How are you doing, comic-wise?

[McDuffies]

Read something by Bryan Lee O'Malley today that was interesting:

If you’re trying to write a comic, you should have images in your mind. Strong images. Not just words and ideas and abstract concepts.

True? False?

Weeell, if you're writing then you've already moved from the phase of abstract concepts on to the phase of concrete concepts, and ideas can be visual too, like, "I need an idea how to set up this scene".
But I do think that it's better when a writer is good at visual thinking. I mean all comic writers have been taught that comics should have visual part, but sometimes it really seems like they're going through motions with that. Like in many superhero comics I see that a lot of attention has been paid to quips that heroes will be saying but when it comes to action scenes, I don't see any imagination. I see once again folks standing in mid-air and exchanging hits. I also see a guy thinkling "Ok, I had a dialogue scene. Now I need to have an action scene".
I advocate for writers to be good at thinking visual because I think that would marry visual to verbal side more organically (like, I really don't want to feel like characters are talking in a strange location just because a writer thought "well let's give artist something to do") but I also advocate writer ultimately not being a stickler to what he imagined and giving the reigns to visuals to artist. Because I believe that's, ultimately, his job. It's more important to explain to artist what you tried to achieve with an image than to describe that image to him to the tiniest little details.
I do think that a writer who isn't a visual type can write a comic. But I believe that in that case, a back-and-forth collaboration would be more successful, where artist has an option to ask writer to edit some part that doesn't work or help him clear up things that weren't clear or find new graphic solutions for what doesn't work.
I do think than a thinking artist can do a lot to make a non-visual script pop out, but only if he's given a lot of freedom.

I also think that it's important for a writer to understand difference between a comic script and other kinds of script. A movie script, for instance, would have an awful pacing as a comic script, unless it's severely edited, and for comics, things like narrator or inner monologue come more naturally and may help bridge gaps.

Here is the process that I found ideal for my work and I almost always use it:
1. I draw a comic in thumbnails and sketches.
2. I type the comic to a script while keeping only the basic descriptions of visuals.
3. I do a few edits. If I want to add another scene, I might do it in thumbnails first too. I still try to keep visual descriptions loose, focusing on why I made some choice instead on describing details of execution.
4. I draw, where drawing doubles as the last edit.

First step is very important, it is very helpful when the first sight of any given scene is as a whole, seemingly similar to what it will feel like when it's finished.
But second step is also important because in it I reject first ideas of how visuals will look, which are always underdeveloped. It's specially good that I reject particular camera angles and stuff. I keep only the most abstract idea of the action that takes place.
By the fourth step, most of dialogues and plot are set in stone. What I might change in dialogues is, I may decide that rhythm is off when I try to draw the page, or the scene might end up too soon or too late... then I might do a bit of rewrite, drop a line or add a new one. I did this all the time in LWK.
As for visuals, my script might contain something like "X jumps from the first wall to the second wall". I don't have a solution to how these walls are positioned, if I had it during the first step I rejected it during the second step. This keeps drawing more interesting, but also leaves me more flexibility to decide what is best for a certain angle, page layout, whatever. Of course with this kind of process, it might turn out that it's impossible to set the scene the way I described it. That may require a bit more thinking or a bit of rewriting, but that's where the fun is.
A description may also contain character's feeling rather than description of his facial expression. Facial expressions are hard, it's another bridge that, I think, I have to cross when I get to it.

A reason why I keep editing things up until the page is finished is (apart from keeping things interesting) I don't always know what will work on page and what won't - I don't have that good an imagination to be able to envision the entire page, with bubbles and spotting blacks and all. But also, new ideas keep popping to me through phases, and often I come up with the best solution for some problem I had in the very last stretch. That's why I think it's beneficial to keep my options open.

Prayer is a direct communication with God; at best an exposition of your heart that lets Him into your deepest emotions and opens you up to hearing his voice, at worst merely a list of things you want, but a communication nonetheless. While there are plenty of Chistians who use litergy to help them to pray the moment that becomes empty words it is no longer prayer. I'm don't know who's given you the impression prayer is nothing but words or why.

