T Campbell's Blog
Writer of Penny and Aggie, Fans (also called Faans), Rip & Teri, Search Engine Funnies and A History of Webcomics. Experienced webcomics editor, currently seeking full-time work and working on strange and interesting new things...Saturday, April 08, 2006
Seven Pages? SEVEN PAGES?
I guess I'm the only one who's upset about this Eisner Digital Comic nomination for ojingogo. I didn't want to have to do this, but I guess I have no choice. I can't let this pass.
Now-- I don't want to flame Matthew Forsythe, here. Just because I'm not quite sure why ojingogo has struck such a chord with awards committees doesn't mean I think it is a bad strip or that Matthew is undeserving. The man's doing work with Flight, he's got other online work that I like better, he's one of the authors of one of the better cartoonist blogs on the Web. He's paid some dues.
But here's the thing.
ojingogo was nominated for the Digital Comic Eisner last year. Dave Belmore and I had some fun with it last year at around this time. And since then? I've read it again-- and it's two pages longer.
TWO PAGES??
Further research uncovers the fact that page 11 was added in January 2005, but it would have been renumbered as page 13, because ojingogo also added two "prequel pages," one in 2005, one in 2006. This means that the 18-page ojingogo added SEVEN pages last year.
SEVEN PAGES??
ALL THE WORK that has come out in webcomics in 2005, and the best they can manage is one new comic and three comics that got nominated LAST year (PVP in another category), and one of them only added SEVEN PAGES???
Maybe, MAYBE, if those seven pages represented a minicomic of haiku-like brilliance in and of themselves, but they're not a beginning, and they're not an ending. They're just... more middle. Seven more pages of middle. Less than a page a MONTH.
The fault is certainly not Forsythe's. I think some of it can be laid at the feet of webcartoonists, who probably didn't send in their material as readily as they did last year. But some of it has to go to the committee. You're supposed to CHECK THESE THINGS OUT, guys. Especially when YOU NOMINATED THEM LAST YEAR.
I asked Jackie Estrada to shed some light on this. Update: Heard from her since publishing this post. Basically, she and the others are looking into it. Let's look at the record...
Back when they were floating the Digital Comics category in 2004, the requirement specifically stated "the majority of the work must be published in 2004." Now, the problem with that rule is that it disqualified long-running webcomics series, which are kind of the backbone of the field. But there should be some MINIMAL amount of work done during the "award year" to qualify a comic for an award. And I think it should be higher than seven pages of an 18-page work.
Kazu Kibushi's Copper may be in trouble here, too-- my memory isn't as crystal clear for that one, but I'm pretty sure he did not more than ten strips last year. We might let Kazu slide because his strips are elaborate, posterrific productions, far more involved than a newspaper daily.
But ojingogo's seven pages are scarcely more elaborate than what you'd expect from seven pages of an indie comic book. Forsythe's seven pages crowded out your 365 strips. And that just isn't RIGHT.
Side note: ojingogo's nomination ALSO appears to be in violation of the rules for this set of Eisners, relayed at The Engine. Money quote: "Web comics must have a unique domain name or be part of a larger comics community to be considered." Personally, I think that's a silly rule, but there it is: ojingogo does not have a unique domain name. Ojingogo.com points to Forsythe's entire blog with all his work, not just one piece. Nor is it a part of a larger comics "community." I'm assuming the word "community" refers to domains that serve up numerous comics, like Wirepop or Graphic Smash-- because otherwise the rule is either too broad or too narrow to mean much of anything.
(Update: Both years' Eisner rules say something about only allowing "long-form" work, but since 2004 and 2005 nominees Copper, Athena Voltaire and PvP are all series, I assume a broad definition of the term "long-form.")
