Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Online Cartoonist Finds Financial Success Offline

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the that's-a-lot-of-comic dept.

268

destinyland writes "The first collection of Perry Bible Fellowship comics has racked up pre-sales of $300,000 due to its huge online following. Within seven weeks the volume required a third printing. Ironically, the 25-year-old cartoonist speculates people would rather read his arty comics in a book than on a computer screen, and warns that 'There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page...' He also explains the strange anti-censorship crusade in high school that earned him an FBI record!"

cancel ×

268 comments

yea thats nice.. (0, Troll)

Fruity McGayGay (1005769) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938064)

in the mean time, fuck you!

Re:yea thats nice.. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938368)

Oh yeah? Well...fuck you harder! >:(

Re:yea thats nice.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938704)

Why down mod something with a starting score of -1? Its not going to go down any further.

PBF transcends the net (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938120)

My father, who isn't even a geek was describing one of the comics to me. If I recall correctly, it was on display in Maxim magazine.

on another note, here is a fun task: read all the PBF comics: he has hidden references and messages across the whole series.

Re:PBF transcends the net (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939510)

I've read all the strips a couple of times. Many jokes are subtle, but I'm not sure what you mean about hidden messages across the whole series. Please enlighten us.

Mythical Bibles (3, Funny)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938134)

There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page


Which is perfect for the bible, because it's a myth.

Re:Mythical Bibles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938304)

Funniest troll in awhile.
I'm glad I browse at -1.

Thank you.

Re:Mythical Bibles (0, Offtopic)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938736)

Any time.

Re:Mythical Bibles (1)

yoshi2.0 (1199185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939042)

ZOMG that is soooo not a troll, but is the funniest- BEST POST EVER!!!!

Re:Mythical Bibles (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21939684)

ZOMG that is soooo not a troll, but is the funniest- BEST POST EVER!!!!

Someone makes fun of religion and you consider it the best post ever? If that's not bigotry I don't know what is.

Re:Mythical Bibles (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938312)

Proof, please.

Re:Mythical Bibles (0, Offtopic)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938676)

Faith in the bible doesn't require "proof". Supplying proof that it's a myth is possible, but worthless to people who demand it.

What you meant to type, if you're defending on bible terms, is "poof".

What is necessary in an argument about whether the bible's stories of relentless supernatural events as explained by an epoch (or more) of primitive, aggressive and hypocritical people are true is even the tiniest proof that it's not a myth. If you're not impressed by just making stuff up according to voices in your head, that is.

FWIW (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938718)

The Star of Bethlehem has been proven real by astronomers. Does that count?

Re:FWIW (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939110)

hahahahahaha

What does "proof" have to do with faith? If it was "real", it's one less example of the god the story is about. FWIW, some "paleontologists" have proven that Adam & Eve "walked with dinosaurs". There's even a museum to prove it, too. All of which, again, is just the destruction of ever more faith, the only thing the myth had going for it (except longevity).

Re:FWIW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21939982)

Hey, you're the one who requested a "shred of proof". A conjunction of the two brightest star-like objects [wikipedia.org] in the night sky, followed by Jupiter moving over Bethlehem just seemed like an appropriate example. *shrug*

Re:Mythical Bibles (1)

kinabrew (1053930) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938366)

I think the parent may think "Perry Bible Fellowship" actually has something to do with the Bible.

It's not so much off-topic as ignorant as to what is the topic.

Re:Mythical Bibles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938524)

Maybe it's those Tijuana Bibles...

Re:Mythical Bibles (-1, Offtopic)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938752)

Maybe it's just an excuse to make a joke about the bible. Not entirely offtopic in a story about comics that mentions the bible. And even if it is, still fulfilling.

Re:Mythical Bibles (0, Offtopic)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938904)

I'm holding a copy of the bible in my hands. I think you'll find there's more facts supporting the existence of the bible then against it.

Re:Mythical Bibles (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939160)

While you won't be able to prove to me tonight that your holding a bible is indeed a fact, that's entirely besides the point.

Proving the bible's stories are true is also besides the point, if the point is faith. Because faith is precisely what we have when things cannot be proven, not just because they're too inconvenient to do so on a given night.

