Awards Awareness.
I promised myself I wasn't gonna say anything else about the Eisners' "Best Digital Comic" category. I'm starting to campaign for the awards myself, which makes criticizing their decision-making process poor politics on my part.
But Sam and Max? Frikkin' Sam and Max? Best digital comic of 2006?
Sam and Max is a property that's been around for twenty years, and it represents a lot of work. But the digital version only updated with eight installments in 2006, and they were-- stop me if this sounds familiar-- neither the beginning nor the ending of their sequence.
That sequence currently amounts to twelve pages, and the only thing remotely remarkable about it is the use of mouseover word balloons, which might make it more DIGITAL!!!!!, but not necessarily better. (The interface annoys me, frankly.) They're twelve modestly charming pages, but a magnum opus they are not.
Comics are supposed to be fun, but comics are also supposed to be work. Hard work. I understand that most of Steve Purcell's time is being eaten up by other things, but if he's only produced a scant handful of pages, and at a slower rate than one per month, then he doesn't deserve to be elevated above his colleagues.
Who are those colleagues? The other digital nominees are either weekly features (Minus, Phables) or long-form works completed or in progress (Bee: "Motel Art Improvement Service," Girl Genius, Shooting War). I would have been happy to see any of them take the Eisner.
I'm not calling for a replacement of the Eisner committee. I spoke to Jackie Estrada this morning and she's quite forthright about changes she'd like to see. But I'm still left with the impression that Sam and Max won because it was familiar to the judges (the twenty-year factor) and because it was easy for judges to digest (the twelve-page factor).
Not. Good. Enough.
I'll be doing what I can to make things better for myself and for my favorite strips. Jackie suggested some "for your consideration" packages that summarize extensive online works for the judges' eyes, sent to her at jackiee@mindspring.com. Maybe you might like to send her some too. Let's make next year better than this one.
But Sam and Max? Frikkin' Sam and Max? Best digital comic of 2006?
Sam and Max is a property that's been around for twenty years, and it represents a lot of work. But the digital version only updated with eight installments in 2006, and they were-- stop me if this sounds familiar-- neither the beginning nor the ending of their sequence.
That sequence currently amounts to twelve pages, and the only thing remotely remarkable about it is the use of mouseover word balloons, which might make it more DIGITAL!!!!!, but not necessarily better. (The interface annoys me, frankly.) They're twelve modestly charming pages, but a magnum opus they are not.
Comics are supposed to be fun, but comics are also supposed to be work. Hard work. I understand that most of Steve Purcell's time is being eaten up by other things, but if he's only produced a scant handful of pages, and at a slower rate than one per month, then he doesn't deserve to be elevated above his colleagues.
Who are those colleagues? The other digital nominees are either weekly features (Minus, Phables) or long-form works completed or in progress (Bee: "Motel Art Improvement Service," Girl Genius, Shooting War). I would have been happy to see any of them take the Eisner.
I'm not calling for a replacement of the Eisner committee. I spoke to Jackie Estrada this morning and she's quite forthright about changes she'd like to see. But I'm still left with the impression that Sam and Max won because it was familiar to the judges (the twenty-year factor) and because it was easy for judges to digest (the twelve-page factor).
Not. Good. Enough.
I'll be doing what I can to make things better for myself and for my favorite strips. Jackie suggested some "for your consideration" packages that summarize extensive online works for the judges' eyes, sent to her at jackiee@mindspring.com. Maybe you might like to send her some too. Let's make next year better than this one.
Labels: Webcomics
Posted at
3:29 PM
9 Comments:
Jackie suggested some "for your consideration" packages that summarize extensive online works for the judges' eyes, sent to her at jackiee@mindspring.com. Maybe you might like to send her some too.
Sounds worth doing. :) Did Jackie say anything more about the packages? E.g. How many strips maximum, whether to include synopses, whether they're invited from fans as well as the creators. (The old 2007 Call for Entries page didn't have much detail for digital comics submission.)
From fans as well as creators, yes. Synopses are good. I don't think she'd prescribe a maximum, and I think it might vary from strip to strip, but too many more than nine would probably defeat the purpose of a summary.
