ZLRK Wrote:What I wanted, and still want, is help in understanding the whole idea... comprised by the last 2 pages of the *whole* extract, i.e., last page of the above link and page in attachments.
Oh, okay, I didn't know you wanted help with analyzing the ideas behind those two pages. I thought you just wanted a translation to help you make your own analysis.
ZLRK Wrote:by the way, only your first line would need correction:
Heh, that's all? Well, here I was, thinking I'd mangled up the entire thing

Better than I expected, since I don't actually use my knowledge of Spanish much, if at all, and I suck with vocab + idiomatic phrases.
ZLRK Wrote:but... how/why did creators' rights become a "market force"? What was this "progress" thing about? And finally regarding last page of the extract (the one in attachment, which now has been translated here), I could not get at all what the heck was happening according to author. "Alternative press"?? What kind of movement were young artists holding back then that resulted both positive and negative? Why would alternatives be fading!?
I'm going to take a stab at helping you analyze comic industry history. I was just a kid back then, so the following is just my educated guesses based on some quick research. I'd imagine creator's rights became a viable market force once artists started forming or joining creator-owned publishers (Image Comics). Additionally, some artists were popular enough to get editorial control of their own series while still being print under more established publishers. So in these two ways, some artists took control of licensing and creative control, but perhaps more importantly they altered the power balance between themselves and their publishers. However, in the context of the last two pages, I think Scott McCloud is saying that the subject of author's rights focused more on economics than on other, higher ideals, e.g. allowing artists to advance an art form without publisher interference.
I think "progress" means the general direction everyone agreed the industry was supposed to be heading. In the 90s, there were simply multiple ways "progress" was heading in because there were so many diverse interests or "factions" pulling the industry. McCloud doesn't mention any specifics probably because it isn't important (to him at least) to enumerate them all. The important takeway is that the industry changed from having a rather monolithic point of view of where to go (the 80s) versus a less clear outlook in the 90s. Whereas the previous generation had only one road to go down, suddenly the 90s have a bunch of different roads, and not all of them lined up with each other.
I gather the "alternative press" would be independent publishers or creator-owned publishers, or maybe just publishers that aren't linked to Marvel/DC, but I can't say for sure. I think McCloud is trying to tell us that some artists wanted nothing to do with the movement of creators rights, especially after it seems to have played a role in the fractured path the industry wanted to pursue in the 90s. Rather than start caring about things like that, they just wanted to make an aesthetically pleasing art form, and apparently they delivered that. However, McCould obviously views that as troubling. On one hand, yes, it made some great looking art, but sacrificing creators rights to do so could potentially bite artists in the ass later on. After all, the movement for creator's rights was meant to solve a problem in the relationship between artists and publishers, and abandoning those rights (or the fight for them) effectively fails to solve a problem. Of course, perhaps those young progressive artists simply didn't view it as a valid problem, but that isn't McCloud's viewpoint, as suggested in the last panel of the last page. At the very least, he's cautiously against abandoning those rights and those "battles".
Sorry if that doesn't make any sense. I'm probably full of crap, but I thought I'd attempt to help. Maybe try someplace like Comic Vine if you get the chance.