As much as I hate spam, I won't turn to the FTC or any other government agency to resolve the problem.
If you think the Net should be as autonomous as possible -- and that the government should not be allowed to restrict the free flow of information -- then you can't have it both ways and go running to the government when that flow of information is to your annoyance rather than to your benefit.
It�s not fair to Stallman that Linus became�
on
The Stallman Factor
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...the spokesman for open source in the mainstream press. But, pragmatically, it's for the best. Would you really want this crackpot representing your cause to the American people...?
Or if Microsoft had stuck with Xenix rather than throwing it back into the pot... But enough of that.
That was actually the most interesting speculation. What if MS kept Xenix and was successful with it? Considering its history co-opting & corrupting good technology, and its propensity toward monopolization through its proprietary property, perhaps Xenix would be the only widely implemented form of *nix around today. And if we still had a Linux, it might be a whole different OS.
Ah, yes, the "elite." Just who exactly are you talking about? I love the way people use that meaningless term as a pejorative. I'm willing to bet it's connected in your mind with a political sensibility but as you didn't come right out and say anything to that end we'll let it dangle.
I was speaking of cultural elitists. I thought I made this clear by also referring to them as "intelligentsia" in the same sentence. While that does present the possibility of political overtones, I figured since I was also referring to their evaluation of Maus that it was apparent that I was referring to the artistic elites.
It would seem what who mean by "the elite" are "pretentious intellectuals," which is ironic because it's drippingly obvious from your post that you are in fact a pertentious intellectual, just one that happens to have lowbrow taste in comic books.
If you had said middlebrow, I might be taking your argument more seriously. Granted the later issues of Cerebus are much more highbrow than the early issues, but that doesn't automatically make them better. Which is the problem I have with a lot of highbrow art. Just because it takes a more serious tone, or more serious subject matter, doesn't automatically make it superior. (I think Maus is great--but not the masterpiece everybody has proclaimed it to be.) I do prefer great highbrow art over great middlebrow art, but the fact of the matter is that there is much more of the latter in the world, due to quantity of output and the law of averages. I did refer to Peter Bagge, Dan Clowes and Charles Burns as "great". Do you really think of them as lowbrow?
Basically all you say here is, you like comic books with an arty take on conventions until they acquire a little depth,
No, I was just offering some random thoughts. Just stuff that came to mind. I also consider Robert Crumb, Jim Woodring, Neil Gaiman, Harvey Pekar, Miller/Sienkiewicz (only for Elekra: Assassin), Gilbert Hernandez, Jeff Smith and Alan Moore to have created some of the greatest comics ever. If you still want to say I only like comics with an arty take on conventions and no depth, you're now qualified to do so. I know I'm leaving out early stuff like Eisner, Barks and Kurtzman. I just think they're all great but conventional by today's standards. I know I'm also leaving out the 60s/70s underground stuff (except for Crumb, of course), but I think most of it hasn't aged very well. Of course, if I were an elitist, I would be more generous to these artists because I'd be evaluating them in a historical context. But since I'm just a philistine, I'm just saying what I think is good.
you agree with Groth that comic books belong on paper even though you don't like him personally...
True. I'm just offering this info on Groth because I think anyone who is taking this debate between him and McCloud seriously should be aware of a certain aspect of his character--especially since it could have a decided affect on his intellectual thought process. (And anyone who would read that 30,000-word article probably is taking the debate seriously.)
Can you refresh us on what you added to this discussion other than to erect a soapbox to showcase your pretentious disdain for them comic books that got too big fer their britches?
Well, like I said, I was just presenting random thoughts. I really think my post would have read a lot better if I had known to put in the paragraph tags. I was just trying to offer opinions that are different than those that are always being repeated by the comic books pros and critics. If I had been composing my thoughts in a slightly more organized fashioned, and had attempted to cull any kind of conclusion from them, maybe I would've said that comic book professionals are always thinking and debating about things like this. They want to have the same amount of success and/or recognition that great artists in practically every other medium (cinema, music, literature, etc.) enjoy, which is why comics that are more serious than good (i.e., later Cerebus) are often inordinately praised. And why every event or change or wrinkle that comes along in comics (i.e., direct sales shop, Maus winning the Pulitzer, and now Web-based comics) makes people think there's a chance that things will finally change. Which they won't. There's a plethora of art and entertainment already available in different mediums, which means people with low- and middle- and high-brow tastes already have their needs sufficiently filled by all the movies/music/shows/books/ect.out there. Comics are either considered too much of a stigma to take seriously or are too misunderstood to be properly appreciated. (Could you see the NewYork Times Book Review praising Bagge?) I'm not saying it's going to be that way forever, but I just know how people think, and it's just not going to change in our lifetimes.
At least do the courtesy of posting as an anonymous coward so noone else is forced to read this drivel and waste their time responding in kind. I've got a JOB, you know.
