Online Cartoonist Finds Financial Success Offline

destinyland writes "The first collection of Perry Bible Fellowship comics has racked up pre-sales of $300,000 due to its huge online following. Within seven weeks the volume required a third printing. Ironically, the 25-year-old cartoonist speculates people would rather read his arty comics in a book than on a computer screen, and warns that 'There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page...' He also explains the strange anti-censorship crusade in high school that earned him an FBI record!"

Comments

PBF transcends the net

[Anonymous Coward]

My father, who isn't even a geek was describing one of the comics to me. If I recall correctly, it was on display in Maxim magazine.

on another note, here is a fun task: read all the PBF comics: he has hidden references and messages across the whole series.

Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page

Which is perfect for the bible, because it's a myth.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

While you won't be able to prove to me tonight that your holding a bible is indeed a fact, that's entirely besides the point.

Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.

I'm not going to get into a long debunking of the bible's "facts". I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether a book about the otherwise undocumented past, that's been the supporting document for people with often unlimited power for millennia, isn't still a myth, even if it's got lots of facts in it. I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths. Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.

Save yourself. Concede the argument.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Doc Ruby]

Getting your joke was done in my first sentence. The rest is for the people with no sense of either humor or faith.

Me and god, we've got an understanding. He doesn't exist, and I don't mind.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[WNight]

Definition: "Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."

Challenge the belief that all religion is false. Until then, the belief that it is a joke does seem universally acceptable.

Religious people think that because crazy opinions are everywhere (for instance, that Adam Sandler is funny) that their crazy ideas must be just the same, and accepted as valid alternatives. Not at all. Religious people assert fact - that their god exists and their holy book is right. You can't disprove that Adam Sandler is funny because humor is subjective. You can disprove any religious assertions made, because they aren't opinion. They're incorrect fact.

Anyways. Insulting religious people is good. They're stupid and need to be made to realize it, if only so that they slink away from society and don't try to poison more minds with their trash. It's like insulting people who spout KKK filth - cut and belittle them and their opinions until they're ashamed of how people make them feel. The correct answer to "Black are subhuman" isn't "Oh I can see how you might think that, but really ...", it's "You're an idiot - just fucking stupid." Ditto for 'My god lived, then died, then was reborn, for your right to eat shellfish which is no-longer bad!"

If the person drops the beliefs, they might not be a permanent waste of skin. Until then, they're just lying to you about their sky fairies, or the inferiority of the black man, etc.

If someone persists in believing something obviously wrong you should think less of them. They're either stupid, insane, or lying. None of which is a desirable quality.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[PJ1216]

religion has never been proven an incorrect fact. nor has it been proven a correct fact. to spout that god has been proven to not exist as a fact is just as silly to claim white supremacy.

people who try to force their religious beliefs on others are troublesome. i don't disagree. however, there are plenty of them who are fine with keeping it to themselves. you can be follow a religion and still believe all the science that we have.

and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect. the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best. don't get me wrong, i fully believe that science is true, but i'm just saying, there's still the same amount of assumption as there is with a higher power and even moreover, you can believe both science and in a higher power. they are not mutually exclusive.

also your adam sandler analogy has got to be one of the worst analogies i've ever seen. even removing that terrible analogy, the idea behind it is far from being any well-constructed thought. as someone who believes in a higher power (though not a follower of any religion), i can tell you thats NOT the reason i think my opinion is valid. i believe my opinion is valid because no matter how much science you bring behind you, you will never be able to explain its creation (of existence, not of the earth... i believe creationists are retarded).

so, in summation, there are a lot of religious folk who are stupid. however, not ever religious person is stupid.

and using your definition of bigotry, i'm gonna have to say yes, you do seem like a bigot. before this last post of yours, you didn't. i found the joke hysterical as well. in fact, i bet even some religious people can find it humorous. though, with this last post, you have definitely shown a lack of credulity as someone who can form a well-structured opinion.

