UK 'TROLLS': KICKING THE BUTTS OF BUTT-'EADS) - PART THREE...

Are you a fan of 'straw man' arguments and spurious 'logic'?

Then you'll love the above screengrab from a blog extolling the

'virtues' of today's U.K. comics scene as it has them in abundance.

First of all, I've never read or heard of anyone insisting that 'a comic

must be a weekly humour title aimed at kids, with cover-to-cover

comic strips and must be purchased from a newsagent', so he's

foisting his own skewed viewpoint onto those he seeks to discredit.

Comics can be fortnightly or monthly, and can be purchased

mail order or by subscription.  Or given away free, even.

I've expressed a preference for the way things used to be

when I was growing up, but I've never sought to suggest that

the comics 'industry' has to be constricted by that;  nor do I know

of anyone who has.  Part of the problem, I believe, is the fact that

the word 'comic' can be applied to more than just one thing, and

this leads to confusion on both sides of the discussion when it

comes to understanding just what is being discussed.

For example, the simplest definition of the word 'comic'

I've seen online is this:  "A periodical containing comic strips,

intended chiefly for children." That's probably still the popular

idea of what a comic is among the general public.  However, that's

using the word in the specific sense as it's most commonly under-

stood, whereas it also has a looser, broader sense, and this can

sometimes leads to people talking at cross-purposes when

discussing the seemingly simple subject.

It's like the 'music' industry.  Music is accessible in a

number of ways.  Once upon a time, the vinyl record format

was how most folk listened to music, or by attending live concerts.

In modern times, it's mainly by CD, or downloading, and all sorts

of other ways that I've probably never even heard of or imagined.

(That's because I'm a doddery ol' fart, but that shouldn't be held

against me.  After all, I'm a doddery ol' fart who still has his

own teeth and hair and that should surely count for some-

thing, you impudent young whippersnappers!)

Once there was a record industry.  A 'record' in the way

that most people understand it, is a vinyl disc with a hole in

the middle - not to be confused with a Polo Fruit or a dough-

nut.  When someone said that they were going to buy a 'record',

we knew exactly what they meant, and, at one time, didn't  include

a CD or cassette.  That's because, in the sense I've just described, the

word 'record' referred to what I would call the 'carton', and not the

'content'.  Although, confusingly, 'record' was also a 'shorthand' way

 of referring to the original recording. That's why the word gradu-

ally took on a looser and wider application:  Someone would hear

a song on the radio and say "I must buy that record" and then go

out and purchase a CD or a cassette tape (or 8-track).  That's

because, in that particular context, their use of the word

referred to the 'content' and not the 'carton'.

The word 'record', as I said, was short for 'recording'

so, technically, whatever the 'carton' was - vinyl disc, CD,

music cassette , 8-track, or whatever - fell within the category,

but, for the most part, it was generally understood that a 'record''

was a particular thing in itself - a round, usually black, plastic disc.

However, when referring to their 'record collection', a person's

usually talking about their vinyl collection, not their CDs or

music cassettes - even 'though these are 'recordings'.

Different 'carton' you see. 

Confused?  You will be!  See you in part four, but first,

let's deal with the facetious captions on the screengrabs

below.  Got to be thorough.

Well, the fact that I recently referred to LITTLE STAR

(which is in the same format)  in some fairly recent posts as

a 'nursery comic',  puts paid to that little piece of misrepre-

sentation.  Would anyone deny that this was a comic?  Has any-

one ever denied that this format doesn't fit the category?  If so,

I must've missed it.  The absurd examples he mocks are

nothing more than fantasies of his own creation.

   

Again, another gross misrepresentation of the other side's

point of view.  I used to work on the above comic and I never

once challenged or denied its categorization.  Another 'straw

man' argument which has no basis in fact. 

Do I really need to labour the point?  Remember

also that these comics are around 20 to 25 years old.  I

thought we were talking about the state of today's

'industry'?  Talk about misdirection?

On a simple point of logic, it's perhaps worth noting

('though I'm not applying it here) that just because a periodical

may describe itself as a 'comic', it doesn't necessarily mean that it

fits the description.  (After all, The SUNDAY SPORT described

itself as a newspaper.)  Once again, these 'silly rules' he likes to

ascribe to others seem to be ones he's invented himself.  What a,

neat way to try and win a debate - argue against what we say

the other side said, instead of what they actually did say.

Right,  see you next time!

Posted in: Cartoons