If you've been dying to read 50+ comments on awards for webcomics, consider yourself dead.

Graphic Smash editor and world-reknowned webcomic historian T. Campbell is "upset about this Eisner Digital Comic nomination for ojingogo ... the 18-page ojingogo added SEVEN pages last year." He doesn't think seven pages in a year ought to get you an award nomination. Comixpedia publisher and one-time Fat Uncle Sam with a Bacon Double Cheeseburger disbeliever Xaviar Xerexes agrees, writing: "It seems unfair, and a mite bit ridiculous with the now vast amount of material on the web to twice nominate a short unfinished work for the Eisner award."

First of all, that's a ridiculous bitch to pitch. The length of a story or an installment of a story has little to do with its quality. The Eisner Awards at least recognize this, and have nominated stories that appeared on the dust jackets of books. That's right, on the dust jackets. Why, they even regularly give out awards in a category for short stories. If you want to complain about a webcomic being nominated, explain why it's a horrible comic. Or point to obvious webcomics that are clearly far better. But don't just point to how short the comic is or how slowly the artist works. Length and speed might count for a lot for the AVN awards, but it shouldn't count for shit for a comics award.

Now, I haven't even read ojingogo; maybe it's horrible and nobody wants to come out and say it. But perhaps this is worth stating: In case nobody's figured it out yet, the Eisner awards are incredibly comic book centric. Take a look at the full list of nominees here. Hey, they've got about 25 categories for books, and one for "Digital Comics." Maybe that's a sign that they know more about comics in books then they do about comics on the web? Maybe it's not just a coincidence that the Eisner nominations for digital comics go predominately to people who are in the printed Flight anthology. Because, hey, these are book people. They've jammed every single webcomic, no matter its form or function, into a single category. Being surprised that these comic book people aren't up to date on the latest things that the webcomic people are doing is like being surprised that webcomics people aren't up to date on the latest in web animation. Like when Xerexes busts off a hot news tip this week about 30-second animated movie parodies starring bunnies. Yes, that's right, the Sci Fi channel's site of the week for August 2, 2004 finally made it to the premiere news site for web comics this past week. Right before the outraged post on "Why can't people who are totally into one medium more accurately judge another medium?"

Look, it's for the same reason newspaper comic artists like Tom Tomorrow will never win an Eisner Award no matter how good his comics are, unless he starts selling them in comic book shops next to Rob Zombie sattues and Star Trek trading cards. The Eisner's same pro-comic book bias that works against webcomics totally ignores newspaper comics. Simply put, one of our greatest comics artists ever, Charles Schulz, had about a zero chance of winning an Eisner until after he was dead and people like Fantagraphics collected his comics in big books and started shipping them out to stores that sell Spawn action figures and Fiend Folios.

It used to be that I gave a fuck when the Eisner Awards totally ignored webcomics, but now for some reason I can't even be bothered to go look at the webcomics they do nominate. Maybe my priorities have changed. Maybe for the worse. Maybe it's a good thing that other people are getting outraged on my behalf about every percieved slight to comics on the Internet, but I can't really get as interested in comics awards as I used to because I'm too busy making comics.

But at least the Eisners don't still have a category for "Best Hellboy Lunchbox" while totally ignoring webcomics.

And it's not like they took away Milli Vanilli's Grammy. That was cold.

Right?

UPDATE: It turns out I lied: I have read Ojingogo, I just blanked on the name because I'm shit with names some times. It's a damn good comic, which makes the people bitching about this even more off base. I hope it wins.

Late last night I posted about the webcomics news site Comixpedia removing their front-page story about my latest illustration project "Fat Uncle Sam with a Bacon Double Cheeseburger." I wasn't really sure what was up with it at that time, but it is clear now that the story was scrubbed intentionally.

According to their publisher, Xaviar Xerexes: "I posted [the 'Fat Uncle Sam with a Bacon Double Cheeseburger' story] briefly because, well it's Eric and he's been a friend of the site for a long time so I took the post at face value. But then - and I guess this is that fabled 'Self-Correcting Blogosphere' at work - I got bombarded by folks pointing out the genesis of this story in a thread over at Comicon (sorry not going to link to it) and I looked at Eric's post again and there are no FACTs in there. And right now I'm leaning towards feeling like I got punk'd by Mr. Fetus-X. If I get independent sourcing from Eric of course I'll follow up on it and check it out but I'm still waiting for that. And if I did get punk'd well all I can say is at least we fixed it quickly and I don't think I'll let Eric punk me again."

I'm still trying to get details out of Xerexes, but my e-mail being totally tooled right now isn't helping. He may have sent me a manual explaining everything, but Bill Gates apparently stole it. Anyway, when I have more information on who it was that "bombarded" Xerexes with the crazy idea that this is all just some genius elaborate prank, then I'll let you know.

