Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 2/27/06, Steve Block steve.block@myrealbox.com wrote:
But given Burns' writing on webcomics is online, it makes it hard to quantify the credentials of his asserted claim to expertness.
This is what the arbitration committee had to say about Eric Burns in a finding of fact in the Webcomics case:
"Eric Burns is an established writer on webcomics who has a history of published writing in comics, short fiction, role-playing games, magazines, and poetry. He is a columnist for Comixpedia and an occasional writer for the Webcomics Examiner, and runs his own comic-oriented blog, Websnark."
I note from his Wikipedia article that he holds a BA Cum Laude in English Literature. He worked on games and publications for Steve Jackson Games. So he has a lot more qualifications to write about writing than just being a blogger.
Tony, you're arguing across me. As per my comments above, they make no claim as to his degree of expertness. Actually, nothing there contradicts what I said above, since Comixpedia and the Webcomics Examiner are online magazines. As webcomics is a form of comics, which is a separate art-form from writing, where-in it has been argued the writing is subservient to the art; to quote Samuel R. Delaney for example, "the writer works for the artist, in the same that the writer in a movie works for the director." Delaney also notes that comics shouldn't be read, they should be looked at, again making the point that the art is primary. Now like I say, it's hard to quantify Burns' qualifications; he majored in English Lit, not comics. He's also an advocate. I have no problem sourcing Burns' opinion from his blog; I have a problem sourcing it as fact, or in accepting Burns' statements as an arbitrary ruling.
That's not to say that I disagree with the arbcom ruling. That said, I have to ask, am I not afforded the same opportunity as Snowspinner to stand up and claim myself as an expert in the field?
Steve block