But God's omnipresent and all-knowing, so you communicate with him with everything you do, say and think. He also knows what you need and what you desire and I'm not sure I believe that asking him directly is a way to get and of those fulfilled. I guess I just have a problem with the idea that special time of the day, body position, place, occasion or tone of inner voice (whichever of those your particular ritual requires) makes your thoughts somehow a more efficient communication with God. I guess I think that belief in God's omnipresence makes prayer superfluous, or rather more of a security blanket for people to reassure themselves of their own faith.

[McDuffies]

The early chapters of Lightbringer are actually being remade right now with better art and writing. As it turns out, when you cut down on the verbiage and excise the adolescent moralising against pacifism, all you're left with is a bunch of superhero cliches.

Well, that's... fucky.

It's funny because if anything, that's one deeply personal comic. But it seems like the personal side was contained in those odd moral views.. I guess if the comic was interesting for something it was as a show of the extent to which comics can shape one person's view of the real world, so that then that person carries them back to the comics, all the while believing that those views are applicable outside the comic.
We should probably write to Jean Baudrillard and tell him to read Lightbringer*.

Edit: Wait, wasn't it drawn by someone from NC site, someone who could draw? This art doesn't seem much better than the original.

*jk, he's dead.

O.K. Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that an inexperienced writer tries doing a superhero comic. Everything's just been so done to death that there's about a 0 percent chance of a creator like that doing anything worthwhile. So, hypothetically, I would've perhaps advised Linkara to file away his ideas for Lightbringer to use at a later time when he's more prepared for it.

I can't see him doing anything better at the point where I was reading his stuff. I don't think it makes much difference what he's practicing on. Although superhero comics are an odd bunch in that everything has been done, but almost nothing had been done well.

I'm excited to hear that you're working on something again.

Thanks. It looks very good so far, and it's not insanely ambitious so I might even end up finishing it.

As for the religious stuff, I think it's been covered pretty thoroughly, and I don't really have anything to add to it. Reading McDuffies' and robotthepirate's posts, I felt my negativity towards the comic fluctuating in response to the arguments, and I think it's still somewhere between the sentiments of those two. Ultimately, my current standing relates to something I wrote in this thread recently:

Yeah, and sometimes, inexperienced creators get into real trouble trying to do stuff that's beyond their abilities. That's where you get a lot of the infamous scenes in webcomics, where creators who can't write that well to begin with try to tackle sensitive issues like rape and religion, and it takes their comic from "boring" to "awful.

So, the lesson to be learned is, a creator should stay away from ultra-sensitive topics like this unless they're confident that they have a really good grasp of what they're doing. This guy's obviously very clumsy at getting his point across, and, like I said above regarding Linkara's comic, it'd be wise to file the religious ideas away for later while he develops his abilities in a less abrasive manner.

It's my impression that a lot of religious authors know just what they're doing. The problem is in belief, because that kind of belief doesn't make place for subtlety or other angles of view, execution is often very appropriate to the intention, it's the intention that's wrong.
As for why christian fiction is so often the way it is, I believe that most of people who are moderately religious will just choose not to make a comic that focuses strictly on religion, but rather make a comic that includes religion among other themes. That's because a person is usually interested in many topics, and if he's interested in one topic so much that he only wants to write about that, that's something of a cause for alarm. But such comics that feature religion merely as one of it's points of interest are not generally categorized as christian (or whatever the religion is) comics. That leaves the genre of "christian comics" in hands of extreme religious types, and those usually don't care about subtlety or tolerance, so their comics are the only way they can be, considering personalities of their creators.

Writers who use those a lot tend to be trying too hard to be edgy and grimdark.

Yeah, too often they sound like brain-damaged Sam Spade.

I'd hope that he learns something from this thread.

I sure hope not. I don't want that kind of responsibility.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

That's because a person is usually interested in many topics, and if he's interested in one topic so much that he only wants to write about that, that's something of a cause for alarm. But such comics that feature religion merely as one of it's points of interest are not generally categorized as christian (or whatever the religion is) comics. That leaves the genre of "christian comics" in hands of extreme religious types, and those usually don't care about subtlety or tolerance, so their comics are the only way they can be, considering personalities of their creators.