I'm not going to get into a long debunking of the bible's "facts". I'm not even going to get into a debate about whether a book about the otherwise undocumented past, that's been the supporting document for people with often unlimited power for millennia, isn't still a myth, even if it's got lots of facts in it. I'm just going to point out that the value of the bible, other than in some of its rules for humane behavior (certainly not all of them, like stoning so many people), is in its myths, as myths. Because myths require faith. If its all proven, there's no faith left, just routine knowledge. And if you destroy faith with your defense of the bible, then you're entirely missing the point of god.

Save yourself. Concede the argument.

Re:Mythical Bibles (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939416)

I was joking. You had implied that the bible wasn't real. Sheeesh.

Re:Mythical Bibles (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939670)

Getting your joke was done in my first sentence. The rest is for the people with no sense of either humor or faith.

Me and god, we've got an understanding. He doesn't exist, and I don't mind.

Re:Mythical Bibles (0, Flamebait)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939304)

As far as I'm concerned the real issue is whether the contents of the bible are historical fact, a less than factual account of historical events, or pure fiction (or some combination of all the above). If you want to look at that book from the perspective of how it's been used in the modern era, then it's the most completely worthless and potentially the most destructive printed work known to man, because every asshole and his brother spins the damned thing to mean anything they want it to so they can justify whatever crimes against humanity they're looking for an excuse to commit.

Totally Deserved! (-1, Redundant)

kaltar (727301) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938148)

The PBF Is My Favorite Webcomic (Making XKCD The Second), It's Dark Humor Is Amazingly Well Thought, That Makes It Worth It Waiting The Update. I Always Wanted To Have Them All In Printed Form As A Coffee Book, And Now It's Possible!

Re:Totally Deserved! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938214)

Your Favourite Comics Probably Do Not Type All Their Dialogue In Camel Case, Which Makes Reading A Sentence Incredibly Annoying, IMO. IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeotalloutlikethis.

Re:Totally Deserved! (2, Informative)

HandsOnFire (1059486) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938292)

I've been doing too much reading lately. I noticed that "IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeotalloutlikethis" had a typo within a split second. I think you mean IsupposeIshouldbehappyyoudidn'ttypeitalloutlikethis.

Re:Totally Deserved! (3, Funny)

TempeTerra (83076) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938916)

The brain is a strange thing. I spotted the typo too, but for some inexplicable reason my brain also thinks that the string contains the word 'kittens' somewhere after the apostrophe.

Re:Totally Deserved! (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938932)

I noticed the typo because I was having trouble working out what he meant. Thanks for the correction.

Re:Totally Deserved! (1)

Toandeaf (1014715) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938326)

You know, it is rather distracting when you capitalize every word. Is there a reason you did?

The Diamond Age (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938154)

'There's something wonderful, and soon-to-be mythic, about the printed page...' If you've read The Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson, it's all laid out in there. Nano technology makes nearly everything possible, and at the same time makes nearly everything ubiquitous and therefore worthless. The only true things of value are those labor intensive things made by hand. You can already see the trend developing in our current world, despite being decades, possibly centuries away from the technology written about in the book. The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps. Analog is unique. Digital is common, unexceptional, vulgar. Film and real fiber prints will become prized possessions. The same future lies ahead for bound paper books.

Re:The Diamond Age (0)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938322)

The biggest contributors to real price inflation (in contrast to the BLS' cooked figures) are healthcare, education, and housing, all of which have been increasing at double-digit rates.

All three are labor-intensive. In addition to labor, housing is also dependent upon land values. Which brings up a saying by the people from India, "Buy gold and land because they're not making any more."

So there you have it. Everything is cheap now except for labor, gold, and land.

Re:The Diamond Age (1)

cromar (1103585) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939264)

In THE FUTURE... gold and land will be worthless. Land will be worth what you gotta pay your malitia!

Re:The Diamond Age (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939538)

"Buy gold and land because they're not making any more."

Obviously those people have never been to Hawai`i [usgs.gov] , or Iceland [geographia.com] .

Re:The Diamond Age (5, Insightful)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938570)

The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps.
Er, I don't think more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people engage in those activities. That's not really an indicator that people as a whole are finding more value in analog than digital.

Film and real fiber prints will become prized possessions.
If that's the case, it'll only be because of their rarity, and only because for some reason there are people who will pay a lot for a rare item even if it has no functional or useful (or even particular aesthetic) value.

Nostalgia's all warm and fuzzy, sure, but eventually people who can't help clinging to the past get old and die, and the rest of us can move on.

