Zabel: Bill brings up an interesting question which is also quite relevant to the future of webcomics--
Will the web continue to be free? We've all come to believe that it is impossible for anyone to control the internet. But if the US Government is hell-bent on cracking down on porn and "terrorists," could they find a way of locking up the internet?
William G.: I don't know the technical details so I may be off on exactly what happens. But I saw a Frontline on cyber terrorism that suggested that all of the internet's domain information passes through five buildings, all located in the USA.
So, yeah, if they really wanted to, they could control the content on the web.
But since the one of the things the Republican party loves, are businesses, and the web is starting to produce the cash they were hoping for back during the dotcom era. So why censor something you can get money out of? People who hate Bush still have to pay for the bandwidth.
The web isn't free. It's just so cheap that people get confused.
Campbell: It could happen. But I don't think anyone's got the resources to do that to the Internet as it is now without taking SERIOUS wind out of the economy.
I'm more concerned about the arbiters of what is *important* on the Internet-- Microsoft and Google, first and foremost. A dissenting voice cannot be silenced online, but it can be shunted to search result #293, or misidentified as spyware or porn by an overzealous browser...
Reader Participation
Zabel: One of the most notable daily comics I've seen is American Elf, The Sketchbook Diaries of James Kochalka. Let me use that as a springboard to discuss a unique feature of webcomics, their ability to foster personal interaction between the artist and the audience.
American Elf is very much in the spirit of Harvey Pekar's American Splendor, but in Kochalka's poetic style. Each episode refers to something that happened within the last 24 hours. Kochalka publishes the diaries in various print venues, but it's most popular outlet is his subscription website, which links to a very popular forum.
This seems to be a prominent trend in webcomics, series that are very closely tied to their creators' personal lives, and which involve readers on a highly personal and participatory level.
Comments?
Danner: I probably shouldn't admit this, having just announced a contest designed specifically to get my readers more active in my own comic, but I actually find the growth of reader participation a little creepy. Enthusiasm is great, and knowing that your work excites people is great, but when it starts to feel like they're wandering around your living room, taking the creators' story choices as personal victories or affronts, I get a little turned off. But fostering a strong reader investment in the comic goes a long way toward building a readership that will not only keep reading, but will promote your work to other people. It's a powerful marketing tool.
And, I'm sure, it's a huge ego boost besides. A lot of creators really seem to feed off their fanbases for motivation to keep doing what they do. Whether or not that's a good thing varies with the particular comic, I think. For a daily, particularly a lighter strip or a straight gag strip, I think that vocal readership is essential. If you're doing a comic that's based around an ideal of simply having fun, then you need people to have fun with. You need visible readership. For more personal works, or for more literary works, I don't think that's as important. Kochalka was doing the sketchbook diaries for years before the American Elf site launched.
The big concern with these sorts of fanbases is how they react to a creator's decision to end a favorite comic. Dylan Meconis just finished Bite Me, David Willis just finished It's Walky, and T Campbell has announced the impending end of Fans. Will their readers come back for future projects by these creators, or will they take it as a betrayal that the creator ended the title that made them popular? It's going to be fascinating to see how it goes for different creators.
Zabel: Reader participation can be more than just a marketing scheme and an ego boost-- it can be a purpose and means of the artform itself. It can be like a good restaurant or a saloon-- not merely a place to eat and drink, but a place to hang out.
Shaenon is a past master of this artform with Narbonic, especially the weekend editions with their Gerbil photo contests and the like. And when you're talking about the future of webcomics, I think this is something that can be achieved more easily on the web than in print-- though the widespread success of something like Marvel Comics or Star Wars lends itself to a lot of fan participation as well.
Campbell: I think "audience management" should be recognized as a part of cartooning like "lettering" or "toning." You can't get away from it— as soon as you go online, you'll be faced with decisions. Do you offer an e-mail address, a forum? Do you post to the forum? Do you share everything, offer nothing but a signature, or project a persona? Do you participate in roundtable discussions or online interviews? And how much do you listen to feedback?
Stan Lee's "Classic" Marvel and Scott Adams' DILBERT are two well- known comics entities that made themselves stronger with close reader relations. On the other hand, I think following reader feedback exclusively did serious damage to Image; their brand was all about being kewl, and when the kewlness wore off as it always does, they were left scrambling. I'd rather not name names, but I've seen online comics sacrifice long-term credibility in exchange for a short-term jolt.
I'd say, know your readers, and respect them, but don't forget that you know things they don't.
