Open Letter to Brooke McEldowney
Brian Huntley
carborundum." There's been a lot of squawking about your recent 9CWL
arc, but it's your strip, you're the artist, and personally, I enjoy
watching the high-wire act you perform.
Variety is nice, and 9CWL has lots. If the illegitimis don't like
today's panels, they should wait a bit - it's sure to change.
Besides, they can read Pib three times a week.
PS: How should your last name be pronounced? MICKLE-downy? Mick-EL-
doo-whinny?
9chickw...@verizon.net
"Where was you born?"
"Out of wedlock."
"Mighty pretty country around there."
Ring Lardner
-------------------------
I haven't actually counted, but my impression is that the negative e-
mail concerning my way of playing out Edda's encounter with a unicorn
in Manhattan has balanced pretty much with the positive. The positive
has been rather more thoughtful and reflective and spelled correctly -
and much of it from people in the performing arts - while the negative
has been in the main bilious and damning, from people who take their
cartoons much more seriously than I do, and their manners less so. If
the people who swell the latter group had been Mrs. Lot, they'd all be
pillars of salt by now, for, lo, they would not have averted their
eyes from the cities of the plain. I will never quite get it when, if
they don't like what I'm doing, they don't just stop looking at it.
But that isn't their way. Their way is to shout (as much as you can
shout in an e-mail) staccato orders at me: Stop writing that crap in
the next panel, stop drawing that story, you're stupid, I hate what
you're doing, stop it, stop it, stop it! Did you hear me?! Stop it!
D'oh! (That last bit is when they turn into the pillar of salt.) And
I always sit back in my squeaky, worn office chair and wonder, my
God!, what kind of barns were these people brought up in? They write
to the person who drew the work, quite acknowledging that he must be a
human being with some finer feelings involved in what he draws, and
they demean and insult and lavish rudeness that astonishes anybody who
was brought up to eat with a fork and a spoon and wipe his mouth on a
napkin.
I think the best I can say is that I regard what I do as verging on
something like art, and that I don't feel I'm doing my bit if I don't
try from time to time to push my limits (not the limits of the
profession, because there's nothing I'm doing in structure or
presentation that has not been done already), to try to tell my
stories in another way. I would not do it if I didn't feel it was the
best I can do at that moment, if I didn't feel I'm exploring something
worth the exploration. So you can take it for granted, whether or not
you like it, that what you see in Chickweed and Pibgorn is my best.
And if you don't like it, and you will not turn away, then the world
can always use another pillar of salt.
Brooke
P.S. I nearly forgot: It's mack-el-DOWN-ey.
chris...@verizon.net
> But that isn't their way. Their way is to shout (as much as you can
> shout in an e-mail) staccato orders at me: Stop writing that crap in
> the next panel, stop drawing that story, you're stupid, I hate what
> you're doing, stop it, stop it, stop it! Did you hear me?! Stop it!
> D'oh! (That last bit is when they turn into the pillar of salt.) And
> I always sit back in my squeaky, worn office chair and wonder, my
> God!, what kind of barns were these people brought up in? They write
> to the person who drew the work, quite acknowledging that he must be a
> human being with some finer feelings involved in what he draws, and
> they demean and insult and lavish rudeness that astonishes anybody who
> was brought up to eat with a fork and a spoon and wipe his mouth on a
> napkin.
>
> I think the best I can say is that I regard what I do as verging on
> something like art, and that I don't feel I'm doing my bit if I don't
> try from time to time to push my limits (not the limits of the
> profession, because there's nothing I'm doing in structure or
> presentation that has not been done already), to try to tell my
> stories in another way. I would not do it if I didn't feel it was the
> best I can do at that moment, if I didn't feel I'm exploring something
> worth the exploration. So you can take it for granted, whether or not
> you like it, that what you see in Chickweed and Pibgorn is my best.
FYI, Brooke, the "This is art and if you don't like it you're a mouth-
breathing
philistine" retort only works (and by "works" I mean "seems vaguely
plausible
until you think about it for five seconds") when you're cribbing from
Shakespeare.
