Comic Discussion > ALICE GROVE

Alice Grove MCDLT - THE END...?

<< < (112/125) > >>

pwhodges:

--- Quote from: Jeemy on 21 Jul 2017, 02:18 ---- I find the whole Patreon system and the kick-starters to fund books, the constant advertising etc quite unpleasant.
--- End quote ---

It's a change from just buying or not buying something, I suppose - but for the artist it's a modern way to revive the old system of patronage (hence the name) that artists at all levels relied on for centuries as a means to put food in their mouths.


--- Quote ---I get the strong feeling AG was killed because it was not worth it in financial terms, and that everything is for profit with this guy.
--- End quote ---

Of course it is - it's his job that he does to be able to live.  Do you not try to ensure that your job makes you enough money?  More famous artists than Jeph have dropped projects midway for financial reasons, and our regretting that is unlikely to change the pressures that caused his change of heart - which he is unlikely to explain to us in more detail.  The same applies if it was not a financial decision but an artistic one, or a life-style one.

Jeemy:

--- Quote ---It's a change from just buying or not buying something, I suppose - but for the artist it's a modern way to revive the old system of patronage (hence the name) that artists at all levels relied on for centuries as a means to put food in their mouths.
--- End quote ---

I understand what it does. I understand its a business model that takes the onus off the artist to finance self-publication by getting paid on promises. What I find unpleasant is the fact this takes the risk from the artist, who does (could/should) profit from a self-publicised venture, to the buyer. When the buyer(s) are then left without the promised product or quality, this is problematic.


--- Quote ---Of course it is - it's his job that he does to be able to live.  Do you not try to ensure that your job makes you enough money? ETC ETC
--- End quote ---

I'm sorry, measuring my words has perhaps implied I don't understand this simple point. The fact of the matter is, we aren't being told AG finished due to financial pressures (which is understandable). We are being told its being completed to the standards and quality and remit that were always intended by the author. And I don't think the facts bear that out.

I guess I better make it clear to you that I do understand AG was produced for free.

This loops straight back to the first point. Had it been produced under a traditional basis, one might have reason for traditional complaint.

As it hasn't been, all we can do is speculate. But when AG is something provided by JJ to his Patreon, Kickstarter and QC audience, to abandon it like this removes a hell of a lot of confidence in the guy. I just find it a surprise (but maybe more people will speak up) that so many here are saying things along the lines of "I am satisfied with how AG turned out".

I'm not, at all. Under this model JJ puts forward one is expected to give him Patreon money, buy books and T-shirts, and fund via kickstarter his sub-par musical dalliances and anthology publications. I'm well aware of production and publishing costs for both printed and musical material and I find the sums he has spent or asked for on these projects crazy.

Most of this is expected to happen due to our affection for QC. On the basis of QC we are expected to put some level of trust in JJ as an artist, whether thats graphic, story or musical, and then fund his projects upfront. I like QC, I've bought a few bits, but its a habit, not something I hold in high regard.

AG was a departure from all of this and to me was the first thing JJ was doing that might hint at his potential. Perversely, had it been completed instead of abandoned, or even kept going under the same format as QC, with not so much happening but something habit-forming, it might have encouraged me to invest either emotionally or financially with JJ, but after this, I'm seeing everything he does in a very different light.

pwhodges:
You're expressing a typical modern very highly consumer-centric view, in which the supplier is paid not for their efforts or the quality of their work, but for whether it happens to tickle the consumer's fancy.  Yes, that's part of the transaction between supplier and consumer - but it's only one part.

sitnspin:

--- Quote from: pwhodges on 21 Jul 2017, 01:55 ---
--- Quote from: sitnspin on 21 Jul 2017, 01:24 ---This strikes me as a particularly narrow and restrictive view of storytelling.
--- End quote ---

Possibly, but I think that's overstating it; he and I are probably not alone in feeling that the main themes of a story should be brought to some point by the time of the ending, even if that ending leaves further explanation and development open-ended.

--- End quote ---
It's the "can't" and the "have to" in BenRG's post I object to. There's a difference between saying "I prefer stories that follow a traditional narrative structure" and saying "you can't deviate from traditional storytelling techniques, it's the only way stories can work."

Jeemy:

--- Quote ---You're expressing a typical modern very highly consumer-centric view, in which the supplier is paid not for their efforts or the quality of their work, but for whether it happens to tickle the consumer's fancy.  Yes, that's part of the transaction between supplier and consumer - but it's only one part.
--- End quote ---

I don't think we'll reach an agreement on this. I don't think I am expressing a modern or unusual viewpoint. I have tried to put forward that I think categorically the AG situation is not one of personal preference as to how a piece of art is produced, but a provable situation in which an ongoing piece of work has been abandoned. If this were a painting he would have painted with great diligence the first 80% of the canvas and then emptied the yellow paint pot over the remaining 20% and walked out - and now you are telling me that I don't think its a good painting because I don't like the colour yellow.

One could argue that the only reason I, or those of my opinion, am in anything approaching the situation you outline, is because the artist has placed us there.

We are asked to fund an artist on the basis they'll produce work that is to our satisfaction. This may be on the basis of previous work they've done or because we like the premise of what they promise.

In that situation, if we don't like the previous work or premise, we are free not to invest in future work. I think it therefore behooves an artist operating this model to either show good quality in previous work, or provide an exciting premise that makes the risk worth taking.

I don't think the music has been good quality, I don't think QC is amazing enough to warrant indefinite trust in JJ and I felt AG was an exciting premise that might encourage patronage, investment whether emotional or financial from fans.

And now AG has been (in my view, provably) abandoned, yet we are being encouraged on the last page to continue to fund JJ, to watch with excitement for a new sub-project and that everything is intentional and to plan.

So no, I don't think I do view things in the way you state, and if I did, it wouldn't have any different end result.

If we were paying JJ by effort, he stopped putting effort into AG. If by work quality, I wouldn't be encouraged to pay for the future, to buy merch, to provide future patronage or funding on projects, given this poor quality effort. And on the model you state, no, it doesn't tickle my fancy to have something clearly abandoned.

I appreciate the difficulties these guys face. But I've lost count of how many projects I've expended money on for parts 1, 2 etc only to find them abandoned*. When something has a high production cost, thats understandable but it still encourages me to think that the traditional model, where the publisher foots the bill until the work is finished, and then the public are allowed to choose whether to invest, is my preferred model.

I could argue till the cows come home on your quoted point above. I think its ludicrous. To suggest that a consumer should pay a supplier for objectively good work, which has taken time and effort, when they don't like the end result is not a very modern consumer-centric view, its abusing a very basic right of the buyer.

In the traditional sense either the self-publisher foots the bill and then the public buy and the artist/self-publisher profits/loses, or the publishing house foots the bill for production and then takes a cut of the profits or all the losses, and they make this decision based on the quality of the artists' work.

We the readers/fans are being asked to stand in the place of the publishing house and on the basis of the quality of the artists' work, provide a part investment to the production bill, with no cut of the final profits, and in this case I think the quality of the artists' work has been revealed to be pretty haphazard and its reduced to zero the likelihood of me patronising JJ, QC or the associated products again.

*Its one of the great problems with episodic work. I'm fed up with good creative ideas being put into production and failing after a few episodes, yet we the consumer have been asked to pay on the basis of completion. Its completely put me off investing any goodwill in an episodic production again, and if AG had been put together in its entirety and released to review, I don't think the reviews would have encouraged me to go out and buy the graphic novel, or a publisher to invest in it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page