T Campbell's Blog

I totally agree with your reasons, T. Though I think it would have been better of you to not interview at all, and rely totally on the public record. Comickers are masters of the spin, after all. We cant be trusted to tell the truth when it comes to ourselves. You'd get more honesty out of a crackhead.
 

I think that by not interviewing people you are just allowing for yourself to put your own spin on what you view to be a history of web comics. What better resource about the history of web comics is there to go to the creators themselves? Neglecting to to do is not just lack of common courtesy, but lack of journalistic proffesionalism.
 

Not that you're asking me or anyone else, but it seems to be important to ask people the truth. I understand that you did do research into what had been written, but as a blog writer yourself (and I am as well) I've noticed that sometimes we don't tell the total truth right away. Sometimes it takes a little time to give us the perspective we need to tell the truth.

I know Rodney and Fred didn't even discuss the split publicly for quite a while.

It also seems like a disservice to those who worked so hard in the industry to not consult everyone possible, both critics and supporters, and find out everything about every possible angle.

I haven't read your book (yet) and although I plan to, mostly I plan to do so to confirm (or allay) any fears that I have that you've bastardized history.

Hopefully your work will lead to other works, who will be more willing or more able to get the whole story from everyone involved.
 

I can't blame you if you glossed over the MT split-- it seems like a topic so rich with detail, conflicting reports, fan schisms and various other minuetia, to truly cover it would make a book in and of itself.

And it's no secret that Kurtz is strongly on Caston's side-- he called Gallagher a thief for God's sake. I imagine that's what the entirety of his newspost blow up was about: retaliation at you for "taking Fred's side."

The man's entitled to his own opinions, on the quality of your factchecking, on the MT split, even on the right-or-wrongness of the character use on the cover design. Where I object is when he accuses T of trying to ride other people coat-tails "Rather than try[ing] to make a name for himself by actually CREATING something."

Ok, Scott, that's where I get to call Bullshit on you. T's created plenty. Three long form series, short stories on three other comics (including Sluggy, arguably the single most popular webcomic ever), podcasts, blogs, editing, countless articles...

T's put in his time in the trenches, and then some.
 

While calling what Gallagher did theft might be putting it too strongly, his threat to stop drawing the comic unless Caston sold his half of it at the very least qualifies as extortion.
 

Eehhhh... I can understand Fred's stance. Why would he keep drawing the comic if he didn't like the direction it went in? It's every creator's perogative to quit if they run into "creative differences," regardless of what those differences were.

It's also not a crime for Gallagher to be a *ruthless* businessman. Honorable, sporting, fair... those are all things you can debate until the cows have been processed, grilled, and eaten with extra ketchup and a side of fries. I'm not privy to the details of the contracts they signed, but from what Caston has said online, it sounds like it was a one time pay-off for him. Which is a pretty crappy deal, but as he said (paraphrasing) "I did all this work on MT and I could either take some money for it or no money for it."

Personally, I would have held out for 50% of any profits on the chapters I wrote and 10% on any future exploitation of characters I co-created. I have no idea of Gallagher would have gone for something like that, but one time pay-offs are for suckers. Ask the families of Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel about that one. Anyway, I think it would eat a me a lot less to know that I turned down a small amount of money than it would to know I cut myself out of big time intellectual property. I imagine Rodney's going to need more than a couple beers the day they announce Megatokyo: The Movie.

I don't know, Caston's probably a lot more mature than me, but I'd rather burn down something I built than watch someone else get rich off it. I have a pretty mean vindictive streak, there.

From an objective point of view, it's hard to argue that Caston made the wrong choice. Do you take "some money or no money" isn't exactly a riddle for the ages. The success of Megatokyo after he left has only helped his career prospects as a writer; the first two Dark Horse collections sold huge and he's got his writer credit printed right on the front covers.

But man, if it was me, and I wasn't getting royalties on those... The fact that Gallagher's break lines haven't been cut yet is a testament to how much better than me as a human being Caston is.
 

Talk about completely missing the point. Kurtz may be Caston's friend more than Gallagher's but the fact he called Gallagher a thief has NOTHING to do with his words on this upcoming book. Kurtz is saying that Gallagher is not the only one who started up Megatokyo, and Gallagher has written a rant that agrees. Stop dredging up old webcomic drama, guys. This book just shouldn't be taken to have 100% credibility. That's all.
 