When the work being criticized is 100% uncut Chickweed, it just makes
you
look like a self-important twit--doubly so when the strips in question
are
themselves a thinly-veiled tirade about how we mere mortals don't
appreciate
your sublime genius.
- K.C.
Paige
>
> - Show quoted text -
Salutations, Mr. McEldowney...and may I say, "Bravo"!
As an artist myself, I appreciate what you're tyring to do. Your
discourse reminded me of something that has intrigued me for years.
Hubby and I were discussing Bob Dylan's tour a few years ago (he came
to Wyoming, believe it or not). We realized that and that wherever he
goes, he MUST sing "Blowin' in the Wind" and other songs from his
ancient repertoire. The fans insist on it. The same thing happens with
other singing groups. As artists who continue to grow and expand their
gifts, they wish to share new music with their fans. More often than
not, this new music is, at best, tolerated, as the barbaric hordes (I
love that phrase!) wait for the traditional stuff. How sad. We should
be pleased to enjoy a new work. After all, "The Times They Are A-
Changin'" had to start somewhere.
As for me, I enjoy your work...I like that you step out of the mold
occasionally. This arc is refreshing. The horn appearing from the
woman's head in yesterday's strip...brilliant!
<a fan/>
Paige
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, <chris...@verizon.net> wrote:
> FYI, Brooke, the "This is art and if you don't like it you're a
> mouth- breathing philistine" retort only works (and by "works" I
> mean "seems vaguely plausible until you think about it for five
> seconds") when you're cribbing from Shakespeare.
With the exception of forgetting to capitalize "Art" ... what K.C.
said.
I've found the killer text block arc dull and WAY overlong, not to
mention kind of snotty (am I the only one who remembered that Bitchy
Working Lady is the one *paying* for Edda to pursue her dreams?) and
-- heresy alert, here -- not all that well-written, and in fact
downright awkward in places.
Not that I'm close to dumping 9CWL, it's still among my favorite
features. Everyone deserves a misfire now and then, but IMO three
weeks worth of misfire is really stretching the point.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Y
> I think the best I can say is that I regard what I do as verging on
> something like art, and that I don't feel I'm doing my bit if I don't
> try from time to time to push my limits (not the limits of the
> profession, because there's nothing I'm doing in structure or
> presentation that has not been done already)
-
Thanks for admitting that.
Dann
@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com.
> Open Response to The Open Letter - Non Illegitimis Carborundum
>
<snip>
And Open Response to the Open Response to the Open Letter - Non
Illegitimis Carborundum
> I haven't actually counted, but my impression is that the negative e-
> mail concerning my way of playing out Edda's encounter with a unicorn
> in Manhattan has balanced pretty much with the positive. The positive
> has been rather more thoughtful and reflective and spelled correctly -
> and much of it from people in the performing arts - while the negative
> has been in the main bilious and damning, from people who take their
> cartoons much more seriously than I do, and their manners less so.
<snip>
> But that isn't their way. Their way is to shout (as much as you can
> shout in an e-mail) staccato orders at me: Stop writing that crap in
> the next panel, stop drawing that story, you're stupid, I hate what
> you're doing, stop it, stop it, stop it! Did you hear me?! Stop it!
> D'oh! (That last bit is when they turn into the pillar of salt.)
<snip>
> I think the best I can say is that I regard what I do as verging on
> something like art, and that I don't feel I'm doing my bit if I don't
> try from time to time to push my limits (not the limits of the
> profession, because there's nothing I'm doing in structure or
> presentation that has not been done already), to try to tell my
> stories in another way. I would not do it if I didn't feel it was the
> best I can do at that moment, if I didn't feel I'm exploring something
> worth the exploration. So you can take it for granted, whether or not
> you like it, that what you see in Chickweed and Pibgorn is my best.
I have not enjoyed the most recent arc as much as I've enjoyed others.
