Q: How do you approach panel writing?

[LeeNordling]

Hi, folks.

We're going to go back over a topic we discussed a few weeks ago.

You know that I walked you through a series of exercises, which were intended to shift your perspective for how frozen moments of time progress through a panel, and how, pacing-wise, that affects the way a person reads or views its contents.

Now let's discuss, for writers, how you write panels, and why you write them the way you do.

For artists, how do you wish panels to be written for you, and why is that important to you?

We've got two aspects to consider, and they need to be separated: content & style.

Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

In addressing these questions, I'd like you each to share whether you're a writer, artist, or both.

I'd also like you to please begin with the questions you're answering, so we can keep track.

Throughout the week, I (and others, I hope) will be asking questions about your beliefs and process.

There are no wrong answers, and I am asking now for nobody to suggest there are.

You are, right now, who you are, and you do what you do for your reasons. I am asking that you share them, and more importantly, perhaps through an exchange of dialogue, explain them.

Those reasons may change over time, but for now they're part of you, and we need to respect that, especially if we're to understand them.

What's the point?

The point of this exercise is to understand two things: not everybody thinks or works in the same manner, nor should they; and that being flexible enough to understand somebody else's process will help you learn to adapt to others, which is a particularly important aspect for a largely collaborative medium.

At some point, I'll share my personal answers to these questions, but I won't expect anybody to adopt them; they're simply answers that work for me.

Now, let's get to work.

***

Lee Nordling is the owner and founding partner of The Pack (the-pack.biz), a comics-related content provider for the publishing industry. He is also author of “Your Career In the Comics,” an overview of the newspaper comics syndication profession and industry.

If you wish to contact Lee separately from Comics Pro Prep, please write to him at lee@projectfanboy.

[drgerb]

I'm an aspiring writer and artist, so I'll try to answer them accordingly.


For artists, how do you wish panels to be written for you, and why is that important to you?

As an artist, I've not yet accomplished much, haven't been published yet, and I am still learning. I think I can ink / draw from reference fine, but I'm not yet dynamic enough to pencil an entire project by hand. That said, if I was a penciler, I'd like very in depth descriptions and where possible, reference photos so I know which route to take. Leaving it open, for me, I think would end up in me falling flat on my face. As a penciler.


Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

If it's a project I am planning on writing and drawing my panel descriptions usually leave something to be desired. I can see a panel in my head and have a rough idea of how it'll look like once I drew it. But I don't describe my panels, as a writer, good enough for others to understand. That's one thing I gotta work on.

I think you should let a professional / talented artist do what he wants, so I'd say not that much information. And where it's needed, or essential to the story, I'd like if the writer said so. Don't just throw in a ton of details and not explain why this is more important to include than that. But don't confine the artist so much so he's drawing what you (the non-artist / writer) imagine. Writers write, artists draw (or whatever). Bleh.


Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

I think so, definitely. If I know the artist good, or if I have a project lined up with some great professional, I think I'll leave most of my minor details out. If instead I'm going into this project with another no-name creator, I think I'd like a little more control over the panels, and be more in depth with the information. If the artist is unproven, I feel like adding in more description is like holding his hand. If I can help describe what I see as a writer, then he can help me by drawing the best possible panels he can. If I KNOW the artist is awesome, I know regardless of how I plan out the panel, the amount of detail, all that, I KNOW he'll end up with awesome panels.


Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

Wow, hah. As a writer (for projects I'm going to write and draw, and also cause I'm still not that great a writer. I can't really explain what I see in order), I usually skip over small details that I know I'll remember when drawing them. I skip things, then end up backpeddling, etc. It'd probably drive any other artist crazy. I can remember enough as the artist, it's just if somebody reads my scripts without viewing my panel sketches, I think they really miss some stuff. Mainly because I'm not that precise as a writer. That's one thing I need to work on, especially if I ever choose to just write or not draw my own stories. Right now I think it can work, even if it's something I'm trying to work on, to write the way I write. But if I'm not the artist too, I'd either have to send panel sketches along with the script to the artist or really get better at my panel descriptions.

Panel writing, though, and you'll hate me for saying this Lee, I still feel like I really want to describe the foreground of each panel before the background. Like I'd rather explaing the focus / main point of the panel, even if it's on the far right side of the panel. I feel like the foreground has more dominance over the background. Gah. I dunno. I feel like getting to the main point earlier on in a panel description reminds the artist, and the reader where we're at. Then they can go in and fill in the background with little details and such. That said, yeah. I'm still having a hard time trying to go from left to right. Bleh.

I guess I also don't totally understand that last question. I'll have to wait and read other people's replies to see if anything else comes to me. But yeah...


Being an artist / writer combo is awesome (so far, heh) cause it gives me the freedom over everything. I'm a nit-picker. It's just in a way it's also my crutch in not being perfectly clear when describing panels, when writing out my story, etc. I might seem anal when describing, in depth, every page layout, the size of the panels, etc. but that's because I'm planning on being the artist too. While I wouldn't boss around Todd McFarlane with my panel descriptions, I will boss around myself. Guess that's about it.

[LeeNordling]

Thanks for jumping into the pool, Roberts.

One section from your post immediately caught my eye.

Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

If it's a project I am planning on writing and drawing my panel descriptions usually leave something to be desired. I can see a panel in my head and have a rough idea of how it'll look like once I drew it. But I don't describe my panels, as a writer, good enough for others to understand. That's one thing I gotta work on.

I think you should let a professional / talented artist do what he wants, so I'd say not that much information. And where it's needed, or essential to the story, I'd like if the writer said so. Don't just throw in a ton of details and not explain why this is more important to include than that. But don't confine the artist so much so he's drawing what you (the non-artist / writer) imagine. Writers write, artists draw (or whatever).

***

Again, with no implication of right or wrong, I have a story, then a question.

For one of his latter Sandman projects, Neil Gaiman had a list of artists he wanted to work with for each of the stories.

One of the artists, a "professional/talented" artist, completely disregarded the script and drew what he wanted to.

Neil tossed the script (and now none of us will get to read it), and wrote a new one to the art that had been created.

My question: where, if anywhere, should the boundaries be for an artist to follow the script?

(My PERSONAL answer to this one: If the artist deviates from the approved story--the story, not the script--as long as the dialogue, as written, can work for the new visual interpretation, it's fair and worth considering. If not, I would find this act mindbogglingly insulting, especially if the artist had not at least discussed a complete change of direction. What I would DO about it, though, would depend on my relationship with the artist.)

More later; I'll be out much of today.

Again, Roberts, thanks for being the first to take a leap of faith and get this discussion going.

--Lee

[LeeNordling]

Oh, and a reminder for all: we're JUST discussing a panel, though I realize the tendency to discuss the page or the script is inevitable.

With this thought in mind, should we broaden the question?

Perhaps.

On second thought, I'll leave this one to you folks.

--Lee

[LeeNordling]

Next topic(s) for exploration:

Roberts wrote:
Panel writing, though, and you'll hate me for saying this Lee, I still feel like I really want to describe the foreground of each panel before the background. Like I'd rather explaing the focus / main point of the panel, even if it's on the far right side of the panel. I feel like the foreground has more dominance over the background. Gah. I dunno. I feel like getting to the main point earlier on in a panel description reminds the artist, and the reader where we're at. Then they can go in and fill in the background with little details and such. That said, yeah. I'm still having a hard time trying to go from left to right. Bleh.

I guess I also don't totally understand that last question. I'll have to wait and read other people's replies to see if anything else comes to me. But yeah...

***

Well, Roberts, I think you answered the question.

Some folks might like a terse laundry list of what's in a panel description or script, cold and dispassionate, but clear. Others might like to be lured by dramatic (and clear) writing.

Some folks might want to know the POINT of a panel, before getting a laundry list of details, an approach that isn't incompatible with left-to-right reading panels.

FOR EXAMPLE: Johnny Action Jr. is halfway over is leap from one side of a picket fence charging towards the most important thing in the panel: two bully boys pulverizing a kid on the lawn. In the background, the kid's granny leans out window, waving a rolling pin.

See, we never GOT to writing for panel emphasis...because that would have confused the exercise, which was, SIMPLY, learning to write from left to right.

I honestly wish I could've come up with something as brilliant as Wax On and Wax Off, but that was the intent.

Final note on this topic (till I mention it again), the reason I push push push for people to work at this is because it's the only way to develop these muscles. I get that readers may comprehend it, but trying, failing, trying again, learning why you failed the first time, and finally succeeding, then finally having it become second nature is the ONLY way to learn this. Otherwise, (and I promise this will happen), you'll be under some form of deadline, become frustrated trying it "for real," and reverting to whatever you used to do. Then you'll call this experiment a failure (for you).

I retain my right to badger, and explain WHY I'm badgering.

I hope you all understand WHY I'm doing this, and it's not for MY good.

Next up:

ROBERTS: Being an artist / writer combo is awesome (so far, heh) cause it gives me the freedom over everything. I'm a nit-picker. It's just in a way it's also my crutch in not being perfectly clear when describing panels, when writing out my story, etc. I might seem anal when describing, in depth, every page layout, the size of the panels, etc. but that's because I'm planning on being the artist too. While I wouldn't boss around Todd McFarlane with my panel descriptions, I will boss around myself. Guess that's about it.

***

When you are your own artist, all rules go out the window in favor of one thing: do whatever successfully accomplishes your goals.

I do believe it's important to understand and apply things like "left to right" storytelling, but how you get there in the finished product is entirely up to you.

When I write for myself, I barely produce a script. I use a combination of layout sketches, with, perhaps, a key image noted...but only so I don't forget it.

I don't adhere to anything I wrote, if it's not working, and my process of layout often changes the script.

I am, when I'm my own artist, rewriting and revising as I go.

But for me, drawing is often the equivalent of writing.

And I'm sure that's the case with many artists.

The problem occurs, coming back to the previous discussion, is when an artist chooses to rewrite (change) a scene, without consulting with the script writer.

I think it takes a special kind of arrogance to change somebody's INTENT on a scene or story without discussing it first.

I have a book that's set up for coming out Fall, 2011.

I showed the artist (who's since been attached) the script. He liked it. He had questions of character motivation, good ones. He had ideas for how to address them.

I considered the questions, embraced the ideas that worked with the original intent, expanded on them, checked them with the editor (who said they SOUNDED like they could work, but that he'd have to see them implemented), revised the script, got the editor's okey doke, and sent them to the artist, who liked them.

Now, that's a more complicated process than an artist just changing stuff because he thinks it would be better, but it's more respectful of all the people who are involved in the book and the process.

--Lee

[Bret]

Q 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?
As much as possible, without giving so much detail and direction that it chokes the creativity of the artist. There’s no perfect answer. I just go with my gut and hope that I’m growing as a writer every time I punch out something new on the keyboard.

Sub-Q: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?
YES! I’ve been totally blessed to work with artists that have been doing this for a while, so knowing their style definitely alters the way I will write a panel—and I’ll try and add various elements that I know they like to draw throughout the story. And nine times out of ten what they come up with is even cooler on the page than what I visualized. If I was working with someone just breaking in I’d be super clear, with little room for deviation until we developed a “trust” between each other. It’s all about the story for me…not the pin-up shots. (Even though pin-up shots are great and occasionally serve a purpose.)

Q 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer and why does that work for you?
First I want to convey the information that needs to happen in a panel as clearly as possible and in brief paragraphs—pushing the story forward. I CAPATLIZE the characters in each panel and anything really important that must appear. (Ex: MATTRESS MAN grips a giant HEADBOARD in his hands, he’s about to swing it.) That way if nothing else goes exactly as described; at least the character is doing the main thing needed to move our tale along. I’m also cautious about cramming too many captions and balloons into a panel. Panel real estate is precious. If I can say more with less, I’m on the right track.

I also infuse my personality into the panel description, showing the artist my passion for the story—and making it more interesting for them to read. If I’m into it, chances are they will be, too. (Occasionally I’ll make a silly joke or reference, just to keep things fresh.) I also like to describe how a character is feeling—not every panel but pretty often. This gives the artist an idea of our character’s facial expressions and body language.

I’m always studying other writer’s scripts to see how they do it. Other than sitting down and practicing, that’s been the best way to learn for me.

But I’m still learning.

Bret B.

[LeeNordling]

Hey, Bret.

One line caught my eye, because it's something I've started doing, too, in the last few years.

You wrote: I also like to describe how a character is feeling—not every panel but pretty often. This gives the artist an idea of our character’s facial expressions and body language.

***

I've discovered that if I write HOW a character feels, I don't have to concern myself with describing whether he looks "mad, with furrowed brows" as much.

And added bonus is that it gives me a tool for a more constructive discussion with an artist.

If I write that a character looks "mad, with furrowed brows," then what happens when I don't think the character looks mad enough in the art? It all becomes very subjective.

But if I describe that the character is furious to discover his wife has been brutalized, then we have some context for discussing whether the single brow lowered over the eye is enough.

One advantage that prose has over comics is that it allows the reader the opportunity to get inside characters' heads. I think there's an excellent opportunity for us, as comics creators, to exploit that in our scripts, at least to help make clear to artists our character and story goals.

The more clinical a script is in its descriptions, the more open it is to different emotional interpretations.

At least that's my observation.

--Lee

[SebastianPiccione]

Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?
Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

I can only answer this hand-in-hand with the sub-question. When I write a panel, the amount of information I deem “necessary” is directly linked to the artist. When I write for an artist I don’t know, I tend to be more exact and specific. Also, there are a few artists I’ve written for that have REQUESTED I be very specific, and I am more than happy to do so for them. For the CAT. 5 stories I’ve been writing, with Mike Dreher, (my friend of 20 years) doing the art I can be a bit looser with the details. For Mike, I cover the basics, and list anything specific I’m after. He handles the rest. If he finds himself unsure of something, I get an email or a text from him. Sometimes in the form of a question, sometimes in the form of an image and a caption that reads “This is what I came up with.” Either is fine, because
A) I trust Mike explicitly.
and
B) If I really want him to change something, he’ll do it.



Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

I’m high-functioning Aspergers (a form of Autism). I tend to think in pictures. What I do is picture the panel, and translate it into a script, which I then hand off to an artist to translate back into a picture. Half the fun is seeing how close the new picture comes to the one in my head. Sometimes they are dead-on, sometimes they are even better, and (very rarely) I have that… “Oh! That’s not what I imagined at all” moment. But as long as it’s just a stylistic difference and not a you-changed-the-whole-thing difference then that’s fine, too.

Which ties into your
where, if anywhere, should the boundaries be for an artist to follow the script? question.

I think that as long as the main idea and intent of the panel comes across, then some changes are fine. Those changes need to be in keeping with the story, though. I mean, it can’t just be a whole separate thing. Also, again, it depends on the artist. As I’ve said, I trust Mike. On our first CAT. 5 story, he struggled with a few specific panels. He knew what I was asking for, but he didn’t like the results he was getting. So, he changed them. His panels still went with my story and included all the important “key” elements I asked for, but he came about it all from a different perspective. Some thing from panel one got moved to panel two, a thing or two got dropped outright, and there was an addition I hadn’t asked for. But, it remained true to my story, and the panels synched up without a hitch. In fact, they are some of my favorite panels from that story.

[LeeNordling]

Thanks, Sebastian.

Yep, the answers to the questions are, ultimately, intertwined...which, in a number of ways, creates difficulties for sorting the different facets out at the beginning to determine what's needed.

Having a process for determining which tack to take in a script is important.

Knowing what you need and why is as important as knowing what an artist needs and why.

When I begin a project, EACH project, I discuss ground rules with the artist. I don't dictate; I discuss.

My current partner on a book asked, "What happens if we don't agree?"

I tried explaining that I would always work to find consensus, but he still wanted to know what would happen if we didn't agree on a direction. Who chooses.

A topic I'd like to take up later (perhaps next week, but not now, please) became the issue. He'd worked in comics before, and when people disagreed, it became the foundation for blood feuding and vendettas.

I told him about my days at Disney, when we'd argue over stuff (for the sake of the stuff), then break for lunch and go out together.

I told him we'd make our respective cases to the editor and let the editor decide...and that I'd abide by his decision, whether I agreed with it or not.

All of this, as I initially pointed out, is a precursor to learning to work together in what is, largely, a collaborative medium.

So I think it's important to figure out our separate-but-qualifying answers to various circumstances, just as you've done.

--Lee

[SebastianPiccione]

Yeah, so far I've never had any times in which I could not come to an agreement with an artist over something. And, I'm ALWAYS open to changes that can improve on things. Heck, I'm always open to changes that may not improve, so much as simply ensure that that the story gets finished and makes sense.

[Bret]

Lee, you put it much clearler than I'd written. But yes, I totally agree with ya.

Your response is a vote of confidence for me. (Something I occasionally lack when sitting here alone at the keyboard, writing down the pictures floating through my cranium.)

Bret B

[JohnLees]

Hey Lee! I've really been enjoying your columns thus far. I apologise for not keeping up with the homework - I do intend to go back and attempt those earlier exercises, but I felt for now I'd try and get back onboard by jumping to this week's task and answering your questions. I'm a writer, not an artist, so my answers come from the perspective of a writer - and not an overly experienced one at that!

Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

It varies. For a comic script I'm currently writing, in one panel the setting description is just "a street corner". But a couple of pages later, I have a very detailed description of a classroom, right down to the layout of the tables, how many kids are sitting at each table, and the placement of certain children in certain seats. This seemed pretty tyrannical when I looked back on it, but was important for the framing of a potentially tricky panel in the following page. There are of course a couple of things that should always be in your panel descriptions, at least the ones that start a new scene: the when and the where. Say whether the scene takes place indoors or outdoors, and mention whether it's night or day. Now, how much you want to describe the room your characters are in, or whether you want the weather outside to be sunny or cloudy and overcast, that depends on the context of the panel.

I'd say a generally good rule of thumb is: if you want to see it in the panel, put it in the panel description. Get everything you want - whether it be a character or a background detail - in there, and leave it to the artist to fill in the blanks. The balance may change - in some panels there may be a lot of specific things you want included, meriting a long, detailed panel description, while in other panels there may really be only one detail that's essential while the rest is open to interpretation, leading to a brief, concise panel description. But I tend to think that if you stick by the general philosophy of "If you want to see it drawn, write it down", that works as a fairly strong barometer.

Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

I'll get back to you when I know more artists! :p

Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

This might be a good place to quote some of the points I made in one of your earlier columns, Lee. At the time I think I was going off on a premature tangent, but it might be more relevant to the topic of this week:

"Each panel tells its own story.

And that's the key, something I know I haven't mastered yet. Your panels aren't just window-dressing for you to plaster your lovely dialogue on top of. Every panel is a work of art in itself, something that tells the full story of that one frozen moment in time. So when you're writing up a panel description in your script, what you are doing is selling the story of the image to the artist, if that makes any sense. You're not telling a story in motion. You're looking at the still picture fully formed in your own mind, and you're describing it to the best of your ability. You're trying to do that image in your head justice in your description of it, so that you're giving the artist all the tools they need to capture the spirit of that image in your head with their reinterpretation of it. That one image tells a story. The rest of the images on the page surrounding it join with that one image to tell a bigger story. Then the 22 pages of panels - each with a story of their own - that make up a whole comic book tell a bigger story than that. And so on and so forth.

Comics are a visual medium, and as writers it can be hard to get our heads around that, to think that's it not about our writing abilities, it's about pitching the ball for the artist to hit out of the park - they're drawing it, they're telling the story."

To expand on what I said back then, I also think that if each panel tells a story, as a writer I don't want to shy away from being a storyteller with it. Yes, a comic book script is essentially a tool for the artist, that's who you're writing it to. And as such, some are of the school that a panel description should be as sparse and clinical as possible. But still, I want to try my best to make my panel descriptions engaging reads in their own right, trying to write in a way that captures the mood of the story or just the moment. Even if it's just the artist who reads the script, ideally the content of a panel description can engage them in the story, give them a clearer idea of the panel's intended affect. For example, in one of my scripts I describe a character's expression as such:

"His eyes are closed, and he is making this odd face that looks like an unsettling combination of sexual elation and constipation."

This might not be a concise, clear depiction of exactly how I want the artist to draw the expression. Instead, it (hopefully) highlights the absurd, farcical nature of the moment, and the odious nature of the character in question, and maybe inspires the artist to get into the spirit of the moment and let that dictate their own interpretation of what such an odd expression would look like.

[CalvinCamp]

Okay, to start off with, I'm a writer and an artist. Writing is entirely amateur level, but I've been studying like a b*****d (and playing editor has helped me learn in ways that just writing never did – I'd advise anyone to give it a try. It changes your whole viewpoint). Art I've been paid for and had published, but it wasn't sequential art, so I'm also at amateur level with sequentials, even though I think the general artistic background helps me in some ways (and hinders me in others).

On to the questions...


How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

Enough.

That sounds like a cop-out, but it's the pure truth. Any other answer is too dependent on the circumstances to pin down. I've argued over paragraph's (long paragraphs) of panel description, that I was accused of padding, because it was a world-building situation and I felt (and still do) that all those little details were important to get that world across to the reader - which means the artist needs to know them. Where that's not the case, a single sentence might be all that's necessary. It's entirely situation-dependent.

But, when the world-building aspect does come into play, what seems like it can be hard to get across is... if I start going on about the gargoyles on the buildings and what they look like, it's because they need to be there and look like that, not because I want to type more words. I mean, I wrote that stuff down when I was planning to draw it myself, so obviously I think it needs to be there. I was told (regarding one description) that "none of that stuff is even going to make into the panel," but I looked at the panel I'd drawn and there it all was. And if someone else had drawn it, I'd have expected it to be there too. How that'll work out if I team up with an artist... I don't really know.

Personally, on the question of sheer volume of description, I think too much is better than not enough. Not enough is DOOM (well, maybe not actually doom, but the potential is there).


Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

Not so much, I think. If it needs to be there, it still does. If it doesn't, it still doesn't, and can be left up to the artist in either case. I don't really want to work with an artist that I have to hold by the hand and spell out every camera angle and panel layout, because I figure the artist should really be better at that than the writer, anyway (and better than me, because they've presumably done more sequential work than I have - if they haven't why would I be working with them?), so if they're not... yeah, doesn't seem good to me. So I only spell that stuff out if I'm looking for something very specific for a particular effect – and if it needs to be there for that reason, I'd spell it out, no matter who the artist is.

However I should also say (since I'm probably starting to sound like a hardass), that I'd be open to suggestions for something different, even where I'm being highly specific. Communication would be the key, there.


How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

It should be approached from the left, so it doesn't bite you. ;)

Actually I tend to describe the background, or setting, first (sometimes even calling it out separately from the individual panel description if it's an elaborate setting for an ongoing scene) and then describing the characters and their actions within the setting. Characters will sometimes get their own description separate from the panels, also.

As for writing left-to-right... I think it's a useful tool, and I plan to utilize it (more), but if there's something I really, really, want in a particular location, I would probably call it out that way too (so-and-so on the right, etc), because I don't know if all that many artists are actually clued in to the left-to-right scripting thing. So I guess I see that as something to work on (writing that way and letting the artist know that's the way it's written), but not something to count on the artist having a solid grasp of right from the start. At least, that's my thoughts on it so far.

I also like some dramatic writing, ambiance and emotion, in my descriptions. I might mention the stink of fish while describing a wharf-side slum, or talk about what a character is thinking. It's not going to literally translate to the page, of course, but I believe it helps the artist get into the world or the character's head and FEEL the story. It works for me as an artist, so it's something I like as a writer. It's basically the same kind of thing that was brought up earlier in the thread, about writing the emotions of a character, except that I'll also treat the setting as a character and write about its "emotions."


where, if anywhere, should the boundaries be for an artist to follow the script?

I think, unless the artist has been explicitly been given free reign, they shouldn't be changing things without talking it over first. As an artist, I can't even imagine pulling something like that and expecting it to fly - in any other job (but comics, apparently) that's the sort of thing that means you probably won't get paid and almost certainly won't get more work from the client.

There are degrees of course. If I've accidentally written something that can't be drawn and they need to split a panel or something, to fix it, that's not a problem - though it'd still be nice to get a head's up, maybe a sketch so I know how they're handling it. Changing the STORY without talking about it first... that would be a deal breaker for me. However, if they talk to me about it first, or toss me a quick sketch as a suggestion, I'd happily consider changes. Just don't surprise me with them in the final artwork.

There's another aspect to this question, though.

What I said above is how I think it should be when the artist has been hired directly by the writer. But that wouldn't necessarily always be the situation. If I were writing for a publisher... maybe the artist has been given that kind of latitude before, maybe the editor has more faith in the artist than me, maybe it was an editorial change, maybe the deadline is too tight for redraws, etc. In a situation like that, I figure I'd have to deal with it, make the best of it, and move on to the next project. Sometimes what you'd like isn't what you get, and you just make do with what you can get and call it good enough.

There's also the case of full collaborations, where the artist is intentionally as much of an influence on the story as the writer is, and that would be a completely different approach, I would think. But I also think that something along those lines would be better off if the collaboration started before there was ever a script to deviate from.


what would happen if we didn't agree on a direction. Who chooses.

I figure the answer to that question (if there was no compromise that could be reached) would be the same as the answer to the question, "Who's writing the checks?"

[harryd]

With my poor skills at drawing, I fall under the category of novice writer. I also may not be that great at writing, but as someone pointed out previously, almost anyone can push keys and come out with a script.


Hi, folks.

Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?


From my point of view, anything you want to see on the page should be in the panel description.

I do think this can change depending upon the artist. If you know who you are writing for, and what they can do (or what they prefer), you can temper your script for them. Basically, if you're a writer working with an artist that you trust, you can take a looser approach to your descriptions.

Personally, I probably go a bit overboard in my panel descriptions, but so far I've been writing with no artist in mind.



Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?


Well, there's how I feel it should be approached, and how I typically approach writing them, which are usually two very different things.

I tend to start with a point of view, if I feel it's warranted. I also usually try to get in some early notes about the time of day, or any weather if it's an outdoor scene, or otherwise called for.

Heh, being less experienced, I tend to wing it from there ;) I generally then go with what I feel is the central focus of the scene, and expand out with details. I also generally do the foreground first, followed by the background.

One odd thing I tend to do is Walls of Text. The first time a setting is used, I often give a large section of heavy (for comic panels) description. I do try to space it out from the basics of the action in the panel, and to label it as description for use over the next few panels, or to be reused in later pages.

I do see merit in the left to right school of thought that Lee previously espoused. I hadn't really thought too much in those terms when I was laying out panel descriptions. It's something that I'll need to try to be more conscious of the next time I work on a script. Another thing that I'd like to be able to do is write exciting panel descriptions. Another good argument made by Lee, is that panel descriptions don't HAVE to be boring. A few of the scripts that I've read (and wrote) tend to be far too clinical.

Harry Durnan

[LeeNordling]

Hi, Harry.

Interesting comment, which I believe a lot of others share, even if they haven't written so.

You wrote: "Personally, I probably go a bit overboard in my panel descriptions, but so far I've been writing with no artist in mind."

Let's not leave it at that, because the reasons for this will be, I believe, telling.

WHY would you go overboard in your descriptions, and does that, as I suspect, over-describing either the elements in the panel or the layout?

I suspect this is because you wish for your script to describe your intent as clearly as possible. Is this so?

Where do you see an artist's interpretation of your work as crossing the line?

We discussed earlier what one artist did to Gaiman's story; that was from somebody who thought it was okay for an artist to deviate from the script.

Is this your fear, losing your story?

Is an artist your partner or your subservient?

Sometimes one, sometimes the other?

Yep, a lot of questions, which all get back to that same point I began with: our need to learn to work with others in a largely collaborative medium.