This is a good point, and like you said it's not limited to just religious themes. Many one-track comics that are identified by one theme/topic/issue essentially become a fetish comic of sorts for that concept.



unrelated: It's sad when there's a comic I really want to read and am sure I would enjoy, but the character designs are so off-putting that I just can't immerse myself in the story.

[McDuffies]

For instance?

I had a bit of problem with Army@Love which I thought was written superbly (until the end) but what drawn really badly... like, a guy still struggling with drawing bad.
Also I'm not too crazy that most of mature-audience animation these days goes for ugly-ish or at least amateurish character designs. I mean some of the time it makes sence, but don't we adults also like to look at pretty and richly animated cartoons?

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

For instance?

I had a bit of problem with Army@Love which I thought was written superbly (until the end) but what drawn really badly... like, a guy still struggling with drawing bad.
Also I'm not too crazy that most of mature-audience animation these days goes for ugly-ish or at least amateurish character designs. I mean some of the time it makes sence, but don't we adults also like to look at pretty and richly animated cartoons?

I wonder if that tendency has to do with artists wanting to make their work seem "edgy" and "politically incorrect." I mean, what better way to show that your work takes no prisoners and is offending anyone and everyone than by making the art equally as repulsive as the subject matter? I'm not a fan of its overuse myself, just trying to think why it would be happening that way.

As for the other thing I was referring to- it's actually happened a few times lately where I just am too put off a comic by part of the artwork/technical ability, which is sad because I'm usually able to overlook that sort of thing if the writing/humor is up my alley, so either a comic in question is just *that bad* or I'm getting pickier as i get older- not sure which would be the preferrable option here.

The comic I'm talking about this time around is called Alleged Whiskey- I'm bummed about it because, you know, early 20th century comics, we gotta have each others' backs, you know? But the ratio of eye size to nose size (or rest of face size) on a lot of the characters is just too unpleasant for me. I don't want to call it ugly, because that's just not fair when I love stuff by Mike Judge and Danny Antonucci and so forth. I guess the grotesqueness just doesn't match the mood of the story- like it seems like a happy cute comic story-wise, but I just fixate on the characters faces and can't really just "let go" and enjoy the writing.

The most disappointing part is that, looking at the earlier archive, the characters still have unique appearances but they look more... human, I guess. I haven't read the whole archive so I'm not sure if the change was a gradual adjustment or a deliberate shift (perhaps they changed artists?), but I vastly prefer the earlier designs :/

[Komiyan]

Googled it. Those eyes make me feel a bit like I'm falling into a black hole, I can't blame you for being a little put-off by it. Looking at the first pages, they've definitely grown, reminds me of the 'sitcom character' section of this.

[McDuffies]

I wonder if that tendency has to do with artists wanting to make their work seem "edgy" and "politically incorrect." I mean, what better way to show that your work takes no prisoners and is offending anyone and everyone than by making the art equally as repulsive as the subject matter? I'm not a fan of its overuse myself, just trying to think why it would be happening that way.

I think it's about preconceptions, if people think that cartoons are for children, so to distance themselves from that they draw designs that children obviously won't like; producers maybe also think that ugly designs speak more clearly that the cartoon is for that certain target group. Maybe they think, Simpsons were considered ugly when they first appeared (we got used to them, though). Rugrats are ugly as hell and that was the first example of adults massively crossing over to the ostensibly kid's show, and then there's Mike Judge's stuff too. "Aqua teen hunger force" and "South Park" had minimal animation and designs, and those were blueprints for most of cartoons that trade in gross-out or violent humor.
I think there may be a belief, based on examples such as those, that adults will favour ugly and minimalistic art and avoid things that might be perceived as "cute", despite the fact that grown-ups are equally likely to watch My Little Pony. But then, I don't know how much of internet popularity of a show such as that is turning actual money to producers, maybe it's not, like most of internet phenomenons.
It's not even character designs, it's that in many cases, it's really a low-grade animation in most cases. It's not realistic to expect Simpsons-level animation on Adult Swim shows, but dude - have you ever looked closer to Family Guy? That's like Rankin-Bass level of quality, and that's supposed to be a high-profile show.
And that's all sad because you have something like Unsupervised which has this rich and original world built, and then art which looks like n-th variation of Rugruts and character designs that practically demand that movement is animated awkwardly. On the other hand you had "Sit down stand up" which had wonderful character designs and pretty high production values (comes with high-profile creator) but everything else about it was just too bad.