Re:The Diamond Age (5, Insightful)

joto (134244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939242)

While I agree with your argument (it's far from everybody who prefers vinyl to CDs or film to digital cameras), I must disagree with the proposition that it's only for nostalgic reasons. Film cameras are still objectively "better" than digital cameras, when you consider contrast and colour-balance and all that. And tube amps certainly have their uses, e.g. if you want the "warm analog" sound (which you can then easily record on to a CD). [By the way: It's not that the "warm analog" sound is a more accurate sound reproduction, it's only there when you abuse the electronics, but it's certainly more pleasant than the failure mode of digital electronics.]

The old saying "they don't make stuff like this today" is often true. Progress means the price goes down, and the product is thus available for more consumers, but still good enough for most. Some people however, are willing to pay extra, either in money or convenience, in order to get the "best", which often are what they made in the old days.

However, other things are better explained through fashion. People don't by vinyl because it's better. People buy vinyl for the same reason your grandfather always used a tie. It's the fashion.

Re:The Diamond Age (1, Insightful)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939926)

Film cameras are still objectively "better" than digital cameras, when you consider contrast and colour-balance and all that.
Hardly. Modern SLR's are every bit as capable as any old film camera, and they're a thousand times more convenient, versatile, and forgiving. I can go out, snap 500 pictures, come back home, throw them on to the computer in RAW format, throw out the pics I don't want, adjust the colour balance on the ones I like without any quality loss, and have a dozen excellent quality snaps, all in an hour or two. And I guarantee that if we compared the pics between a film camera and a digital SLR, you either wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, or you'd pick the digital photos as being the better of the bunch. Anyone who's worked in photography will tell you that digital is the only way to go.

Ditto for tube amps. It's true that right now the majority of artists still use them, but the main reasons for it is that:

a) Most of them grew up with analog equipment
b) The majority of the brand-name amps are analog, and in the music biz image counts for as much as sound
c) Indie bands which are just starting out can't afford brand-new equipment, so they end up with stuff that's 15+ years old (hence, analog).

I guarantee you could get just as good a sound out of digital equipment as you can out of analog, but due to the nature of the music industry there isn't all that much demand for digital equipment. This is changing, of course, as more younger artists enter the business, and more and more technicians become comfortable working with digital equipment. I guarantee that in 30 years tube amps will be a rarity.

Re:The Diamond Age (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939594)

If that's the case, it'll only be because of their rarity...

It should be because of their proven durability and low maintenance requirements. In its present state, digital doesn't even compare in that department. Clinging to the past may turn out to be very useful in this case.

Re:The Diamond Age (1)

remmelt (837671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939682)

>> The retro trends of listening to record albums and tube amps.

> Er, I don't think more than a tiny, tiny fraction of people engage in those activities.

I'm sure you are aware that pretty much any recorded electric guitar is played through a tube amp?

Re:The Diamond Age (2, Funny)

Atario (673917) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939036)

I know you! You're David Cross's character in this sketch [youtube.com] !

Illogical (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939730)

Nano technology makes nearly everything possible, and at the same time makes nearly everything ubiquitous and therefore worthless. The only true things of value are those labour intensive things made by hand.

I have not read the book but I fail to see the logic in that. If it makes nearly everything possible then surely it can create everything which is made by hand as well in such a manner that it is hard/impossible to distinguish between the two. In such a world I would have thought that new ideas are the one thing which has value.

Crappers! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938164)

17 minutes into the story and its already Slashdotted!

Re:Crappers! (1)

idiotwithastick (1036612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938278)

You'd think that with $300k worth of sales his website can be hit harder than that.

Re:Crappers! (1)

fmobus (831767) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938294)

Well, at least he will have means to pay for his hosting bill in the near future. At least for some hours :)

Re:Crappers! (1)

Dpaladin (890625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938588)

But if he spends anymore time on this "weeaboo," he'll be bankrupt by the end of the month!

PBF is fine in either format (1)

StefanJ (88986) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938188)

Some comics work just fine on a screen. They might be made for the screen, or be print comics that happen to have the layout and lines and style that remain readable on a screen.

I read PBF online, but will probably buy multiple copies of the book to use as gifts.

Some comix I don't think cut it on screen. Some of Chris Ware's head-thumpers like the "Acme Novelty Company" really belong on a printed page.

Hot Bottom ESCORT Dude! - Seeks TOP!!! - m4m (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938210)

$1000 for all orifaces Medical record will be provided - m4m - 29
Reply to: zonk@slashdot.org
Date: 2008-01-06

        * Location: Raddisson Hotel dt

Newspaper comics (5, Insightful)

mboverload (657893) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938226)

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor? I haven't smiled at a comic in years. It's like the newspapers demand trash and get it.

