PART TWO OF UK 'TROLLS': ALIVE AND KICKING (THE BUTTS OF BUTT-'EADS)...

Continuing the demolition of the unfounded fantasies of

(ooh, a really alliterative comic name springs to mind) someone

who, when it comes to 'clinically' considering the views of certain

individuals with a different opinion to him on the current condition

of the U.K. comic 'industry', doesn't let the facts get in the way of

telling a good fable.  You'll be astounded at his 'insight' into the

motivations of those he seeks to call to account for having the

temerity to hold a viewpoint not in accord with his own.

Why doesn't he spill the beans:  Just who are those who,

'through their own mistakes', no longer work in the field?  In

exactly what way do they 'blame the industry'  or 'attack anyone

successful in it nowadays' and 'claim the only reason they can't

get work is because there is none as the industry here in the UK is

dead'?  Let's have the names and details.  One can't make accusa-

tions of that nature without backing them up.  One can't rely on

unfounded gossip, baseless rumour, or wild imagination to

dismiss those with whom one takes issue on the matter.

Again, his presumption is simply astounding.  So some

people don't get work because they don't have what it takes or

have f*cked up, blaming everyone but themselves and resenting

anyone (which surely implies everyone) who works in comics,

causing them to want to tear down the 'industry' out of anger, bit-

terness and envy.  Any criticism, observation or assessment

is therefore invalid because it stems from a grudge.

Even if it were true that this was the motivation behind

some people's negative opinion, that doesn't in and of itself

necessarily mean their opinion is an inaccurate one - especially

if there are others who don't fall under that umbrella who think

the same. That's what this guy misses.  There are plenty of folk

who've never worked, never wanted to work, and never tried

to work in comics (but who love them) who also opine

that the 'industry' is either dead or dying.

You can't disprove or dismiss an entire argument on

the grounds that the motives of some people on the other

side of it are prejudiced, unless everyone on the other side is

in the same boat.  That's akin to saying you shouldn't listen to

what the ol' geezer who lives at number 22 says about global

warming, because he's a 'bit dodgy'.  Don't you see the utter

absurdity of such a position?  It's a perfect example of

 what's called 'playing the man instead of the ball'.

Oh, what a funny guy!  Nobody has said periodicals for

children don't exist - only that those ones which do exist don't

constitute an industry in the way the word was once understood

in relation to comics.  We'll get to the definition of what constitutes

a comic later, but here's something to consider:  Many of the publi-

cations in these photos will be fortnightly or monthly and will sit on

the shelves unsold until the next issues come in.  My local WHS

gets in a fair selection of PANINI and TITAN mags every

month, and  I can tell you for a fact that most of them are

returned to the warehouse with alarming regularity.

     

While contemptuously dismissing other people's definition

of a comic, he blithely bestows his own idea of the term upon

any periodical aimed at children.  His far wider application isn't

necessarily more accurate 'though, as many kids' mags are lump-

ed  together under that category merely for convenience when

being allocated shelf space.  In this, he is doing exactly the

same thing that he accuses others of. 

  

Now we're getting to the nitty-gritty - the definition

of 'comics' and 'industry', which I'll address in detail in

the next instalment.  Don't miss it - unless you have an

important appointment to watch paint dry!

Posted in: Cartoons