Online vs. Print

Jason Tocci · Post by **Jason Tocci** » Sat Dec 22, 2001 2:19 pm

(Hope I'm not duplicating an old thread before I joined, but I thought it was a topic worth addressing...)

People have a lot of different ideas about what "the future of comics" will be like. A couple of the most popular ideas are that online comics will make print comics obsolete, and that comics will move into mainstream bookstores as paperbacks and hardcovers get more popular. These ideas aren't mutually exclusive, necessarily -- online comics and book-size comics may both flourish, and I hope they both do. Specifically for book-length comics (not strips), though, I've been seeing some problems with online comics and some benefits of print comics worth noting.

As far as reading full-length comic book stories goes, it's still really much healthier to read print. Reading off a monitor for long periods of time without breaks is simply not good for your eyes. Yeah, I know a good many people do it already, and there's even a sizable overlap between people who stare at monitors all day and people who read comics right now. But it's still bad for your eyes to stare at monitors right now, and people who are not part of neither the monitor-reading audience nor the comic-reading audience are unlikely to follow comics onto the web before getting over the prejudices of print comics, I think. And the best way to overcome prejudices of print comics is to present many examples of "respectable" print comics.

This brings me to what I think is one of the chief assets of print book-length comics. They can be nice. Books in general get more cheaply made every year, but some publishers are still dedicated to making books that are just really nice objects (McSweeney's, for example, is a publisher ). For good examples of comic publishers willing to let their creators make nice books, check out some Oni Press and Fantagraphics stuff. Or specifically check out the Fantagraphics collections reprinted in hardcover by Pantheon books, like David Boring and Jimmy Corrigan. People like buying nice things. Shopping isn't just a matter of necessity, and people don't always want it to be made completely convenient; I think that as long as our society is strongly consumer-based, going out to shop will be a popular hobby.

I have some other thoughts on this, but I'll just put this on the table for now...

Jason

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Sun Dec 23, 2001 12:03 pm

Interesting points... I would like to hear what Scott McCloud has to say about the issue of looking at a monitor screen...

Like he himself pointed out in one of his books, there is a certain feel to a book that can not be reproduced on a computer... but then, I suppose that goes the other way around as well. Anyhow, I love comic books (& graphic novels and such), but being in Japan, it is much more convinient to get a dose of American (or Western) comics on the net than to try to purchase books....

Any more thoughts on the subject?

vince

Jason Tocci · Post by **Jason Tocci** » Sun Dec 23, 2001 1:26 pm

In defense of online comics:

Like many of the revolutions that would make online comics more feasible (i.e., cheaper home computers, cheaper access to fast connectivity, realistic micropayments), the issue of reading from a monitor might be resolved in a few years. If there's a demand for it (and I suspect there will be), sooner or later someone's going to design a monitor that's better for your eyes. I bet it already exists and I'm just not aware of it; but if it does, I imagine it's so expensive that it's not feasible for most people to buy it.

As for the "feeling" you get from a book ... I'm not sure this is essential, but I know it does make a difference for me. I personally just don't like reading from monitors for longer than needed to read a longish strip (and web browsers definitely need to be modified to really get the most out of the online comics experience; scrolling with arrow keys and the mouse wheel just doesn't cut it for me for some comics, like Aweful Science Fair -- which I rather like despite limitations of my browser).

In Reinventing Comics Scott suggests that we manage to enjoy music and movies without the tactile sensation. For me, I think it's kind of a different deal with music, I suppose since music is an aural rather than a visual art; plus, music only very rarely engages me 100% (I usually play it in the background while I'm doing other stuff). But when music is engaging me 100%, it's often at a concert, where the physical aspect is quite important (whether it's a rock concert where I can jump around and dance, or a chamber choir concert where I can relax and just soak up the music).