I love PBF and other online comics. They can do or say anything they like without censorship. PBF wouldn't be the same if it couldn't use explicit material.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938250)

This isn't to say that PBF relies on solely adult material. Far from it.

However, some of his best stuff is for adults. Too bad the website crashed so I can't show you an example.

Epic:
"The Man with No Penis"

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

driftingwalrus (203255) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938252)

The last funny newspaper comic stopped printing years ago. It's a wasteland now.

Re:Newspaper comics (2, Insightful)

jamstar7 (694492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938380)

Yeah, I miss Bloom County, too.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938598)

It's still around. A weekly strip named Opus. Same great humor.

And I still dig Dilbert.

And we all miss Calvin and Hobbes.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939234)

No, Opus is far too left-wing now. Political humor is fine, but we don't need another Doonesbury.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

claytonjr (1142215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938590)

You must read Family Circus, a lot.

Re:Newspaper comics (3, Insightful)

fmobus (831767) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938272)

Moreover, PBF's author is a extremely capable, in terms of drawings. He has a good domain on a number of techniques and styles. Most online comics, on the other hand, create a single style and stick to it forever, increasing their quality in a more progressive manner.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

joto (134244) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939292)

You mean, like this one? [qwantz.com]

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

pluther (647209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938274)

There are still comics in newspapers?

Re:Newspaper comics (3, Funny)

HandsOnFire (1059486) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938308)

There are still newspapers?

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938510)

There are still newspapers?

Yep, and I still subscribe to one. I just wish I could pay half-price for a trimmed down local-only version with comics and the crossword.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

OzRoy (602691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938386)

There hasn't been a decent newspaper comic since The Farside.

I think PBF has a similar random dark humor.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938520)

There hasn't been a decent newspaper comic since The Farside.
Not a Calvin and Hobbes fan?

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

TempeTerra (83076) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938866)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Calvin and Hobbes finished in 1995.

(Although according to Wikipedia The Far Side finished earlier the same year, for all you nitpickers out there)

Re:Newspaper comics (4, Informative)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938490)

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

It's just you. Well, OK, they're pretty awful as a whole but there are still some decent ones:

  • Pickles: Who knew crotchety old men could be funny?
  • Heart of the City: Ditto 7 year old girls and their geeky friends.
  • Non Sequitur: If Gary Larson chose to tell a story instead of a one-liner.
  • Doonesbury: No, really. Not everyday, but most of the time.
  • Zits: Almost always at least mildly amusing, occasionally laugh-out-loud funny.
  • Baby Blues: For parents only, I think - a perfect reflection the middle class married with kids lifestyle.
  • Peanuts: Yeah, I said it. Now that they're running Chuck's old stuff before he forgot that adults buy the newspaper.

Still not funny:

  • Cathy: Irving, think Ike Turner. You know what to do.
  • Gasoline Alley: Does anyone like this?

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

Reziac (43301) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938584)

Gasoline Alley, Mary Worth, Rick O'Shay, etc. aren't =supposed= to be *funny*. They're essentially soap operas in graphics format.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938680)

Gasoline Alley, Mary Worth, Rick O'Shay, etc. aren't =supposed= to be *funny*.

I recognize the difference between "unfunny" and "dramatic". Note that I didn't list Gil Thorp or Rex Morgan, MD or anything else like that. I think you're wrong about Gasoline Alley, though. Although it is basically a long-running serial, it tries to be funny quite often. For Better Or For Worse is in the same category except that its humor succeeds more often than not.

Re:Newspaper comics (4, Informative)

FleaPlus (6935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938908)

I'd personally add Pearls Before Swine [comics.com] and FoxTrot [foxtrot.com] to that list of good newspaper comics. Of course, I actually read those comics almost entirely online. ;)

Re:Newspaper comics (5, Funny)

martinX (672498) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938576)

>>Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

NO WAY. Take Garfield. There was this one time that Garfield tried to get a lasagna, and Jon tried to stop him, and then ODIE got involved. I'm crying here just remembering it. Man it was funny.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938786)

NO WAY. Take Garfield. There was this one time that Garfield tried to get a lasagna, and Jon tried to stop him, and then ODIE got involved. I'm crying here just remembering it. Man it was funny.