Sound, Animation, and Infinite Canvas
Zabel: As I mentioned earlier, the electronic nature of webcomics provide them with a new bag of tricks-- infinite canvas, hyperlinking, animation, sound.
Some critics and fans have gone so far to say that if webcomics don't use these gimmicks, they aren't really webcomics, just reformatted print or "brochureware."
On the other hand, the majority of webcomics make no use of the new techniques; in fact, they're entirely absent from the most popular webcomics.
Some of the problems with these techniques are bandwidth, browser compatibility, and availability of the software. And some members of the audience probably get confused by unusual navigation procedures.
But looking to the future, assuming that bandwidth and the like are temporary problems, what do you think of the potential for these new electronic techniques to be an important part of webcomics as an artform?
Danner: Whenever I hear this argument that webcomics have to use advanced technology in order to be webcomics, I think of this girl I had a writing workshop with a number of years ago. She argued, in all earnestness, that Andy Warhol invented art. Nothing before him counted. Nonsense, obviously.
Now, I love experimental webcomics. I love well-done Flash comics, I enjoy comics that integrate animation, and sometimes even sound. And infinite canvas is a perfectly natural development once you remove the bounds of the printed page. But these are all just tools available to webcomics, not a definition of webcomics. A webcomic is a comic on the web. Let's not complicate things unnecessarily.
That said, I think there's a tremendous amount of potential for technologically innovative comics. I've heard Merlin is planning a commercial release of his Tarquin Engine, and I'm really looking forward to it. It's definitely a toy I want to play with. But as with anything, the value of a tool lies in how it's used. When a talented storyteller uses these tools, you get evocative and technologically advanced literary artwork. When someone less talented uses these tools, you get blinky lights and maybe a couple of cheap laughs. The future of webcomics rests on the talent, not the technology.
Von Flue: Bah. Experimentation. It so over-rated... Seriously, I'm sure you all know my take. I could not be more for it. Especially with the tools the web has given us. 95% (and that's a real number. I did the math!) of webcomics use the web for one thing. Delivery. Whether it's delivery of their actual comics, or opinions, or merchandise, the internet is one huge pipeline to shovel shit cheaply (or cheaper than the real-world routes). Not much attention has been paid to the lesser know attributes of the web, like the ones you've mentioned.
I think my take on experimenting is this: Experiment a lot and go WAY out, for the sole purpose of figuring out how far people will follow you. This is the only way we can begin to define the limits of our medium (if there are any). In the early experimentation of webcomics (2-3 yrs ago?) we had a lot of infinite canvas work. Lots of crazy scrolling messes, going right, then down, then left, then back up, right again, etc... People finally figured out scrolling all these directions wasn't all that great and as a matter of fact, it actually detracted from the comic or made it harder to read. So, as creators, we're left with two choices: Figure out how to make scrolling easier, or tone down on the directional mayhem. The latter turned out to be what most people did (some have gone off to do the former, like Markus Müller with his Infinite Canvas application). But, due to the creators that turned to the latter, now it's pretty acceptable to make a scrolling webcomic, if it goes one direction, or two at most, and they've got to be on the outer perimeter. (maybe I'm making this rule up? Yeah right, you KNOW that's how you like your scrolling!)
This is an example where experimenting worked out for the best and did exactly what it was supposed to do. And, if creators hadn't gone hog-wild with the idea of a truly infinite canvas, then we wouldn't have figured out how finite it is.
This so far, is the only thing webcomics have successfully experimented with. We haven't done enough experimenting with sound, or animation, and especially not enough with non-linear narratives. This is my big kick, and I think it's the single greatest possibility in webcomics, and is also the most untouched.
And finally another thought about experimenting, Half-baked as it is: I think people only have room for a handful of experimenters at a time. For some reason, we can't keep our eyes on what more than 5 people are doing in the medium at any given time. Right now, it's E-Merl, Farley, McCLoud, Barber and that's about it. There are a lot of other guys doing very experimental work, but they just can't seem to be noticed for more than 5 minutes. I came to this conclusion after talking with another guy who has one of the most experimental comics made yet (IMO), but just can't seem to get it off the ground... I began to think maybe there's only so much room in the webcomics conscience for experimental work (apparently the "webcomics experimenting" conscience needs to switch places with the "furries" conscience. They've got wa-a-a-y too much space... )
William G.: I can't help but see some of the views you mention Joe, as kind of like claiming that the best way to find the ultimate form of the novel by not including words. I'm part of the "If it ain't juxtaposed, it ain't really comics" crowd.