But movies? This is an interesting point, as movies are (arguably) quite similar to comics. They're both forms of visual storytelling. My first inclination is to say that viewing movies and reading comics is inherently different because reading comics is a "private" experience (one person on a particular comic at a time, generally), while watching movies is a "public" experience. This is a highly biased view, though, since moviegoing is a public experience for me -- I tend not to go to the theater or rent a movie without a group of friends -- but I know it's not that way for everybody.

Still, while writing that paragraph above, I think I came across what the real difference is to me: you watch movies, but you read comics -- that is, you need to construct the story of a comic as you go along, so it requires a level of audience participation not required by movies. Does this have anything at all to do with the need to engage the tactile sense? Well, not that I can think of offhand, but I thought it was something worth noting anyway.

I'll certainly be thinking more on this, but I'd love to hear what others think!

Jason

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Mon Dec 24, 2001 9:37 pm

I'm sure with all the businesses that rely heavily on computer usage some sort of high quality monitor is going to surface at some time. I'm suprised it hasn't already...

vince

ScottE · Post by **ScottE** » Tue Dec 25, 2001 12:17 am

High-quality montors do exist, but the fact remains that staring at tiny text on a big screen does little for your eyes' health.

And, typically, only the graphic arts/architectual and engineering industries really buy these sorts of displays, because they do cost so much more than consumer displays (Sony flat-tube monitors run about $450-$600, and _decent_ digital flat-panel displays [LCD] run from $1000-$1500).

Whether true high-end displays make it to the low-end is another question. While aspects of the technology do seem to trickle down eventually, there's no confusing an Apple flat panel for an SGI 1600SW (and likewise, there's no copnfusing an Apple flat-panel for a SonicView LCD).

ragtag · Post by **ragtag** » Sun Jan 06, 2002 11:49 pm

I think both print and online comics will co-exist far into the future. Perhaps taking slightly different paths, each focusing on it's strength. Having both should increase the number of comics readers in general, as online comics are likely to reach people who might otherwise never have set a foot in a comic book store.

As for screens, they are getting better, but a little slower than you'd like. The best for your eyes are LCD screens (as these don't have a tube firing rays in your eyes all the time....and flicker less), but these are also by far the most expensive. Second best would be a nice expensive flat screen. When working all day in front of a computer (like I do) a good screen makes a world of difference (i.e. you won't be walking around with a headache all day). A screen I'm very much waiting for to sink in price and grow in size is the <A HREF="http://www.wacom.com/lcdtablets/index.cfm">Wacom CintiQ</A>, which combines a drawing tablet and an LCD monitor (current price is around $1900...sigh). These would be great for anyone making online comics, just like drawing on paper.

Ragnar

Dov Sherman · Post by **Dov Sherman** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 4:23 am

In support of online comics as opposed to print comics, there's the two-page spread issue.

Online comics have no pages or, rather, the pages can be any size you like. Print comics, on the other hand, have a standardized size and format which can't be violated without incurring huge extra publishing costs.

In particular, how many times have you seen a beautiful two-page spread sullied by having the middle of the spread disappear into the fold at the spine of the trade paperback? At least, with online comics, you'll get the entire comic experience and not just that part which fits onto the printed page.

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 8:28 am

Even though online comics allow us the infinite canvas, designers need to realize that the viewer will only see an amount that their monitors will allow them to see (i.e. 640x480 typically). This is the "page" for online comics.

Just thought that I would throw in my two cents.

Randy
http://www.subatomiccafe.com (should be up by Monday!)

Post by **Greg Stephens** » Fri Jan 11, 2002 1:05 pm

Glad to hear about the Cafe's return!

As to the online "page" issue, I think the "window" metaphor is much more accurate. Also (though this may vary from site to site) I find that my stats reflect only a 1.5% usage of 640x480 by websurfers. Most common (44%) is 1024x768 with 800x600 coming in second (at 25%).

Additionally, as with Zot! Online and the recently discussed GutterflyComix, it is possible to force the viewer's browser window to a certain size. This is dependant on browser technology, however, as not all browsers behave the same way or support the same controls.