Oh yeah! I remember that one. Good times had by all. Reminds me of the one where Charlie Brown says 'Good Grief!'.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

Deltaspectre (796409) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939090)

Reminds me of the one where he was all ready to kick that football, but it was pulled away!!! Oh boy that one never gets old

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939506)

Last Sunday's Nancy had Sluggo being kept late at football practice because he fumbled so much. He told Nancy that he wasn't the only one getting extra practice because their kicking team needed work. In the background, there's Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.

How to make Garfield funny. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21939284)

The best way to read Garfield is to read it as if none of Garfield's thought balloons are really there.

The ironic thing... (1)

Estanislao Martnez (203477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939404)

The ironic thing is that the Garfield animated cartoons are somehow funny. Hard to believe, but true.

Re:Newspaper comics (5, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939468)

Although it's really easy [xkcd.com] to make fun of Garfield, there have been a few interesting cases of Jim Davis breaking from the main storyline.

For instance, this [snopes.com] story arc from 1989 is moderately disturbing, especially when you consider that it's is Garfield comic....

And while we're on the subject of Garfield: removing Garfield's thought bubbles removed [truthandbeautybombs.com] can be quite humorous (and occasionally depressing), while randomized sets [dougshaw.com] of 3 frames from the comic are about as funny and as coherent as the real thing.

And finally, although it's not garfield, The Family Circus can be easily made funny with a different set of captions [theotherfamily.com] .

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938958)

When a newspaper receives a complaint about an aspect of a comic, that aspect tends to be diminished. You can find someone to complain about just about anything. Most newspaper comics have been running for decades. Do the math.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938998)

Is it just me or are the comics in newspapers COMPLETELY devoid of any humor?

They mostly suck (and ALL online comics that I've seen suck), but one notable exception is Brewster Rockit -- Space Guy! [comicspage.com] , which is often hilarious. Another that is very funny is In The Bleachers [yahoo.com] .

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

Ponzicar (861589) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939600)

Newspaper comics are made for old ladies looking for some bland inoffensive humor, preferably involving children or pets, over their morning coffee. Often they look in strips that have been running since their own childhood, the only difference being that the original cartoonists have died long ago, and the strips are now being made a team of faceless corporate artists.

Re:Newspaper comics (1)

airencracken (993443) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939788)

I miss Calvin and Hobbes. That comic shaped my life so much growing up. I can still quote it nearly verbatim. Bill Watterson was a genius.

Re:Newspaper comics (2, Informative)

Bazman (4849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939802)

Why is everyone referring to PBF as an 'online' comic? I first read it as a printed version in the UK Guardian newspaper.

Comics in The Guardian are always high quality. There's currently Steve Bell's 'If' strip and Doonesbury, plus PBF, and in the past they've re-run Krazy Kat.

Unlike US newspapers, UK papers don't generally have an eight page comic section to fill - perhaps that is the reason for the perceived decrease in quality.

Mirror (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938236)

Here's a mirror [framemytv.com] .

Re:Mirror (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938348)

Nice picture of a mirror...

Retarded. (3, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938318)

Now go read a real comic like this [wikipedia.org] one.

Re:Retarded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938412)

You kind of suck at trolling.

Re:Retarded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938458)

You totaly suck at troll-trolling.

Re:Retarded. (3, Informative)

ty421 (1087701) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938428)

Of course, N.G. has said that Bill Watterson is a bit of an inspiration for him [thescope.ca] , so I suppose this is just a natural progression of "real" comics. On the other hand, Calvin & Hobbes is the greatest comic to have widespread newspaper publication, although I will accept evidence to the contrary.

Re:Retarded. (1)

OptimusPaul (940627) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938450)

I actually like PBF, but Calvin & Hobbes is genius.

Re:Retarded. (1)

PoopDaddy (1064616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939002)

Thank you for identifying yourself in your subject! As someone who grew up addicted to C&H and still loves it, I can also appreciate the Perry Bible Fellowship. There's more than just one comic strip in the funny pages for a reason. PBF is a different flavor of humor, so was the Far Side. Calvin and Hobbes will always be king. But in my opinion, PBF is hands-down the best currently running strip.

Re:Retarded. (3, Informative)

Nuroticat (558672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939136)

Sinfest [sinfest.net] is also quite worthy. It's a spiritual (lol) successor of strips like Calvin & Hobbes and Bloom County. I've enjoyed Sinfest more than any other web or newspaper comic for years.