Not because of the art. It is in keeping with the excellence one has
come to not just look forward to, but expects to see in your work.
And not because of the formatting. A little change once in a while is a
good thing. Besides, the extended narrative has been a very pleasant
change of pace.
My lack of enjoyment with the current arc is the result of the
development of Edda. I had the impression that Edda was less judgemental
and worldly enough to understand the value of professions beyond her own.
Instead I find that she is more like an ancient Athenian who has no
knowledge of Pendelikon.
I couldn't imagine her being so self absorbed. It is as if the fact that
she waggles her appendages thusly, and that people who also waggle their
appendages thusly find her waggling to be superior, then the sum total of
value in Edda's world is defined as appendage waggling and the quality
thereof. I'm a bit disturbed to find that Edda's primary concern is "me,
me, me, me, me, me, and me!!" She apparently finds that perspective to
be healthy and acceptable for one in her position.
Which makes me wonder why I didn't pursue the theatre more seriously as a
lad.
Or perhaps I'm exaggerating just a bit. One of the two.
More seriously, I thought more of Edda than recent developments appear to
justify.
Rather than register a complaint early on, I thought I would wait to see
what you did with the arc. And while it has been interesting, it has
also been a bit of a trainwreck for Edda, IMO.
I will now dutifully turn to a pillar of salt.
Keep up the good work.
Regards,
Dann
Carl Fink
> I haven't actually counted, but my impression is that the negative e-
> mail concerning my way of playing out Edda's encounter with a unicorn
> in Manhattan has balanced pretty much with the positive. The positive
> has been rather more thoughtful and reflective and spelled correctly -
> and much of it from people in the performing arts - while the negative
> has been in the main bilious and damning, from people who take their
> cartoons much more seriously than I do, and their manners less so. If
> the people who swell the latter group had been Mrs. Lot, they'd all be
> pillars of salt by now, for, lo, they would not have averted their
> eyes from the cities of the plain. I will never quite get it when, if
> they don't like what I'm doing, they don't just stop looking at it.
Well, I didn't write at all. My reaction is rather to think "Well, this
will end eventually, I hope."
Not the "Big Little Books" format, or the unicorn storyline.
The focus on Edda, least interesting character in the strip.
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at nitpickingblog.blogspot.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
racs...@gmail.com
> mail concerning my way of playing out Edda's encounter with a unicorn
> in Manhattan has balanced pretty much with the positive. The positive
> has been rather more thoughtful and reflective and spelled correctly -
> and much of it from people in the performing arts - while the negative
> has been in the main bilious and damning, from people who take their
> cartoons much more seriously than I do, and their manners less so. If
> the people who swell the latter group had been Mrs. Lot, they'd all be
> pillars of salt by now, for, lo, they would not have averted their
> eyes from the cities of the plain. I will never quite get it when, if
> they don't like what I'm doing, they don't just stop looking at it.
>
> But that isn't their way. Their way is to shout (as much as you can
> shout in an e-mail) staccato orders at me: Stop writing that crap in
> the next panel, stop drawing that story, you're stupid, I hate what
> you're doing, stop it, stop it, stop it! Did you hear me?! Stop it!
> D'oh! (That last bit is when they turn into the pillar of salt.) And
> I always sit back in my squeaky, worn office chair and wonder, my
> God!, what kind of barns were these people brought up in? They write
> to the person who drew the work, quite acknowledging that he must be a
> human being with some finer feelings involved in what he draws, and
> they demean and insult and lavish rudeness that astonishes anybody who
> was brought up to eat with a fork and a spoon and wipe his mouth on a
> napkin.
I've been reading Chickweed for several years now, but it took a
second try, spurred by commentary here, to get me into the fold,
because it isn't a setup/punchline type of strip, and thus doesn't
feel and fit "like a comic strip should." It has always required the
reader to take a little time and not just learn who the characters
are, but make the effort to get into the flow of their world.