Some stuff to chew on, and perhaps you could share some thoughts about these questions?

I know you are not alone in (perhaps) over-writing as a form of self-protection, so I'll ask one last question: how many of you believe this is the best way to write a comics panel, page, or script?

--Lee

[Cary]

Cool! Feedback! Nice work by the way with all this Lee. Interesting stuff! I'm a writer/creator/letterer. I can draw some, but not enough to worry over the questions pointed at artists here. I'm far too slow.

Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

I tend to describe panels based on how important they are to the story I'm trying to tell. I know that sounds kinda goofy, but I'll explain. If I'm doing a fight scene, and I really don't care what happens in the panel so long as at the end of the page, or several pages, Dynagirl ends up kicking the beans out of the villain she's fighting, I'll generally describe it loosely, ie: "Dynagirl punches Rhina, large shot here, dominates the page." Not that fights aren't important, but most artists I've worked with like to kinda cut loose with fight scenes, and I'm happy to let them do it provided they turn out like I want them to in the end. In fact if I didn't need to go ahead and work out the dialog at the time I'd probably do fight scenes more Marvel way.

Now on a panel where there's something important we need to see specifically, like a body, facial expression, an item, or I'm trying to go for a certain emotional reaction based on the angle of the shot, then I definitely describe out the panel pretty extensively, and often go into great detail because these things will matter down the road. If I had to break down panel for panel which ones I describe in great detail and which ones I leave loose, I'd say probably 85% great detail, 15% loose, on average.

How many of you believe (over-writing) is the best way to write a comics panel, page, or script?

I'd say in the beginning, because I'd never worked with someone like Harold, who's easy going and actually invested in the project heart and soul, I probably over-wrote quite a bit. I know my early stuff on 48 was pretty description heavy, largely due to inexperience on my part, wanting to do the very best job I could possibly do and all. These days I'm a lot more clean and concise, and since I've learned a lot of script conventions, like POV, worm's eye view, that sort of thing it makes writing them a lot easier so I'm less likely to over do it.

Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

Not for me, at least not in general. I write scripts the same regardless of who I'm working with. Now having said that, when working with my regular artist Harold, I'll add little notes and such in the script because we do know each other and we're used to working together. I'll say things like "remember that panel…" and go from there. I wouldn’t' dream of doing that with someone who I'm new to working with because we don't have the history. But in general my scripts are all written the same way no matter who will ultimately be the artist.

Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

Oddly enough, being a letterer has changed the way I write scripts dramatically. I'll pay attention now to where I have characters standing and such because I've not in the past and it made my life as a letterer an incredible headache. On that note, I also include FAR fewer sound effects than I used to.. :)

Style wise, I'd say I tend to establish things in the first couple of panels of a given page or series of pages and then leave that out later on, unless a scene change is made. It makes a lot more sense time wise and doesn't make the artist's eyes cross reading the same stuff over and over.

I also tend to work POV, making sure where the "camera" is pointed all the time because this really is the most important thing for me in getting the feel of the story just right. If I'm writing descriptions in a novel it's easy to set mood and tone, but writing scripts, I've got to go that extra mile to get the angles right, otherwise it's not a far cry from a mystery type story ranging off into a superhero feel, and that'd be bad.

Where, if anywhere, should the boundaries be for an artist to follow the script?

Ah fun question. For me personally, I'm pretty flexible. I write a full description "DC style" script including dialog, which is a lot of work. In turn, I hand that to an artist and I'd expect that he follow it for the most part. However, when I start a project with an artist I usually give them "the talk" about the script, relaying to them that I want them to be invested in the story as well, and if they come across a panel or two that they think would look better differently, feel free, provided one that the dialog still fits, and two that I haven't specifically mentioned this panel being EXACTLY like this. I think I've done that…four or five times, because that's how I see the panel and that's how I want it, not to mention it impacts the story and what I'm trying to convey. Giving an artist a little room to move and have fun seems to work really well thus far, and I think in 10 issues of work Harold and I have done together I've had him redraw two panels back to how I had them in the script. So that's not too bad. Once he'd simply missed my instructions to ensure it was a certain way, and the second time his panel change wasn't working so we went back to the original way, and both agreed it was the better choice. I can't say what I would do with someone who junked my entire script to freelance on his own. That would probably piss me off something fierce. If it was good stuff would I adapt? Hard to say. I guess it would depend on where we were deadline wise, and how long I'd had to cool off. :)

[drgerb]

Here's a quick question:

Some people answered with 'everything' when it comes to how much you put into a panel description. Well isn't there a drop off point where everything no longer matters? Like what is the definition of everything? Is it every tiny minute pointless detail that you can think of when it comes to creating a certain panel / scene? Or is it everything that matters? I think it should be the second. Unless something adds to the feel of the room, the atmosphere, or adds to how a character is (mentioning a cluttered, alcohol bottle infested room will hint at a chaotic drunk character)... That stuff matters. But what color the window drapes are or what brand alcohol it is shouldn't. Unless it does.

I'm going to bring up something here that I might be getting ahead of myself, but I'm using it as an argument. I remember reading in a series of comic book writing articles, of this thing called 'the mantlepiece rule.' It might have been a general writing rule, mentioned by a comic book writer, I forget. It says if you place a gun onto a fireplace mantle on page one, that gun has to be fired by the end of your story. I could disagree with that, as it might be furthering the character (a gun collector or sometihng) and it might not have to be fired... However I'd turn it around and say if you have a gun that's been fired by the end of your book, you have to show where that gun came from earlier on, whether it be the previous sentence or on panel 1. Anyway...

This is where I'm getting at with panel descriptions. I think novice writers might throw in too much 'meaningless' details into their descriptions. Details that don't matter two pages later. I think some people can't differentiate between the meaningful details and the meaningless ones. Inexperienced writers may throw in detail after detail thinking it all adds to the story, when half do nothing at all. I think panel descriptions should include anything of importance, anything we see later on, or that adds meaning. But anything secondary or not essential to the story should be left out. I mean if some details don't matter and are just personal taste for the writer, do they really matter in the long run? I dunno...

Any thoughts on this idea? How often do you cram details into your panel descriptions, Lee, that don't matter in the long run? Or am I wrong in saying this? Do almost all details matter atleast in one way or another? I guess a black lamp shade may make a scene seem more depressing than a bright yellow one? But bleh. I dunno. Anyway.


Edit: After reading Cary's response, posting just above mine, I totally agree with his. If stuff matters, put it in cause if it's not in, the artist will forget it. If it doesn't matter, why waste time telling the artist to draw something that has little to no effect on the actual story? My two cents.

[drgerb]

I know you are not alone in (perhaps) over-writing as a form of self-protection, so I'll ask one last question: how many of you believe this is the best way to write a comics panel, page, or script?

Me being an artist (har), I'd say over-writing isn't necessary, and should be avoided if possible. You've done your job as a writer. You've described everything that matters, the scenes, panels, the script. Now sit down and let the artist do his thing. However this is, keeping in mind, assuming you have a great artist. Cause an artist is a great artist. If you're not a great artist, well then you're not an artist in my book. Great artists can make something out of nothing. Average ones can make nothing out of everything. So I'm not speaking when having a shitty artist in mind. No thanks. Go find someone else. Once you find a great artist, seriously, I cannot stress this enough (if you ask me), turn the reigns over to him or her. I understand writers kind of have more credit over a comic book than artists, if anything an artist seems more like the writer's slave than vice versa. But in the end, you hired this one artist for a reason: You thought his skills were good enough to show your vision / story in all it's 2d glory. So trust in his skills and let him do his thing. A writer constantly reminding me of panel shots, background information, the way he sees a panel... Bleh. It'd seem a bit too much like my mother. Anyway..


My question: where, if anywhere, should the boundaries be for an artist to follow the script?

My first reaction would be if the artist knows his stuff, then let him do his thing. However after reading that Gaiman bit, I'd say keep a running dialogue between yourself (the writer) and the artist. Keep constant 'check-ups' where you just send him an email, asking where he's at, to let you know what's going on, how it's coming, like an editor. And if he changed anything, or has any different ideas, different from your own, to mention them to you. As a writer, I think you should be game for looking at examples of anything the artist thinks of, but you have the right to say, 'this doesn't work.' if you can give a reason why. I totally agree with the whole collaborative medium aspect.. And if I write a script, I'm not just whoring it off to some wannabe artist who'll put up some chicken scribbles down. Nor am I paying an artist some porn star wage to make some pretty pictures for me. It's a team effort. Any changes should be talked about. However, here's my deal. Our whole talk is about artists changing what the writers wrote. Well here's a question: If writers have the right to talk to, and okay any changes the artists make as they're doing the artwork, well then why can't the artists request any changes for the writer as they're writing the script? It's like a writer sits down on his own, writes an entire script, then when the artists wants to change something, the writer hates it or says 'tell me if you want to change something.' If the writer sat down alone and did his thing, why can't the artist do the same? Granted, sure, you'll run into a few artists who really do suck. But still... There's kind of a favoratism going on here. Screw you writers! Hah. jk. But if you're good enough to write a script that I want to draw on your own time, then why aren't I good enough to draw your script on MY own time? Bleh. Getting ahead of myself. I'm not siding with artists here, I'm siding with whatever makes the best comic book. So yeah. Communication is key. Just don't hand your script over to your artist and say, 'You're so great, you can change anything you want.' cause if you say that, then he probably will.

I dunno, I guess that's pretty much it. The whole writer / artist thing.. You've got to be (as some have mentioned before me) on the same page. If you're friends, awesome. If you're just business associates, it's best to stay on the same page at all times so nobody goes off and does something on their own that the other doesn't like. This is a relationship. Gives and takes. Every relationship has it's ups and downs. And in the end, a relationship's goal is to keep both members happy (with eachother). As an artist, you should draw what the writer expects, but talk to them if you think anything should be changed. As a writer, you should learn to trust your artist (and as it turns into a friendship / relationship, as you do more projects together, hopefully it'll reach that). However, one thing I forgot to mention:

A lot of scripts, or beginning writers seem to write with no artist in their mind, which is fine. But eventually it hits a point, where you find an artist somewhere down the line, whose work you love, and who you've love to work with... And you still expect this writer superiority. This, 'If you want to change just one thing, talk to me!' As a writer, you picked this artist for a reason (if you didn't, then you're stupid). You picked him cause you think his skills match with your story, and best case scenario: Maybe you even wrote some of the scenes / panels with this particular artist in mind. If that's the case, let him do his thing. Sure, request emails updating you on what he's changing and why. But really. You CHOSE him for a reason. Don't go back and badmouth him the second he changed one stinkin' panel. And I think this is the problem with some writers. They write their stories and they want their stories THEIR way, and if anything gets changed they get mad. Sometimes your way isn't the best way. Hey, here's a reality check: You're only a writer cause you can't draw. OUCH! jk.
.peace

[CalvinCamp]

I don't know if these were intended as general questions to all, but they're interesting enough that I'll treat them that way.


WHY would you go overboard in your descriptions, and does that, as I suspect, over-describing either the elements in the panel or the layout?This I just find an interesting subject, and it raises a question I'd like to throw out.

Why do you think your descriptions are overboard? Did someone tell you that, or do you actually think they are, yourself?

If it's the first... why are you taking someone else's word for it? Or are you? Have you thought it through, based on advice, and decided for yourself that it's true?

If it's the later... it really does beg the question of why you would continue to write more than you think you need.

As a side-note... I think I've seen quite a few amateur scripts, by now, and I can't recall, off the top of my head, seeing one that I thought (from an artist's point of view) was seriously over-described. I've seen some that were simply wordier than they needed to be to get the point across (my own early work is a good example of that), and I've seen panels that had more going on than would fit well in a single panel. But that seems like something different than going overboard by calling out too much detail. On the other hand, I've seen a LOT that were seriously under-described, so I think that's a bigger (or at least more prevalent) problem.

On the subject of too much detail, I think drgerb really cut to the chase when he said... "But what color the window drapes are or what brand alcohol it is shouldn't [matter]. Unless it does."

Unless it does, indeed. And who should decide if it does? The writer, who conceived, outlined, and wrote the story? Or the artist who may or may not realize the importance of the window drape color or the alcohol brand? The TPG editor (or the person giving feedback on a forum) who has only seen a fraction of the story and can't really know if a detail is important to the story or not? I know my answer.


Where do you see an artist's interpretation of your work as crossing the line?When they ignore things I think are important and start telling a different story than I intended, without discussing it and coming to an agreement with me (or with whoever else might be in charge of the project) on the changes.


We discussed earlier what one artist did to Gaiman's story; that was from somebody who thought it was okay for an artist to deviate from the script.

Is this your fear, losing your story?Fear? It's definitely something I'd prefer to avoid. And it's not something I would consider acceptable if the artist was working for me (if we're both working for someone else, and they approved of the change, that's a whole different thing - at that point, it's their story).


Is an artist your partner or your subservient?

Sometimes one, sometimes the other?The later.

If we're developing the story together, as partners, then we're partners. In which case, I would think the place to start ironing that sort of thing out is in the outline stage.

If we're both working for someone else, then we're both subservient to them.

If I've hired the artist, and he's working for me, then I'm paying him to do what I ask. So he should do what I ask. (Which does not preclude giving me suggestions for changes and trying to convince me another way is better, it just means I should have the final say)

And really, this should work the other way too. If a writer is commissioned to create a story (by an artist, an editor, whoever), then it's not the writer's story. The story belongs to the person who commissioned it, and should be executed as they choose.



I know you are not alone in (perhaps) over-writing as a form of self-protection, so I'll ask one last question: how many of you believe this is the best way to write a comics panel, page, or script?One answer is that I don't believe over-writing protects you from anything. Not when artists are willing to ignore what you've written and do their own thing anyway. So there's no point to over-writing.

But I think that question also sounds a little like a sneaky way of asking why we're being over-protective about our story.

