CFD: rec.arts.comics.strips
Steve Simmons
a new group, rec.arts.comics.strips. The discussion has been sparse but
almost universally positive. It's not clear if there's enough interest
to really get the minimum vote, but neither is it clear that such a
proposal is doomed.
One or two respondants suggested alternate names, but seemed to have
no strong opinions either way.
Based on this, I'm moving to a formal CFD on establishing the group.
My original posting, slightly modified, follows:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The creation and steady activity of rec.arts.comics.marketplace as first
subgroup in rec.arts.comics has proven the viability of establishing
subgroups for r.a.c.
Past discussions of splitting r.a.c have foundered on an inability to
divide the group rationally. 70 to 90% of the traffic (by my seat-of-
the-pants estimate) is on "mainstream" comics, and there seems to
be no good way to divide it. This CFD is *NOT* proposing any general
split of r.a.c. It proposes to use the creation of r.a.c.m as a model
for taking one specific subgroup of comics and create a new group for
that specific topic.
Proposed charter:
Rec.arts.comics.strips is for discussion of comic "strips" as opposed
to comic books. The classic form for comic strips is the Funny Pages
of American newspapers, but can and should include monthly strips such
as those seen in National Lampoon, editorial cartoons, etc. The group
will be unmoderated.
Rationale:
Comic strip readers are a much larger group than comic book fans. A
very successful comic book will sell 100,000 copies per month. By
contrast, popular comic strips are read by millions every day. Those
comic strip readers who are not comic book fans neither read nor
contribute to r.a.c; their interests are not served by it.
Why a subgroup rather than a new group? Comic books and comic strips
are closely related. Some characters are published in both media.
With the exception of "Peanuts" and a few other wildly popular strips,
most reprint collections are done by comic-book related companies.
Strips and books are produced by overlapping sets of writers and artists.
Making r.a.c.s a subgroup of r.a.c will help "kick-start" the group by
immediately drawing off the comic strip postings from r.a.c, and should
provide interesting cross-fertilization between the two.
Also, potential future splits of r.a.c should be kept in mind. Someday
we will have other narrow subgroups of comics, and keeping things in
a tree makes more sense than having a number of very similar groups
directly under an already crowded rec.arts.
Some counter arguements:
Is there enough existing traffic? Yes and no. A simple count of comic
strip articles in r.a.c shows no more than two or three per day maximum.
By contrast, I'm seeing more and more requests for comic strip discussion
in other groups. The idea has been floated at least twice in the last
30 days by separate individuals in separate newsgroups (outside
rec.arts.comics). One recent poster suggested a group devoted to Peanuts.
It seems there's interest there; the problem is finding the people.
Why not a mailing list as proof of interest? Good question. There are
several comic-book oriented mailing lists, but no strips mailing lists
I know of. I already run one mailing list (non-comics), and am
starting two more. For me, it's out of the question. In addition, I
think the strip reader is a very different individual than the comic
book reader. There does not seem to be the same white-hot fab activity
for strips that there is for books. IMHO, this is a result of the
daily fix vs. the monthly (or longer) wait for the book. In any case,
that general lower activity level means no high-intensity person has
built and and pushed a mailing list.
At this time I'm especially interested in other groups where the
discussion should be carried on, in hopes of finding those potential
readers. Don't send me suggestions, repost this note in those
groups and make sure it's cross-posted to r.a.c and news.groups. This
posting is being sent to the following groups:
rec.arts.comics
rec.arts.comics.marketplace
news.groups
rec.arts.books
rec.arts.sf-lovers
rec.arts.sf.misc
rec.humor
In addition, I will drop a copy to the comix mailing list and comics-l.
--
``Who likes music that's repetitious? Sensitive New Age Guys.
Who likes music that's repetitious? Sensitive New Age Guys.''
"Sensitive New Age Guys", Christine Lavin
Michael Rawdon
In <1992Jan29.0...@lokkur.dexter.mi.us> s...@lokkur.dexter.mi.us (Steve Simmons) writes:
>Proposed charter:
>Rec.arts.comics.strips is for discussion of comic "strips" as opposed
>to comic books. The classic form for comic strips is the Funny Pages
>of American newspapers, but can and should include monthly strips such
>as those seen in National Lampoon, editorial cartoons, etc. The group
>will be unmoderated.
I might change "monthly strips" to "other kinds of strips", or at least
re-word the sentence, since to my mind it looks like "monthly strips" is
associated with "National Lampoon, editorial cartoons, etc." when I think
you actually only intend it to go with "National Lampoon", but otherwise
it looks fine to me.
>Rationale:
>Comic strip readers are a much larger group than comic book fans. A
>very successful comic book will sell 100,000 copies per month. By
>contrast, popular comic strips are read by millions every day. Those
>comic strip readers who are not comic book fans neither read nor
>contribute to r.a.c; their interests are not served by it.
I think that this is a very persuasive argument. I'd vote for this group,
because, unlike the r.a.startrek and r.a.sf-lovers splits (and the creation
of r.a.c.marketplace), all of which I voted against, this group would fill
a void which clearly is not being adequately filled by r.a.c. My only
real concern is a lack of demand for it, but presumably if the group passes
the creation process (i.e., gets YES votes :-) then that will indicate
sufficient interest.
>Why a subgroup rather than a new group? Comic books and comic strips
>are closely related. Some characters are published in both media.
>With the exception of "Peanuts" and a few other wildly popular strips,
>most reprint collections are done by comic-book related companies.
>Strips and books are produced by overlapping sets of writers and artists.
>Making r.a.c.s a subgroup of r.a.c will help "kick-start" the group by
>immediately drawing off the comic strip postings from r.a.c, and should
>provide interesting cross-fertilization between the two.
Moreover, the Comics Buyer's Guide, a major Comic BOOK industry publication,
frequently reports on comic strip matters (Blondie's employment, Watterson's
return from his sabbatical, etc.) Plus, comic STRIPS are far more "comical",
in general, than comic BOOKS, especially these days.
>Also, potential future splits of r.a.c should be kept in mind. Someday
>we will have other narrow subgroups of comics, and keeping things in
>a tree makes more sense than having a number of very similar groups
>directly under an already crowded rec.arts.
Which makes me wonder if we shouldn't just axe r.a.c and create r.a.c.books.
Naaaahhh.
>Some counter arguements:
>Is there enough existing traffic? Yes and no. A simple count of comic
>strip articles in r.a.c shows no more than two or three per day maximum.
If that!
>Why not a mailing list as proof of interest? Good question. There are
>several comic-book oriented mailing lists, but no strips mailing lists
>I know of. I already run one mailing list (non-comics), and am
>starting two more. For me, it's out of the question. In addition, I
>think the strip reader is a very different individual than the comic
>book reader. There does not seem to be the same white-hot fab activity
>for strips that there is for books. IMHO, this is a result of the
>daily fix vs. the monthly (or longer) wait for the book. In any case,
>that general lower activity level means no high-intensity person has
>built and and pushed a mailing list.
I think the wider potential base of interest for such a group is also due to
the fact that many comic strips are published in periodicals which are
otherwise intended for other purposes (newspapers, the New Yorker, etc.)
and many of which (especially newspapers) are relatively cheap for the
volume of material you get in comparison with today's average comic book.
And strips in papers just natrually have vastly wider circulations than
comic books do.
At any rate, as I said, *I'd* vote for this group. Which is saying something,
as I don't think I've ever voted FOR any group in the two years I've been on
the net (except maybe r.a.sf.fandom).
--
Michael Rawdon raw...@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI
"I am a cat, and I keep my own counsel."
- "A Dream Of A Thousand Cats"