But I think back in the days of the university and the Catholic
school, it was still a great deal more conventional than it has been
since the Great Jete Forward. I suspect those who were also reading
Pibgorn were more prepared for the changes, because Pib was always
overtly experimental and reading them together, it's almost impossible
not to see the artist behind them both -- and that's not a bad thing,
anymore than being able to walk into a play and realize it's got to be
Harold Pinter or Tennessee Williams or David Mamet.
But it can be disconcerting if you aren't ready to see artists at all
and were just looking for jokes and stories.
I suspect that, for those who are fans of this on-going process style,
we're probably less apt to kibitz -- though Thorax has taken his lumps
here, I think with some respect for the strip but impatience with the
particular theme. Most of the time, my reaction to something that
doesn't strike me right is, "Hmm. Now where is he going with THIS?"
By contrast, people who prefer their entertainment to fit like a
comfortable old shoe become awfully nasty when it doesn't, and it
doesn't surprise me that you get some pretty vituperative commentary.
When I was at a small paper in a very blue-collar community, I
replaced Peanuts (at Schulz's death) with "Rose is Rose," and, when we
asked for reader input on our strips a year or two later, the
negatives on Rose were accompanied by strong comments. It had nothing
to do with having replaced a classic strip. I think they just hated
the strip for not telling conventional jokes in a conventional way.
And "hated" is the word -- they were ready to stone the witch.
As for not looking away, at least in the case of print readers, it's
very hard not to read a particular strip -- that is, faced with 22
strips on a page, it's hard to only read 21.
That said, it is possible to read those 22 strips, shrug and say,
"Another pointless waste of space." The fact that they react is
interesting, even if, in talk radio, your producer would simply hang
up on the most obnoxious and inarticulate callers and not force you to
deal with them. (well, depending on how your ratings were going, I
suppose ... )
I sometimes feel sorry for Tom Batiuk, Greg Evans and, lately, Lynn
Johnston for the grief they take here. But then I think of how many
strips are out there that never get a mention one way or the other, or
who may get a comment on occasion but nobody bothers to follow on it
because nobody gives a damn about the strip. Given the effort that
goes into the work, it must be frustrating when you're not getting any
reaction at all one way or the other.
Of course, the best practice is to ignore the mail that says "I love
you" and the mail that says "I hate you" and concentrate on the mail
that says "Pay to the order of ... "
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Belphoebe
> My lack of enjoyment with the current arc is the result of the
> development of Edda. I had the impression that Edda was less
> judgemental and worldly enough to understand the value of professions
> beyond her own.
[ . . . ]
> More seriously, I thought more of Edda than recent developments
> appear to justify.
Yes, my net response to this arc has been a loss of respect for Edda. She
rather presumptuously lumps together all the people who pour out of the
offices during lunch--they aren't delicate artistes like her, and surely
they can't appreciate her innate superiority. When the "lethal heels" woman
engaged her in conversation and revealed that she'd once harbored a dream of
becoming a ballet dancer herself, I had a glimmer of hope that maybe Edda
would appreciate that these office types might be complex human beings with
actual interior lives and interesting stories of their own. But instead, it
seemed as though Edda merely basked in the fact that this woman appeared to
envy her. And when this woman shared with Edda what she does for a living,
Edda barely restrained herself from letting this woman know how useless Edda
perceived this job to be.
I frankly don't know what to do with the woman morphing into the unicorn,
but I'd like to think that at some point Edda can lose her us/them mentality
about artsy types vs. the rest of the world. I have an arts background,
too, and at a certain point, I needed to use a small step ladder to get over
myself. Edda's young--I guess it could still happen. ;)
--
Belphoebe
Paige
I didn't see it that way at all. It appears to me that Edda is
insecure about her career...wondering if, in fact, her chosen
profession is considered a "real job" by "regular" people. The
conversation with the woman pretty much confirmed Edda's perception.
However, I never considered Edda having that frail an ego.
