer, like me, your responsibility is to entertain. There's a certain amount of leeway I get. I don't need to be accurate, or truthful, or nice. All that's expected of me is that I make people laugh.

If you are putting yourself out there as a historian, you have other responsibilities, though. When I told you that your book was boring, you dismissed it (kindly and without malice, of course). When I told you that the structure of the Seven Horseman was a bad way to set things up, you dismissed it (kindly, again).

As distasteful as my comments may be, I would bet you're paying attention a bit more closely now. Believe it or not, I am trying to do you a favor, although it may not feel that way now. Please get some of your supporters to give you real, honest feedback -- don't accept compliments from them. Don't let them say anything nice. Let them rip it apart over beers and give you good, uself feedback that you can go back with and start over. Take your time. Don't worry about publishing the first history. Worry about publishing the best history.

Oh and Robert, if you don't want to read Fleen anymore, I invite you do stop doing so. I think there were about five people in that thread asking you to shut up. We can take a poll if you want, but that's enough consensus for me.

I loved Jeff's comic, by the way -- he even asked me to come up with a line of dialogue for myself.
 

To be honest, Mr. Rosenberg, I try to read as many of the webcomic review sites as I can. I consider it a sign of professional courtesy. However, your own comments, derision, and bile has caused me to question whether I should be writing webcomic reviews and critiquing works at all.

And it's not because I doubt my ability. It's because I find it increasingly difficult to avoid becoming the cynical hate-filled stereotype that is considered the norm for critics, because of people like you who latch onto the most negative possible meaning of one's words and then run with it, waving it like a flag to say "look at this person, he's an idiot."

It takes a hell of a lot to get me as pissed off as you've gotten me. I congratulate you on your skill as an antagonistic writer. I also congratulate you on helping to kill my joy of webcomics and of writing reviews from the viewpoint of a fan. If your intent is to remove a competitor for your "esteemed" Fleen, then you may very well get your wish. Though I'm resisting with every ounce of will because I wouldn't want to give you the fucking satisfaction.

Now if you have intelligent and reasonable suggestions for Mr. Campbell and his work, why not make them rather than uttering more bullshit only fit for ridicule.

Rob H.
 

And now I wish to apologize to Mr. Campbell. I shouldn't have sworn on this blog. It's rather poor form for me to do so.

Besides, it would be so much more amusing to write those posts while finding alternatives for vulgarities. I mean, if I'm going to "exchange dialog" with Mr. Rosenberg, I might as well be slightly amusing about it. ;)

Take care, T.

Rob H.
 

Okay, Jon, now we're getting SOMEWHERE. It's just possible that more good than harm might come out of this. Let's go point by point here.

I understand the feeling that 13 years is too soon (and I suspect that seeing your name in a "history" might make you feel old!) But as you've said elsewhere, a lot has happened in those 13 years. Quite a lot. Most people who haven't been reading webcomics don't know where to BEGIN to make sense of it all. I'm trying to do so. I feel that it's needed.

I loathed my performance at that SPX panel. We're in total agreement there. I *sucked.* I've got a lot better since.

I'm sorry if I intimidated Jeff. I didn't mean to "yell" at him and I didn't mean to steal from him. (I sometimes use allcaps the way comic-book writers use boldface, which may have led to confusion.) The latter problem has been pretty well documented on this blog, and since he was willing to settle it over a video game tournament I consider it resolved.

When OhNoRobot launched, Ryan made a statement that made it seem like the whole site was entirely his idea. I could have accused him of stealing credit, but I know Ryan, and I know he's an honest man who's just used to thinking independently. We resolved it quickly, he revised his statement and that was that.

Ryan doesn't steal. Neither do I.

The bit where I asked Jeff to talk to me if he couldn't find a public record is not quite as hypocritical as it looks, because I have used interviews to cover gaps in the record. But it's certainly ironic and may not have been handled well. I'm kind of amazed that anyone thought I had the resources to launch a site like Clickwheel on my own. I guess it just goes to show how powerful some of us are in the eyes of readers.

I did make a mistake in chronology, but what's really embarrassing is that virtually all webcomics pages pre-2002 contain publication date information in the URL or body text. I didn't need interviews to fix that one.

Still, I'm shifting my attitude toward interviews. Sometimes these things take time to percolate through me.

You certainly have my curiosity piqued about what you'd rather not air in public. I tend to prefer the direct communication of GTalk or Skype, but an e-mail will be fine.

You understand the need for marketing tactics. I'm sure you can understand further that my marketing needs will be different from yours. Like many cartoonists, you've concentrated most of your creative energies into a single project, a project you create almost entirely on your own. I haven't done things that way. I launch new projects relatively often, in collaboration with others, and we need a marketing base to proceed upon. When Gisele and I introduced PENNY AND AGGIE last year, we could hardly have sold it as some kind of sequel to FANS and COOL CAT STUDIO. We had to rely on our reputation as a writer and an artist.

I think you probably misread my reaction to your criticisms a bit. You were by far the first to respond to the manuscript that I sent out, and when I got back the comments my thought was "well, I'm not sure I agree, but maybe he's right-- let's see if anyone else says the same thing."

My PLAN was to wait until I was confident all the comments were in, which would have been about a week ago, then go through the process of following up and revising.

It's ironic that I found myself at loggerheads with you, because the crits you gave me were far closer than anybody's to what I actually *wanted.* They were more about the core of the work when I was hoping to focus on the surface, but the honesty was appreciated, believe me. I just didn't want to take one person's word for it.

(I'm staying right out of the thing between Jon and Tangent. I hope both parties will understand that other concerns are taking priority right now.)

Jon, if we find ourselves feeling we are on the same side when your private matter is addressed, I do have other questions that I'd like to ask you, pertaining to both your own work and what you'd like to see. Again, it may be best to do that as a conversation, because, well...

...these posts tend to go on a bit. ;-)
 

Okay, one more thing...

I did respond to your criticisms with a few "well, buts..." which I suppose could have been dismissive in tone. They were meant as an explanation of reasoning, like my post called "Why You Weren't Interviewed." Several people seized on that explanation and poked sufficient holes in it to get me to change my mind. I'm not sure if I expected you to do the same. What I do know is that your comments have been in my mind since they were made.

We'll see where things go from here.
 

Sounds good, T, I'll take this offline. No need to get specific here.