Yeah, so in summation, the print comics world still doesn't give a crap about webcomics. Not a shock, but still a let down. And as much as I love and admire the Foglios, they probably made it on the list of nominees because they used to be a print comic as well.
I really have to agree with you that the Sam and Max comics were aggravating to read, especially on window's based PC's that give every image a "jpg" or "gif" symbol every time you scroll the pointer over them. Some innovations really aren't well thought out.
I'm finding the mouseover breaking down on several pages leaving them textless, so I'm no fan of that trick either.
The year my Near-Life Experience Strip "My Two Dads" was submitted for an Eisner, Joey and I were told it wasn't looked at. That was demonstrably false, as the stats showed of the Modern Tales Family strips submitted to the jury (who were given complimentary accounts to view them) that MTD was the highest-viewed.
The lack of nom isn't the issue, but the dissmebling about it being read.
Certainly, length can work against an online comic, but it stands to reason it can also work against a printed work, and can work against a printed out webcomic.
I do know judges who have not read a work are supposed to give it a neutral vote that doesn't pull either way, and I know that hasn't happened. I also know judges are human, and have been swayed.
What an Eisner means is your work got chosen by a panel of humans in any given year, then voted on by more humans who may vote for you rather than vote for someone else, or voted for you because they heard of you because of your Marvel and/or DC work.
Theoretically, the voting should ONLY be about the work (or body of work, as in painter) presented, but that's not the reality.
The packages thing seems to be BS. It isn't that much harder to read a digital comic. Joey Manley, at considerable expense, packaged exactly as he was asked (in 2005 AIR), the implication being a lack of same had hurt MT works previously. The result? Zero noms for MT.
Incidentally, some digital comics nominated in the past have not actually been qualified under the Eisner rules that they be professional works. The flex here is in that self-published works are qualified.
The Eisner rules seem to have a fair amount of latitude when it comes to favorites, too.
"Leticia Lerner: Suparman's Babysitter" won even though it was in a book that was pulped. It was seen online as scans from books that got released before the withdraw and pulp order came down the line.
It wasn't qualified. Period.
Anyway, I think what we're dealing with is a lot of hoo-ha that changes from year to year, has yet to be applied in a consistent manner, and the lack of understanding about webcomics (STILL?!) has caused unnecessary and artificial hurdles for creators wanting to get a fair shake in the Eisner digital category.
As for me, I quit submitting after I was told my comic hadn't been read and I knew it had. Enough was enough. I have better ways to spend six+ months than submitting a printed copy of an already-in-print work, then wait for a series of let-downs that might go as far as having an ass-testing four hours (this year's Eisner Awards length, that took out both Heidi MacDonald and Whitney Matheson, two PROFESSIONAL reporters, halfway through).
The Eisners are only worth the value we place on them. They mean the most to the judges, nominess, winners and Jackie Estrada.
When someone says "the Oscars of Comics," that doesn't stir confidence in me. The Eisners are now longer than the Oscars, and still seen by fewer people.
I'm proud of my noms, I'm happy for the winners, but name me five winners from, say, 2005 without cheating.
Don't you think the time would be better spent making...comics?
I'm proud of my noms, I'm happy for the winners, but name me five winners from, say, 2005 without cheating.
Marvel, DC, Image... um.. does Vertigo count?
Hee, William. I mean actual creator names, not companies.
Truthfully, I find the Eisners are just another aspect of an industry that keeps looking inwards because looking outwards would show how culturally marginalized comics in North America really are.
Heck, they don't even seem to want to acknowledge how marginalized they are at their own super-convention.
But at the end of the day, awards will go to works like Sam & Max simply due to the comfort of it's familiarity rather than any greatness on it's part.
Thus, the winners will always be Marvel, DC, Image, etc...
I bet yah a dollar that the next "Best webcomic" will be whatever Zuda winds up running.
According to Joey, Lea's problems emerged several years ago because of the obstacles that the online subscription model presented to judging.
To William G: The awards DID emerge from the comic-book industry, so that has to be taken into account.
Finally, I can't help but notice that the people who talk the most about how "marginalized" comics are at Comic-Con are the people who don't actually attend the convention. Let me assure you: comics are pretty hard to miss in there.
Post a Comment
<< Home