Call me a Luddite if you will. But I think a lot of those so called gimmicks tend to move "Webcomics" too far from the "Comics" part of the word. Infinite canvas is alright because it still has the panels in relation to each other. But a gimmick like sound is still just a gimmick. It's really all just a modern version of those 3D movies from the 1950s.
Some would say that we can leave the limitations created by the demands of print, and in some respects I agree with that. But when you get to the point that the comic is no longer recognizable as such, I think you've made something else entirely and should stop calling it a comic.
I'm not saying these gimmicks are bad, but sometimes they go way too far and fail in what they're trying to be: Comics.
Zabel: I think Neal pretty much nailed it regarding infinite canvas, but I wanted to formulate my own summary.
Infinite canvas can be used to make formalistic departures from the norm. Scrolling up and down and backward and forward may seem pointless, but the point is to break out of the familiar and into unknown territory.
Infinite canvas can also be used to eliminate unwanted divisions in the comics narrative. Print comics are inherently bounded and divided up by the dimensions of the page. In webcomics, you can build unified scenes with greater duration, simply by having the comic scroll downward or to the right. In Demian5's The Truth About Elephants, for example, the humor depends on the sustained attention paid to the giraffe's situation; having a page break would spoil it.
Infinite canvas allows images of significantly greater size to be presented in the comic. For instance, infinite canvas can allow the artist to portray a panorama that is wider than the double-spread of a printed page.
Something I've only seen rarely is where the scrolling aspect of infinite canvas is used as a form of animation. The most notable example of this is Kean Soo's "Devil in the Kitchen," which features a long downward scroll over a montage of repeated images, accompanied by a rock tune soundtrack.
I also want to tie in infinite canvas with various animation techniques. In McCloud's The Right Number, most of John Barber's work, and E-merl's stuff, animation is used as a means of navigating an infinite canvas that has third and fourth-dimensional qualities.
I think infinite canvas is popular in webcomics because it is technically easy to introduce, and it's very useful for a variety of cartooning purposes.
Von Flue: How valid are (for lack of a better term, and i hope I'm using it right) "formalists"? Creators who maybe aren't trying to write or draw to their potential, but bring the medium to it's potential? Is this a third kind of creator, just as valid as collaborations and single creators? Are they more disposable?
William G.: For example? Just so I know what you mean before replying.
Von Flue: Well, there aren't too many, but I would include E-Merl, Cat Garza's early stuff (almost all of it really), most of John Barbers work, Jasen Lex. Where the emphasis is on the the actual comic (it's construction, its navigation, etc...), not it's writing or artistic prowess...
Danner: I don't think these folks are in any way disposable. But I do think they're less likely to be remembered than the folks who take their innovations and apply them to fuller narratives. These are the sorts of creators other creators are likely to admire, but whom the average reader is less likely to understand or appreciate. But that doesn't make their impact and innovation any less important.
Von Flue: They are the "Mr Bungle" of webcomics, then....
Danner: I used to work with a guy who used his two weeks vacation time *every year* to follow Mr. Bungle from concert to concert.
He was really odd.
Campbell: Disposable? Absolutely not. But their value will probably be greater to history than to current events.
Most of the gimmicks Joe mentions I see as opportunities to experiment, but not huge groundswell movements. They tend to involve more WORK for the creators, and without much benefit, because people who come to the Web lookin' for comics don't really mind the fact that most comics aren't animated or musical. Conceivably this could change if some really big guns threw their weight behind a certain e-gimmick, but then again, Scott McCloud's about as big as we've got in terms of mainstream representation, and for all his work, he hasn't exactly inspired an infinity of infinite canvasses.
These devices are not yet ready for prime time.
But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be tried. What we learn on the fringes of the artform today will serve its mainstream in a decade or two.
Zabel: Another digital add-on, sound has been problematic to add to webcomics. It works well to provide ambience to comics like E-merl's Doodleflak or Brent Wood's Brambletown. But for more complex, integrated use, it runs into a couple of problems--
First, there's no way of closely synchronizing sound to the story being told. You can have a new sound file start when a new page is displayed, or trigger it to a roll-over (javascript term for when the mouse pointer hovers over part of the screen.) But you can't have the sound begin when the reader looks at a particular panel, because the computer has no idea where the reader is looking.
