The need for broad rules to help things be produced quickly and more efficiently is something that has permeated a lot of areas in our world.
In regard to writing, I see it in how we teach students to write essays: 5 paragraphs, 5 sentences each paragraph, each sentence has a specific purpose. While it may help a student learn to produce an essay which is easier for me to grade, it doesn't really allow the student to tell me what they think.
I have been reading a lot of Usagi Yojimbo and Calvin and Hobbes lately so a lot of what you are talking about I have been applying to them. And while a comic book and a collection of newspaper strips are not the same, I see both Watterson and Sakai as masters of show don't tell. In contrast, comics from the golden and silver age have a lot more words and often have multiple scenes on one page. Are these rules newer or were they employed in previous 'ages?'
Lastly, I just finished listening to your Talksplode interview and I fully agree with your view on false humility or anyone who produces something. If they don't think it's good they should work harder to make it better. But, to sort of counter that thought, do you think work-for-hire writers and artists who work on Big 2 comics, can genuinely feel that about their art due to the fast pace in which their work has to be done? Maybe an artist who is just doing something for the paycheck so they can pay their rent?
I don't see it as a bad thing, I think of it like a professional athlete, who can go out and give a half effort in the middle of the season and still be better than the other options on his/her team.
This sure is a meaty essay! Sinew and gristle as well, with little or no fat!
Let me see if I can arrange my thoughts on this without it sounding like a rebuke because that is not what my comment is.
There are going to be incidents of bad storytelling across the medium, be it from inexperience, lack of understanding of what works best, laziness/unwillingness to do the amount of work necessary to produce the story correctly, limitations placed on the creators by "powers that be". Outside of all of those factors is the universal truth of "I like what I like and it's art to me." Subjectiveness. All art is subjective, and therefore even "bad" storytelling is going to be "art" to those who view it as such. An audience will let a "maverick" get away with breaking the rules of media literacy if we view it through the paradigm of "that's what that artist does, they make art, and in the end, that's all that matters." They can get away with that because something they already did made an impact, and I'm equating an "impact" with "money" and therefore the rules are bent because of the heightened chance of that artist's work making money again.
In listening and reading the promotion cycle of Free Planet, the message was pretty clear: This had to be done right because the risk was so high that if it didn't... it could be the end. In spite of the amount of work you and Jed had already made, the scope of Free Planet was a risk, the size of it, the very idea of it was a risk. As such, it really needed to make sure there were no missteps, and it shows. The research shows. This essay shows the awareness of what you were facing and how you took it seriously. I heard on podcasts that you don't talk much about your time spent as an editor, but it looks like you understood the assignment.
I guess it would be something of a naive dream to imagine if people had more opportunities to pursue their creative endeavors without the blade of commercial success hanging above their head? That is going to be a factor in making a comic (or other pursuit)
Would people take the time to do it right, or without the blade overhead would people feel encouraged to act too loosely, be too free in their form of expression? If one could reach a mass audience freely without financial ruin, would they utilize the structures proven to allow someone to tell a story the audience could easily follow?
It's always capitalism. (sigh)
I have a publication that I'd like to have printed sooner rather than later. It's not supported by a publisher so the financial responsibility is all on me. I doubt it will make a profit, and if I broke even that would be a miracle. It's really just the act of having done it for me than the act of having done things better.
I've been pretty free about the whole thing. I was soft on deadlines, and made very few revisions as far as the illustrations have gone. I can look at some of the work in it and see what people can identify as "flaws", but I don't feel a need to change them. There's one panel that comes to mind that isn't quite right, it looks like the read order is a little off, but instead of asking the artist to change it I'm just happy to have had people work on it at all. I relied on the artists to structure things if the pacing felt off, and only one came back with an edit. Of course the comics are shorts and aren't part of an overarching narrative across issues so there were constraints as far as pacing.
Show don't tell is a good rule to follow, and as such makes for good joking when turned on it's head.
This is where a conclusion would go. Nice bow to wrap the free-range thoughts and comments up with.
This is a great essay.
Thank you, Portia!!!
The need for broad rules to help things be produced quickly and more efficiently is something that has permeated a lot of areas in our world.
In regard to writing, I see it in how we teach students to write essays: 5 paragraphs, 5 sentences each paragraph, each sentence has a specific purpose. While it may help a student learn to produce an essay which is easier for me to grade, it doesn't really allow the student to tell me what they think.