The answer to that is... it's my story. I created it, and developed it, and wrote it, and if I'm going to pay someone to have it drawn, then I think I deserve to have it drawn the way I want it drawn (even if the way I want it drawn is wrong). So I don't know that there's such a thing, in that situation, as being over-protective (unless it's just a case of not being able to handle advice or suggestions in any way - which is its own kind of problem).

drgerb raised the point that I'm hiring the artist for a reason (Not trying to pick on you, D. You just keep bringing up interesting points). And that's true. If I'm going to hire an artist, it will be because I like their work. But chances are I'm not hiring the artist to help me tell A story, ANY story. I would be hiring the artist to help me tell MY story. Will his work influence the way the story is perceived in its final form? Sure, that's a given. But if he's turning it into a different story, without my consent, then I think that's a problem.

And this isn't writer-arrogance talking. Even as an artist, it boggles my mind that something like that is seen as acceptable, or even defensible. Back when I was doing rpg illustration, the thought of drawing something different than my client asked for never even crossed my mind. I just did my job, as asked, cashed my check, and everyone was happy. Yet that was a collaborative medium too, and I don't believe my influence on the "story" contained in the illustration (based on the client's description) was really much different than the influence of someone drawing the story in a comic panel (based on the writer's description).

I think a question worth discussing is... Why is it that, in comics, there seems to be such a different perception?

Is it only that most people are looking at it as a hobby, where they're not getting paid enough (or sometimes at all) to do what someone else wants? Is it because so many projects are "backend deals" where the only certain payoff is getting to do put your own stamp on the story? Because those situations are (or should be) partnerships, not employer/employee relationships.

Does the attitude change when someone puts actual money on the table?

Or are there no real employer/employee relationships in comics?

In the end, I suspect a big part of successfully working together is to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what the relationship really is. Is it a work for hire situation? Is it a true partnership? Is it something in between? Because it's pretty obvious that not everyone's default assumptions will be the same.

[LeeNordling]

Here's a quick question:

Some people answered with 'everything' when it comes to how much you put into a panel description. Well isn't there a drop off point where everything no longer matters? Like what is the definition of everything? Is it every tiny minute pointless detail that you can think of when it comes to creating a certain panel / scene? Or is it everything that matters? I think it should be the second. Unless something adds to the feel of the room, the atmosphere, or adds to how a character is (mentioning a cluttered, alcohol bottle infested room will hint at a chaotic drunk character)... That stuff matters. But what color the window drapes are or what brand alcohol it is shouldn't. Unless it does.

I'm going to bring up something here that I might be getting ahead of myself, but I'm using it as an argument. I remember reading in a series of comic book writing articles, of this thing called 'the mantlepiece rule.' It might have been a general writing rule, mentioned by a comic book writer, I forget. It says if you place a gun onto a fireplace mantle on page one, that gun has to be fired by the end of your story. I could disagree with that, as it might be furthering the character (a gun collector or sometihng) and it might not have to be fired... However I'd turn it around and say if you have a gun that's been fired by the end of your book, you have to show where that gun came from earlier on, whether it be the previous sentence or on panel 1. Anyway...

This is where I'm getting at with panel descriptions. I think novice writers might throw in too much 'meaningless' details into their descriptions. Details that don't matter two pages later. I think some people can't differentiate between the meaningful details and the meaningless ones. Inexperienced writers may throw in detail after detail thinking it all adds to the story, when half do nothing at all. I think panel descriptions should include anything of importance, anything we see later on, or that adds meaning. But anything secondary or not essential to the story should be left out. I mean if some details don't matter and are just personal taste for the writer, do they really matter in the long run? I dunno...

Any thoughts on this idea? How often do you cram details into your panel descriptions, Lee, that don't matter in the long run? Or am I wrong in saying this? Do almost all details matter atleast in one way or another? I guess a black lamp shade may make a scene seem more depressing than a bright yellow one? But bleh. I dunno. Anyway.


Edit: After reading Cary's response, posting just above mine, I totally agree with his. If stuff matters, put it in cause if it's not in, the artist will forget it. If it doesn't matter, why waste time telling the artist to draw something that has little to no effect on the actual story? My two cents.

I know writers who feel every little detail is important. Alan Moore is a legendary favorite in this respect (not that I know him).

I know writers who are more concerned with moving the story than getting the panel details so nailed down that it becomes a straight jacket for artists.

I think both are valid.

But both don't work for artists.

So what's the right way to proceed?

I work both ways, depending on the project.

For my sequential art picture books, where I'm bringing in great illustrators, and the publishing culture of this particular category REQUIRES an illustrator's ability to interpret the story through what they do, I work in a scripting style that allows for a lot of interpretation...by an artist whom I've embraced as a full partner. Once they're on board, it's no longer MY story; it's OUR story.

For certain types of comic stories, where I have very strong views about how stuff needs to look, like my contribution to the Digital Webbing anthology that's being produced, I wrote extensively about how the aliens in that world might live in a dwelling; I needed to be a world-builder.

I still left a lot for the artist, the mucho-talented Scott Roberts, to do what he does best, but I needed to work to get him to understand MY sandbox, before it could become OUR sandbox.

This last point may be one of the most important for folks to consider.

How much do you need an artist to get on your page, versus how much do you need to create the page together?

I think if you have the answer to THAT question, you'll have a much better idea of what's necessary in the script, not just what might be written filler.

The hard part is figuring out a personal and professional paradigm or process for something that has so many interchangeable components...but that last "page analogy" is mine, at least a simple distillation of mine.

Again, just my two cents...but I hope it helps you all figure out what YOU need.

When you do, when you can really explain it, perhaps your partnerships with artists and/or writers will be clearer.

It's also important, I think, to understand that YOUR way is only the best way for YOU to work. It doesn't mean that others need to embrace it; they just need to understand it (so everybody isn't arguing about who's "right").

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

How much do you need an artist to get on your page, versus how much do you need to create the page together?

I think if you have the answer to THAT question, you'll have a much better idea of what's necessary in the script, not just what might be written filler.That reminds me of something I've been thinking about a bit, for world-building purposes.

I figure I could pull a fair amount of detail out of the script, if I put together a "setting bible" of sorts, that could pin down all the little nuances of the world separately from the things happening in the script - then the artist and I could hash all that out and make sure we're both in the same "sandbox" before even getting into the script itself.

[LeeNordling]

That reminds me of something I've been thinking about a bit, for world-building purposes.

I figure I could pull a fair amount of detail out of the script, if I put together a "setting bible" of sorts, that could pin down all the little nuances of the world separately from the things happening in the script - then the artist and I could hash all that out and make sure we're both in the same "sandbox" before even getting into the script itself.

Pull out...or re-conceive?

I understand the former is easier, but here's the broader question (that does not necessarily have an implicit answer): Is shorter panel-writing just sparser than longer panel-writing, with less stuff mentioned, or does it involve an ENTIRELY different approach so that a different desired effect can be achieved?

For ME, I approach the two from a completely different creative space. If I were to write a long version, then simply cut out stuff, or condense it, I'd end up with a very choppy script...that probably wouldn't read so well.

For ME, having a script read well, be compelling an entertaining on its own merits is important...because I want the artist and editor to be entertained, instead of struggling to visualize what I'm hoping to achieve.

But that's just me.

What about you folks?

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

Pull out...or re-conceive?
Well, a little of both, I expect. It would be pulled out of the script. And I'm sure the presentation would be different outside the script, because it would need to be much more of a general guide than the more "this object here, which looks like this" presentation it would be in the script.


I understand the former is easier, but here's the broader question (that does not necessarily have an implicit answer): Is shorter panel-writing just sparser than longer panel-writing, with less stuff mentioned, or does it involve an ENTIRELY different approach so that a different desired effect can be achieved?I... don't really know how to answer that.

I guess it would depend on where you started - shorter than what, y'know? Sparser how? I think I'd need an example of each method (or at least some sort of description), so I knew what you meant by the "entirely different approach." Otherwise I'm just guessing.

The trouble I've had, personally, is being told that I'm calling out too many unimportant elements in the description, things that won't even appear in the panel when it's drawn. Yet those elements need to be there when it's drawn (perhaps not necessarily in any one given panel, but within the scene or comic, as the case may be), which is why I included them in the descriptions. If those specific elements need to be included, it seems like the method used to make sure those elements are included is kind of beside the point - the information could be in a setting bible, in descriptive paragraphs in the script, or in bullet-lists, but it still needs to get the same information onto the page; anything else seems like a question of style, not of substance.


For ME, I approach the two from a completely different creative space. If I were to write a long version, then simply cut out stuff, or condense it, I'd end up with a very choppy script...that probably wouldn't read so well."Cut out stuff" is the kind of shortening that I don't really believe in. It seems to me, if you had a reason that you felt the information needed to be there in the first place, then you probably can't just cut it and still have things make sense. Even if someone changed their mind and decided an element isn't important after all, they'll probably still need to rewrite, not just chop. Of course this assumes the long description was intentional.

The only reason I can see for accidentally writing a long description (and if it wasn't accidental it doesn't need shortening, IMO) is inexperience. And if someone is just writing long, rambling descriptions of stuff that doesn't need to be there because they're inexperienced and thought they needed to describe the spider on the cobweb in the corner of the creepy old haunted house (even when they didn't actually care about the spider, or the cobweb) then what they really need to do is figure out how to writer shorter to begin with, not how to write long and cut it down.

Condensing I can see a little more. I have a tendency to ramble (which I'm sure no one has noticed ;)), so my early panel descriptions were definitely able to be condensed without needing to remove any actual information. But, even then, it was a matter of rewriting with a more concise approach rather than just trying to pull extra words out - condensing the presentation, not the information. But I think it's still something to learn how to avoid, rather than just keep on rambling away and going back to condense it every time.


For ME, having a script read well, be compelling an entertaining on its own merits is important...because I want the artist and editor to be entertained, instead of struggling to visualize what I'm hoping to achieve.

But that's just me.

What about you folks?That sounds like an ideal approach. I don't think there's any reason a script should need to be a dry, boring slog.

But I'm not sure how that relates to description length. Do you just mean that going back to change the length would mess up the way the script reads?

[StevenForbes]

Yep. I'm here. A little late, but here.

Let's go!

To start off, I'm a writer. (We'll stop it there.) That's the perspective I'll be answering these questions.


Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

My own process for writing is pretty loose. I try to give the artist as much room as possible to flex their muscles.

For my establishing shot, I try to give the essentials: who, what, where, and when. If it's important, I put it in the script. If I thought of something cool in page three, panel six that should have been on page one, panel two, then I go back to add it. I try to give the least amount of information possible, unless it is important to the story, or unless I have a specific vision in my head. Then I can get a little long-winded. However, I'm no Anne Rice. I try not to drone on and be boring.


Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

Yes, it does. It has to. As a writer, when working with an artist I know, I try to write to their strengths, their requests. Some like a tighter script, with more description. Some don't like drawing cars. I think it important to keep my artist happy. The happier they are, the better the art turns out.


Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

I try to approach panel-writing logically. While a nice turn of phrase can help to tell the story, help draw the reader of the script into the world I'm weaving better, I think it also tends to distract from the story being told. Instead of telling the artist what the panel is supposed to be about, it instead describes things that normally cannot be drawn. There is a reason that prose gets adapted into a comic script format, yes?

I try not to b dry, but I want the essence of what I write drawn on the page. For me, the only way to get there is to give the facts, something of what they're feeling if it's germane to the story/panel, and to leave the the blush of prose out of it as much as possible. However, I always tell the artist that, except for certain instances, the script is merely a guide. If they have a better way to visualize what I put down, then to go for it.

When I wrote Bullet Time, I didn't have an artist in mind. When the late, great Dave Simons was brought to my attention as being able to do it, I let him know that the script was a guide. He followed the script decently, either adding or removing panels to help with the pacing. It was the first time a pro had ever worked on something of mine, and I've been spoiled ever since.

If I know the artist, know their sensibilities, know that they're going to do justice to the script, then I'm extremely flexible. I trust them enough to get the story across. If I don't know the artist, if I don't know how they work, then it's a learning process. I think my scripts are loose enough to give the artist leeway and flex their own creative muscles, so I don't think that I ever need to cut description from my scripts. The flip side, of course, is if the artist asks for more direction. Then I need to add to the script. It's a little more work, but at least I've already got the bones and circulatory system in place. They're just asking for some meat. I can provide that.

Did I miss anything?

[harryd]

WHY would you go overboard in your descriptions, and does that, as I suspect, over-describing either the elements in the panel or the layout?

I suspect this is because you wish for your script to describe your intent as clearly as possible. Is this so?

Where do you see an artist's interpretation of your work as crossing the line?

We discussed earlier what one artist did to Gaiman's story; that was from somebody who thought it was okay for an artist to deviate from the script.

Is this your fear, losing your story?

Is an artist your partner or your subservient?

Sometimes one, sometimes the other?


Well, a lot of this has been covered by Calvin and Drgerb, but I'll give my take on it as well. I think some of it comes from how I see the story in my head. I generally see them as little movies, and not as static images on a page. So, I'm trying to take a still frame from a scene and describe how to draw it as a single image.

As I mentioned, a lot of my descriptions tend to be details on setting. I think I do this to try keep a grasp on where everything is, and after laying it out I can give abbreviated directions later on. I also want to make sure I don't forget mentioning something that's important later on. Sure, the window by the bed or the location of the bathroom aren't important right now, but 10 pages in when someone crashes through the window or there's a conversation through the bathroom door they will be.

To the second part of the question, I think it depends on if it is a collaboration or work for hire. The couple of times I've tried to find a collaborator as a writer, I didn't really get any interest from artists. But, if someone was working with me pro-bono (or for a back end percentage) then I certainly hope they would want to have some input into the story. If I'm hiring an artist to do a script, then he's working for me.

Now, I'd like to think I'm fairly easy going when it comes to working on a project. I welcome feedback, and ideas for improving the comic, but I would say a hired artist, colorist, or letterer would be out of line altering the story on their own without consulting whoever has hired them. As Calvin said, if I'm commissioning work, then I should have the final say on it.