But in the meantime, let me just say that, to all the doubters and haters out there, yes, I know this project sounds too good to be true, and I know the world may not be ready for Fat Uncle Sam with a Bacon Double Cheeseburger, but Fat Uncle Sam with a Bacon Double Cheeseburger is here so you might as well just try to do your best to wrap your little brains around it. Blogger Eric Burns from websnark was orignially a doubter, but he's solidly in the believer camp now. And to all the doubters and haters and those so jealous of my success that they are peddling lies about my professional gigs, I'll make you the same the bet I made with Burns: I've got $2000 in my pocket that says my painting for Fat Uncle Sam with a Bacon Double Cheeseburger scripted by a cook-book author whose work is in the top 100,000 on Amazon will sell over half a million copies.

Any haters want to put up or shut-up?

Recently, I anaylzed the phenomenon of gigantic man boobs in webcomics. M.S. e-mails me to tell me that Scott Kurtz, the artist behind the webcomic PVP, responded with a strip about how much he loves playing with his own boobs or something.

Websnark: "And yet... if you read interviews with [women cartoonists], or questions posed to them, they continually come back to 'so, you have breasts. How is it you draw webcomics? How can we get more people with breasts to draw webcomics? Would you mind showing us your breasts?'"

This is ridiculous. There are already more cartoonists with tits than without. The idea that somehow we need to open up the doors to some ridiculous affirmative action quota system to attract more cartoonists with tits not only disrespects the accomplishments of cartoonists with tits, but it only seeks to further marginalize that already disenfranchised minority of comics artists, like myself, who do not have tits. There's already more bouncing booby in webcomics than in the Booby Trap down on 8 Mile. You can't turn around on a webcomics message board without getting a big set of juggs in your face. And I'm not just talking about the members of the itty bitty titty committee; I'm talking about huge tits. The kind you drown in. The kind it takes two hands to properly hold. The kind that'll give you whiplash when they slap you in the face, leading to countless weeks of lost productivity in your chosen career as an artist who draws fetus-related comics. Take Scott Kurtz for example. Reportedly, his tits are so huge that noted boob-fetishist Frank Cho has become a huge fan of those man-knockers. And the entire Keenspot/Keenspace network was reportedly built on the legendary nurturing power of Chris Crosby's teats. Sure, there's an entire conspiracy dedicated to destroying the massive tits that power the webcomicsosphere, but that's not enough to bring equality to us artists without tits. If we're seriously trying to fulfill Scott McCloud's dream of a world wide web of webcomics that showcases the diversity of the world we live in, then we need more cartoonists *without* tits, not more artists *with* tits.

Artists without tits, unite!

This came up in a conversation elsewhere. Here's a snapshot of what are currently some of the best-selling webcomics-related books and their Amazon sales rank:

1) Attack of the Bacon Robots (Penny Arcade, Vol. 1) -- #4,592
2) Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists -- #40,449
3) Megatokyo, Vol. 3 -- #41,481
4) Girl Genius, Vol. 4 -- #65,732
5) Salamander Dreams -- #107,112
6) Get Your War On II -- #119,324
7) Sinfest: Life is my Bitch -- #132,526
8) PvP Volume 3: PvP Rides Again -- #143,280

No real surprises in there, but if you can think of any others that ought to be in there somewhere, leave 'em in the comments ...

UPDATE: Added GYWOII, Girl Genius.

This couldn't be timed better with my comments on the stupid expository scene in The Hills Have Eyes. Did you know that: "Criticism should engage the reader, whether they're a Ph.D. candidate or some guy who showed up to get out of the rain. ... Done right, it doesn't exclude anyone."

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, about 45% of American adults have basic or below basic levels of prose literacy. This means that 45% of Americans don't have the skills necessary for "reading and understanding moderately dense, less commonplace prose texts as well as summarizing, making simple inferences, determining cause and effect, and recognizing the author’s purpose." If you had to read my hate mail, this statistic wouldn't surprise you.

Only 15% of Americans have what can be considered a "proficient" level of literacy. As one of those people, I'd appreciate it if the other 85% of America would quit asking me to be more stupider. I know that brains can be scarey, but I'm going to use mine anyway.

In conclusion, I wish the best of luck to any bloggers that are on a quest to write art criticism that doesn't exclude people who have trouble "using a television guide to find out what programs are on at a specific time." Just don't be surprised if more intelligent people avoid your art criticism like it's a swimming pool filled with Thomas Kinkade's urine.

Warren points this out:

WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - Tucked deep inside a massive bill designed to track sex offenders and prevent children from being victimized by sex crimes is language that could put many Hollywood movies in the same category as hard-core, X-rated films.

The provision added to the Children's Safety Act of 2005 would require any film, TV show or digital image that contains a sex scene to come under the same government filing requirements that adult films must meet.

... The provision, written by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., could have ramifications beyond simply requiring someone to ensure that the names and ages of actors who partake in pretend lovemaking as compliance with Section 2257 in effect defines a movie or TV show as a pornographic work under federal law. Industry sources say the provision was included in the bill at the behest of the Justice Department. ...

I'll point out that digital images = webcomics.