The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Achewood => Achewood => Topic started by: Muse_Of_Fire on March 24, 2007, 01:33:47 am
-
So, we get the print version of Time at our house. I'm flipping through and I see a big Penny Arcade strip. Then I glance down the page and see Lev Grossman's mug--the same guy who does the Time "Nerd World" blog (from which I was directed to this fine forum). His article is about webcomics in general, and he mentions Achewood in a paragraph. Rather, he uses Achewood as an example to support his claim that, "The writing in webcomics is different too--it's bizarre and wildly inventive in a way that's reminiscent of early print pioneers like Krazy Cat and Little Nemo in Slumberland."
His treatment of Achewood in the print article is superior to his treatment of it in the original two blog entries (which isn't saying much). This leads me to believe that Time's bloggers are now using their blogs as a means of "test marketing" their ideas prior to print publication. Sort of a public rough-draft. Thinking about that kind of bothers me on some level; and I can't really explain why, but that's beside the point.
When I first read it I sort of had this wave of fear that now Achewood would become this mass-marketed public thing. The other day I ran into one of our network guys and I said, "Hey, I like your Ray Smuckles glasses." He smiled with recognition and said, "Thanks!" It was sort of a secret code, you know? A way to identify and acknowledge a fellow sick fuck in public without alarming the masses. We exchanged a knowing glance, and it was good. So I was worried for a moment that, with this mention of Achewood (and other webcomics) in the print (read: puts the "mass" in "mass media") version of Time, the secret-handshake feeling would go away. But it was fleeting, because first of all I suddenly felt very dirtily elitist for feeling that way, and secondly I remembered just how out there Achewood really is, and how comprehension of it on a massive scale was likely impossible.
Then again, would living in a world where everyone "got" Achewood be such a bad thing?
I am adrift in how I feel about this.
-
His treatment of Achewood in the print article is superior to his treatment of it in the original two blog entries (which isn't saying much). This leads me to believe that Time's bloggers are now using their blogs as a means of "test marketing" their ideas prior to print publication. Sort of a public rough-draft. Thinking about that kind of bothers me on some level; and I can't really explain why, but that's beside the point.
Wired does this. In the blogs they'll mention they're working on such and such a story and ask for input or examples + people to interview
-
Well, as soon as everyone 'got' it, there would immediately be people who think they are hipper because they do not like it. So you could never live in a world where everyone liked it. I believe it is fundamentally impossible.
-
There's a certain class of folks who actively avoid the mainstream - to the point that once fashion catches up with them they change what they do to evade the horror of "doing what everyone else is doing". That seems kind of silly to me - I do (some) things because I like them, rather than because they are (or are not) popular. To stop doing them, merely because the fickle masses have picked it up as the flavour du jour, seems as silly as spending your life in endless pursuit of what's popular.
This happened briefly to me in the early '90s when everyone started dressing like me. 15 years later, I'm still dressing like that and occasionally people say "Dude, are you stuck in the past?" If I had gone from terrycloth polo shirts or giraffenet tanks, through pastel colors and loafers to baggy denim, pendletons and longjohn tops then stayed there, that would be being stuck. Basically, since I was 14 and a Boy Scout I've kept Be Prepared as a motto, and dress more or less as though a collapse of civilization is imminent - with layers, natural fibers, and sensible shoes.
-
Oh I dig it. The stuff I like, I pretty much always like; "hipness" be damned. I can't imagine not liking Achewood. But I did find that it struck me as unsettling that the idea of "the masses" liking it bothered me. It definitely gave me a sense of "Whoa... where is this coming from?" It was weird.
-
Anyone who would avoid a comic strip because it's hip probably wouldn't get Achewood to begin with.
Anyone who would avoid a comic strip because it isn't hip probably wouldn't get Achewood to begin with, either. Either of these sets of people would merely "pretend" to get it and then admit that they didn't get it, later.
All sorts of esoteric-yet-quality entertainment products possess this interesting state of being.
It limits the extent to which mainstream crossover can occur but also protects it partially from The Battle Of Who Could Care Less. There is no way that a douche such as Scott Kurtz could properly pretend to dig it and therefore such douches just have to hate it from the start and right on through.
Again, the other edge of that sword is that douches who like whatever they think they're supposed to like are generally the people that bring entertainment items from the fringe to the mainstream, because they're too uptight to figure out how to phrase their faking it.
This is a theory I just formulated but it sounds good and so I am promoting it from theory to law.
-
I like the idea of 'stad getting exposed enough to make some real gelt and keep on pumping this mother out.
