12-09-06

And yet, so much humility...

So, yeah, on Wednesday I made Eric Burns an issue.  Not so much because I dislike the man himself, but because I had noted certain behaviors of his that, seen as an expression of the Webcomics community, could be seen as undesirable.  So here's where I flip it around, because there are a lot of things about Eric Burns that I admire.
          If this seems strange to you, then, quite frankly, you need to grow up and acquire a more realistic view of the world.  Nobody is ever all good or all bad, not even subjectively, and only a fool lets minor difficulties prevent them from learning from someone's admirabilities.  There's a lot of noise around the  webcomic world about Scott Kurtz's regrettable temper, and his tendency to vent it without thinking through the consequences of what he means to say; at the same time, you can't deny that he's a good artist, a funny humorist, and a damn good businessman.  The man knows his shit, and, even though he can be difficult (not that I've ever been more than a sideline witness to the depredations of Kurtz's rage), you can't deny that he's done a lot to legitimize webcomics as an art form and a business.
          See, this is the thing:  If you want to get by in life, you have to learn to take the good with the bad.  Let me restate that again:  Learn to take the good with the bad.  And learn to recognize them both uncritically.  I have a friend that some folks find off-putting because she is pushy and arrogant, but those who allow that to prevent them associating with her miss out on the fact that she is extremely intelligent, witty, funny, and mind-bogglingly loyal.  To put it metaphorically, when you look at a ruby, remember it's just a rock, and when you look at a mountain, remember it may hold treasures deep within.
          But I digress.
Burns is an egalitarian
I thought I'd hit this point first, because I know that everyone who read Wednesday's rant is going, "Wait, what?!?"  Because, Wednesday, I stated categorically that I believed Burns to be an elitist.  The apparent dichotomy may be a bit jarring, but it holds true, none the less.  You see, Burns's elitism resides in what he considers reliable sources, and, while I have personal problems with intellectual elitism, I also have to admit that a certain amount of elitism—especially when one is considering sources of information—can be a good thing.  If you want to know why your car goes "ping!" every time you turn left, you don't ask your cardiologist.
          But when it comes down to debate and discussion, Burns is an egalitarian of the first order.  Go take a look at the Comments section of the Websnark blog if you don't believe me.  Anyone who has a (free) account can pipe in with their opinion of what Burns has to say, and while Burns will correct misapprehensions or factual inaccuracies, no one is ever decried by him.  In fact, when posters indulge in name-calling or personal slights, Burns very quickly steps in and calls down the perpetrator(s).  I have seen Burns call down people for going after someone he just called down.
He takes criticism very well
Mind you, I don't mean critique, here.  I mean criticism.  Critique is a beneficial assessment by a recognized colleague or superior.  When your boss says you need to cut down on the 3-hour lunches, that's a critique.  Criticism is when some guy with no credentials (that you recognize) just starts saying stuff.  It's the difference between advice from your coach and catcalls from that guy in the bleachers.
          On two occasions, I have hit Burns pretty hard.  The first was when i scathingly reviewed his comic, Gossamer Commons, and then again last Wednesday.  On both occasions, he accepted the criticism with aplomb.  He admitted those items which he deemed to be a fair cop, and responded politely to explain or rebut where he felt I had gone a little wrong in my interpretation.
          You have to understand, this is not normal behavior.  I am not what Burns considers a reliable source of critique.  As far as he's concerned I'm nobody.  He doesn't know my bonafides.  I read Websnark and occasionally stroll through his comments, but never comment there myself.  The only Forum we have in common is the Forums at Panel2Panel, and neither one of us is exactly a regular poster there.  So, as far as Burns is concerned, I'm just some guy in off the street.
          It's very easy to get mad and fly off the hook when some bozo just starts slamming you; ask Michael Richards.  It's just as easy to dismiss them out of pique; ask Oprah Winfrey.  What's difficult—admirable, even—is finding in yourself the ability to say, "Yeah, you've got a couple of good points.  I think you may be exaggerating here, or maybe misinterpreting, but, you know what, over all, it's a fair cop."  It's even more admirable to do it twice to the same guy.
The Truth, and nothing but
Burns set a standard for bloggers.  When I say this, I'm not talking about his writing—which is very good, but saying a good writer sets a standard for other writers is stupid because a lot of writing is based entirely on talent, and some guys just have it—I mean his policies regarding the editorial status of the Websnark site.  He treats the Websnark blog as if it were printed in a newspaper.  He apologizes and provides errata if he's proven wrong, but he doesn't delete or edit once an article has been posted.
          By this policy, he sets a standard of truthfulness that is actually kind of high.  It's very easy to just delete or edit something you said that was stupid or hurtful, and then pretend that you never said those things.  I have heard rumors of a well-known webcomic artist who has deleted whole sections of his forums and then banned anyone who even mentioned the issues addressed in the deleted sections.  I've seen people on forums who unashamedly edit postings to correct themselves and then point to the corrected posting as if it was their original statement.  Burns doesn't do that.  Once an article is up, it's up.  Any editing is clearly marked "Edit", "Addendum", or "Erratum".  Sometimes, he'll just write a new article explaining how the first one was full of shit and he regrets ever having thought the way he did.
          It's this that I find most admirable about him.  The man is dedicated to the truth, and he recognizes that the minute he posts an opinion or reports an event, that article becomes part of the truth.  Even if it's dead wrong.