I have been reading a lot of Usagi Yojimbo and Calvin and Hobbes lately so a lot of what you are talking about I have been applying to them. And while a comic book and a collection of newspaper strips are not the same, I see both Watterson and Sakai as masters of show don't tell. In contrast, comics from the golden and silver age have a lot more words and often have multiple scenes on one page. Are these rules newer or were they employed in previous 'ages?'
Lastly, I just finished listening to your Talksplode interview and I fully agree with your view on false humility or anyone who produces something. If they don't think it's good they should work harder to make it better. But, to sort of counter that thought, do you think work-for-hire writers and artists who work on Big 2 comics, can genuinely feel that about their art due to the fast pace in which their work has to be done? Maybe an artist who is just doing something for the paycheck so they can pay their rent?
Three things I believe:
1) It's possible to be proud of one's work in consideration of constraints on it; grading one's self on a curve.
2) Work ground out quickly, in keeping with certain prescriptions and proscriptions, done solely for a paycheck, is the definition of hackwork.
3) There's nothing inherently wrong with doing hackwork – I've certainly done it to pay my rent – but it's wrongheaded to view it as an exemplar.
Are there artists who are so good that even their hackwork is better than their peers?
Of course! But I’m not gonna get tricked into naming names. 😂
I don't see it as a bad thing, I think of it like a professional athlete, who can go out and give a half effort in the middle of the season and still be better than the other options on his/her team.
Also, have you read Christophe Chabouté's Park Bench graphic novel? My wife got it for me a couple years ago and it amazed me.
I have not but I'll put it on the list!
Be the change you want to see!
I'm trying, daddy!
that's the tea, sis + the thesis
You should write a book about comics… I’d read…
This sure is a meaty essay! Sinew and gristle as well, with little or no fat!
Let me see if I can arrange my thoughts on this without it sounding like a rebuke because that is not what my comment is.
There are going to be incidents of bad storytelling across the medium, be it from inexperience, lack of understanding of what works best, laziness/unwillingness to do the amount of work necessary to produce the story correctly, limitations placed on the creators by "powers that be". Outside of all of those factors is the universal truth of "I like what I like and it's art to me." Subjectiveness. All art is subjective, and therefore even "bad" storytelling is going to be "art" to those who view it as such. An audience will let a "maverick" get away with breaking the rules of media literacy if we view it through the paradigm of "that's what that artist does, they make art, and in the end, that's all that matters." They can get away with that because something they already did made an impact, and I'm equating an "impact" with "money" and therefore the rules are bent because of the heightened chance of that artist's work making money again.
In listening and reading the promotion cycle of Free Planet, the message was pretty clear: This had to be done right because the risk was so high that if it didn't... it could be the end. In spite of the amount of work you and Jed had already made, the scope of Free Planet was a risk, the size of it, the very idea of it was a risk. As such, it really needed to make sure there were no missteps, and it shows. The research shows. This essay shows the awareness of what you were facing and how you took it seriously. I heard on podcasts that you don't talk much about your time spent as an editor, but it looks like you understood the assignment.
I guess it would be something of a naive dream to imagine if people had more opportunities to pursue their creative endeavors without the blade of commercial success hanging above their head? That is going to be a factor in making a comic (or other pursuit)
Would people take the time to do it right, or without the blade overhead would people feel encouraged to act too loosely, be too free in their form of expression? If one could reach a mass audience freely without financial ruin, would they utilize the structures proven to allow someone to tell a story the audience could easily follow?
It's always capitalism. (sigh)
I have a publication that I'd like to have printed sooner rather than later. It's not supported by a publisher so the financial responsibility is all on me. I doubt it will make a profit, and if I broke even that would be a miracle. It's really just the act of having done it for me than the act of having done things better.
I've been pretty free about the whole thing. I was soft on deadlines, and made very few revisions as far as the illustrations have gone. I can look at some of the work in it and see what people can identify as "flaws", but I don't feel a need to change them. There's one panel that comes to mind that isn't quite right, it looks like the read order is a little off, but instead of asking the artist to change it I'm just happy to have had people work on it at all. I relied on the artists to structure things if the pacing felt off, and only one came back with an edit. Of course the comics are shorts and aren't part of an overarching narrative across issues so there were constraints as far as pacing.
Show don't tell is a good rule to follow, and as such makes for good joking when turned on it's head.
This is where a conclusion would go. Nice bow to wrap the free-range thoughts and comments up with.
Good essay, one to bookmark for sure