Amen to that.
-
Does anyone have an idea how much scratch the dude makes with this stuff?
-
Making the real big bucks would require Onstad to make fundamental changes to the way he produces and markets his product. Thus far he has fiercely resisted making such changes.
That's not to say that he won't... Dude may become the next Jim Davis. If he does, that's too bad, but he's already produced an excellent body of work. He's produced 5 1/2 years worth of the Achewood thang. In the back of my head I'm wondering how much longer he'll stick with it. Clearly he's got a good thing going and that's hard to give up (especially with a kid in the family...) But part of me wouldn't be at all surprised to see him nuke Achewood from orbit and start fresh in a new place with new characters.
Nothing lasts forever.
-
I dunno, he has said in interviews that achewood will kill him long before he kills it.
I'm glad that he's getting the exposure. He makes one of my favorite things, and dude deserves to be recompensed for his work, so I hope he ends up making a lot more money and has to hire another warehouse man to keep up with it.
-
I dunno, he has said in interviews that achewood will kill him long before he kills it.
I'm glad that he's getting the exposure. He makes one of my favorite things, and dude deserves to be recompensed for his work, so I hope he ends up making a lot more money and has to hire another warehouse man to keep up with it.
Oh absolutely. I wish him all the best and hope he gets filthy fuck*ng rich from Achewood. I am happy whenever anybody who produces a quality product suceeds.
I'm just saying that I've prepared myself for the day when Achewood is no more. Because it will happen. The Beatles broke up. M*A*S*H ended. Anna Nichole died. Shit happens and things change. Whatever happens in the future, I appreciate what Onstad has done thus far with Achewood. If he quits tomorrow I'd be crushed, but I'd have to say he's produced a great piece of work.
Also, Onstad seems more like Waterson than Davis.
-
There's a certain class of folks who actively avoid the mainstream - to the point that once fashion catches up with them they change what they do to evade the horror of "doing what everyone else is doing". That seems kind of silly to me - I do (some) things because I like them, rather than because they are (or are not) popular. To stop doing them, merely because the fickle masses have picked it up as the flavour du jour, seems as silly as spending your life in endless pursuit of what's popular.
Often times the reason people flee something once it enters the mainstream is because it's creator has changed it in some significant way that has made it more palatable to a mainstream audience. Achewood is going to be popular no matter what because it's very very good, but if Onstad made significant changes to it so that it appeals to a broader audience it would likely alientate most of us who like it how it is now.
-
This is sort of like the debate on the World/Inferno boards that comes up whenever someone sees their stuff in a Hot Topic. On the one hand, it is increased exposure. On the other.. it's Hot Topic and the mall, and that seems to sit badly with all the anarchists, and doesn't reconcile with the band's ideology. But still, it's expanded coverage, and there's almost a satisfying irony if a band manages to sell at the mall things that decry the very mechanism that got it there. Paul already said it best, the problem is primarily when the artist changes the art to fit the mainstream. I have the feeling Onstad would willingly do the opposite (http://achewood.com/index.php?date=01252002) of what the mainstream would want.
-
I'm just saying that I've prepared myself for the day when Achewood is no more.
LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
-
Re: Success killing achewood, and variations thereof in this thread
I'm not sure I can weigh in (with credibility) on how much money Achewood makes / how much it could make / whether upping the income would wreck the strip. What I do know is when I look at Achewood (and once the mirth ... horror ... shock that someone else knows this too subsides) I have a sense that the creator has something significant going on. And I think I'm looking at the little thing that comes before the big thing.
I just hope the big thing is as easy to find as Achewood has been.
-
Also, Onstad seems more like Pekar than Davis.
Fixed that for ya.
-
I bow to your superior analytical skills.
-
I agree, Onstad is a Pekar.
-
How much money does Onstad make? We can glean this information from the great body of work he's produced - a body of work with heavy references to alcohol and gourmet food.
One can safely assume that he bought his wife from some sort of Russian mail order service, the constant alcohol abuse having rendered him a horrible person that no sane woman should ever want to marry. Those brides aren't cheap.
We also know that he adopted his child. All that gourmet food has made him so obese that the exact location of his man junk is now a distant memory. No adoption agency would give such a horrible drunkard a child, so he probably bought it off the black market.
He lives in the Bay Area. Very expensive place to live.
He went to Google recently, probably with talks to purchase the company. How much would Google run these days? Seven, eight hundred billion? A lot, at any rate.
So, in summary, we can safely assume that Chris Onstad is a loutish, though financially brilliant drunkard not unlike Fyodor Karamazov.