UK 'TROLLS': KICKING THE BUTTS (OF BUTTHEADS) - PART SIX...

Wow!  Who's this handsome buggah?  I'm on the turn!  Oh, it's me!

Some of you may be finding this series of posts some-

what tedious.  Lemme tell you, they're no way as tedious to

read as they are to write.  I'm trying to be as thorough as I can

however, because you can bet I'll be accused of having 'conveni-

ently left out' or ignored some part, thereby implying I've distorted

or 'twisted' the other fella's words.  In fact, despite my attempts at

thoroughness, the charge is still likely to be levelled against me.

Truth to tell, parts of the guy's post are inane and repetitive,

and not worthy of a response, but if I leave them out, then

I'm 'editing' his words in a devious and sinister way.

(According to him and his cronies, that is.)

Therefore, any repetition in my own posts is actually

dictated by the one I'm responding to, and I don't really see

any way around  it.  So bear with me for the present, eh?  What

I may do when I'm finished, is go back and write another post, in

which I summarize the main thrust of the other guy's argument,

and then I can edit my own responses down to a more concise

and digestible level, but you can be sure that I'll be accused

of 'manipulating' the facts whatever I do.

    

Anyway, as I said last in the previous part, it's now time to

look at what constitutes - in real terms - an industry.  Join me

after the screengrab below - if you're still awake that is.  Oh, and

look how he recommends that you buy some Annuals or Christmas

Specials this year.  Despite all his talk about digital comics, note he's

recommending the traditional format.  Maybe even he realizes (deep

down) that traditional is best.  An interesting point to ponder is this:

If you gave a kid a code to access a digital comic as a Christmas

present, would the kid regard it as a 'real' gift?  Nothing physi-

cal to hold in his hands, nothing to see lying at the foot of his

bed?  The digital equivalent of a 'no-prize' perhaps?

It's a bit like those digital Christmas cards people send.

Sure, you can see them on your screen just as well as you

can see an actual card on your mantlepiece, but it still doesn't

seem the same, does it?  "You can print them out!" you say?

Yeah, but that's a bit like sending yourself a card, isn't it?

Yes, I'm just having some fun.  (But maybe...)

  

Definition of 'industry':  1)  Economic activity concerned

with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of

goods in factories.

2)  Hard work.

Now, I'd suggest that when most people hear the word

'industry', they tend to think of production lines churning out

cars, or machinery, vast sprawling factories, rows of assembly

lines, large pallets and heavy crates, sweaty men with oily rags,

cranes, ships, girders, vats, etc.  There's just something about the

word that suggests huge and bustling enterprise, and that's what

I tend to regard as Industry with a capital 'I'.  There are also

smaller  more sedate forms of 'economic activity', which,

to me, is industry with a small 'i'.

At one time, the two largest publishing empires in

Britain were IPC and DCT, who churned out magazines,

books and comics by the bucket-load.  Enormous presses in

almost perpetual production of  all kinds of periodicals for sale

at home and abroad, printed in their many thousands (indeed

millions), resulting in them being relatively inexpensive

due to the immense volumes in which they sold.

When it came to comics, they sold because they were

cheap disposable entertainment, and because kids loved

them.  The BEANO, DANDY, EAGLE and TV21 sold, at

their height, in the millions, and comics really were a humongous

industry at one time, although, truth be told, they were really no

more than a sub-division of the publishing industry.  It's been said

that comics came into being in order to keep the printing presses

running, because it was less expensive and more efficient to do

that than have them lying idle for any length of time when

they weren't running off some periodical or other.

Of course, things are done differently these days, so I

understand.  And for a wide variety of reasons, it's now a sad 

fact of life that comics no longer sell in the same large numbers

that they used to.  Once upon a time, there existed huge publish-

ing corporations that produced all kinds of periodicals and books.

There were editorial staff, art bodgers, office workers, freelance

contributors, printing plants, printers, distributors, warehouses,

exporters, vans, ships, 'planes, and doubtless all kinds of other

cogs in the wheel involved in the production of comics.  Now

that's my idea of industry.  C'mon, there's part of you

that, however reluctantly, agrees with me, isn't there?