Secondly, using actual sound overrides the subjective sound the reader imagines while reading the piece. Traditional comics provide a number of graphic devices to suggest sound-- word balloons, graphic sound effects like KPOW and so forth. But even when no such devices are present, the graphic art suggests an ambience to the imaginative reader; and actual sound tends to roll over that and crush it like a Sherman Tank plowing through a bed of roses.
Stevenson: I know he's been mentioned already, but the problems with using sound are why I've enjoyed Kean Soo's work with it. His experiments accept most of the problems (minus the oh so slight problem with copyright infringement), but still manage to deal with sound in an interesting way. Of the three main approaches he's experimented with, his use of song lyrics to pace the reader are most successful, successful in that they left me wondering how another artist or writer would deal with the same set of lyrics and what other songs might make a great read. Of course, that copyright problem is just too big to ignore so I hope to see a partnership between musicians and a comic creator continue the experiments. It could only help both worlds.
Danner: The biggest obstacle to integration of sound and comics is me. Well, users like me, at any rate. Although I do have speakers attached to my computer, I don't turn them on unless I specifically need them. And since the controls are across the room (my computer is wired into my stereo), pretty much the only time I make that effort is for video games. If I'm just looking to read a short comic or animation that happens to use sound, inertia usually wins.
I was going to suggest that I suspect a lot of people probably keep their speakers turned off most of the time, but then I remembered that whole music downloading thing that many people are into. So the "no speakers" issue is probably less of a problem for most people than it is for me.
Von Flue: I think there may be a different blending of music and comics that isn't talked about much (well, it is tangentially in Kean Soo's works, as comics made from pre-existing songs) and that is the idea of comics inspired by music or vice versa. A lot of emphasis is put on integrating music and comics, into a seamless experience, but I just don't think it's possible outside of ambient noise that is not directly related to any one moment in comics progression of time. For the simple fact that comics have no set progression (you read at your own pace) and music does. They are just not compatible in any of the ways people would love to see/hear.
But, if we set out for one medium to inspire the other, then we can have some interesting results (like Kean's). I have a musician friend who wrote some songs based on comics I've made (you can read and hear both on my site) and I think the result of the two combined was pretty thrilling. As separate experiences, coming for the same space, they work with each other and at times, one changes your perceptions of the other. And with the web you can "bundle" them together so the viewer (or listener) can get them both at one spot and understand their relationship.
This idea certainly isn't unique to comics and music, however. All art mediums are interchangeable (or symbiotic?) in this way. But this is likely to be the best kind of work that can be made from trying to mash these two mediums together, outside of the kind of unspecified soundtrack noises you mentioned.
William G.: As someone mentioned, synching music with comics is impossible without some super-science, but really, why would you want to?
One of the problems I have with a lot of e-gimmicks is that, when they get over-used or abused they take away from what I consider the most important part of the comic experience: The reader's filling in the details with themselves.
I think we've all "heard" Spider-Man's voice in our heads when we were a kid. Assuming that you weren't exposed to the cartoon versions first, he, and every other character you read in a comic had their voices provided by you. Same goes with the various bands in Love and Rockets. Really, how good could those punk bands have been in the real world? Nowhere nearly as exciting as the images of them playing were.
Nothing is as good, nor as personally effecting, as the reader's imagination. Having them "fill in the blanks" for you is a vital part of the comics medium, and I think adding the sound or whatever else takes that away from the experience.
Webcomics Collectives / Payment Schemes
Zabel: This is really two questions, both worthy of separate discussion, but they're kind of interwoven.
There are many comics collectives of various sizes; the largest and most financially successful is Keenspot. Modern Tales has formed another kind of collective, one based on selling subscriptions. And there are smaller collectives, like Drunk Duck and Pants Press, which are based more on personal affiliation or artistic approach.
And of course there are many artists who come to prominence without any affiliations at all-- Patrick Farley, Justin Shaw, and Scott McCloud.
How important will collectives be in the future? Do they help comics, or do they only lead to "group think?"
And my second question, since I know talk of Keenspot and Modern Tales leads to talk of financial remuneration--
Webcomics have been searching for a revenue model which will reliably finance the efforts of a substantial number of artists. Do you think that artists need to be professionals for webcomics to continue to improve in quality? And is there hope of a paycheck around the bend?
William G.: Well, I think most of the creators who made it without the help of a collective tend to have been people who were in on the ground floor of this web thingy. Farley, Kurtz, Krahulik & Holkins, Abrams, Ishida, etc... McCloud was famous before he hit the web, so I don't think he counts in this regard.