Re:Mythical Bibles

[Culture]

You have several valid points here but ignore the big picture. While a specific religion cannot be proven "true" or "false," what we can say is that at a minimum, all but one are wrong. This is obviously true because they are mutually exclusive. Thus, we can safely say that when laughing at a specific individual religion you are probably 99% safe from being stuck down by the FSM or local equivalent. Additionally, we can state that those who do believe, believe without proof (i.e. through faith). I know some will argue that they have a "personal revelation" but I am talking about the kind of proof on which science relies. Thus, I think that we can safely laugh at those who claim they are certain or "know" that their religion is right, and all else are wrong and you should follow them because they know this (that you are wrong and they are right). These people are stupid (or willfully ignorant). OTOH, I respect those who admit their believe is based solely on faith and cannot prove the superiority of their god over someone else's. These people are, in my opinion, rational enough to function in the real world (for the most part, exceptions exist for every rule).

Re:Mythical Bibles

[I(rispee_I(reme]

and on a further note, science has yet to ever be proven as fact. there's one assumption that is always made and can never be proven (just as one could say a higher power could never be proven, therefore you can only assume there is or there isn't); you assume that a cause will always have the same effect. the only reason people accept this as true is because no one has disproved it. repeated tests are only circumstantial tests at best. don't get me wrong, i fully believe that science is true, but i'm just saying, there's still the same amount of assumption as there is with a higher power and even moreover, you can believe both science and in a higher power. they are not mutually exclusive.

This thread is offtopic and should be modded as such, but just in case anyone comes to slashdot for spiritual guidance...

Science deals with probabilities, not facts, and never claims to present facts.
The only assumption made by science is that the universe is capable of being understood using only rational thought, without invoking magic or superstition.

The reason people make this assumption has nothing to with whether or not it has been disproven, since in fact it cannot be disproven. It is because it is a necessary assumption, unlike the assumption of a "higher power" (aka deity). Since such belief in a deity explains nothing and requires further assumptions to be made, I dispute that there is "the same amount of assumption" in either case.

You are correct that you can believe in both science and magic... if you're willing to do both in a half-assed fashion. See Doublethink.

The Diamond Age

[Anonymous Coward]

'There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page...' If you've read The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, it's all laid out in there. Nano technology makes nearly everything possible, and at the same time makes nearly everything ubiquitous and therefore worthless. The only true things of value are those labor intensive things made by hand. You can already see the trend developing in our current world, despite being decades, possibly centuries away from the technology written about in the book. The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps. Analog is unique. Digital is common, unexceptional, vulgar. Film and real fiber prints will become prized possessions. The same future lies ahead for bound paper books.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Dirtside]

The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps.

Er, I don't think more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people engage in those activities. That's not really an indicator that people as a whole are finding more value in analog than digital.

Film and real fiber prints will become prized possessions.

If that's the case, it'll only be because of their rarity, and only because for some reason there are people who will pay a lot for a rare item even if it has no functional or useful (or even particular aesthetic) value.

Nostalgia's all warm and fuzzy, sure, but eventually people who can't help clinging to the past get old and die, and the rest of us can move on.

Re:The Diamond Age

[Atario]

I know you! You're David Cross's character in this sketch!

Re:The Diamond Age

[joto]

While I agree with your argument (it's far from everybody who prefers vinyl to CDs or film to digital cameras), I must disagree with the proposition that it's only for nostalgic reasons. Film cameras are still objectively "better" than digital cameras, when you consider contrast and colour-balance and all that. And tube amps certainly have their uses, e.g. if you want the "warm analog" sound (which you can then easily record on to a CD). [By the way: It's not that the "warm analog" sound is a more accurate sound reproduction, it's only there when you abuse the electronics, but it's certainly more pleasant than the failure mode of digital electronics.]

The old saying "they don't make stuff like this today" is often true. Progress means the price goes down, and the product is thus available for more consumers, but still good enough for most. Some people however, are willing to pay extra, either in money or convenience, in order to get the "best", which often are what they made in the old days.

However, other things are better explained through fashion. People don't by vinyl because it's better. People buy vinyl for the same reason your grandfather always used a tie. It's the fashion.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your Favourite Comics Probably Do Not Type All Their Dialogue In Camel Case, Which Makes Reading A Sentence Incredibly Annoying, IMO. IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeotalloutlikethis.

