Do you take issue with "webcomics"? I do.

[ZingerSteve]

This is not about web vs. print so let's not go there. It's about the perception of comics on the internet. I argue that the term "webcomics" is detrimental to the art form.

Please read my blog post about it. What do you think about the term?

[guy]

As interesting a topic as this is, Steve, I think most people that read comics regularly don't have a problem distinguishing print from web based comics, especially in a bad way. I think "web" in webcomic is simply to relate the fact that it's not a print comic, at least not in the medium the reader is reviewing it. We don't refer to online news as newspapers, because they're not newspapers. There may be a small percentage of people who assume because it's a wabcomic that it's not the "professional" work they're used to seeing in print. But more than likely, they're also the same people who are excited because the crown prince of some African nation has just cut them in on a deal to transfer billions into their bank accounts when they send him their account numbers.
Guy~

[Brian Fies]

I don't take issue with the term. Webcomics and print comics are different media that often have different purposes, business models, artistic goals, audiences, strengths and limitations. Using different words for them clarifies rather than obscures.

On your blog you wrote: "There need be no distinction between a comic strip in a newspaper and a comic strip on a website. The term, webcomic, exaggerates that distinction. The craft and talent of a cartoonist and the final product are the same." I agree that they can be the same. Many webcomics meet or exceed the craft standards of print comics and translate seamlessly to paper, and vice versa. But many others don't.

In addition, I think what may happen--what I'd really like to see happen--is for webcomics to diverge from their print progenitors and grow into a unique medium that could only exist on the Internet. I've probably said here before, I really don't understand why so many webcartoonists do strips that mimic print strips so precisely, down to the use of three or four panels and black line art. Why stick to techniques and formats developed for printing presses a hundred years ago?! As more webtoonists get more creative and break out of the old print models, the distinction between print and webcomics may be even more useful and important than it is now. They'll be obviously different things.

I think Guy's a little hard on people who assume webcomics aren't as professional as print comics. Some are. But numerically, and by any definition of the word "professional," most aren't. There are no barriers to entry, and the huge majority are hobbies done by amateurs. Statistically, it's a safe assumption. In my mind, one distinction between amateur and professional is that professionals have to deal with people who can say "No."

[Rod McKie]

OMG, I remembered the password. That's a first.

I'm going to be really lazy here and say, "what Brian said". Because he covered everything I would say on the matter, only better. Really nicely put Brian.

[Lee Nordling]

I don't take any issue with the term "webcomics"; it's an accurate description of the distribution device for which the material is intended.

I use the terms "direct market comics" and "trade book publishing graphic novels" for a similar reason: to define the market and means of distribution.

Similarly, I don't agree that there shouldn't be a distinction between comics strips for print (meaning newspapers and that intended readership) and comic strips for the web (meaning they're created for a wide range of websites and their own respective unique/intended readership).

Why?

Because the intended readerships aren't the same, so what's created, editorially, is necessarily different.

Do I think some work for both? Yes, for both comics/graphic novels and newspaper comic strips/webcomics, but that's the exception more than the rule.

And we haven't even begun to discuss size, length, and format differences.

--Lee

PS. And my thoughts have absolutely nothing do with quality of either category; it's not germane.

[dan reynolds]

After reading this, I began to wonder where my own cartoon fits into this discussion. "Reynolds Unwrapped" - is it a web comic or not? On one hand, it's viewed on the web on gocomics.com along with all of the syndicated cartoons, yet it is not syndicated. On the other hand, it does not go to newspapers.
I think the web comic concept was more clearly defined when the web was young. If you weren't in newspapers and just online - you were a web comic. Now, a lot of people see a lot syndicated comics (read newspaper/syndicated run comics) ONLY on the internet. Does that make them a web comic? I don't think so.

I think a cartoon that makes it's money primarily from an outside the web arena, is NOT a web comic. If you have a web comic that exists and makes its main income from being online, then I'd consider it a web comic.
Having said that, I guess that makes me NOT a web comic. Though there seem to be some gray areas here.