As for the other thing I was referring to- it's actually happened a few times lately where I just am too put off a comic by part of the artwork/technical ability, which is sad because I'm usually able to overlook that sort of thing if the writing/humor is up my alley, so either a comic in question is just *that bad* or I'm getting pickier as i get older- not sure which would be the preferrable option here.

Art is ultimately what is communicating message, it carries a lot of subtext and determines the mood and the rhythm. It makes script being read differently.

The comic I'm talking about this time around is called Alleged Whiskey- I'm bummed about it because, you know, early 20th century comics, we gotta have each others' backs, you know? But the ratio of eye size to nose size (or rest of face size) on a lot of the characters is just too unpleasant for me. I don't want to call it ugly, because that's just not fair when I love stuff by Mike Judge and Danny Antonucci and so forth. I guess the grotesqueness just doesn't match the mood of the story- like it seems like a happy cute comic story-wise, but I just fixate on the characters faces and can't really just "let go" and enjoy the writing.

Seems like they're going for various cartoon styles that were dominant in the era.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Googled it. Those eyes make me feel a bit like I'm falling into a black hole, I can't blame you for being a little put-off by it. Looking at the first pages, they've definitely grown, reminds me of the 'sitcom character' section of this.

Yeah, that's pretty spot on. Design evolution in general is expected and not even a bad thing, as long as the designs generally look better as you go further. Over time subtlety is often lost, like in the example you have there. I think my issue with the comic in question is that the facial features no longer look like they all belong to one face, and something about the rendering is a little itchy to me as well :/

Seems like they're going for various cartoon styles that were dominant in the era.

I can see that. The problem is they're going for something cute, but the exaggeration takes it into an uncanny valley where I can point to the features that are supposed to be cute but they've got to be reigned in a little bit to work more cohesively.

[McDuffies]

First pages were really snappily drawn. I dunno what's the intention behind the change in style, but it's certainly not as likeable now.

[Sortelli]

Alleged Whiskey ended up in my bookmarks based on the early art. I agree that the shift hasn't been kind, but what really put me off is the feeling that the story was going nowhere. I kinda expected a little more urgency out of a speakeasy setting... I mean it doesn't gotta be Lackadaisy Cats but last time I checked the current arc was about babysitting. :<

[robotthepirate]

I wonder if that tendency has to do with artists wanting to make their work seem "edgy" and "politically incorrect." I mean, what better way to show that your work takes no prisoners and is offending anyone and everyone than by making the art equally as repulsive as the subject matter? I'm not a fan of its overuse myself, just trying to think why it would be happening that way.

I think it's about preconceptions, if people think that cartoons are for children, so to distance themselves from that they draw designs that children obviously won't like; producers maybe also think that ugly designs speak more clearly that the cartoon is for that certain target group. Maybe they think, Simpsons were considered ugly when they first appeared (we got used to them, though). Rugrats are ugly as hell and that was the first example of adults massively crossing over to the ostensibly kid's show, and then there's Mike Judge's stuff too. "Aqua teen hunger force" and "South Park" had minimal animation and designs, and those were blueprints for most of cartoons that trade in gross-out or violent humor.
I think there may be a belief, based on examples such as those, that adults will favour ugly and minimalistic art and avoid things that might be perceived as "cute", despite the fact that grown-ups are equally likely to watch My Little Pony. But then, I don't know how much of internet popularity of a show such as that is turning actual money to producers, maybe it's not, like most of internet phenomenons.
It's not even character designs, it's that in many cases, it's really a low-grade animation in most cases. It's not realistic to expect Simpsons-level animation on Adult Swim shows, but dude - have you ever looked closer to Family Guy? That's like Rankin-Bass level of quality, and that's supposed to be a high-profile show.
And that's all sad because you have something like Unsupervised which has this rich and original world built, and then art which looks like n-th variation of Rugruts and character designs that practically demand that movement is animated awkwardly. On the other hand you had "Sit down stand up" which had wonderful character designs and pretty high production values (comes with high-profile creator) but everything else about it was just too bad.