Newspaper comics

[mboverload]

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor? I haven't smiled at a comic in years. It's like the newspapers demand trash and get it.

I love PBF and other online comics. They can do or say anything they like without censorship. PBF wouldn't be the same if it couldn't use explicit material.

Re:Newspaper comics

[fmobus]

Moreover, PBF's author is a extremely capable, in terms of drawings. He has a good domain on a number of techniques and styles. Most online comics, on the other hand, create a single style and stick to it forever, increasing their quality in a more progressive manner.

Re:Newspaper comics

[HandsOnFire]

There are still newspapers?

Re:Newspaper comics

[jamstar7]

Yeah, I miss Bloom County, too.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Just Some Guy]

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

It's just you. Well, OK, they're pretty awful as a whole but there are still some decent ones:

• Pickles: Who knew crotchety old men could be funny?
• Heart of the City: Ditto 7 year old girls and their geeky friends.
• Non Sequitur: If Gary Larson chose to tell a story instead of a one-liner.
• Doonesbury: No, really. Not everyday, but most of the time.
• Zits: Almost always at least mildly amusing, occasionally laugh-out-loud funny.
• Baby Blues: For parents only, I think - a perfect reflection the middle class married with kids lifestyle.
• Peanuts: Yeah, I said it. Now that they're running Chuck's old stuff before he forgot that adults buy the newspaper.

Still not funny:

• Cathy: Irving, think Ike Turner. You know what to do.
• Gasoline Alley: Does anyone like this?

Re:Newspaper comics

[martinX]

>>Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

NO WAY. Take Garfield. There was this one time that Garfield tried to get a lasagna, and Jon tried to stop him, and then ODIE got involved. I'm crying here just remembering it. Man it was funny.

Re:Newspaper comics

[FleaPlus]

I'd personally add Pearls Before Swine and FoxTrot to that list of good newspaper comics. Of course, I actually read those comics almost entirely online. ;)

Re:Newspaper comics

[moosesocks]

Although it's really easy to make fun of Garfield, there have been a few interesting cases of Jim Davis breaking from the main storyline.

For instance, this story arc from 1989 is moderately disturbing, especially when you consider that it's is Garfield comic....

And while we're on the subject of Garfield: removing Garfield's thought bubbles removed can be quite humorous (and occasionally depressing), while randomized sets of 3 frames from the comic are about as funny and as coherent as the real thing.

And finally, although it's not garfield, The Family Circus can be easily made funny with a different set of captions.

Re:Newspaper comics

[Bazman]

Why is everyone referring to PBF as an 'online' comic? I first read it as a printed version in the UK Guardian newspaper.

Comics in The Guardian are always high quality. There's currently Steve Bell's 'If' strip and Doonesbury, plus PBF, and in the past they've re-run Krazy Kat.

Unlike US newspapers, UK papers don't generally have an eight page comic section to fill - perhaps that is the reason for the perceived decrease in quality.

Re:Newspaper comics

[TomHandy]

Not sure exactly how Opus is too "left-wing"; it's libertarian if anything (and Breathed's quote about himself probably sums it up: "Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.").

I'd have a hard time figuring out what Opus strips have been too "left-wing"; do you have any examples? Or is anything that is critical of Bush/Cheney/etc. automatically left-wing (even though plenty of right-wing folks share those same sentiments)?

Mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a mirror.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[HandsOnFire]

I've been doing too much reading lately. I noticed that "IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeotalloutlikethis" had a typo within a split second. I think you mean IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeitalloutlikethis.

Retarded.

[Ethanol-fueled]

Now go read a real comic like this one.

Re:Retarded.

[ty421]

Of course, N.G. has said that Bill Watterson is a bit of an inspiration for him, so I suppose this is just a natural progression of "real" comics. On the other hand, Calvin & Hobbes is the greatest comic to have widespread newspaper publication, although I will accept evidence to the contrary.

Re:Retarded.

[Nuroticat]

Sinfest is also quite worthy. It's a spiritual (lol) successor of strips like Calvin & Hobbes and Bloom County. I've enjoyed Sinfest more than any other web or newspaper comic for years.

