Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[colmore]

So everyone's favorite we-take-comics-very-very-seriously monthly, The Comics Journal, has a big interview with Mr. Onstad.  I haven't been down to my local nerd hole to check it out yet, but I was wondering if others have.

[Drygioni]

I haven't read the article, and probably won't ever get a chance to unless they put it up online, but from what I understand the Comics Journal is a Big Thing and that this is welcome recognition of Onstad's oeuvre. I understand Achewood is already pretty popular but it's hard to tell how large his readership is. He seems to be doing well off the back of merchandise sales and so forth, though.

I've heard of people saying that Achewood is going to 'take off' at some point, but I don't know what that means or what it will entail. Help.

[colmore]

I find it difficult to imagine Achewood taking off like Penny Arcade or Diesel Sweeties.  Onstad doesn't do the whole Web Cartoonist thing of promoting the hell out of fellow cartoonists, being a visible personality, showing up to squeeze hands at public events and what not.  He acts a lot more like undergroud artists from a couple decades back, staying private, letting his work speak for itself, etc.  And that's something I like, but these days it seems like the way to get ahead is pretend you are your audience's best friend.

I kind of imagine him and Jeff Mangum getting beers somewhere.

[Drygioni]

but these days it seems like the way to get ahead is pretend you are your audience's best friend.

That pretty much sums it up. Most people probably wouldn't agree, but I think the relationship between Onstad and us proles is pretty much ideal. I think his at-times smarmy attitude towards his readers doesn't stem from actual dislike of them, but is his way of making sure that the relationship (I need a thesaurus I know) between the author and the reader is strictly based on how good the comic is.

By making sure no readers feel as if they're his buddies, we can continue to judge his work pretty much honestly. I mean, if he was an active poster here who got on great with everyone, I'm sure there'd be a fair amount of people who would shy from criticism because it'd be just like criticising any other respected member here. It would seem unfriendly, and there'd probably be more tact (honesty) involved than the 'this strip didn't make laugh' critique we sometimes give out.

This, of course, is based on the assumption he actually reads the forums. Only Jough knows, I suppose.

I haven't made much sense with this. I hope you can see what I'm getting at. I also apologise for bringing this further off-topic.

[Choop]

Onstad is the web's Watterson.

...his way of making sure that the relationship (I need a thesaurus I know) between the author and the reader is strictly based on how good the comic is.

Rapport? You're spot on with the criticism line of thought.

[AlohaDawg]

Watterson made comics every day, though. Including Sunday.

[wombat]

Sure, but what has he done for us lately?

[misterqueue]

Sure, but what has he done for us lately?

Thank you... Janet.

[colmore]

Watterson was definitely a workaholic when he worked.

To be fair, non-internet cartoonists make and sell cartoons.  Internet cartoonists make and sell merch, they then make a cartoon in their spare time in order to promote that merch, so Onstad has some extra duties.  I feel kind of guilty as a webcomics fan, but I don't have much desire to wear T-Shirts that say to the world "hey, I'm *really* into the internet these days" so the artists don't really get my support.

I do wish Watterson would start doing graphic novels though.  I think Calvin & Hobbes ran as long as it should have... it was such a rigorously defined little world, only two full characters, and half a dozen minor roles, tops, that it could only have gotten stale or had to change significantly.  He wrote in the past about his disdain for comic books, and looking at the state of comics and comix in 1995 or whenever he was writing, I can understand his point.  At the time, comics, both mainstream and underground, were overwhelmingly about the adolescent male id.  Things are different now, though, and I think the comic book industry that puts out things like _Blankets_ could really do justice to Watterson's talent.

I would anticipate his objection to modern graphic novels as this:  newspapers are a populist medium, like radio or broadcast TV.  You catch people of all walks of life and you can catch them by surprise in a newspaper.  A graphic novel will only sell to people who are plugged into the subculture, until you get some sort of external press, like the New Yorker busting a nut over Jimmy Corrigan.  The artsy comics market has the trappings of both underground and snooty culture, and it seems like those are two audiences he doesn't much care for.