Support the artist (5, Interesting)

YodaYid (1049908) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938320)

I bought the book simply to support Nicholas Gurewitch - there was not much in there that I didn't already see before. But since his site doesn't have advertising, I was happy to support him directly (it's comparable to Radiohead's "pay what you like" model in that sense).

I do wish there were more "special features" in the book, but there are some interesting bits at the end where he includes comics that he has since taken out of the PBF canon, explaining why he made those decisions (for example, he eschews pop references in his comics, so those sort of comics are part of the "Lost Strips" series in the back of the book). Also, he has some of his extra-tasteless ones :-)

I like to think of PBF as the opposite of Penny Arcade, which is almost always topical, picking apart the latest headlines for laughs (not a bad thing, just different). PBF's humor will still be funny in fifty years, when people will have no clue what Penny Arcade (or South Park, or Family Guy for that matter) are talking about. It has that timeless element to it that makes me a fan.

And before I forget, congratulations to Nicholas Gurewitch on his success! It is well deserved.

Re:Support the artist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21938692)

I like to think of PBF as the opposite of Penny Arcade, which is almost always topical, picking apart the latest headlines for laughs (not a bad thing, just different).

Agreed. Every now and then, I see somebody proclaiming Penny Arcade as a great comic, so I go back and take another look, and I just totally don't get it. I guess I'm not into video games or RPGs or recent music or American news or whatever references they use.

But that's the great thing about webcomics: whatever you're into, there's almost certainly a webcomic about it! Comics are a great medium, but the *best* comic book store near me is still mostly just that superhero-in-tights crap.

Tip for comic book store owners: you want to know why you're a tiny struggling shop? It's because you only have superhero comics. Look at books, or music, or movies, or any other medium today, and see how common the superhero theme is. Not very, huh? What you need to do is go big. Open a store the size of Borders that's entirely comics, with a huge selection, with *all* genres represented. (Oh, and strike a deal with Starbucks or somebody for a cafe.) Franchise the fucker. Profit.

Re:Support the artist (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939062)

Every now and then, I see somebody proclaiming Penny Arcade as a great comic, so I go back and take another look, and I just totally don't get it.
Its been a great financial success which is why I use it to show that the digital comic medium definitely has merit.

Well... (3, Insightful)

Comatose51 (687974) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938526)

Well that's one advantage printed comics have over online ones: immune to Slashdotting.

Re:Well... (0)

ClamIAm (926466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938782)

Uh, no, printed comics can be subject to the Slashdot effect. For example, the Calvin & Hobbes books were almost always checked out of my elementary school's library. Demand outstripped supply, etc.

Re:Well... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939074)

You mean print comics never sell out? That's either amazing technology or simply shitty comics.

Achewood (1)

goosman (145634) | more than 6 years ago | (#21938734)

PBF is one of a very few good web comics (though I generally read it in a weekly dead tree) but the king is http://www.achewood.com/ [achewood.com] . Pure genius.

Re:Achewood (3, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939418)

wow achewood... it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and a ring around my eyes, but sadly thats not a good thing. Its as if someone wrote a program to take anything funny that has every been said, or written and remove the humor from it, leaving only a soulless, time wasting, empty shell of a cicada.

Um. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21939102)

The interviewer in TFA is called "Lou Cabron." Let me rephrase that a bit: the interviewer in TFA is called "Lou Cabrón."

I feel so lucky in life now. Oh, wait, my last name means "outhouse" in some Philippine languages. Crap.

But now... (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939134)

The first collection of Perry Bible Fellowship comics has racked up pre-sales of $300,000
Which are all now having to go to pay for the bandwidth fees due to the recent slashdotting of the site.

Re:But now... (1)

philpalm (952191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939244)

Yes their website was slow in uploading, probably due to the slash dot highlighting. Even if you had high speed dsl you still have to wait in line for their server to recognize you.

Re:But now... (1)

mboverload (657893) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939326)

The server has always been really slow. Recently a change in design made it much more tolerable. Of course, still couldn't take a slashdot beating.

online money (1)

chrisranjana.com (630682) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939380)

Yes the internet is famous for creating online millionaires. Heard of the million $ home page kid ?

I would gladly by a T-shirt (1)

jordan314 (1052648) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939750)

of almost any of his comics, but all he sells is the scub / anti-scub ones and the unicorn ones, none of which make any sense out of context.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...