Interestingly, if you run Word's spelling and grammar check on the article, it finds none of these grammatical errors. Leave it to a Slashdot regular to demonstrate an MS product's shortcomings--even if inadvertently.
The first 20 or so issues of "Cerebus" were dynamite. Uneven at first, since Dave Sim didn't fully know what he was doing, but very biting and funny. The only comic book that ever made me laugh out loud. They are available online or at your local comic book shop, which probably needs the support. Issues 25-50 were decent. Since then it's just been a bunch of pretentious nothingness. It was a shame when Sim decided he was an Artist.
The idea of a catalyst (in this case, the Net) which will allow comics to break through to the mainstream & finally be perceived as a respectable medium is far from new. It was a very big hope in the 80s, during which the direct sales market (i.e., comic book shops that didn't have the same restrictions as your corner drugstore) formed, the second wave of great underground cartoonists (such as Peter Bagge, Dan Clowes and Charles Burns) emerged, and the intelligentsia embraced Art Spiegelman's "Maus" (very overrated, I think, as are most things loved by the elite).
This kind of optimism is understandable. People who dedicate their professions and lives to this medium know they are often creating, and are in the presence of, great art. They are greatly frustrated at not seeing the rest of the world share their recognition. I can't blame them.
I don't think the Net is an appropriate medium for comics, pretty much for reasons previously mentioned: current monitor quality & resolution can't properly support it, and as the Web continues to become more dynamic, a comparatively static medium such as comics will inevitably give way online to more animation and other neat effects tricks.
Strangely, though I agree Groth and disagree with McCloud, I consider McCloud to be a beacon of integrity in the comics industry and Groth to be one of it's biggest jerks. As a publisher, Groth has done much for comics (he has published all of the underground artists I previously mentioned), but as an editor, he has continuously abused his power. I'd never trust him to be putting his true opinion before his own self-interest (perhaps the case here?). Check out this 30,000-word article from Harlan Ellison's Website (reprinted from "Gauntlet" magazine) for an example of what I'm talking about.
(However, if Groth were to ever admit that Jaime Hernandez rocked in the first six issues of "Love & Rockets" but has pretty much sucked since then, well, maybe then I'd start to change my opinion...)
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I hate spam, I won't turn to the FTC or any other government agency to resolve the problem.
If you think the Net should be as autonomous as possible -- and that the government should not be allowed to restrict the free flow of information -- then you can't have it both ways and go running to the government when that flow of information is to your annoyance rather than to your benefit.
...the spokesman for open source in the mainstream press. But, pragmatically, it's for the best. Would you really want this crackpot representing your cause to the American people...?
Everybody has been waiting twenty years for this movie. And when word got out that the filmmakers got it right, everybody had to see it.
I am aware of which vi port most MSers use. Excuse the hell out of me.
I have heard that quite a few senior MS employees use windows ports of classic UNIX apps.
And quite a few of the current "grunts" at MS also use vi & emacs.
Or if Microsoft had stuck with Xenix rather than throwing it back into the pot... But enough of that.
That was actually the most interesting speculation. What if MS kept Xenix and was successful with it? Considering its history co-opting & corrupting good technology, and its propensity toward monopolization through its proprietary property, perhaps Xenix would be the only widely implemented form of *nix around today. And if we still had a Linux, it might be a whole different OS.
Or if you are sure which one to get, compare prices at AddALL or one of the other book price comparison sites.
Ah, yes, the "elite." Just who exactly are you talking about? I love the way people use that meaningless term as a pejorative. I'm willing to bet it's connected in your mind with a political sensibility but as you didn't come right out and say anything to that end we'll let it dangle.
I was speaking of cultural elitists. I thought I made this clear by also referring to them as "intelligentsia" in the same sentence. While that does present the possibility of political overtones, I figured since I was also referring to their evaluation of Maus that it was apparent that I was referring to the artistic elites.
It would seem what who mean by "the elite" are "pretentious intellectuals," which is ironic because it's drippingly obvious from your post that you are in fact a pertentious intellectual, just one that happens to have lowbrow taste in comic books.
If you had said middlebrow, I might be taking your argument more seriously. Granted the later issues of Cerebus are much more highbrow than the early issues, but that doesn't automatically make them better. Which is the problem I have with a lot of highbrow art. Just because it takes a more serious tone, or more serious subject matter, doesn't automatically make it superior. (I think Maus is great--but not the masterpiece everybody has proclaimed it to be.) I do prefer great highbrow art over great middlebrow art, but the fact of the matter is that there is much more of the latter in the world, due to quantity of output and the law of averages. I did refer to Peter Bagge, Dan Clowes and Charles Burns as "great". Do you really think of them as lowbrow?