One final thought on more descriptive panels is that comics is very much a global business. Both of the artists I've worked with so far, did not live in the United States, and tons of applications came in from all over the world. If a story is supposed to be based in a real location, or a fictional location supposedly in the real world, you can't expect that they'll necessarily have the same sense of aesthetics you had in mind writing it. Clothing, a small town, road signs, all kinds of things may not come out as you expect them.



I know you are not alone in (perhaps) over-writing as a form of self-protection, so I'll ask one last question: how many of you believe this is the best way to write a comics panel, page, or script?


So, yes, in some respects it's trying to protect the integrity of the story and the vision I had in mind when writing it. (Heh, I do have a mental image of stamping ones feet like a two year old shouting It's mine! It's mine!) I'll also take the side that it's be better to be more descriptive with your panels if you are writing sans artist. If you have an artist that you are familiar with, then it's fine to write in a style that works well for them. If you give a poor description and the art doesn't turn out like you hoped, you can't really blame the artist. (Well, you can, but you'd be wrong.)

- Harry Durnan

[drgerb]

Blah! I don't like the words 'hire' and 'paid.' Once money enters the conversation, all real meaning can be lost. An artist doesn't work FOR you. He works with you to make the best comic book possible. Even if you pay him. In my opinion.

You don't go up to some girl on the street, say, 'Hey, if I pay you to have sex with me, can I keep the baby?' This comic book is your baby. You and the artist are going into it with an agreement of trying to make the best possible comic ever. But paying the artist and asking him ONLY to draw what you told him to draw, that's more like paying a hooker, then yelling at her when she does it wrong.

The comic should always come first in my opinion. I dunno. I'm sounding like some pissed off biological mother here or something..

I dunno. I just feel like writers should go more into a project with this partnership in mind. It's not a 'I wrote this, now you draw that and draw it exactly as I envision it!' It's more of a compromise, compromise, talk about it, compromise, group hug!, argue, and make up sex. Then in the end you may have an ugly smelly baby to brag about! Wahoo! I dunno. I don't like the idea of artists being whores. And yeah, I understand the artist usually may have more of a spotlight than the writer (unless you're Alan Moore or somebody), so you writers have to chase the spotlight every chance you get... But really, I just hate the idea of some guy sitting down, writing up a script, then tossing it to the artist and yelling when the artist tries something on his own. You have the gift of being able to sit down on your own and write up something without anyone hounding you. Why can't you do that for the artist too? I dunno.

[LeeNordling]

Blah! I don't like the words 'hire' and 'paid.' Once money enters the conversation, all real meaning can be lost. An artist doesn't work FOR you. He works with you to make the best comic book possible. Even if you pay him. In my opinion.

You don't go up to some girl on the street, say, 'Hey, if I pay you to have sex with me, can I keep the baby?' This comic book is your baby. You and the artist are going into it with an agreement of trying to make the best possible comic ever. But paying the artist and asking him ONLY to draw what you told him to draw, that's more like paying a hooker, then yelling at her when she does it wrong.

The comic should always come first in my opinion. I dunno. I'm sounding like some pissed off biological mother here or something..

I dunno. I just feel like writers should go more into a project with this partnership in mind. It's not a 'I wrote this, now you draw that and draw it exactly as I envision it!' It's more of a compromise, compromise, talk about it, compromise, group hug!, argue, and make up sex. Then in the end you may have an ugly smelly baby to brag about! Wahoo! I dunno. I don't like the idea of artists being whores. And yeah, I understand the artist usually may have more of a spotlight than the writer (unless you're Alan Moore or somebody), so you writers have to chase the spotlight every chance you get... But really, I just hate the idea of some guy sitting down, writing up a script, then tossing it to the artist and yelling when the artist tries something on his own. You have the gift of being able to sit down on your own and write up something without anyone hounding you. Why can't you do that for the artist too? I dunno.

GONG GONG GONG!

RESET BUTTON IN OPERATION RIGHT NOW.

Roberts, it's fair to say how you feel about these, but I've set up this particular sandbox for discussion, asking, probing, not challenging.

Officially, you're out of order here, and I'm asking you to take a step back.

I don't have any issues with a writer saying "money" or "paid," and nothing's lost at all. It may be changed or qualified, but not lost.

And, if an artist is paid to perform a job, and if that's the relationship that's established, he/she IS working for the person who paid her.

I'd like to ask others to please ignore all these comments.

Roberts, if you'd care to try again and discuss your perspective on the why you don't believe artists who are performing work for pay don't work for the person who pays them, I'd be interested in reading that...even though we are moving off topic.

I think it's perfectly legitimate for somebody to say they alter the way they write, depending on the nature of the deal.

And that doesn't mean I agree with it, but that doesn't make me or you "right."

Stan Lee believes that characters are created when he writes them, not when the artist finds a visual interpretation. In HIS mind, he's the creator.

I don't agree with that perspective, and I'd be curious to know whether Harry thinks that, too.

But THIS is how we're going to discuss things here.

We're going to work to find out what people believe, and why.

And the more we understand, the more we'll know how to work with (or choose NOT to work with) people we don't necessarily agree with.

I've seen a lot of threads on other forums explode; this isn't going to be one of them.

Thanks.

Now, let's get back to the discussion.

Steve, welcome to the party. I'll review what you wrote more closely tomorrow.

'night, all.

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

Stan Lee believes that characters are created when he writes them, not when the artist finds a visual interpretation. In HIS mind, he's the creator.

I don't agree with that perspective, and I'd be curious to know whether Harry thinks that, too.
I'm not Harry, but I'd like to tackle that one.

I think Stan Lee may have a point, but I also think he may be taking it a little far. If he's creating everything but the visual, then I'd say he's probably creating at least as large a percentage of the character as the artist (maybe even, arguably, a larger percentage). But if he's not also creating the visual interpretation, then he's not creating the entire character.

But, to spin off that a little, I do think it's possible for a writer to create a character in its entirety, including the visual interpretation, by also creating/describing the visual aspects of the character in specific detail (though I have no idea if Stan Lee has ever done that).

[drgerb]

All right. Yeah, I tend go get a bit "headstrong" at times when feelings are involved. I guess I just don't like acting like it's all about the money. It is a business afterall, I just like to think artists have other reasons for doing what it is they are doing. Anyway...

And luckily I'm an aspiring writer / artist. Being an artist, getting paid, and not fully in love with the characters or story, I feel like I'd constantly be half assing stuff, assuming it'd be good enough for the writer, not really perfecting it as good as I could, knowing I'm not totally into it. I'm just doing it to get paid so getting it done faster makes more sense than putting forth the effort. And looking at something as a business and as money with little numbers on them seems to kinda lose focus and blur everything a bit. I like to think I'm doing the things I do for the passion, for the desire. Not for the pay check. That's why I work my day job. To pay the bills. I'm doing this for the love. And the idea of being an artist just throwing a pencil to paper not for the MEANING, but for the MONEY... Seems kind of like a cop out.

Which is why I feel like I'd either NEED to have a major say in both writing and drawing a particular project, or I'd need to fully trust the other creator (whichever) involved with me. If I can totally understand where you're coming from as a writer and how everything makes sense, I'd be more game for jumping in as an artist. But if I don't totally know you or don't agree with what you're saying, I think I'd pass up a potential paying job to keep doing my own stuff because I AM confident in my own stories. Maybe that's just me... But if an artist would jump in just cause the money's nice... Bleh. I mean art is a passion. It's challenging norms, it's breaking rules. It shouldn't be about the money. And when it is, I think things get compromised. Granted, some of the best artists half assing stuff cause they're getting paid to do it, some of their crappy drawings will still be better than 99% of the population... I mean a sketch by Leonardo da Vinci is still by the greatest artist to have ever lived. It could theoretically look better if he put ink to it and put some more time into it. But that's WHY he's famous. Cause he did it for the passion, not for the pay checks.

And I guess that may almost tie into my previous few posts. You write to tell your own stories. If you get successful and get paid for it, that's a bonus. Art is so much more about the money in this business it seems, to me, to almost lose it's meaning. When money's involved meaning can easily go out the window.

I still don't fully understand the business I am aspiring to become part of... But maybe being writer / artist will let me succeed a bit more than getting pissed off at my writer who's telling me how to draw, or pissed off at the artist who didn't perfect MY characters. Blah. Hah. Oh well. Again, sorry for that last bit. For the record, I think I had some alcohol in my belly then. Gah. Alcohol. Curse you. You throw the train off it's tracks, you systematically mess up the system and you make me look like a damned fool... But you are so tasty.

[LeeNordling]

I have a perspective that dovetails into both of Roberts's and Calvin's thoughts, and may helps separate the issues for further discussion...though I would like to bring this discussion back home to the topic at hand.

But the perceived role of the artist with the writer and the script may be too important a building block to ignore in the discussion, as it relates to preparing work FOR them.

This is simply how I look at this stuff, but I think it's important to know your own mind, at least so you can set down the ground rules of a relationship.

It would be terrible for an artist not to know a writer thinks he's merely somebody to visually interpret the writer's story and the writer's characters, right? That's where misunderstandings come from.

It would be equally terrible for an artist not to know he/she is valued as a full partner, with equal voice about the visual interpretation of characters and a script.

Let's first deal, at least from my perspective, how money informs the work.

If I'm being paid an advance to write a story that belongs to me, then I have the opportunity to write it.

If writing something that belongs (or will belong) to somebody else, presumably for some form of compensation that I find acceptable, then I do two things: work to discover the parameters to the job, then do my best possible work to achieve the story goals within those parameters. Period. And, while I'm writing, the story is MINE MINE MINE. But, as soon as I hand it off to whomever owns or controls it, it's THEIRS THEIRS THEIRS.

When I write a story that needs to be drawn by somebody else, the story is MINE MINE MINE. But, as soon as I hand it off to my new partner, the work is OURS OURS OURS.

I've done a lot of work for myself, and a lot more work that's owned by others. This way of thinking helps me avoid mental breakdowns about what somebody is doing to work I created.

MINE is MINE, OURS is OURS, THEIRS is THEIRS.

It's okay not to want to work on stuff owned by somebody else; a LOT of people are incapable of doing it well. Conversely, just because you might not be able to do it, whomever "you" are, that doesn't mean others can't or shouldn't, regardless of compensation.

Bringing the conversation back home, again, understanding that we're different, and having that be okay, as long as we understand how and why we're different, gives us all a better opportunity to work together.

(All this on my first half-cup of coffee; I'm taking another sip now.)

--Lee

[LeeNordling]

Hey, Steven!

Just so you don't feel forgotten, you wrote: "If I know the artist, know their sensibilities, know that they're going to do justice to the script, then I'm extremely flexible. I trust them enough to get the story across. If I don't know the artist, if I don't know how they work, then it's a learning process. I think my scripts are loose enough to give the artist leeway and flex their own creative muscles, so I don't think that I ever need to cut description from my scripts. The flip side, of course, is if the artist asks for more direction. Then I need to add to the script. It's a little more work, but at least I've already got the bones and circulatory system in place. They're just asking for some meat. I can provide that."

I'd like to offer a different perspective, though not one that I think is "better."

I write a loose script when I want (or need) an artist to fill in the blanks with his/her approach/sensibility. It doesn't matter whether I know or have worked with the artist or not.

I write a tight script when I want (or need) an artist to use what I wrote as a foundation to build on, not rejigger. It doesn't matter whether I know or have worked with the artist or not.

If my script allows for lots of interpretation, and I know what the artist can do, great. If I don't yet know what the artist can do, there are LONG discussions, and I work to set the ground rules for the relationship; I don't dictate, I offer up a perspective, which we discuss, then negotiate...and do it in such a way that the artist doesn't even realize it's been a negotiation.

I sold a sequential art picture book a while back, and part of my responsibility has been to find and guide the artist. A pal aimed me at somebody who is amazing.

The book requires a lot of conceptual design on my artist-partner's part, and we're tackling it together piece by piece. He asks me about the world, the characters, all kinds of things that have nothing directly to do with the story, but which will inform him how to approach it. (We hope this will be the first of three in a series.) I answer any question he needs answered.

What is vitally important is that I don't dictate what I think he should draw; I discuss (in this case) character attributes that are important, then question whether the design fits those needs.

That's collaboration, not control.

He wanted to find out where he stood in relation to the story. He noted that I seemed to have a real passion for it, which I do, and wondered how much I felt it was my story. I told him that I DID feel that way, but that when he came on board it was now OUR story...and that we needed to figure out the best way to work together to get it done the way we both envisioned it could be best done.

Not all writer/artist relationships are this way, nor should they be.

But the communication has been open and responsive to respective needs.

That level of communication has served me well.

So, where Steven's approach to writing is: loose scripts allowing for interpretation comes with trust, and carefully tight scripts come with the unknown partner (which is perfectly fair and reasonable), my loose scripts come from a vision that requires an equal collaborator, and my tight scripts come from a vision that needs to be built on, not rethought.

These might even be the four corners of consideration, and I suspect each of you could find out where you are in the map plotted by these points of consideration.

--Lee

[StevenForbes]

Thanks, Lee.

It took me a while to come around to my current way of thinking. For a while, when I was just starting out, I was under the belief that if I were writing it, then the artist would damned well draw what I wrote, how I wrote it. Nevermind the fact that my first scripts were absolutely wretched. You're the artmonkey for my idea. Now draw!

It took some reading, more writing, more writing, and more reading (and then, more writing) to come to truly understand that comics is a collaboration when you don't have the talent or the drive to draw. Artists want their say, too, I found, and don't want to just be told what to draw.

So I adjusted my thinking and my scripting. I learned to see scenes in my head, but to make room for pacing and interpretation. So far, its been working for me. Talking to the artist, seeing what they like, and adjusting the story to them hasn't been that difficult for me (now).