Ah, the wisdom and courage-in-their-convictions of the anonymous commentator.

My old history prof would slap you guys silly for most of this nonsense I'm reading. Meeting the demands of "journalism" is not required, and it's foolish to even bring that old saw up. The demands of good history are to be met. And if T has done his job correctly as a world famous historian (heh heh) then he has taken the information as provided by the documents and has merely compiled and digested it for ease of reading.

Now, if T has decided to add his own commentary to the events he has documented, one would then have the right to accuse him of putting his own personal spin on it. And he would be a naughty world famous historian for doing so. I haven't read it, so I couldnt say either way.

Doing personal interviews while researching historical events IS a valid and commonly used tool, but it's generally accepted that it can be quite unreliable. Which is why historians tend to refer to the documentation more than half remembered accounts.

Last I heard, this book hasn't even gone to press yet. So how about we just ignore the people who feel their agendas arent being met by this book until we get a chance to read all of it? Then we can rip it apart if the need arises.

Or is that too sensible of an idea?
 

You didn't interview the people you write about? Do you also not drive the car you review?

*High School* teaches us to research the subjects we write about. If the person is alive, you attempt to contact them. It's basic.

I can't speak on the validity of your book, not having read it, but I can say it's already in quick sand in my view. You're not giving facts, you're giving opinions .. and trying to claim them as fact.

I'd thought better of Antartic, I really had.
 

I smell DRAMA!

Damn man, this looks a bit messy. Which probably doesn't bode well for a books sales.

I always thought, on the record publicly, that this was WAY too soon to be writing a history of anything. I gave Mr. T the benefit of the doubt and I think he even used one of my comics in the book-- but I still think it was a bad idea to put this out as something official.

Now, with all this "world reknowned" stuff, WOW-- hahahah T, you have yourself in an amazing bullshit pickle here. -- But fuck it, really, I mean, in the end, none of this will matter at all to anyone.

So, if I'm reading correct-- does that book not even mention that Caston guy?? Because, I dont know much about what went down, but that would be kinda silly not including a co-creator of one of the most successful online works, right?
 

This is ridiculous.

This isn't an interview book; it's not a personality profile; it's a history. There are mountains of primary material out there from which to construct a thorough historical narrative. Most of the people involved have been writing thousands of their own words about what they feel and what they have done for years now; and many of them have already been interviewed, some quite frequently, by other sources.

T could legitimately have written this book without interviewing anyone, if he had so desired; personality interviews are no more mandatory for writing a history of webcomics than they would be mandatory for Bill James in writing his Baseball Abstracts (What? You mean he dareed to write about the 2005 baseball season without interviewing all 750 major league ballplayers?) or the editors of AllMusicGuide in writing all of the numerous band histories on that web site (it would be fairly easy to stitch together a few hundred of those band histories into a reasonably comprehensive history of the last couple of decades in popular music, and no one on earth would be stupid enough to criticize it for having no Rock Star interviews).

Interviews can serve a very useful purpose in writing histories, but it is foolish to think that they must be paramount.
 

Hope the kerfluffle helps your sales, T.
 

Another quick point of reference: Over on yonder bookshelf of mine are two different highly respected, critically applauded, histories of the Civil Rights era: Freedom Bound, by Robert Weisbrot, and The Temple Bombing, by Melissa Fay Greene. The latter is chock-full of interview citations; the former, as near as I can tell, has none. And yet, somehow, it got published!

What's more, while The Temple Bombing focuses on one specific incident — the 1958 bombing of Atlanta's oldest synagogue — Weisbrot's book tackles a vast, broad subject: the whole of the Civil Rights movement. Of the two, it is the broad overview which lacks interviews; and a broad overview is, of course, what T himself is attempting here.

Could Weisbrot have worked interview materials into his book? Certainly; it's not like John Lewis or Andy Young are still of tongue or reclusive (heck, even Hosea Williams was still alive when the book was written).

Could Greene have written her book without interviews? Sure, although I think the interview material added a lot to the book; but the main point is that interviews are no more necessary for history books than are charts or photographs. Depending on the book you are writing, they may help, or they may not.


[n.b.: I chose the Civil Rights era as a handy point of comparison because a great many of the particulars involved are still alive and available for interviews]
 

I don't know about all the ins and outs of the schisms ya'll are talking about. However, I do know a good bit about properly researching your subject matter before you write. And I definitely know that someone who is looking for their own 10 seconds in the spotlight doesn't give a damn about doing things the right way.