Basically all you say here is, you like comic books with an arty take on conventions until they acquire a little depth,
No, I was just offering some random thoughts. Just stuff that came to mind. I also consider Robert Crumb, Jim Woodring, Neil Gaiman, Harvey Pekar, Miller/Sienkiewicz (only for Elekra: Assassin), Gilbert Hernandez, Jeff Smith and Alan Moore to have created some of the greatest comics ever. If you still want to say I only like comics with an arty take on conventions and no depth, you're now qualified to do so. I know I'm leaving out early stuff like Eisner, Barks and Kurtzman. I just think they're all great but conventional by today's standards. I know I'm also leaving out the 60s/70s underground stuff (except for Crumb, of course), but I think most of it hasn't aged very well. Of course, if I were an elitist, I would be more generous to these artists because I'd be evaluating them in a historical context. But since I'm just a philistine, I'm just saying what I think is good.
you agree with Groth that comic books belong on paper even though you don't like him personally...
True. I'm just offering this info on Groth because I think anyone who is taking this debate between him and McCloud seriously should be aware of a certain aspect of his character--especially since it could have a decided affect on his intellectual thought process. (And anyone who would read that 30,000-word article probably is taking the debate seriously.)
Can you refresh us on what you added to this discussion other than to erect a soapbox to showcase your pretentious disdain for them comic books that got too big fer their britches?
Well, like I said, I was just presenting random thoughts. I really think my post would have read a lot better if I had known to put in the paragraph tags. I was just trying to offer opinions that are different than those that are always being repeated by the comic books pros and critics. If I had been composing my thoughts in a slightly more organized fashioned, and had attempted to cull any kind of conclusion from them, maybe I would've said that comic book professionals are always thinking and debating about things like this. They want to have the same amount of success and/or recognition that great artists in practically every other medium (cinema, music, literature, etc.) enjoy, which is why comics that are more serious than good (i.e., later Cerebus) are often inordinately praised. And why every event or change or wrinkle that comes along in comics (i.e., direct sales shop, Maus winning the Pulitzer, and now Web-based comics) makes people think there's a chance that things will finally change. Which they won't. There's a plethora of art and entertainment already available in different mediums, which means people with low- and middle- and high-brow tastes already have their needs sufficiently filled by all the movies/music/shows/books/ect.out there. Comics are either considered too much of a stigma to take seriously or are too misunderstood to be properly appreciated. (Could you see the NewYork Times Book Review praising Bagge?) I'm not saying it's going to be that way forever, but I just know how people think, and it's just not going to change in our lifetimes.
At least do the courtesy of posting as an anonymous coward so noone else is forced to read this drivel and waste their time responding in kind. I've got a JOB, you know.
OK.
Interestingly, if you run Word's spelling and grammar check on the article, it finds none of these grammatical errors. Leave it to a Slashdot regular to demonstrate an MS product's shortcomings--even if inadvertently.
Sorry. This was my very first post here. Didn't know I'd have to use the BR or P tags. I promise this would read less like a rant if I had...
The first 20 or so issues of "Cerebus" were dynamite. Uneven at first, since Dave Sim didn't fully know what he was doing, but very biting and funny. The only comic book that ever made me laugh out loud. They are available online or at your local comic book shop, which probably needs the support. Issues 25-50 were decent. Since then it's just been a bunch of pretentious nothingness. It was a shame when Sim decided he was an Artist. The idea of a catalyst (in this case, the Net) which will allow comics to break through to the mainstream & finally be perceived as a respectable medium is far from new. It was a very big hope in the 80s, during which the direct sales market (i.e., comic book shops that didn't have the same restrictions as your corner drugstore) formed, the second wave of great underground cartoonists (such as Peter Bagge, Dan Clowes and Charles Burns) emerged, and the intelligentsia embraced Art Spiegelman's "Maus" (very overrated, I think, as are most things loved by the elite). This kind of optimism is understandable. People who dedicate their professions and lives to this medium know they are often creating, and are in the presence of, great art. They are greatly frustrated at not seeing the rest of the world share their recognition. I can't blame them. I don't think the Net is an appropriate medium for comics, pretty much for reasons previously mentioned: current monitor quality & resolution can't properly support it, and as the Web continues to become more dynamic, a comparatively static medium such as comics will inevitably give way online to more animation and other neat effects tricks. Strangely, though I agree Groth and disagree with McCloud, I consider McCloud to be a beacon of integrity in the comics industry and Groth to be one of it's biggest jerks. As a publisher, Groth has done much for comics (he has published all of the underground artists I previously mentioned), but as an editor, he has continuously abused his power. I'd never trust him to be putting his true opinion before his own self-interest (perhaps the case here?). Check out this 30,000-word article from Harlan Ellison's Website (reprinted from "Gauntlet" magazine) for an example of what I'm talking about. (However, if Groth were to ever admit that Jaime Hernandez rocked in the first six issues of "Love & Rockets" but has pretty much sucked since then, well, maybe then I'd start to change my opinion...)