One artist I've worked with likes double-splash pages. I had to adjust my storytelling style and sometimes the story itself to accommodate that wish. (I believe that double-splashes need to be earned, storywise, and I had to sometimes re-envision a scene or two in order to make sure that the double-splash was warranted.)

Although outside the scope of this week's discussion, I hope we can discuss the idea of "idea ownership" sometime soon. Although it pertains to all characters, most creators (read "writers") generally only seem worried about ownership when it comes to superheroes. That discussion would definitely be somewhat down the line, but I think it would be interesting.

[LeeNordling]

We'll definitely be discussing ownership sometime soon...though I've been leaning towards something for next week that creators NEVER discuss as a topic.

"What's that?" you ask.

"Nevermind," I reply, coyly.

I'm such a tease.

--Lee

[Cary]

Well here's a question: If writers have the right to talk to, and okay any changes the artists make as they're doing the artwork, well then why can't the artists request any changes for the writer as they're writing the script? It's like a writer sits down on his own, writes an entire script, then when the artists wants to change something, the writer hates it or says 'tell me if you want to change something.' If the writer sat down alone and did his thing, why can't the artist do the same? ...Communication is key. Just don't hand your script over to your artist and say, 'You're so great, you can change anything you want.' cause if you say that, then he probably will.


I've encountered this a couple of times, not really a confrontation style thing, but I've spoken with Harold at length about everything from character design to backgrounds to whatever, and we've almost always been of the same mind on things. As I mentioned before, I told him when we got started if he had a better way to show something then by all means go for it, but it had to serve the story better and allow for the required dialog. Under that working arrangement he's done some incredible stuff. He adds his own flair to things because he knows that if he adds a panel, moves things around or changes a particular panel to an inset and blows it up for a bit more impact so he can make his page more dynamic I'm not gonna spaz out. Almost every time I can recall when he has made changes they are by FAR for the better and simply kicked my proposed panel all the pieces. And that's specifically why I wanted him to have that freedom. He's the artist and if he's feeling too constricted by having to follow this fascist script I don't think he's really blowing it up like he might otherwise do if given some room to breathe and express himself.

Now you're asking why shouldn't an artist have the right to request script changes? I'd say that all depends on the relationship you have. If it's a co-creator thing then he absolutely does have that right and I'd expect him to step right up and say something if he felt like the direction was a bit off. However if it's a work for hire thing, you're paying the guy and he should by and large draw what you've asked him to draw within reason.

With my new series Dynagirl, Harold and I will sit around and just talk about the direction the story is going. He'll say something like "man after I read your latest script I got to thinking what if we did this...what do you think?" I'll look at it and say "hell yeah that totally works and we can drop it right in here seamlessly!" and we'll go from there. We did that a lot in the last four issues of Fallen Justice in fact getting a bunch of set up done for the new series and it was a blast.

[Cary]

For ME, having a script read well, be compelling an entertaining on its own merits is important...because I want the artist and editor to be entertained, instead of struggling to visualize what I'm hoping to achieve.

But that's just me.

What about you folks?

--Lee

I fully agree. I try my very best to write a script that's readable on its own, because it's easier for the editor and the artist to get through, interpret and envision. If the artist can't tell what I'm asking him to draw, I haven't even come close to doing my job.


One artist I've worked with likes double-splash pages. I had to adjust my storytelling style and sometimes the story itself to accommodate that wish.

Let me know how that works out when you take the book to trade! lol That's another aspect of writing that I quickly changed due to learning to letter and do paste up. If you're putting in a double page splash, you damn well better remember to have those pages be FACING each other, because otherwise you're just killing the effect your artist would be evoking. A lot of times people don't think about things of that nature, where the pages will fall numbering wise, and they just go nuts. When it comes time to rock the post production is when that gets a little nasty. That's part of the reason there is only one double page splash in the entire Fallen Justice series. Less to worry about! :)

[CalvinCamp]

Although it pertains to all characters, most creators (read "writers") generally only seem worried about ownership when it comes to superheroes.Huh.
I wouldn't have expected that. I think my superheroes are the creations where I'm least worried about ownership.

Anyway...
I just wanted to say a little more about the control thing, before letting it drop.

I think it's important for people to realize that just because someone wants to be able to make the final decision on a potential change (to insure that a project doesn't collapse into an endless argument if negotiation fails to work things out), that doesn't mean they aren't willing to treat the artist as a valued member of the team, listen to their suggestions, and try to work out compromises while striving for the best possible result for the project. There's a whole lot of middle ground between letting an artist do anything they please, with no oversight, and not allowing them any latitude at all. It doesn't automatically have to be the worst case scenario.

[LeeNordling]

Let me know how that works out when you take the book to trade! lol That's another aspect of writing that I quickly changed due to learning to letter and do paste up. If you're putting in a double page splash, you damn well better remember to have those pages be FACING each other, because otherwise you're just killing the effect your artist would be evoking. A lot of times people don't think about things of that nature, where the pages will fall numbering wise, and they just go nuts. When it comes time to rock the post production is when that gets a little nasty. That's part of the reason there is only one double page splash in the entire Fallen Justice series. Less to worry about! :)

This is a great point worthy of REAL consideration.

Always NOTE that your story begins on a right- or left-hand page. ALWAYS!

Without it, you can't possibly design your page turns for REVEALS.

With the DW anthology story I wrote, making sure I could be a right-hand page lead was my first question; I got it. That also freed me to write the double-page spread AND to save my final last-page reveal for what had been really going on as a left-hand page (to be revealed after the page turn).

Good point, Cary.

Welcome to the discussion.

--Lee

[LeeNordling]

I'd like to get back to the panel writing questions/discussion now.

We have months to get to these other topics, but if we segue from one to the other, we don't get stuff fully discussed, we don't have an opportunity to develop or modify our process.

And folks coming later just read a meandering conversation, so let's put our eye back on the ball.

And I'll begin again with a new question: what is an artist's responsibility to a flexible or accurate visual portrayal of the panel in a script?

Essentially, what criteria come into play? (Let's work to get this nailed down.)

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

And I'll begin again with a new question: what is an artist's responsibility to a flexible or accurate visual portrayal of the panel in a script?

Essentially, what criteria come into play? (Let's work to get this nailed down.)
I think the artist's primary responsibility would be very similar to the responsibility the writer has in describing the panel - to do his best to make sure that the panel tells the story it's supposed to, and does it as well as possible (which should, ideally, include talking to the writer if the artist feels the panel described doesn't best serve the overall story).

[LeeNordling]

I think the artist's primary responsibility would be very similar to the responsibility the writer has in describing the panel - to do his best to make sure that the panel tells the story it's supposed to, and does it as well as possible (which should, ideally, include talking to the writer if the artist feels the panel described doesn't best serve the overall story).

Calvin's made a pretty cogent statement about what he believes are the inherent responsibilities of a sequential artist.

Who does or doesn't agree with this?

C'mon, let's vote...and it won't be about whether he's right or wrong, it's about whether you agree for yourself or don't.

And if you don't, I'd love to hear where you believe this falls short or goes to far in whatever aspect you believe to be so for yourself.

And let's sweeten the question with an example: Should your favorite artist in the world, whoever he or she is, be able to interpret a comics script anyway he chooses...without first consulting somebody about a change in direction?

Let's see if there are any qualifying answers now that wouldn't have popped up before.

If there aren't absolutes, where do the lines bend?

--Lee

[Cary]

And I'll begin again with a new question: what is an artist's responsibility to a flexible or accurate visual portrayal of the panel in a script?


I can agree with Calvin here. I think the artist's responsibility is to read and interpret the script, making the best panel he possibly can. I also think he has a responsibility to depart from the script if in doing so he can make the panel even better than it was originally conceived. If he's not doing this, he's more of a robot than anything IMO.



Should your favorite artist in the world, whoever he or she is, be able to interpret a comics script anyway he chooses...without first consulting somebody about a change in direction?

I have to say no here. If he's free to junk the whole script and do whatever he wants, what's the point of having a writer to begin with? To me there has to be a give and a take here. The artist needs to at least somewhat respect the vision of the writer, otherwise he's better off writing his own stuff.

[CalvinCamp]

And let's sweeten the question with an example: Should your favorite artist in the world, whoever he or she is, be able to interpret a comics script anyway he chooses...without first consulting somebody about a change in direction?
Should he?
No. I think it would be nothing more than common decency to talk it over with me (or whoever is in charge of the project) first and see if we can come to a compromise.

Could he?
Well, let's face it. If it came down to choosing between what Chris Bachalo wants or what Calvin Camp wants, who would you pick? Yeah, me too. But it'd still be nice if he talked to me about it first, so we could try to come to an agreement we're both happy with.


I also think he has a responsibility to depart from the script if in doing so he can make the panel even better than it was originally conceived. If he's not doing this, he's more of a robot than anything IMO.Cary said something interesting there that I realized could help clarify my position on changes.

I've said that the artist shouldn't arbitrarily do things that change the story, but that doesn't necessarily mean he shouldn't "depart from the script" to better serve the story. The script isn't the story. The script is more a guide to telling the story. (I still think significant changes should be discussed, though)

[LeeNordling]

Could he?
Well, let's face it. If it came down to choosing between what Chris Bachalo wants or what Calvin Camp wants, who would you pick? Yeah, me too. But it'd still be nice if he talked to me about it first, so we could try to come to an agreement we're both happy with.

Somebody wrote, in response to the last two columns, (I forget who, and it's not important enough to revisit for identity), that they didn't necessarily apply to comics.

My response at the time was that we need to understand our tangential industries, when I could have made a much more relevant point.

How is a studio taking what they want from the published comic and leaving the rest different from an artist taking what they want from a comic script and leaving the rest?

I posit that, at its heart, it's not different at all.

I posit that those articles are important to understanding why somebody chooses material to work on, and why they sometimes do what they do with it.

--Lee

[drgerb]

How is a studio taking what they want from the published comic and leaving the rest different from an artist taking what they want from a comic script and leaving the rest?

My reaction to that would be the money. Which seems like such a cop-out / what a tool would say. But honestly. If Hollywood comes knocking and offers me a million bucks for the movie rights to one of my comics, I'd ask where to sign.

As anti money I've been, suggesting the business side compromises the artistic side of comic books, I will say that hell. If the movie making people butcher my first script, I don't care. If I get a big check, nice. My first big comic turned into a movie (if I were ever lucky enough) will be about the money. Putting food on the table, supporting my family. Once that's done, if movie people still want more of my comics, then I'll think about the comic's sake, and then I'll care about whether they succeed or not. But that first one? Money starts a lot of problems but it can also solve quite a few too.

And it is a business afterall. So nobody can really say TRUTHFULLY that they don't do something for the money. Famous bands who talk about the importance of the music and not doing it for the money? It's easy to sing that tone when you're driving a 500,000 dollar Ferrari. When they go bankrupt that's when we see them in their true colors.

Hell the only people who should be allowed to say they don't do anything for the money, they do it for the love instead should be homeless people. They're the only ones who don't do anything for the money. And hell even they would probably do some pretty nasty stuff for a quick buck.

If he's got a nice suit or a nice car, don't trust him. If he stinks and has a bunch of flies around him, believe what he tells you. But bleh.

In the end money plays a major role. We're talking about feeding our families.


Blah, I'm rambling again. But yeah, back to the first point. If I'm paying an artist to change my script around, I'd probably be pretty pissed. But if he does it right, and does some minor changes, I wouldn't be too pissed. We're not talking about a change that'd kill your chance of getting a million bucks... Erm... I feel like the more I argue the more I prove everybody else's points. So yeah. I'm just gonna stop.

[CalvinCamp]

Somebody wrote, in response to the last two columns, (I forget who, and it's not important enough to revisit for identity), that they didn't necessarily apply to comics.
You might be thinking of me. But my point was actually that adaptation to film was a narrow aspect of comics that might might not have as broad an appeal (or, perhaps, might not appeal as much to the same group) as the process of making a comic in the first place - not that they didn't apply to comics at all.


How is a studio taking what they want from the published comic and leaving the rest different from an artist taking what they want from a comic script and leaving the rest?

I posit that, at its heart, it's not different at all.Wow.
Really?

I'd say it's pretty close to the dead opposite.

In a deal like that, the studio is paying me for the right to take what they want and leave the rest. I signed the contract and accepted the loss of control as part of the deal. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay the studio to tear up my script and start over.

Likewise, if the artist wants to pay me to take what he wants from my script and leave the rest, I'm open to discussing that too. And if he makes it worth my while, I'd probably go along with it, just like with the movie studio. But if I'm supposed to go along with a deal where somebody is going to take my money and I don't get any say in what stays or goes... no way - That's not a deal, that's con job.

[LeeNordling]

Wow.
Really?

I'd say it's pretty close to the dead opposite.

In a deal like that, the studio is paying me for the right to take what they want and leave the rest. I signed the contract and accepted the loss of control as part of the deal. But I sure as hell wouldn't pay the studio to tear up my script and start over.

Likewise, if the artist wants to pay me to take what he wants from my script and leave the rest, I'm open to discussing that too. And if he makes it worth my while, I'd probably go along with it, just like with the movie studio. But if I'm supposed to go along with a deal where somebody is going to take my money and I don't get any say in what stays or goes... no way - That's not a deal, that's con job.
Yep.

Really.

Step back and look at what you wrote, Calvin.

The only difference is that they PAY you for the privilege of being disregarded.

I'm referring to--and please follow from where this idea emanates--is the simple act of ONE PERSON (or studio) deciding to do what it will to ONE PROPERTY, without regard for the original intent.

That is the same.

Being paid for the privilege doesn't change the act.

I do realize there's benefit in one versus the other...but if FAMOUS/COMMERCIAL ARTIST has his/her way, making the finished comic COMMERCIALLY VIABLE, there's potential financial advantage for this version, too.

This argument against the supposition suggests that pay makes it okay/reasonable.

Let's keep our eye these two aspects as separate balls...and not (once again) schmoosh them together.

What's being done is one thing.

What we do or don't get for it is another.

Let's separate these aspects and continue.

