Comments on: Girls & Sports launch party planned

By: Alan Gardner

Alan Gardner — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:09:42 +0000

Well said Jonathan.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:38:28 +0000

Alan, I agree with your point about the size of the strip limiting creativity. Fewer characters, shorter dialogue, less detail in the backgrounds…this is especially true for a new strip as it fights to attract readers. However, I still think that in that small space something fun can be created, but that takes effort and imagination.
I think the reason the submission levels remain the same testifies to the affection people still have for the medium. No matter how small they are printed, or how stale most comics pages are, people still connect strongly with them. If money was the only issue then there wouldn’t be thousands and thousands of amateur strips on the web (obviously not all are great but it does show the popularity of the strip format) The powers that be should build on that goodwill not take it for granted.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:02:03 +0000

Alan, I got to chime in here with this about what you said about cartoonist pay. I don’t know what they make, really i assume its diffeerent for every cartoonist, except the “Big Names”. I’m in the military at the moment, but I plan on being retired by 2008-9 at least. (maybe soomer if they keep screwing me around:)) With my mutual funds (which ain’t gonna be millions, I know that) and my pension I’d like to think that IF I could make it as a moderately successful syndicated strip artist I’d be ok. I’d love to be rich, but I do live rather modestly.

Back to the comic art thing, it does concern me that a lot of strips don’t seem to have artists that…well, care. Space has a lot to do with it, but even then, some strips, (*Crock* ahem*) just seem to have a bit less than what I would think is the bare minimum to be decent. But on the flipside you have things like “Cathy” which I’ve hated since high school, and “On a Claire Day” (which I suspect is being st up as a replacement for cathy in some venues) . OaCD I kind of like though even though I don’t like the artwork. I’m not even in the target demographic for it. So thats why I think writing has a lot to do with it. (Cathy just never seemed funny to me. “Ack”. )

I think newspapers need to promote their comics more aggressively and well, look beyond the ones that they get by syndicates. That would make the syndicates look more to whats out there other than the status quo I think. Because, yeah, my grandpa love “Nancy” but he wouldn’t be that upset were he alive if it got retired.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:53:30 +0000

No credit given. They haven’t been turning out a quality strip. That’s been the whole point.

By: Seth

Seth — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:47:24 +0000

Hey guys, seth here again. I’ve read through all the comments and have to continue backing Girls & Sports. It seems like every comic strip – drawn well or not – is about puppies, babies, old people and bitter political views. While the G&S guys have never pretended to be good artists, are they any worse than Dilbert or Pearls where they just keep it simple and funny?

And don’t they get even a morsel of credit for turning out a quality strip every day for over 3 years now??

By: Alan Gardner

Alan Gardner — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:45:13 +0000

Jeff, Here is perhaps an point of interest. Earlier this year, I interviewed all the major syndicates execs (minus Creators) for a story I did on how syndicates were adapting to a shrinking newspaper marketplace. I specifically asked them if they were seeing a change in the number or quality of strips being submitted and they all said that it has remained constant with years past. I would guess the majority of those wanting to be syndicated have no real idea of what to expect as far as income and probably believe they’ll make more than what today’s market will provide. So what I’m saying is, I think the appeal of “making it” with a syndicated strip is still there – thus the continued level of submissions.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:59:54 +0000

Alan I think you have a point regarding strip size, but I think a larger reason we don’t see the best art talent in new comic strips is the fact that it is very difficult for a start-up strip to make real money in today’s newspaper climate. The rates newspapers pay for syndicated material in most markets is close to what it was 40 years ago. It used to be that many comic book artists aspired to do syndicated strips because that was where the money was. Even a modest newspaper client list would afford a decent income. Not so true today. Also to some degree newspapers don’t hold the sex appeal, glamor or mass reach they once enjoyed, and younger cartoonists are looking elsewhere.
Last, but not least, most newspaper suits do not value comics. If they printed them a decent size, paid decent rates and proudly promoted their comic section I think we would see more talented cartoonists working toward syndication. The newspapers would benifit by having a more dynamic comic selection, and ultimately I believe the readers would experience, and ejoy a superior product.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:28:30 +0000

I have to disagree with you Alan that the size of the panels in which cartoonists have to work in create a serious damper on creativity. The size of the canvas shouldn’t matter to the truely creative. They do amazing things on a grain of rice, not to say we should make the panels that small. But to blame the lack of creativity on the size of the panel is just a cop out. Girls & Sports wouldn’t be very creative even if you gave them a billboard sized papel to work on.

By: Alan Gardner

Alan Gardner — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:10:38 +0000

Mike – I don’t think you’re hijacking the thread. It’s a legitimate topic – one of which Girls & Sports is a poster child. Let the dialog continue.

Jonathan – I don’t disagree with you in the slightest, I would just add that I think the size of the panels in which cartoonists have to work in create a serious damper on creativity. I think if you gave cartoonists more space – you’d see some much more interesting stuff – at least that’s what I tell my self over and over to convince myself it could be true.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 08:14:38 +0000

After sleeping on it, i find myself agreeing with Jeff about poor artwork, though I hate to say it like that. Personally, I’m not afraid of the bar being set too high for me, because even though I’ve admitted to not being a drawing god, I can draw and I am good at it. Actually, I think I’m really good at it. (thats not a boast, or at least its not meant to come off as one). I’d hate to see a comics page filled with “bad” art and yeah, there are some strips that I think are drawn horribly. Sometimes the writing is good enough that its easy to overlook the artwork, sometimes not. (OK, I’ll admit it, “Crock”. I don’t think its funny and its drawn terribly. Sorry, it just slipped out).

If you look at a lot of strips in their beginning they don’t look as good as they may now. Doonesbury’s characters were crudely drawn when it first launched, but nowadays Trudeau’s artwork is great, IMHO. I guess its up to the syndicate or PR guys to determine whether they can sell a strip with what we call poor artwork. The strip in this article isn’t what I would consider the worst either.

I don’t want to hijack this thread and I’ve already taken up a lot of space. My apologies. This is just a subject that interests me a lot, but this probably isn’t the correct place for a lengthy talk on comic strip art. (though if someone doesknow the place, please direct me too it. :)