Reminds me of George Orwell's Animal farm, the story goes that he travelled around [wherever he was living at the time] taking the book out of the children's section. People presumed that if it was about animals it must be for kids.
It might stem from the desire kids always seem to have to "grow up". All the things we're told we can't do as children seems to get labelled "adult" in our brains and when we want to write something "adult" that's what comes out. Usually there's a point in our lives when we're confident enough in our adulthood-ness to realise how fun kids media is.

Same thing applies with gender stereotypes. I remember being laughed at in primary school for wanting to play netball rather than football, usually the boys would all pick football and the girls would all pick netball but I hated football so I didn't (it didn't upset me to be laughed at, I was being defiant). If I was to tell those same people today that I work as a nurse they wouldn't be bothered at all (one would hope).

But God's omnipresent and all-knowing, so you communicate with him with everything you do, say and think. He also knows what you need and what you desire and I'm not sure I believe that asking him directly is a way to get and of those fulfilled. I guess I just have a problem with the idea that special time of the day, body position, place, occasion or tone of inner voice (whichever of those your particular ritual requires) makes your thoughts somehow a more efficient communication with God. I guess I think that belief in God's omnipresence makes prayer superfluous, or rather more of a security blanket for people to reassure themselves of their own faith.

You don't like ritual prayer (which is fine by me), but do you still "talk" to God in a less formal sense? I know I do. My only criteria for prayer is that my thoughts are of God and for God. Purposefully connecting with Him. It might just be a quick "thank you" when a see something beautiful that makes me smile, and God knows I appreciate His creation without me actively expressing it, but when I do it helps me to know it and that makes me smile even more. Then by actively pursuing thanksgiving I'm usually reminded that this thing of beauty (whatever it may be) was created to make me smile, it's not just a happy coincidence, it was on purpose. That makes me smile even more.
Yes God knows exactly what we are going to say even before we do, but do we? Actively seeking God in prayer should help us to focus on exactly what we need from him, what we want him to know, what he wants from us. He knows all that already but it helps us to know that. Everything else, time, posture, etc. doesn't help the prayer be more effective but it might help the pray-er to stay focused.
Example: we're currently buying a house, throughout the process there are plenty of opportunities for us to stress about things that are out of our control and although we know the situation will pan out exactly how God wants it too we still have to step back and pray: “God, we really want this house but whatever happens we know this is in your hands and we trust you.” We know it without praying it but it helps us to know it better, He knows it without us saying it but still wants to here us say it.
One of the common communication break downs in marriages is the loss of “please”, “thank you”, and especially “I love you”. People think that because their spouse knows they mean these thing they no longer need saying but they do. God wants to talk to us even though He knows everything and we have nothing to add to the conversation.

[Komiyan]

Having trouble actually beginning to ink this last panel. You never think these things through when thumbnailing.. Past-me is such a dick.

[IVstudios]

Past-me is such a dick.

The rallying cry of everyone who's ever woken up with a hangover.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

It might stem from the desire kids always seem to have to "grow up". All the things we're told we can't do as children seems to get labelled "adult" in our brains and when we want to write something "adult" that's what comes out. Usually there's a point in our lives when we're confident enough in our adulthood-ness to realise how fun kids media is.Same thing applies with gender stereotypes.