Paige
Belphoebe
> I didn't see it that way at all. It appears to me that Edda is
> insecure about her career...wondering if, in fact, her chosen
> profession is considered a "real job" by "regular" people. The
> conversation with the woman pretty much confirmed Edda's perception.
>
> However, I never considered Edda having that frail an ego.
I was reading all this not so much as insecurity, as frustration that those
who are outside of the profession fail to see the labor that she and her
colleagues perform. Like, "Ooh, ballet--doesn't that look like *fun*?" And
it *is* fun, isn't it? It's also hard work, but isn't the whole point of
her going into ballet as her profession that she's passionate about it? And
yes, people who are not in it like she is will fail to understand. OTOH,
she seems to fail just as mightily to understand everyone else who's not an
artsy/dancey/music type.
--
Belphoebe
George W Harris
wrote:
:
:I didn't see it that way at all. It appears to me that Edda is
:insecure about her career...wondering if, in fact, her chosen
:profession is considered a "real job" by "regular" people. The
:conversation with the woman pretty much confirmed Edda's perception.
This may be unkind of me, but I see it as Brooke being
insecure in *his* career, and wondering if people consider his
profession a "real job". I see this is a much more reasonable
fear for a cartoonist than for a ballet dancer, actually; the idea
that a resident of New York City would think being a member
of a professional performing arts company isn't a real,
full-time profession is somewhat less than credible in my mind.
:
:However, I never considered Edda having that frail an ego.
Brooke, either, apparently.
:Paige
--
Firefly Fan Since September 20th, 2002 - Browncoat Since Birth
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Mike Beede
9chickw...@verizon.net wrote:
> And if you don't like it, and you will not turn away, then the world
> can always use another pillar of salt.
I know deer and horses are fond of salt. I can only assume that
unicorns would be too.
I guess I'm less down on the extended text arc than some of the
other denizens of the group. I don't even think I've made any
snarky comments about it. (Oops... I see I did, but really
it was more wry than snarky).
I assumed when it started it was
a commentary on peoples' perceptions of art and artists and
it seems to have also been about artists' perceptions of
civilians (yeah--that's not the right word but I don't know
what it should be) and particularly about the thoughts of a
*young* artist. Or maybe, to be more honest, that's what
I think about it after seeing the rest of the arc. I'm
afraid I still don't understand the unicorn part, though.
Perhaps that's good. I'm rarely satisfied with a book where
I understood everything.
Mike Beede
Robin
> I'm afraid I still don't understand the unicorn part, though.
That makes two of us (at least). The unicorn, on the first meeting,
didn't seem to have any context (or appreciation) for the idea of
human dance. The corporate woman clearly did, even if she didn't
understand that it's a real job. For that, and other reasons, I can't
seem to reconcile the two personalities in my head as being the same
thing.
I also am disturbed by Edda's lack of empathy here, well described now
by other posters. If it turns out the unicorn is teaching her a lesson
-- and she learns it -- that would redeem the storyline for me.
Otherwise it does, I fear, sound pretty whiny, and I can see the point
of the posters who have suggested Edda is serving as a stand-in for
the cartoonist's own annoyance about being underappreciated. (And I
say that as a reader with a great deal of admiration for Brooke's
work.)
I have found the alternative format, though, to get tedious. I was
quite happy to spend a year watching Midsummer Night's Dream staged at
Pibgorn, but the daily newspaper venue isn't built for that kind of
extended treatment. Here in St. Louis, where the paper just picked up
9CW a short while ago, I wouldn't blame readers for thinking that
maybe the art/text panel treatment is the *usual* format of the strip,
since we may actually have had more of these than anything else so
far. Those of us who have been reading 9CW for years will stick
around, but I daresay a lot of the new readers will get soured, and
9CW may be the next comic to get dumped after the next reader survey
here.
--Robin
Bruce Y
> Those of us who have been reading 9CW for years will stick
> around, but I daresay a lot of the new readers will get soured, and
> 9CW may be the next comic to get dumped after the next reader survey
> here.