Either Forsythe has EXTREMELY compromising photos of the Eisner judges in his possession, or someone on staff really, REALLY felt Forsythe was robbed last year-- or, more likely, the worlds of comic-book-buying Eisner judges and down-in-the-trenches webcartoonists are still so far apart that these kinds of details get lost in the shuffle. I recognize webcartoonist John Gallagher on the judging panel; he's been quite straight-up with me before and I don't think he'd be involved in anything shady. Nor does he strike me as the sort who's biased toward ojingogo-style work... his own certainly falls into more traditional zones. I think he just made a mistake and others didn't know to correct him.
But still. STILL. LESS THAN TEN FRIKKIN' PAGES.
That is NOT FAIR.
Now-- I don't want to flame Matthew Forsythe, here. Just because I'm not quite sure why ojingogo has struck such a chord with awards committees doesn't mean I think it is a bad strip or that Matthew is undeserving. The man's doing work with Flight, he's got other online work that I like better, he's one of the authors of one of the better cartoonist blogs on the Web. He's paid some dues.
But here's the thing.
ojingogo was nominated for the Digital Comic Eisner last year. Dave Belmore and I had some fun with it last year at around this time. And since then? I've read it again-- and it's two pages longer.
TWO PAGES??
Further research uncovers the fact that page 11 was added in January 2005, but it would have been renumbered as page 13, because ojingogo also added two "prequel pages," one in 2005, one in 2006. This means that the 18-page ojingogo added SEVEN pages last year.
SEVEN PAGES??
ALL THE WORK that has come out in webcomics in 2005, and the best they can manage is one new comic and three comics that got nominated LAST year (PVP in another category), and one of them only added SEVEN PAGES???
Maybe, MAYBE, if those seven pages represented a minicomic of haiku-like brilliance in and of themselves, but they're not a beginning, and they're not an ending. They're just... more middle. Seven more pages of middle. Less than a page a MONTH.
The fault is certainly not Forsythe's. I think some of it can be laid at the feet of webcartoonists, who probably didn't send in their material as readily as they did last year. But some of it has to go to the committee. You're supposed to CHECK THESE THINGS OUT, guys. Especially when YOU NOMINATED THEM LAST YEAR.
I asked Jackie Estrada to shed some light on this. Update: Heard from her since publishing this post. Basically, she and the others are looking into it. Let's look at the record...
Back when they were floating the Digital Comics category in 2004, the requirement specifically stated "the majority of the work must be published in 2004." Now, the problem with that rule is that it disqualified long-running webcomics series, which are kind of the backbone of the field. But there should be some MINIMAL amount of work done during the "award year" to qualify a comic for an award. And I think it should be higher than seven pages of an 18-page work.
Kazu Kibushi's Copper may be in trouble here, too-- my memory isn't as crystal clear for that one, but I'm pretty sure he did not more than ten strips last year. We might let Kazu slide because his strips are elaborate, posterrific productions, far more involved than a newspaper daily.
But ojingogo's seven pages are scarcely more elaborate than what you'd expect from seven pages of an indie comic book. Forsythe's seven pages crowded out your 365 strips. And that just isn't RIGHT.
Side note: ojingogo's nomination ALSO appears to be in violation of the rules for this set of Eisners, relayed at The Engine. Money quote: "Web comics must have a unique domain name or be part of a larger comics community to be considered." Personally, I think that's a silly rule, but there it is: ojingogo does not have a unique domain name. Ojingogo.com points to Forsythe's entire blog with all his work, not just one piece. Nor is it a part of a larger comics "community." I'm assuming the word "community" refers to domains that serve up numerous comics, like Wirepop or Graphic Smash-- because otherwise the rule is either too broad or too narrow to mean much of anything.
(Update: Both years' Eisner rules say something about only allowing "long-form" work, but since 2004 and 2005 nominees Copper, Athena Voltaire and PvP are all series, I assume a broad definition of the term "long-form.")
