Last week, I referred to myself as a "dilettante" about cartoons, specifically contrasting that to an "historian", who puts a lot of time and energy into digging information out from primary resources. Some people quarreled with that, saying I must be an historian, because look at all the toon history I write about.

But I know who the cartoon historians are, and have too much respect for them to claim I'm one. Historians squeeze fresh information out of primary historical resources. They delve into microfilms of the original material itself, pore through half-buried business records of the companies that produced it, track down and interview surviving artists and technicians who had hands-on experience with it, and otherwise do things far beyond my energy levels to turn inaccessible information into stuff the average person can find with reasonable effort.

I go mostly for secondary sources — the stuff produced by historians. I gather it together and synthesize it into one-stop, easy-to-read articles. As a general rule, the closest I'll come to a primary source is to, say, read Sensation Comics #84 before writing about Lady Danger, tho I did once ask a cartoonist if he happened to recall the exact date his comic strip started. If a true historian were to accuse me of parasitizing his work, I wouldn't have much to say in defense.

But referring to myself as a dilettante reminds me of some e-mail correspondence I had a year or two ago. I didn't expect to get any real value out of it, but it was amusing enough to prompt me to keep it up for a couple of days. It started with a guy citing three excellent newspaper comics, and asking why I didn't have artlcles on them

I have a standard answer to such questions — "See FAQ." That's because the question is asked so often, I find it easier to keep the answer in a place I can simply point people to. That's why the page is called Frequently Asked Questions. And the one about why I haven't written up one thing or another is a frequent one, all right. The average person considers himself fully served by being pointed to a place where his question is answered.

Not this guy. He got really put out, even somewhat abusive, because I gave him a six-letter reply, when it would only have taken a few minutes to — to — I don't know, maybe spend a little quality time with him or something. But while I give that stuff copiously to my family, I'm kind of stingy about it with strangers. Which is why I posted the FAQ in the first place.

I wound up spending more time and energy on him than was warranted by most reasonable criteria, but like I said, I was amused. I started the prolongation of it by briefly explaining why he wouldn't be seeing those three (two British strips with nowhere near the American impact of Modesty Blaise or Judge Dredd, and one based on a 1960s TV show) soon, which I naively thought would cut it short.

I should have known better than to give him something he could refute, however speciously. He responded with reasons I must do them anyway, despite the fact that they're only marginally within the scope of this work. I don't say I'll never write about them — I eventually did Tarzan, who is certainly not primarily a cartoon character — but they're not high on my list of priorities.

But I'm apparently a slow learner, because I replied again. This led to accusations that my site is incomplete (see FAQ), I favor lesser things over what he thinks I should do (see FAQ), and have many other failings, some also covered in the FAQ and others simply rude, vulgar and lacking content. He denigrated my status as an expert and historian.

But I seldom claim to be an expert, unless speaking very loosely. I'll sometimes admit to trying to pass myself off as one, but I think of that word as something others might call a person, but that a person shouldn't call himself. As for historian — see above. He said if I don't want people to think I'm an historian, I shouldn't write about history.

To my way of thinking, this is like saying someone who writes for Discover magazine is ipso facto claiming to be a scientist. No, I'm just a writer, the guy who gathers information from several sources and organizes it so as to illuminate a single, small aspect of cartoon history (or whatever I'm writing about) in an easily digested, informative, and hopefully entertaining manner. I don't mind him thinking I'm an historian, because who cares what he thinks? I just don't want him or anyone else claiming I said I was one.

In the final message I got from him, he said he was just giving me a second chance to do do things right. Considering his earlier tone, he might have thought he was being conciliatory, but his tacit arrogance in asserting he's entitled to decree what's "right" for something I own and have put many hours of hard work into is what caused the last bit of amusement I was getting from him to evaporate completely.

I didn't reply. The End.

— DDM