[Lee Nordling]

I think there are always going to be examples that push for a better, more clear definition of the dividing line between the two.

I think, where a strip is in print AND on the web, the defining difference MIGHT be the readership for which it's intended...or for which it is (or isn't) edited.

I haven't really thought much yet about this somewhat artificial line I'm drawing in the sand, but that criteria feels right to me (tonight...but it's late).

--Lee

[Wiley Miller]

I think a cartoon that makes it's money primarily from an outside the web arena, is NOT a web comic. If you have a web comic that exists and makes its main income from being online, then I'd consider it a web comic.

I'm confused by this. If the comic is only seen online, then how is it making an income outside of the web?
I think the simplest definition is what medium it's seen in. If it's only on the web, then it's a web cartoon, as that's where it's being produced. Syndicated comics are produced for print but can also be seen online. That makes them print cartoons, as that is medium it's being produced for. Being on the web is ancillary.

[dan reynolds]

Perhaps I should have said, If you have a web comic that exists EXCLUSIVELY online and makes its income from being online, then I'd consider it a web comic.

I make almost all my living from my work as it appears off the web. Yet, ironically, much success of my work offline has much to do with my presence online.

As we move further and further away from using a horse and cart(life without computers), the automobiles (life online) we drive today make us forget about the old days except for vague references to the past such as "horse power", etc.

[Wiley Miller]

I make almost all my living from my work as it appears off the web. Yet, ironically, much success of my work offline has much to do with my presence online.

But it's the feature we're talking about. Is it your comic that's selling offline, or is it other freelance work?

[Norm Feuti]

Curiously, I often see people online refer to my syndicated comic as a "webcomic" ... probably because they discovered it on the web and are unaware that it appears in print anywhere ... or maybe it just seems like a niche idea that could only survive on the internet. Either way, I've never been offended by the assumption, or the term.

Like the others have said, when people use the "web" distinction in describing a strip it's usually to underscore the distribution model, not to denigrate the artist.

[Joshua Skurtu]

A rose by any other name still looks pretty and stabs you if you don't trim back the thorns.

Yes, as you stated in your article, the "web" in "webcomics" automatically triggers the knowledge that the comic is being published without any gatekeeper. Anyone's Uncle-sister-brother with $20 and a computer can put up a webcomic, and yes, that webcomic can suck, suck, suck.

And many of them do.

PAINFULLY SO...

But where does the damage come in? This same issue exists with ALL other websites. I can find you 500 crappy "gamer" websites out there, but on the same token I can find you at least 100 quality "gamer" websites that turn a profit on a regular basis. Penny-arcade.com, just to name one, is a successful webcomic because they are GOOD. The only gatekeeper on the internet is popularity based on quality and (like every other product in the world) good marketing and word-of-mouth.

To sum it up: Go ahead and call someone's comic a webcomic or a comic-2.0 or a comic-comic, your choice, but the comic will succeed or fail based not on what you try to label it, but on the quality of the material and marketing campaign supporting it.

-Josh

[Tom Dell'Aringa]

I've been thinking about this lately, and I've been beginning to stop using the term webcomic, but rather use the term comic. I don't think the distribution matters, at least not to me. I do a comic. I consider myself a cartoonist, and to me it doesn't matter if money is involved or not, just as if I were a painter and I didn't sell paintings, I'd still consider myself a painter.

Be careful about restricting comics on the web TO the web. Many serious cartoonists on the web have stuff in print. I'm working on my first book which will be self published soon, and I've already released an ashcan and regular floppy version of my comic.

To me, I enjoy reading comics much more in a book than on a screen, and that will always be true. I've bought many products from comics online to read them at home and very much enjoyed them.

And I will say that a comic being in print is NO guarantee of quality, and comic being on the web is NOT an indication of bad quality. I've seen too many comics in print that I just shook my head wondering "how did this ever get printed."

In the end, I don't take offense to the term itself. But I tend to like to use the word comic on its own when referring to my own work.