Either Forsythe has EXTREMELY compromising photos of the Eisner judges in his possession, or someone on staff really, REALLY felt Forsythe was robbed last year-- or, more likely, the worlds of comic-book-buying Eisner judges and down-in-the-trenches webcartoonists are still so far apart that these kinds of details get lost in the shuffle. I recognize webcartoonist John Gallagher on the judging panel; he's been quite straight-up with me before and I don't think he'd be involved in anything shady. Nor does he strike me as the sort who's biased toward ojingogo-style work... his own certainly falls into more traditional zones. I think he just made a mistake and others didn't know to correct him.
But still. STILL. LESS THAN TEN FRIKKIN' PAGES.
That is NOT FAIR.
Comments:
<< Home
Now, the problem with that rule is that it disqualified long-running webcomics series, which are kind of the backbone of the field.
The requirements also limit the award to longform work, which would also cut out a lot of longrunning webcomics. Come to think of it, that would also cut out "Copper". Are those rules still standing this year?
The requirements also limit the award to longform work, which would also cut out a lot of longrunning webcomics. Come to think of it, that would also cut out "Copper". Are those rules still standing this year?
The man's doing work with Flight
This answers your questions right there. You gotta remember that for a lot of print people, the web is the place their fans go to fight over them. They don't seem to understand that there's a whole alternate world of comics here.
They will eventually, the category is just too new at this point.
This answers your questions right there. You gotta remember that for a lot of print people, the web is the place their fans go to fight over them. They don't seem to understand that there's a whole alternate world of comics here.
They will eventually, the category is just too new at this point.
T
This has bothered me this week too - I posted an update with my thoughts at Comixpedia.
I've never met Ms. Estrada - I would love to get a chance to talk to her someday about the digital comics category.
This has bothered me this week too - I posted an update with my thoughts at Comixpedia.
I've never met Ms. Estrada - I would love to get a chance to talk to her someday about the digital comics category.
T was nice enough to inform me that this discussion was going on, and while I won't comment directly on the specific nominations, I will say that online comics, as a category, will always need to grow and be redefined, just as comics on the web are growing in variety, and being constantly redefined as an artform.
I created 250 online strips for my own Buzzboy.com (recently absorbed into skydogcomics.com), and under thecurrent rules, I am uncertain if Buzzboy would have qualified a few years back.
But, I, like the other judges, made decisions on the criteria given--and some argued for immediate changes in the rules for nomination. There will be, and are, growing pains.
I think that some of the people posting here may be able to help shape the next set of rules for online comics consideration--and that would be great.
Just know that the nominations were made in a democratic fashion, with no influence as to past nominees, and everyone did the best they could. Were some people "robbed?" Most likely-- as with any awards process, talented people get overlookked, or just miss a nomination.
I'm really happy this is a category for consideration for both the Eisners and Ignatz awards ( I forget about the Harvey's), and I welcome the passion and support it is garnering in places like T's blog.
I created 250 online strips for my own Buzzboy.com (recently absorbed into skydogcomics.com), and under thecurrent rules, I am uncertain if Buzzboy would have qualified a few years back.
But, I, like the other judges, made decisions on the criteria given--and some argued for immediate changes in the rules for nomination. There will be, and are, growing pains.
I think that some of the people posting here may be able to help shape the next set of rules for online comics consideration--and that would be great.
Just know that the nominations were made in a democratic fashion, with no influence as to past nominees, and everyone did the best they could. Were some people "robbed?" Most likely-- as with any awards process, talented people get overlookked, or just miss a nomination.
I'm really happy this is a category for consideration for both the Eisners and Ignatz awards ( I forget about the Harvey's), and I welcome the passion and support it is garnering in places like T's blog.
I'm just really happy to even see the category. I had never heard of the Oingjin comic thing before, but I was happy to see some names on the list I did recognize.
As I understand it, the process is, creators or publishers have to submit their own work, and the judges go over the submissions.