However, 1997 was long time ago, and there are millions of webcomics out there now. It's pretty much impossible to get noticed unless you have the support and networking that comes from being part of some sort of collective. Unless you have Derek Kim's artistic skills, that is, and even then it's a crap shoot.
I think that these groups are being used at the moment as a form of free advertising more than anything else. There is the threat of group think to be sure, but I think it may have more to do with a lack of knowledge of outside artists than any sort of hive mentality. Mostly due to there being far too many comics to be aware of, and to see as a threat. A one month banner ad on Comixpedia is not nearly as effective as having several dozen creators linking you.
What I foresee in the future is these groups becoming more insular and more competitive because a lot of them will be attempting to earn money from their works. The reason I say that is because I think that current glut of artists will move off over the next few years and become solely readers. And as they move into their years of financial earning (The current demographic of the webcomics world, readers and creators alike, are 15 - 21 years old, or I'm a monkey's uncle) they will be able to spend money on comics because they will become more aware of what's available simply because there's less to choose from. The collectives will realize that they have the ability to charge because they will control the medium, and there will be an audience that can pay for it.
Right now, with the large amount of sites, it's too easy for the reader to go "I can get it for free elsewhere" Once those free options go away, you can bet the farm that you will start seeing paychecks being handed out.
And I don't think there will need to be an improvement in quality. If the history of comics and the rest of the entertainment world has shown me anything, it's that quality is not usually an indicator of popularity.
As result of... or maybe as a precursor to... it, I do foresee growth in the number of magazines and lists dedicated towards webcomics. Onlinecomics.com, for example, is serving as a sort of an online "telephone book" for webcomics. Toplists, while tending towards serving the above mentioned collectives, also act as a telephone directory of sorts. And I think we will see more webmags like us, and Comixpedia pop up to act as the hype machine for webcomics. Currently, there is no webcomics hype-machine designed to create more of itself so it can have more to promote like the print industry has. WCE and Comixpedia (and even the idiotic MHA), are taking the first steps into becoming that hype machine. They/ we will become the Wizard, Comics Journal, Comicbook Resources of the future.
Zabel: There's a term for that, Bill-- it's called Team Comics; but lets not get into that now.
Von Flue: As part of a comics collective (ape-law.com) I've found Bill's thoughts pretty right on, it is a great way of advertising and helping each other out. And his thoughts on the future prospects of a collective's earnings are pretty interesting too. I think we've seen some of this with PVcomics and the like (although unfortunately, they moved out of the pay-game)
I think some discussion of Bill's ideas on the future transformation of webcomics artists into paying readers would be great. Most serious creators of webcomics (meaning people who are in it for the long haul or do it with hopes of a living) are waiting for the time when the current glut of non-serious webcomics goes away and makes some room for the rest of us. Is this a viable thing? Who's to say the next generation of kids won't take up making bad comics and blasting about them everywhere? Certainly making and publishing comics won't get any harder, if anything the process will become easier.
Is there going to be a defining moment when serious webcomics artists get paid for their comics, or will their comics be complimentary to their real earnings through merchandise or extra perks?
Danner: In large part, I think Bill's pretty accurate on this one, except on one point -- I don't think the glut of hobbyist comics is going anywhere. I do think we'll see the current batch of student creators simply roll over into a new batch of student creators. Which is perfectly fine -- just as we've seen with the current batch, the best ones will rise to the top, probably join collectives, and stick with comics after their less serious contemporaries have given it up in favor of real jobs. "Professional" webcomickers don't just spring from the ether -- they usually start as bored kids trying to amuse themselves and their friends, until they realize art is something worth doing for real. If we want to keep producing new artists, we need to keep encouraging those bored kids. The only difference the internet has made in this formula is that now those kids are putting their work up for the world to see much earlier than they used to, so the entire public gets to see the immature work that these future serious artists will one day find thoroughly embarrassing.
Von Flue: Remember the 6 steps of creativity in Understanding Comics? You know, the bit about the apple? Well it needs to be updated and revised to include the kid who falls in love with bad webcomics and make more bad webcomics before he can get past the skin....
Danner: As to the question of whether webcomickers need to be "professionals" in order to continue to improve in quality -- I'm not sure what you mean here. "Professional" is a tricky term -- are you asking if creators need to be paid, or are you asking if they need to have a serious attitude toward their work and toward webcomics in general? Both play a role, certainly. The role of the latter is straight forward -- if you don't see what you're doing as having real value, and if you aren't working toward doing it as best you can, than obviously you simply aren't going to do it to the best of your ability.