That's a good analogy.
Hugging your parents- cool when you're a kid! Lame when you're a teen! Cool when you're a grown-up.
Wearing climate-appropriate clothing- cool when you're a kid! Lame when you're a teen! Cool when you're a grown-up.
Watching cartoons aimed at kids- same thing.

Having trouble actually beginning to ink this last panel. You never think these things through when thumbnailing.. Past-me is such a dick.

Inking is the easiest, smoothest ride step of the process until I get to a big expositionary panel like what you've got there. I feel your pain.

[Sortelli]

I just ran out of buffer today, but I'll definitely be able to get one or two comics finished this weekend so I'm not doomed yet but oh god I am running out of inked pages and everything is spiraling out of controlllllll

Yesterday while scripting further pages I actually got to a point where someone straight up says "no scrying" so that's fun. Also penciled the first crime scene last week and that looks fantastic (except for the poor victim who got spread all over the floor). This comic is pushing me to my limits but I'm in love with the story so I'm hoping that will sustain me.

[LibertyCabbage]

I just ran out of buffer today, but I'll definitely be able to get one or two comics finished this weekend so I'm not doomed yet but oh god I am running out of inked pages and everything is spiraling out of controlllllll

I was just thinking yesterday that I kind of mismanaged the buffer I had. I did okay with the amount of content I had starting out -- not great, but okay -- but then I think I got lazy about it. "[insert activity here]? Sure, why not. I have a buffer!" Fast-forward a bit to a bufferless future, and I'm struggling to stay awake while I fight through pain in my hand to get a page finished. Isn't that, like, a n00b mistake? Aren't I supposed to know better by now considering I started making webcomics eight years ago? Oh well.

On a positive note, I ended up going with a bolder layout for the page I'm working on since the more normal one I had planned wasn't really doing it for me. It's been fun to do so far.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Speaking of buffers, what's the biggest buffer you've ever had? I think I once had 5 comics, which at the time amounted to two and a half weeks worth of updates.

Every time I think I'm getting close to having a buffer again, I run out of production motivation and run myself right up to the deadline again :/ I've been batting about one deadline met, one deadline late for a while now, since I usually work on more than one page at a time it's usually guaranteed at least one of them will go up on time.

I'm getting better at keeping a schedule, and working in batches has certainly helped. It used to be that twice a week was unfathomable; now it's usually doable as long as I'm not an entire lazy schmuick about it.

[Sortelli]

Isn't that, like, a n00b mistake? Aren't I supposed to know better by now considering I started making webcomics eight years ago? Oh well.

man don't ask me my entire career has been spent doing this shit at the last possible second

Now I'm physically drawing the strips weeks to months in advance, getting them scanned in bulk at FedEx (so much easier) and coloring them before posting. My biggest buffer uploaded at any one time has been a week, and I'm going to catch back up to that this weekend, fingers crossed. It's kind of nice, I'm putting final pencils on page 22 to ink it now, I've roughed out to page 27, and I'm finishing colors on page 12 tonight. Everything I look at in any point of the process is something I haven't touched recently so it's not something I'm entirely bored to death of seeing.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Alleged Whiskey ended up in my bookmarks based on the early art. I agree that the shift hasn't been kind, but what really put me off is the feeling that the story was going nowhere. I kinda expected a little more urgency out of a speakeasy setting... I mean it doesn't gotta be Lackadaisy Cats but last time I checked the current arc was about babysitting. :<

Reporting back because I felt some sort of obligation to read the archive- you ain't kidding :/ I think pretty much the entire thing is about babysitting and talking about who will babysit. I can dig a slow comic, heck I make a slow comic, but I just can't get excited about this one. So far I haven't seen a stronger emotion than base ennui or disappointment and there's no tension, no what-ifs, I don't know what the consequences are for anyone if they do anything.

Maybe I should write a review of this comic.

[McDuffies]

I had really huge buffers when I was doing mcDuffies, like, a year of daily updates in advance... bad because you'd do something you're very proud of, and then wait awful lot of time for anyone to read it... later I had a hard time catching up, but that was when I really didn't feel like doing it anymore.
LWK usually had a buffer of, like, one week in advance.