>
> --Robin
-
9 is still way better than Cathy or the duck, but yeah, this arc is not the
best intro to the Lane. Careful Brooke, it may be you that gets turned into
a pillar of salt after the next reader survey.
Joseph Nebus
>Variety is nice, and 9CWL has lots. If the illegitimis don't like
>today's panels, they should wait a bit - it's sure to change.
Given that he has missed three perfectly satisfying conclusions
in a row, I'm no longer convinced that it will change anytime soon.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
grou...@rettacs.org
> -------------------------
>
> I haven't actually counted, but my impression is that the negative e-
> mail concerning my way of playing out Edda's encounter with a unicorn
> in Manhattan has balanced pretty much with the positive. The positive
> has been rather more thoughtful and reflective and spelled correctly -
> and much of it from people in the performing arts - while the negative
> has been in the main bilious and damning, from people who take their
> cartoons much more seriously than I do, and their manners less so.
A lot of the criticism is well-founded, properly spelled, specific,
detailed, and earnest. You've neatly lumped anyone that doesn't like
your work and says so into the Beefwit (your term) pile. You've also
observed the evolution of the Usenet and the newer discussion media
over many years so your question of from where this comes is
disingenuous.
If
> the people who swell the latter group had been Mrs. Lot, they'd all be
> pillars of salt by now, for, lo, they would not have averted their
> eyes from the cities of the plain. I will never quite get it when, if
> they don't like what I'm doing, they don't just stop looking at it.
In other words, "If you don't like it here, why don't you leave?" I
hear that a lot these days but I did not expect to hear it from you.
> I always sit back in my squeaky, worn office chair and wonder, my
> God!, what kind of barns were these people brought up in? They write
> to the person who drew the work, quite acknowledging that he must be a
> human being with some finer feelings involved in what he draws, and
> they demean and insult and lavish rudeness that astonishes anybody who
> was brought up to eat with a fork and a spoon and wipe his mouth on a
> napkin.
Except, of course, when they don't. When they write in bewilderment
about the decline, their valid perception, of the strip, the
characters they've grown to enjoy, the artwork they've grown to
like... very few if any responses to those. But when they get closer
to the root cause, to the mark, you lash out with Austenite phrasing
with little attention to specifics and a lot of thinly veiled name-
calling in return. You've taken far less heat than, say, Lynn
Johnston with whose work people feel a similar sense of connection and
a similar sense of shock - for nearly identical plot reasons.
> And if you don't like it, and you will not turn away, then the world
> can always use another pillar of salt.
I am hopeful that there will be a few curveballs, sliders, and
knucklers in 9CL that will make me swing, miss, and be grateful for
the flummox. But it has been a couple of years since you plopped the
leads into Blandhattan and I'm losing hope.
JC Dill
wrote:
><a fan/>
>Paige
What she said goes double for me.
jc
Peter B. Steiger
> The same thing happens with other singing groups. As artists who
> continue to grow and expand their gifts, they wish to share new music
> with their fans. More often than not, this new music is, at best,
> tolerated, as the barbaric hordes (I love that phrase!) wait for the
> traditional stuff.
You are, of course, familiar with the story behind Rick Nelson's "Garden
Party"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_Party_%28Rick_Nelson%29
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes
where you see stars: wypbs_**2 at steigerfamily.com.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
George Peatty
wrote:
>I was reading all this not so much as insecurity, as frustration that those
>who are outside of the profession fail to see the labor that she and her
>colleagues perform. Like, "Ooh, ballet--doesn't that look like *fun*?" And
>it *is* fun, isn't it? It's also hard work, but isn't the whole point of
>her going into ballet as her profession that she's passionate about it?
I think anyone who enjoys his work and does it well will understand
perfectly. It is fun, it is work, we are passionate about it, and to those
doing some other kind of work, it looks easy .. Edda needs to realize the
only difference between her and those around her is in the details ..
Belphoebe
Yes, exactly! I was sort of hoping that she'd realize this.
--
Belphoebe