Look at what the digital comic 'industry' consists (or will

consist) of in its purest form.  This is the world that's coming.

A guy sitting at home writing and drawing his own comic strips.

Or perhaps there's someone else writing them, or even lettering

and colouring them.  (No change there.)  Whether it's done at his

own whim or at the request of a commissioning employer doesn't

make much difference.  However, everything changes hands at the

press of a computer key and there's no need for anything else in

the digital 'publication', and all the other factors that used to

figure in the comics industry are eliminated from the bigger

picture at a stroke (or the press of a key).

Tell me, if a giant shrinks drastically to a fraction of his

former size, does he remain a giant?  Nope, is the honest

answer.  Whatever he's become, he's no longer a giant.  If an

industry shrinks to a fraction of its former size, does it remain

an industry?  And it's just not the shrinkage, it's the jettisoning

of limbs and appendages that once contributed to its stature and

status.  When an industry is no longer 'industrious' to the same

degree - by a wide margin - does it remain an industry and does

it deserve to retain its former status and title?  Perhaps in an

honorary capacity, but it's been downsized to a such an ex-

tent that it's not really an industry anymore is it?  At

least, not with a capital 'I'.

And despite all the small press publications and digital

manifestations, that's not my idea of an industry in the way

that sprang to mind when the word was synonymous with the

the bigger picture that I've just painted.  It's strictly small scale,

to the point where it's fairly insignificant.  It's a pale shadow of

its former self.  "Aha, but a shadow is still a shadow!" you cry!

Okay, but it's not much of a shadow and it's still shrinking, and

when the light fails, it will disappear.  That's why, in real terms,

the industry - as it once was (and I've always made that clear)

- is dead or dying.  Sure, it's on life-support at the moment,

and being kept going artificially, but the spirit has long

departed and is unlikely to return.

If the industry has evolved, it's evolved into another

species, which bears only slight similarities to the original,

and therefore needs be reclassified to take these changes

 into account.  Now can you see my point?

"Yes, but we still disagree with it!" you declare.  That's

fine, you're perfectly entitled to do so.  Believe it or not, it's

never been the intention of these posts to change your mind on

the matter.  At the end of the day, it all comes down to a mere

difference of opinion (particulary on how the words 'comics' and

'industry' should be interpreted).  You have yours and I have mine,

and perhaps never the twain shall meet, and that's okay.  However,

perhaps now you more fully understand exactly what my opinion is,

as well as where it springs from, as opposed to the gross misrep-

resentation of what it is it and what prompts it as presented by

a handful of scurrilous individuals, desperate to malign those

with a different take on things.  Yes, some people really

are that insecure - and nasty.

Finally, if you forget everything else you've read, try

and remember this.  No one that I know of  (and certainly

not me) who laments the decline of the industry, does so out of

malice, or from a desire to see it fail for our 'own selfish reasons'.

Nobody is trying to put people out of work, or stop anyone buying

comics, or trying to deprive kids from fun reading material that will

encourage a love of reading in them.  That's just downright silly to

suggest it.  In fact, it's more than that, it's evil!  To question the

reasons and cast aspersions on the motivations of people of

a different opinion to them, reveals the shrivelled, nasty

nature of their souls.

So let's be clear.  I have never claimed that fortnightly,

monthly, or nursery comics 'don't count', or that every peri-

odical which contains some text features automatically doesn't

qualify as a 'comic' because of that fact.  These 'silly rules' are a

figment of his imagination, and not based on anything remotely

resembling truth.  In failing to supply even one shred of evidence,

he has failed to comply with the 'proper journalistic behaviour'

as defined and expected by one who sprang to his defence and

apparently endorsed even the spurious sentiments of the

post by cross-posting it on his own blog.

  

Here endeth the lesson.  Everybody shout

        Hallelujah and Amen!  (Twenty times.)         

Posted in: Cartoons