Thus this book. T, what a sad commentary on you and your ethics. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but of course you aren't cause it is going to make you money and fame, which of course is the prize. I am sure your family is very proud of your mercenary bent. Needless to say, I doubt this book is going to be worth much more than the roll of toilet paper it resembles.

Disgusting.

~A Web comics reader.
 

Not liking the direction that a comic is going in is one thing. Threatening to stop drawing it at all unless your partner sells you his entire share of it is an entirely other thing.

Namely, an extortionate thing.
 

I think a point has been missed. Yes, a history can very well be written without direct interviews. Yes, about eleventy-kajillion primary sources exist documenting the events presented in the history.

The problem comes in when you want to present a history of an event that clearly has two widely varying viewpoints, both of which may be valid. To support one viewpoint without giving credence to the other isn't history; it's propaganda. Taking information about the schism from Fred and not contacting Rodney destroys the "history" title.
 

Your just a leech Champell, so enjoy your 15 minute while it last bitch.
 

wow! You really stirred up the bees on this one!

I agree with your approach to writing the book, and your insight on spin. But really, my "approval" doesn't mean squat. Let's face it, the opinions of this anonymous bonehead that you "did the right thing" really aren't important. By the same token the opinions of the other anonymous boneheads also on here are pretty irrelevant too.

Oh, and here is an excellent reason to avoid doing interviews: unless you want your book to be large swaths of transcribed text, you have to be slective about what bits of interviews you include. This stirs up more bees! How? Because the interviewee can disagree with you and say "you quoted me out of context" or "you misinterpreted what I said". There's lots more room for Webcomics Drama in that scenario than for texts that everyone has access to.

Sorry for being an anonymous coward.
 

Congratulations on (nearly) finishing the book, T. I'm sure you must be pretty jazzed right now. Keep that feeling in mind when the inevitable snark comes along and The Drama is Aggro'ed as it has never been Aggro'ed before.

For everyone else, something important to keep in mind is the The History of Webcomics isn't the be-all, end-all book on webcomics. The field of history is flush with differing viewpoints, more so than any other area of study outside of religion/philosophy. No single source is authoritative. Yes, there will be errors. Yes, someone may have been accidentally misquoted or mistakenly overlooked. There's a solution for that: it's called The Second Edition. I very much doubt this book will be a one-off deal, even if it will be a few years before a new version is warranted. I also doubt that this will be the only history book ever made on the subject, especially if many people take issue with its conclusions.

I can't speak for any deeper faults in the book, both because I haven't read it yet and because I've only been on the webcomic scene for five or so years. Even if I had cause for concern, this one wouldn't be mine to fight.
 

Hope the kerfluffle helps your sales, T.

Heck, dozens of (mostly rude and anonymous) people have, if their complaints are to be given credence, apparently read the book before it has even been sent to the printers; just think how many people will read it once it's actually published!
 

Is this book going to be available on Amazon.com?
 

"Heck, dozens of (mostly rude and anonymous) people have, if their complaints are to be given credence, apparently read the book before it has even been sent to the printers..."

Whereas others have merely read T Campbell's own admission of having interviewed Fred, but not Rodney, regarding the whole Megatokyo thing.

And if pointing out that this was a less than wonderful thing for someone writing what is supposed to be a history of webcomics, well, I guess you can count me as one of the rude (yet not anonymous) ones.
 

I can't give my full opinion on the work until I've read it, and I certainly don't side with the anonymous complainers who think T is a mercenary out to make a buck.

But the discussion here has worried me about the bias of the book. Which well... isn't too big a deal. I mean, pretty much every historical analysis has some bias in it, one way or the other - and having one opinion in the book I disagree with doesn't mean the entire thing is a failure.

Still, I feel that in the hurry to get this completed, there are those who were done a disservice. And there's the kicker - I know the book wasn't put together to put anyone down or leave anyone out, and its a shame that such controversy has surrounded it even before its release.

Controversy might be good publicity, sure, but people being hurt by the work surely wasn't its intent.
 

Speaking of which - "T Campbell, Digital Mercenary at Large!" strikes me as an awesome idea for a webcomic. Someone should totally take that and run with it - the adventures of T Campbell, hardened adventurer trapped in the barren wastelands of the internet, bravely going where none has gone before...
 