Support the artist

[YodaYid]

I bought the book simply to support Nicholas Gurewitch - there was not much in there that I didn't already see before. But since his site doesn't have advertising, I was happy to support him directly (it's comparable to Radiohead's "pay what you like" model in that sense).

I do wish there were more "special features" in the book, but there are some interesting bits at the end where he includes comics that he has since taken out of the PBF canon, explaining why he made those decisions (for example, he eschews pop references in his comics, so those sort of comics are part of the "Lost Strips" series in the back of the book). Also, he has some of his extra-tasteless ones :-)

I like to think of PBF as the opposite of Penny Arcade, which is almost always topical, picking apart the latest headlines for laughs (not a bad thing, just different). PBF's humor will still be funny in fifty years, when people will have no clue what Penny Arcade (or South Park, or Family Guy for that matter) are talking about. It has that timeless element to it that makes me a fan.

And before I forget, congratulations to Nicholas Gurewitch on his success! It is well deserved.

Well...

[Comatose51]

Well that's one advantage printed comics have over online ones: immune to Slashdotting.

Re:Totally Deserved!

[TempeTerra]

The brain is a strange thing. I spotted the typo too, but for some inexplicable reason my brain also thinks that the string contains the word 'kittens' somewhere after the apostrophe.

Re:Achewood

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

wow achewood... it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a ring around my eyes, but sadly thats not a good thing. Its as if someone wrote a program to take anything funny that has every been said, or written and remove the humor from it, leaving only a soulless, time wasting, empty shell of a cicada.

it's a trap

[Racemaniac]

he's probably just trying to trick everybody in going over all the comics searching for hidden messages (and it's working -_-)

WTF?

[cherokee158]

Am I the only one who finds this strip badly drawn and entirely unfunny? I promised myself that when I hit forty, I wouldn't lose touch, but I am beginning to feel a bit old: I appear to be the only person not carrying a bible who thinks the endless torrent(no pun intended) of graphic violence, profanity and scatalogical humor pouring from the web to be more boorish than humorous. Am I alone?

Re:WTF?

[BeanThere]

No; there is a clear cultural trend towards nihilism. It may be a(n over) reaction to a prior overly sanitised and politically correct era brought on in part by the Comics Code. The same undercurrents are present in most major media - movies, music, art etc. This 'race to the bottom' has been pretty much taken to its extremes now, so I look forward to the pendulum (hopefully) swinging the other way again soon. But given the way cynicism, boorishness and not caring are 'in', that people can't seem to tell the difference between cynicism and intelligence anymore, and that developing the intelligence to do so is not 'in', I'm not sure it will.

Re:WTF?

[Fantastic Lad]

Everyone makes that promise and everyone breaks it.

Not only did I not make that promise, but I didn't do it because I'd lost touch and knew it back when I was in my late twenties. Heck, I have a strong suspicion that I wasn't even in touch during high school. Had no idea what was in with regard to fashion, music, popular kids, etc. And somehow all through it and to this day I have managed to maintain deep and friendly ties with representatives of every age group, gender, and social class imaginable. I think being hopelessly out of touch (Facebook bores me to death) makes you less threatening and more successful in life somehow. Beats me. So when is this graduation dance thing? Last week? Oh.

-FL

Personal Favorites

[Symbolis]

PBF has been a favorite of mine for a while, now. Here's some others(wiki pages. Paper comic sites(read: syndicate sites) suck more often than not):

Zits
Get Fuzzy
Pearls Before Swine
Lio

Online comics:

Schlock Mercenary
Something Positive
Erfworld
Penny Arcade
Irregular Webcomic!
There's a few others, but that's most of them.

I was there when Bill Keene killed DFC

[spun]

I made quite a few captions for the original DFC. I was known as 'spun' there, too. Many of them even made it into the 'green' category. I was there when DFC closed down. Bill Keene himself called the guy who ran the site and basically said, "The cartoon is about me and my family, and you guys are putting us into the most disgusting and degrading situations. What if my kids read this site? Please, would you stop?" So we all felt kinda bad, and we stopped, but that doesn't make DFC any less funny. You can still find all the captions archived in various places on the web if you look...