And, for those who think we're meandering, please go back to the beginning and remember that this ALL revolving around learning to understand all the sensibilities that come into play, so we can be more flexible (or understand ourselves better, or both) as creators.

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

Lee,
You and your, "Let's keep it separate," are going to drive me nuts. ;)

Okay, yeah, I can go along with you if you want to call it the "same act." But that still doesn't make it the same thing. And I think trying to look at the two situations as separate-but-equal is hiding from a very important point - which is whether the act is acceptable.

In the case of a film studio buying the right to disregard me, it's the compensation that makes the act of disregarding me acceptable.

In the case where I'm providing the compensation to someone else then, IMO, disregarding me is not acceptable.

And I don't think I'm capable of agreeing that an acceptable act and an unacceptable act are the same thing. I think there's a pretty big difference between the two.

As far as the famous artist providing greater credibility/marketability to a project, sure, that's compensation too. It might even be enough compensation to let me give him the right to disregard me (we established that before). But let's not pretend that I'm not getting payment (by receiving something of value) out of that deal as well.

[LeeNordling]

Morally, ethically, respect-for-the-original work-wise, it is exactly the same thing.

There's an old joke about a man who asks a wealthy woman is she'd go to bed with him if he'd give a billion (used to be a million) dollars to charity.

She thought about it for a while, and said she would.

Then he asked her if she'd sleep with him if he gave her twenty bucks.

Huffily, she said, "Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?"

He said, "That, ma'am, has already been established. Now we're dickering for price."

This all ties into "knowing what you're going to sell and why," but, as I continue to try to point out (and will again), THAT is not what we're discussing.

We are discussing the frame of mind the person has who chooses to change the original into something different.

Some artists feel they're perfectly entitled to do this (for a number of reasons, WHICH, to get us BACK to the point), as do some studios.

Skip (for now) the price, and let's explore the sense of entitlement.

If we do THAT, we'll be taking off our "creative" hats, and putting on our "professional" hats.

The separating-things aspect is what helps us discover the variations of what we believe and why.

And THAT is the point of this week's discussion.

So, please come back to the topic, and let's discuss WHY some artists feel entitled to treat the script with a "I can do whatever I want to it" approach.

Let's not say it's "wrong"; let's probe the core reasons.

Then we get somewhere.

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

Morally, ethically, respect-for-the-original work-wise, it is exactly the same thing.I don't believe it is. Not morally or ethically. (The respect-for-the-original-work-wise is iffy, but I might give it to you)

Good joke, though.

And, hey, if you'd rather not discuss the acceptability/compensation issues and move on to the mindset of the person doing it, I won't argue. But I will point out that I think the person doing it just because they think they ought to be able to, is operating from a different frame of mind than the one who has provided compensation in exchange for doing as he pleases. So I don't know if it's going to be as easy to separate as you think.


WHY some artists feel entitled to treat the script with a "I can do whatever I want to it" approach.

Let's not say it's "wrong"; let's probe the core reasons.
The only reasonable possibility I can think of (which doesn't mean there aren't other reasonable possibilities) is that the artist feels he is putting more hours of work into the project and should have more say for that reason.

And I think that could be a very valid stance in a situation where the artist is being under(or un)-compensated for their time. At that point the "entitlement" is really just part of the artist's compensation (Sorry, Lee. It just won't stay out. It's too freaking integral). So it might be a fair demand, even in addition to payment, in exchange for what the artist is bringing to the table. But that should be still be discussed and agreed to at the start, I think, not just assumed by the artist.

I could even respect the stance of an artist who felt there WAS NO compensation great enough to give up the "I can do whatever I want to it" approach, but I'd sure want to know about that before we started working together. :)

I'm interested to see what other possibilities are brought up.

[LeeNordling]

The only reasonable possibility I can think of (which doesn't mean there aren't other reasonable possibilities) is that the artist feels he is putting more hours of work into the project and should have more say for that reason.

And I think that could be a very valid stance in a situation where the artist is being under(or un)-compensated for their time. At that point the "entitlement" is really just part of the artist's compensation.

(IRRELEVANT BLOCK EDITED OUT)

I could even respect the stance of an artist who felt there WAS NO compensation great enough to give up the "I can do whatever I want to it" approach, but I'd sure want to know about that before we started working together. :)

I'm interested to see what other possibilities are brought up.

I think it's fair to say artists might choose to draw a script any way they wish to because they're not getting paid.

Though, taking money out of the choice equation, I have OFTEN heard artists say "I'm the artist, and it's my job to interpret the script any way I choose to." It's a point of view, whether I agree with it or not.

Along that lines, I've also heard artists say, even when they ARE compensated, "If somebody hired me to do what I do, then I'm going to do what I do." They believe that the simple act of hiring them, or bringing them aboard, gives then final say about how the story will be visually interpreted.

I've heard artists complain that they don't want to be a "wrist," which means a puppet to the writer or editor's demands.

Much of this, in certain circumstances, has validity. It's often a matter of degrees, instead of absolutes, with a million qualifiers.

Sometimes panels CAN'T be drawn, so an artist makes choices that the writer feels didn't retain the integrity of the intent.

Here's another. I got a writer to agree to an artist for a book. He liked her work.

Then she did the character designs, and he didn't like her drawing of eyes.

I said, "But THAT'S how she draws eyes."

"Well, that's not the way I see the character," he said.

He finally came to understand that when he agreed to bringing the artist on board, he had to accept her stylistic limitations; it's not like they weren't apparent before, right?

Let's keep discussing this...and perhaps narrowing down important criteria for what you each believe is and isn't acceptable about the interpretation of a panel.

BTW, I don't expect that one answer will be a "right" one; I expect that we'll each know ALL the possible reasons, the ones we think are reasonable and unreasonable.

But they'll be there for us to remember.

Perhaps they'll be there for writers to discuss WITH artists, as well as artists WITH writers, BEFORE they choose to work together.

It all comes back to establishing ALL the ground rules before starting.

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

Though, taking money out of the choice equation, I have OFTEN heard artists say "I'm the artist, and it's my job to interpret the script any way I choose to." It's a point of view, whether I agree with it or not.

Along that lines, I've also heard artists say, even when they ARE compensated, "If somebody hired me to do what I do, then I'm going to do what I do." They believe that the simple act of hiring them, or bringing them aboard, gives then final say about how the story will be visually interpreted.

I've heard artists complain that they don't want to be a "wrist," which means a puppet to the writer or editor's demands.You seem to be moving the goal posts around a little here. Are we talking about "interpreting the script" and "visually interpreting the story", or are we talking about CHANGING the story? Because I've been talking about changing the story, and I'm going to proceed on that basis for now.

I realize that some artists think they have a right to do anything they please, including change the story. And, like I said, I can even respect it. I don't really understand it, but if I know it's one of the terms of the deal I can proceed accordingly.

But I think that if someone intends to take such an absolute stand, it should be their responsibility to communicate that fact in advance of taking the job. The same way it should be a writer's responsibility to inform the artist in advance if he expects absolute slavish adherence to what was described in the script. That's not a surprise you want to spring on someone, the results could be ugly.

If someone demands that sort of absolute 100% freedom, I still might be able to work with them, but it would severely limit the things I'd be willing to work with them on. There are some projects I might consider going ahead with on that basis and some that I never would (maybe not even for Chris Bachalo ;) ).



It's often a matter of degrees, instead of absolutes, with a million qualifiers.
Far more often than not, I would hope.


Sometimes panels CAN'T be drawn, so an artist makes choices that the writer feels didn't retain the integrity of the intent.That sounds to me like a case where things would probably work out better if the artist got off his high horse and talked to the writer. Then maybe they could come up with a solution that could be drawn and retain the integrity of the intent. At least attempting compromise is really in everyone's best interest.


Here's another. I got a writer to agree to an artist for a book. He liked her work.

Then she did the character designs, and he didn't like her drawing of eyes.

I said, "But THAT'S how she draws eyes."

"Well, that's not the way I see the character," he said.

He finally came to understand that when he agreed to bringing the artist on board, he had to accept her stylistic limitations; it's not like they weren't apparent before, right?This is not a question of an artist changing the story, which is what we've been debating before. This is just somebody not thinking things through.

If a writer needs or wants a certain drawing style for his book, he needs to find an artist who draws in that style, or is willing to - I don't think it would hurt to ask if an artist was willing to make a minor stylistic adjustment (some artists draw in a number of different styles), but it's not something you can demand, because the artist may not be capable of (much less comfortable with) drawing in a different style.

While we're on the subject of misunderstandings about art style... something else that might be worth considering for a list of criteria is that the artist should draw the comic in the same style as the samples he provided. I don't know how much it happens in comics, but, elsewhere, I've heard of folks being a bit irritated when the art they commissioned didn't look like the samples the artist had submitted to get the job.


Let's keep discussing this...and perhaps narrowing down important criteria for what you each believe is and isn't acceptable about the interpretation of a panel.I think my personal requirements are pretty minimal. I'd say it boils down to... Draw it in the style you showed me in your samples, draw it to best serve the story I gave you, and ask me before making changes that impact the story (anything else, I think, is probably negotiable).

[drgerb]

Bleh. I think they are different, atleast for me. When you go into a deal with an artist, you're now a team working to create the best comic book possible. Granted maybe you're paying him, maybe you're agreeing to a 50% deal down the line, etc. But you are somewhat equals, and you're both a team. While it might sometimes work like that for a movie, I don't envision it happening often.

If a movie deal comes my way, I'm looking at it as a, 'Hey we really like this comic book you created, and we'd like to take this part on it, emphasis it, rewrite it, and make it into an awesome movie to make all kinds of bucks. Here's how much we'd pay you.' In this situation, your comic book is already done and published. It cannot be messed up any more (the physical comic book I'm talking about). Granted a movie adaptation could be, but he straight up said that it might be changed, certain parts might be removed, some may be added. But you go into a movie deal aware of these things. When you go into a partnership type deal with an artist, you're both just striving to make the best comic possible.

And with the artist, we're not talking about him going in, completely pulling pages out, reordering the entire order of events, messing up your splash changes, and changing it as much as he wants. He's not the movie producers. He's not taking YOUR story and looking at it as he'd see it, free to change anything. He's here to help create your story and make it the best it could possibly be. Those just seem different to me.

My two cents. And I might have lost sight of the actual discussion a bit.. I was just trying to explain why I see those as being different. No offense to you, Lee. I just think helping make one thing out of nothing is different from paying somebody, taking something that already exists, and then making a new version of it.

[CalvinCamp]

And with the artist, we're not talking about him going in, completely pulling pages out, reordering the entire order of events, messing up your splash changes, and changing it as much as he wants. He's not the movie producers. He's not taking YOUR story and looking at it as he'd see it, free to change anything. I don't know. It sounds like maybe we are talking about that.

I mean, if an artist is willing to take a story from someone like Neil Gaiman so far off course that the script had to be thrown in the trash and a new script written to make the drawings work, then what is he willing to do to a nobody writer like me?

[drgerb]

Well, yeah but... I don't know. Gah.

Some artists suck. Some are good.

Some writers suck too. Moral of the story? Don't be a good writer paired with a bad artist.

Guess it's easier said than done? Meh.

This thread now has me questioning my entire thought system, let alone whether an artist can change a panel, two panels, a page, or an entire book. Gah.

[CalvinCamp]

This thread now has me questioning my entire thought system, let alone whether an artist can change a panel, two panels, a page, or an entire book. Gah.I suspect that was Lee's intent.

He wants to get us to see how different other people's default expectations might be, so that we're aware of just how much there is to talk about when trying to put together a team for a project.

[LeeNordling]

I don't know. It sounds like maybe we are talking about that.

I mean, if an artist is willing to take a story from someone like Neil Gaiman so far off course that the script had to be thrown in the trash and a new script written to make the drawings work, then what is he willing to do to a nobody writer like me?

Thanks for completing the dots on this one, Calvin.

That's right.

WHY somebody does something--money, fame, access--isn't, for the sake of THIS conversation, as important as simply coming to terms with:

1) it's done.
2) how do you feel about it, and what are the relevant qualifiers?

We will, through the course of this column, keep coming back to various questions of ethics.

Having a good rationale for why YOU (the general "you," not you specifically, Calvin) do what you do is PROBABLY wiser than doing that same thing simply because you CAN.

A studio CAN do what they want; it's more important to understand WHY they make the choices they do, though...per the previous two columns.

And now we're discussing what artists CAN do to a comics script, hopefully to also get to WHY they make the choices they do.

I heard a story today about an artist who agreed to draw a short comics story. He agreed to the working arrangement, he agreed to the style that he was supposed to work in, and then he did whatever he wanted to. He wouldn't take direction, not even on character designs, and when he was challenged about fulfilling his promise, he quit...and said he was keeping the money.

HIS expressed view was that he'd been hired to draw the story, and nobody else on the book knew as much as he did about art, so nobody was going to tell him what he should or shouldn't do.

Some poor kid is out some hard-earned money, can't really sue to get it back because it costs more than he paid out, and the artist who ripped him off is LIKELY pissed off because somebody tried to tell him what to do on a story he'd been hired to draw.

That is one extreme...but we can learn from this.

We can create, through some DEFINABLE, EXPLAINABLE code of ethics what is right and what is wrong.

And that's why we're continuing to discuss this.

In his heart, the artist in this last example felt that he WAS doing what he'd been paid to do, that it wasn't appreciated, so he was going to hold onto the money as compensation for his wasted time.

If you can SEE that perspective, and the previous one, then somewhere, between them was a misstep made by somebody, some thought, feeling of empowerment, whatever.

This is why I've been keeping us focused on this ball, even though it's rolled back and forth a bit, as Calvin's pointed out...but it's the same ball.

Let's NOT discuss how the ball might have shifted; let's discuss and discover where that misstep took place...in the artist's mind/perception.

Yes, the ground rules for the relationship, and what was needed really was laid out clearly...so somewhere in that, this artist decided to ignore or misinterpret the nature of the job.