Just all the hubub made me go preorder a copy on AMAZON.

T., you're a braver man than I.

-Clint H.
 

Interviews aren't just for the purpose transcribing text or getting quotes (although those are good reasons for them), they're also useful to confirm opinions and get reflections.

Simply because you conduct and interview doesn't mean you have to use anything you got in the interview. But admitting that you simply didn't bother talking to people because you didn't trust them? Because you thought they would put spin on their words? Of course they would.

Guess what? That's what you as the writer of a history of webcomics has to sort out. Written sources (especially online ones) are just as trustworthy (if not less so) than actually talking to a subject.

But, in the end, I haven't read the book yet. When I do, I'll find out how good, or how bad it is.

~Adam
 

I'm going to call bullshit on your reasons, T. Stay with me for a moment: you said you didn't do the interview thing because you preferred to stick to text, which you say is more "accurate."

I say that using "text" is just less work. For the MT breakup, you used text that Fred wrote months after the fact. It is no longer a primary source and instead functions much as an interview would. Hence, you should have gotten both sides of the story.

Shoddy journalism, shoddy history, shoddy product.

I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole, but that's just my opinion. You should form your own.
 

The fact remains, T quoted one side of the duo, and did not quote the other. That in itself was the height of bias. He knew there was a difference of opinion in the matter, and if he couldn't find a quote on the matter by Caston, he should have gotten one. He didn't, therefore he failed in properly researching that segment and casts doubts over whether or not he applied proper research to the rest of his history. I suggest T resubmits his manuscript.
 

I had reasons. I started distrusting the interview process after a while. When somebody's asking you to sum up five to ten years in comics for posterity the temptation to "spin" your answer has to be overwhelming. Some of my interview subjects seemed to resist the pull, but I still found myself preferring to consult the typed word, because:

There are many people interviewed who are wilier then any webcartoonist will ever be. There are people who have studied for years, trained for years after and then spent more years practicing and honing their interview spinning technique. And yet people still interview them. Just because people won’t say exactly what you want them to doesn’t mean you stop interviewing and go to pick and choose words. I would recommend learning better interview techniques.

a)there was no shortage of written words on ALMOST every topic that related to webcomics,

Simply because someone typed instead of said something changes little just because it is easier to cut and paste then ask a question doesn’t mean it is better.

b) typed words were often composed in the past, not in the present about the past,

So you didn’t want any hindsight involved in the comments.

c) words in cyberspace could be contradicted by other interested parties or the general public and

This is irrelevant, if you want to know if something is accepted by everyone then you ask everyone involved. Simply because the “general public” can contradict something means little. It is lazy and unethical journalism to interview one side of a story and then decide that the other side need not be heard. This is adding editorial slant.

d) if the words had been typed instead of spoken, there was a greater chance they were words the author stood by.

That is silly. You have a choice, either put in the words you choose from the postings and assume they are the author’s belief now and eternal, and you need not worry about people changing what they say or think. Or you can ask people about the past with the full understanding that they may understand it better now and say something new. There is even a neat technique where you ask someone about something they said.

Elsewhere:
“Meeting the demands of "journalism" is not required, and it's foolish to even bring that old saw up.” –William G.

You must be relieved.
 

I haven't read your book and I can't comment on how true/untrue it is, but there are aspects of this whole thing that stink. First of all, when your publisher describes you as a "world renowned webcomic historian" you should either have the credentials to back it up, or assert more control over what's said about you by your publisher. Yes, you have created webcomics, and I'm sure you have lots to say about their history, but that doesn't qualify you as a historian (certainly not a world renowned one). Webcomic history hobbyist, okay. Since there isn't any recognized institution that will give that kind of credentials, I think it's better to just leave the whole phrase out. You probably do too, and it sounds like you were genuinely surprised as everyone else that that phrase was used, but you should take it more seriously than just a harmless mistake. It's putting forth a false image of yourself to the public. Had this happened to me, you can bet I'd be spitting venomous bile at my publisher right now. It may sound nice to be referred to as a webcomic historian, but the trade-off is your credibility. As for the interview thing, you say that interviews are a tainted source because the creators have a strong urge to lie about themselves. Why, then, is there a quote from said untrusted source in your book put forth as an account of facts? By quoting Fred and not Rodney, you are implying his point of view as the truth. At the very least, you should have contacted Rodney to see if he disputed Fred's comments. THAT is fact checking and an integral part of any book that wants to be taken seriously as a history. Again, I haven't read the book, so at this point it's all hearsay about what the contents really are, but if certain people's accounts of the situation are indeed true, I think you owe an apology to Rodney and you should either edit Fred's quote out of the final draft, or allow Rodney to say his piece in the book as well. My 2 cents.
 

Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's WORSE, either.

I didn't look at only one side. That seems to be the most common misconception here. I used quotes from Fred and Rodney as well as quotes from Fred and Rodney's supporters.

Journ-O, I'm just more interested in getting what people said at different times than what they'd say in the relatively narrow span of time that my interviews would take up.

Clay and others, it's not so much LYING about themselves as it is editing their memories to get a more consistent view of the world. We all do that. The written record seems like a better indication of how people REALLY thought and felt.
 

Whereas others have merely read T Campbell's own admission of having interviewed Fred, but not Rodney, regarding the whole Megatokyo thing.

Which is certainly interesting, because he did no such thing.
 

I didn't look at only one side. That seems to be the most common misconception here. I used quotes from Fred and Rodney as well as quotes from Fred and Rodney's supporters.

I thought this book was about Webcomics?

What seems to be the focus here is people whining and moaning about one particular comic.

Hey guys....who cares? Here's a news flash, if you want to write a book about a bunch of comic writers having a spat, write a book about that. Just don't call it a history of webcomics.

So some friends had a falling out and there was a nasty spat. It happens every day. From what I read here, it sounds like it's the focus of the book. Who wants to read that kind of stuff? Better yet...who will pay hard earned money to read that kind of stuff?

A history of webcomics sounds interesting. Hearing a he said/he said over who went pee-pee in who's conflakes sounds like a snorefest.
 

I started distrusting the interview process after a while.

----------------------------

Personally, I distrust my own retinas and my eardrums. How do we know that all of reality isn't just a halluciantion?

I distrust breathing too! Those treasonous lungs. They are not to be trusted!

There is no spoon!
 

So he didn't interview Fred, then?
 

Correct. He interviewed neither Fred nor Rodney, relying instead on the approximately 8 kajillion words that the two of them wrote, both at the time and since.

And really, what on Earth are either of them going to say about it now that they haven't already said?

For that matter, I agree with T on their respective takes on the matter: I, too, have read their exegeses of the incident, and can't make out the barest sliver of daylight between their versions when it comes to the facts (obviously, they have slightly different interpretations of those facts, and they have different opinions and feelings about the events; but the facts on the ground are remarkably similar in their respective accounts).

Listening to various partisans argue from time to time about the schism is remarkably like being in some episode of Star Trek where the natives of one tribe on a planet worship a god named "Voh," and the natives of the other tribe worship an apparently identical god named "Voh"; and only they can seem to tell the two pronounciations, or the two gods, apart.


(And Voh help the third party who gets into a theological discussion with any of them)
 

I think I'll wait for the book to come out, read it, and draw my own conclusions.

Can't comment intelligently on a subject you haven't fully researched, after all.

- Moltare Erda
(Self-professed reasonable sort)
 

What a bunch of masturbatory BS. Maybe later you can all suck each other off while jamming hot poker's in SK's ass. Wait, already did.
 

If you want a real example of a hard interview, look to the movie "Fog of War." McNamara had control over the situation. Watch Errol Morris try to probe McNamara while McNamara is almost in charge of what gets asked.
 

He didn't interview either one of them? Not at least trying to do that is even more of an amateur move than only interviewing one.
 

It's not that I decided not to interview these two and never wavered in that choice. I didn't want to embarrass Fred with this, but there was a period of months where I was trying to open the lines of communication simply to get the rights to use some MT art for the book. By the time I'd heard back from him my initial interview deadline had passed. If I couldn't interview one, I wasn't going to try to interview the other. If I had, you can bet I'd be hearing from Fred fans.

Also, Fred and Rodney are NEVER going to talk on the record about aspects of their split unless they decide to violate their NDA, which is unlikely.

Finally, it's worth bearing in mind: Fred and Rodney are not that huge a part of the book. They have a few pages of one chapter. It's about all of webcomics, not just the really popular ones.

I'm not uncomfortable with the constructive criticism I've been getting, but I did put some thought into these decisions.