The question of payment is tougher. For the creator who is serious about improving and committing themselves to webcomics long term, getting paid will be important. It frees the creator from distractions like day jobs, and encourages them with proof that their work is valued by readers.
At the same time, getting paid too soon can actually be an obstacle. On the one side, if a creator is doing immature, derivative work, and starts getting rewarded for that, it encourages him or her to continue to do immature, derivative work instead of branching out more. And on the other side, if a creator's first attempt at a comic becomes too successful, you can actually get locked into continuing a story that may not be what you really want to do, simply because you become financially dependent on it. For instant, I believe Brian Clevinger has said that if he were starting in webcomics today 8-bit theatre isn't the idea he would have pursued. But at this point, he makes his living from it -- does he really have the freedom to drop it in favor of pursuing a more exciting idea? I've frequently wondered if a good number of those 1997 success stories have found themselves in the same trap.
Campbell: R.K. Milholland's only been at the game a few years, but yes, there is an undeniable "first mover advantage" in solo webcomics.
Collectives are like Amazon recommendations-- no, liking one comic from a collective doesn't mean you'll like every comic within it, but it improves your odds. A big part of the reason I do Graphic Smash at all is, I feel readers need someplace to go to find the best action stories online. Wirepop, Slipshine, Girlamatic and Serializer serve their market segments accordingly. Even Modern Tales and Keenspot are assuming an identifiable "flavor" as they go along, much as they try to be all-inclusive.
Paychecks are here, but those few making a living at the game are rugged survivors who use any means available. Yes, webcomics can pay, but you have to be willing to hit them with a brick repeatedly until they do. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Garrity: The manga scene in Japan has a huge body of amateur creators, a majority of whom draw doujinshi (fan comics) featuring licensed characters. Over the years, a great many professional manga artists of all stripes have arisen from the doujinshi scene; off the top of my head, I can think of "YuYu Hakusho" creator Yoshihiro Togashi, "Excel Saga" creator Rikdo Koshi, and the shojo superstar team CLAMP.
The Web seems to be nurturing a similar DIY fan/creator scene here in the West, albeit thankfully with less emphasis on drawing anime heroes engaged in hot gay sex. (Did I mention that the Japanese doujinshi scene is overwhelmingly female?) I hope that online cartooning will provide a training ground for young creators far into the future, especially since the American print comics world doesn't do much to support interesting new talent. It was certainly one of my motivations for becoming a webcartoonist; I've always thought of Narbonic as my journeyman's piece, an opportunity to develop my cartooning in a relatively safe and low-pressure environment.
The Pants Press group is so doujinshi it hurts. And if they don't storm the comics industry in a big way over the next few years, something is deeply wrong with comics.
For no reason whatsoever, I feel like relating a personal story:
Back when my future husband Andrew and I first started volunteering at the Cartoon Art Museum, one of the other volunteers was a teenage kid who spent most of his time hunched over the front desk, drawing intricate manga-style comics on sheets of copy paper. He frequently left them behind afterwards, and Andrew and I would pore over them, trying to figure them out. What made the comics particularly fascinating was the fact that, although the kid was American-born and spoke perfect English, the dialogue he wrote was strangely stilted, like a bad manga translation.
One weekend, he left behind several pages of a comic featuring himself and Andrew! In the comic, the cartoon version of the kid took cartooning advice from the cartoon Andrew, who was signing books at a convention. He then met Scott McCloud, who had kidnapped a bunch of cartoon characters and was forcing them to do his bidding. At one point, McCloud said to the kid, "Did you know that you are Surface Six?"
Andrew and I were baffled by this line... until we reread "Understanding Comics." There, in the "six steps to creativity" chapter, is a drawing of a hollow apple labeled "Surface: 6."
Since then, "Surface Six" has become our term for all superficially polished art.
Yes, this anecdote was utterly pointless. I'm so sorry. Actually, I guess bad webcomics based on other bad webcomics are "Surface Seven," since they haven't even progressed to the stage of polished artwork...
Danner: I really thought this was going to end with "and that kid grew up to be Jason Thompson!"
Von Flue: Man, great story. With one line, he proved to be more than "Surface: Six"... And I kinda like it more that he's out there somewhere drawing these cryptic comics and now he's leaving them in the back room of the Starbucks he works at...
Proceed to Page 3