Sure, it's easy to dismiss him as a ego-driven freak...but the more we find the triggers that create these situations, the more we'll be armed to avoid them in the first place...and, failing that, be able to recognize and more effectively deal with them.

All for tonight.

--Lee

[drgerb]

Hmm, interesting. I guess my first idea would be respect. Keep respect involved in any agreement.

I imagine both writers and artists fall into the whole, 'I'm the writer, so I know how to write, you don't change anything! Just do your job!' and the artist may come back and say 'I'm the artist, I know about art than you ever will! You're paying me for my time so I'm gonna do what I define as best for this project!'

I guess the only real way around that is if you work with somebody as immature or as arrogant to think he's always right, then don't work with him again. I also think the artist and writer should respect eachother's wishes.

I dunno. I really don't know if there's anything to add. Every writer will be different and every artist will be different. Some artists will probably email you just to ask if they can change the position of the guy's arm, or change the color of his shoes. Other artists will go and rewrite your entire script for you without asking then cheat you on your money and their time. Also every writer will be different; Some will understand that if you're a good artist, you may want to change some things, others will say they're the writers so they write. I dunno really.

I don't have any examples, I haven't had any partnerships yet. So yeah. I'm a bit lost. I just figure try to talk everything out before hand, express the goal you're striving for, and the way you want to get there. Say what might be okay, what will be okay, and what wouldn't be okay. Try to get on the same page. Other than that, I dunno. Bleh.

[LeeNordling]

We can all offer our opinions/reactions, so let's get specific.

What do you think are the variables involved in a person exercising the empowerment (to do what they wish to)?

Since most of us here SEEM to agree that good communication would be best in a collaboration, let's not include this as something that could make the following alright; we're just trying to find the CORE reasons for a sense of personal empowerment.

These are the things that seem to be at its core, and many could be variations on the others, but finding the different nuances lead to different tones, I'll include what I can think of:

It's my job.
I need to make it mine.
I didn't get paid, so I should be able to do what I want to.
I didn't get paid enough to do what somebody else tells me to do.
You hired me for what I do, and this is what I do.
I get a vote.
I thought I could do it, because I'm the artist and this is the art.
Because I can.
I thought it was better this way.
I LIKE it better this way.
My version will sell better (is more commercial).

Again, we're trying to suss out any potential variables.

Without writing paragraphs--try writing short lines like I've done--do you have other additions, or believe any of mine should be removed?

Remember, this isn't about right or wrong, this is about noting core concepts/beliefs that might lead to an empowerment by the artist to do what they wish to a comic script.

I look forward to your thoughts.

--Lee

[LeeNordling]

This thread now has me questioning my entire thought system, let alone whether an artist can change a panel, two panels, a page, or an entire book.

Good.

As Calvin noted, that IS my intent.

That doesn't mean your system needs to CHANGE, but that you (and I hope others) are examining it, testing its mettle, learning (I also hope) to explain why you believe what you believe, that is (I believe) much better than believing something because you've simply been influenced by the culture and experience to believe it.

This discussion was initially about how folks approach panel-writing, and I'd hoped to more slowly expand to these larger topics, but perhaps it can't be separated from "approach to writing" in general, and "approach to art" in general.

We are getting to the same destination, if not via the route I'd intended.

So, back to the question at hand: Reasons for empowerment by artists who feel they can do what they wish to a comic panel, page, or script.

--Lee

[drgerb]

You pretty much listed most that I could have thought about. I'd also suggest that 'Because I can' should be only attributed to asshole artists. Lol. It's not a good enough answer for any decent artist.

I'd also add the name on the front of the page. If my name, as an artist, is credited on the cover of a book, then I can do what I want? Bleh.

The other idea of maybe I can. Blah. But a writer already agreed on me, the writer digs my stuff, thinks I can do art for this project so maybe I take that to my head and push it a bit too far.

There's also that, a writer paid me for my time so he'll probably use my art. Like that guy you mentioned; The writer totally rewrote the script for the art that the artist handed in. If the artist is being paid, his work is going to end up somewhere. Maybe he puts too much meaning into that, assuming that anything will be good enough.


I seriously can't think of anything else. I just think that most often, the artist does so with good intentions. He thinks the change is merited so he goes ahead and does it. Like I don't think the artist ever really is, 'Hah, I'm doing this cause I can! Now you'll have to live with it you measly writer! Muahah!' so we should understand that. Even if what the artist thinks is good doesn't line up with what the editor and writer think is good (which would suck), he doesn't change stuff because it's BAD. He changes it because he THINKS it will be better... I think? Right? So there's good intentions. Just sometimes what I think is good differs from you and so on. And that's where it gets bad. Both the writer and artist should understand what the editor / publishing house thinks is good and the creators involved should try to strive for that... I mean, if that's like what they need to do? Like if they're not Frank Miller? Gah. I don't know.

[LeeNordling]

Good point, Roberts; I forgot one you alluded to, but didn't clarify:

My name is on the book as the artist, and I need to make sure the work lives up to my reputation/my standard of quality.

Again, this is one that makes a LOT of sense and it makes a really good case.

I've had my name removed from work that I didn't believe lived up to my standard, so the flip side is certainly arguable. (Yes, we could add there's a right and wrong way to make a case, but that's not the discussion; we're just examining the CORE value behind an action.)

In the case of others, Roberts, you're repeating a couple that I noted.

Here's what I'm trying to avoid, but you're not:

THERE ARE NO GENERALIZATIONS THAT ARE ALWAYS TRUE.

IF ALL ARTISTS WERE BLUE, THEN A GENERAL DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ALL LIKE, OR WHY THEY ALL DO SOMETHING, WOULD BE NO DIFFERENT FROM RACIAL STEREOTYPING.

ALL BLUE ARTISTS DON'T BELIEVE THE SAME THINGS, AND WHERE THEY MAY SEEM TO, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE THEM FOR THE SAME REASONS.

Let's skip the idea that somebody changing something because of a PERCEPTION that they are empowered to do so might have positive motivations to make the work better.

I've been working hard to take "right" or "wrong" out of this, and cut to the core values. Let's please not discuss that any more, and keep our eye on the ball.

Something will be right or wrong ONLY in unique and specific circumstances; for now, we're looking at the core underpinnings for a sense of empowerment.

It's not complicated, but it's also not easy to pull out the root.

--Lee

[CalvinCamp]

Let's skip the idea that that somebody changing something, because of a PERCEPTION that they are empowered to do so, might have positive motivations to make the work better. :confused:
What's the purpose of all this, unless it's to understand how something we perceive as negative could be perceived by someone else as positive? Unless I assume that someone believes that they're making a positive contribution by changing something, there's really only one thing I'd have to say about them, and it's not exactly polite.


My name is on the book as the artist, and I need to make sure the work lives up to my reputation/my standard of quality.

Again, this is one that makes a LOT of sense and it makes a really good case.How does that make a lot of sense?

I'd buy it from a writer (because he could see a good story ruined by a bad artist, without seeing it coming), but I have trouble buying it from the artist's side. The artist got to see the script before he started drawing it. If the story wasn't up to his standard of quality, then he shouldn't have taken the job. If he just thought it was flawed but could be saved, that should have been discussed up front as well.

To me, that's not a good case. It's not even much of an excuse, when the writer could use the exact same argument as an even more valid reason for making the artist toe the line on the story.

But that's just my opinion, based on my reasoning, which will only matter to someone who might agree with me. And that brings me to a question... Why does the "why" matter?

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I have to wonder if it really matters why the artist feels that sense of empowerment (or why a writer might feel entitled to retain control over the art). What one calls artistic integrity the other might see as pure arrogance, anyway.

Knowing why the artist thinks he can do whatever he wants is not going to change my decision about whether I'll work with him, because it doesn't change the situation - He's still not going to do what I ask. So I'll either deal with the situation or not, depending on my needs for the project. I really just need to be aware that the sense of empowerment exists and take steps to protect myself from it (when necessary).

The only time I could see the "why" mattering is if the artist would be willing to consider letting go of that empowerment in exchange for something I could provide. If he his, then we can talk about reasons and negotiate one-on-one, and I won't need to speculate what his reasons might be.

So I guess I'm just starting to wonder where we're going with this.

[LeeNordling]

What's the purpose of all this, unless it's to understand how something we perceive as negative could be perceived by someone else as positive?

YAY!

YOU GET IT!!

That's exactly what happens...probably more times than not!

In this world, we are all heroes in our own story, and the people who are trying to take something away from us, something that we feel we have coming/earned/owed, are the villains in our own story.

I don't believe that the previously described artist thought he was a villain, which is why I asked you and others to consider everything from his point of view.

Until you look at everything we're discussing from the other perspective, then it is really hard to come to agreement ahead of time, to set rules in a relationship that both sides will play with...AND CONSIDER FAIR.

Only when, in a negotiation, FAIR is agreed to, can we call somebody on what they agreed to.

In the case of the artist who agreed to everything discussed, but still behaved as though he was being screwed, one thing was apparent to me: the ground rules, the working relationship, the goals, the process probably had NOT been discussed far enough...

...so I asked folks to consider all the variables.

Roberts and I put some down.

And that is what we are now discussing: a full range of variables that might contain causes for a sense of empowerment.

(Moving forward, and not digressing, let's continue to do this, please.)


How does that make a lot of sense?

Why does it make sense that an artist MIGHT be empowered to change something because his/her name is on the book?

Because he/she MIGHT feel his/her reputation is at stake for something that needs to be better.

It doesn't matter that the artist may not know HOW to properly deal with this problem...not YET YET YET.


...And that brings me to a question... Why does the "why" matter?

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I have to wonder if it really matters why the artist feels that sense of empowerment (or why a writer might feel entitled to retain control over the art). What one calls artistic integrity the other might see as pure arrogance, anyway.

Knowing why the artist thinks he can do whatever he wants is not going to change my decision about whether I'll work with him, because it doesn't change the situation - He's still not going to do what I ask. So I'll either deal with the situation or not, depending on my needs for the project. I really just need to be aware that the sense of empowerment exists and take steps to protect myself from it (when necessary).

The only time I could see the "why" mattering is if the artist would be willing to consider letting go of that empowerment in exchange for something I could provide. If he his, then we can talk about reasons and negotiate one-on-one, and I won't need to speculate what his reasons might be.

So I guess I'm just starting to wonder where we're going with this.

Some artists have terrible communication skills; it's a variable of another problem, another issue that we have yet to tackle.

Other artists (and too many writers) are really passive-aggressive, won't say what they want, and become angry when others can't read their minds or know their hearts.

That's another variable of the same different problem.

We are not yet discussing them, because to do so, complicates identifying the problem. The behavior masks the problem, and my goal is for each of us to understand as many of the potential problems as we can imagine or have encountered...if...we...could...only...get...to...it.

Eventually, we'll discuss the behavior issues, like: an artist might feel he's empowered to make all the decisions related to interpreting a script into art, but is too shy/arrogant/passive-aggressive/unschooled to be the one to mention it in the first place.

That's a complication we are not yet ready to discuss because we are not yet done discussing the root causes.

Frankly, I made a long list, and Roberts added a couple. Is that it, folks?

Do you artists out there not have other reasons we haven't noted?

However, Calvin, out of respect for what I'm trying to accomplish, I ask that you please not derail this discussion further.

I understand separating "cause" and "behavior" is tough for you, but people can't solve problems until after they've properly identified them.

Problem/solution.

Solving the problem comes next. Right now we're identifying it.

Period.

If this diversion from my intended discussion isn't good or clear enough so you can't make the separation and contribute, please stay out the rest of it until you feel you've got it. I've done my best to explain it, and it's up to you now to accept that this is going somewhere important/relevant, or to continue to think it isn't...and go your own way.

So, please help the discussion along my intended route, or simply follow it.

Thanks, Calvin.

--Lee

[RonaldMontgomery]

Ah, sweet lunch time.
Hope it's okay to answer these questions. If not, just ignore me.

Question 1: How much information do you feel is necessary for including in panel description?

I tend to break this down into:
1. Necessary visual elements in the panel.
2. What's needed for visual continuity from panel to panel.
3. Descriptions to establish pacing and mood -- these aren't necessarily things to be drawn in the panel.
I write character motivations and how they're feeling. I started doing that just because I didn't know any better, and I've had a couple of artists tell me that they especially like that, because too many writers will describe a panel (Jill stands at the door) but don't give them hooks into the characters.
Anyway, it's contrary to Mamet and that idea of just tell the story, but it works for me and it seems to work for the artists I know.

Sub-question: Does knowing the artist affect that decision, and if so, how?

Sure it does. There are some artists, and you two are on the same page, or you've talked about the story a lot, and there's more give and take. For example, Jim Giar over on DW is a guy who is good at taking an idea to the next level. Love the way he thinks. I wouldn't WANT to stand in his way by closely describing everything.
But there are other artists who are more comfortable with everything spelled out for them. That's cool too. It all comes down to communication and agreeing on boundaries.
If you, the writer, have a strong vision and you want an artist to fill it in...better make that clear up front.

Question 2: How do you feel panel-writing should be approached, stylistically, for yourself as a writer or artist, and why does that work for you (if not necessarily for others)?

I'm very much into research, background, interior motivations, mood, metaphors and symbols, THEME (LEE!)...I think a good story should work on many levels.
Yes, the panel depicts the story and moves time forward, but it can do so much more. Like, I read an AMAZING story by Chris Ware in The Years Best American Comics 2009. I think it's probably one of the best comics I've ever read, in terms of how Ware uses panels and the juxtaposition of words and art to tell an amazingly deep story.
I think I'm a wannabee artist...!

But to each their own. I think there's a core set of rules we should all adhere to...what you make with the tools is up to your tastes and inclinations.

[harryd]

I think I'm a wannabee artist...!


I'll hazard a guess that at least a few comic book writers are. Lacking the ability to draw ourselves, we want to tell someone who can draw how to do it. Of course, that could just be me!