The real problem that would need fixing is, the amount of NEW content. I would think it be only common sense that if a feature only had 7 new pages, or anything under your standard monthly "comic book" page count at least, it couldnt be nominated. I can't remember any Eisners being awarded to 8Page or 16 Page mini comics, you see?
Maybe there should be a clause that you should have at least 24-32 new published things, and if it's not an ongoing regular series like PvP or Kazu's stuff, it shouldn't be condsidered.
That's just based on the fact that the Eisners to my knowledge have never given awards to any SINGLE issue under 22 pages in length.
A "body" of work shouldnt just be 10 pages.
Still, I'm thrilled that Webcomics, or Digital Comics are even being mentioned. These things will all work out. It really is still a very small medium, still in it's womb and not really birthed yet.
As I understand it, the process is, creators or publishers have to submit their own work, and the judges go over the submissions.
The real problem that would need fixing is, the amount of NEW content. I would think it be only common sense that if a feature only had 7 new pages, or anything under your standard monthly "comic book" page count at least, it couldnt be nominated. I can't remember any Eisners being awarded to 8Page or 16 Page mini comics, you see?
Maybe there should be a clause that you should have at least 24-32 new published things, and if it's not an ongoing regular series like PvP or Kazu's stuff, it shouldn't be condsidered.
That's just based on the fact that the Eisners to my knowledge have never given awards to any SINGLE issue under 22 pages in length.
A "body" of work shouldnt just be 10 pages.
Still, I'm thrilled that Webcomics, or Digital Comics are even being mentioned. These things will all work out. It really is still a very small medium, still in it's womb and not really birthed yet.
It would make sense if nominated works were a completed piece of work or, if from a strip such as PvP, a completed storyline. The length of the work should not matter, the content should.
Drew Price said...
"That's just based on the fact that the Eisners to my knowledge have never given awards to any SINGLE issue under 22 pages in length."
Hey Drew, I don't recall whether any that short have actually won, but they've deifnitely been nominated. The Eisners have a short story category, where they've nominated stories so short that they've appeared on the dust jackets of books. The length of a story or an installment of a story has little to do with whether it is of award-winning quality.
I wrote more on this topic at
http://users.livejournal.com/_eric_m_/357527.html
"That's just based on the fact that the Eisners to my knowledge have never given awards to any SINGLE issue under 22 pages in length."
Hey Drew, I don't recall whether any that short have actually won, but they've deifnitely been nominated. The Eisners have a short story category, where they've nominated stories so short that they've appeared on the dust jackets of books. The length of a story or an installment of a story has little to do with whether it is of award-winning quality.
I wrote more on this topic at
http://users.livejournal.com/_eric_m_/357527.html
Just to be clear, it's the paucity COMBINED with the fact that it's only part of an incomplete work that puts it over the top for me.
Or under the bottom, as it were.
Or under the bottom, as it were.
My guess it that the rules were created to prevent people from posting up old work and trying to pass it off as work done in 2005 in order to gain a nomination.
We've had lengthy discussions with many other webcomic creators about this years odd nomine list and they all offer the same opinion... That the judges looked at little or nothing when it came to the digital comic submissions, but simply picked whatever was at hand.
Even though I submitted my comic, I'd wager if you asked Mr. Gallagher if he's ever seen or heard of it... The answer would be No.
LOL!
Sadly, there's no real way to address such things without looking like a bad sport.
C. Brudlos
Alpha Shade
http://www.alpha-shade.com
Post a Comment
We've had lengthy discussions with many other webcomic creators about this years odd nomine list and they all offer the same opinion... That the judges looked at little or nothing when it came to the digital comic submissions, but simply picked whatever was at hand.
Even though I submitted my comic, I'd wager if you asked Mr. Gallagher if he's ever seen or heard of it... The answer would be No.
LOL!
Sadly, there's no real way to address such things without looking like a bad sport.
C. Brudlos
Alpha Shade
http://www.alpha-shade.com
<< Home
Archives
January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006
