How are you doing, comic-wise?

[Humbug]

THIS ISN'T EVEN YOUR FINAL FORM

There is no final form.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

In keeping with advice I've received I'm paying more attention to my boys' jaw shapes. I noticed that somewhere in (I believe) 2011 I inexplicably began drawing all the dudes with bucket jaw. I don't know why I began doing this. Nevertheless it stops now. Only Joseph is allowed to have a bucket jaw.

Also- that awkward moment when you unintentionally repeat a back-and-forth of dialogue from a separate storyline in a way that seems like uncreative writing instead of a "clever" running joke. At least I caught it in time.


Oh, and another comic dream. I dreamt that there was a real Leon I knew in real life who looked the same and was a professor, literally the only difference was his name was spelled "Yeon" (?) instead. In the dream I thought this was an odd coincidence, and was planning to put the moves on Professor Yeon and cheat on my boyfriend with him (?). Like it was literally Leon's cartoon head on Perry Mason's human body.

[RobboAKAscooby]

The other thing is, theoretically, I think, you can make rounded characters from archetypes... archetypes, well some of them, are simplifications of kinds of people that exist in real life, but you gotta go to depth, see what differentiates this particular example from others, what does he like, how does he act in various situations, what is it like talking to him... don't make him too consistent to character, don't make all of his likes/dislikes the first thing that comes up to your mind when you think of that archetypes, but then still leave enough recognizable. Cause everyone's some archetypes, but then also noone really is one because if you get to know them at least a bit.

My concern is that I have several archetypes that have been common across my works - eg the lovable pervy guy (Roy in SH, Brad in FT, Snow in MH), the flirty colourful girl (Nessa in SH, Storm in FT, Fyre in MH) and more - and while that's not a completely bad thing, Joss Whedon for instance has success with it, it leads to a certain degree of predictability.

The story is where I'd try to keep away from cliches. It's said that you can't come up with a completely new story, but I sure don't like to read variations of standard storylines that I've seen in dozen of movies and cliches. I detest stories for which I know how they'll play out and where I can guess most of plot points far ahead. I guess it's hard to say how much variation it takes for a story to really be considered original, but I guess it simply has to have something that I haven't seen before. The reason I read or watch most of things is to see something I haven't seen before.
Like, um, I dunno, your comic didn't get too far ahead, but supposedly it was a finished comic and it played out in a similar way how those teenage summer romance movies play out. I wouldn't care much that the setting is essentially sf and that they're surfers and all, it'd be a local colour, but it wouldn't make up for unoriginal story. But if, say, surfing played an important role in the plot in such way that it wouldn't be possible to rewrite it to have, say, traditional surfers or skaters instead - then you could say you had something there. Like, you've invented a sport, and you integrated it into a story in such way that you can't just add wheels on them and replace an important match scene with an important race scene, and end up with one of those 80' skater movies.
The other important thing would be to avoid well-worn out beats of those stories. Like if you have a romance, you avoid that part where lovers have a falling out because of a misunderstanding, or that part where they hate each other, then he saves her from danger so she sees his good side (cause you sure as hell won't write that better than George Bernard Shaw did) and so on and so on.

Yeah that's the key. The first SH was a weird sitcom type thing and you pretty much nailed SHR in your description, neither genre exactly teeming with originality.
With my novels (Maelstrom Heart and now Flying Tigers), while they may not be 100% original, there's a reasonable amount of uniqueness to them.
With Maelstrom Heart it's more than just a sci-fi "tour movie" type story, the whole thing came from me dealing with a real bad period of depression (with the help of certain musicians) leading to the enemies being like a physical manifestation of those dark feelings and a lot of my personal demons were given to the individual characters (Wind for instance gets my body issues, although hers are rather unwarranted).
Also I think I've avoided a lot of the cliches of its peers (ie YA sci-fi/adventure/fantasy/supernatural). There's no love triangle, although Wes did date Fyre pre-story, the main romance is resolved half way through the first book in a rather undramatic way, the lead characters are (or become) aware of their flaws, contrary to the current trend of the "no, I'm not beautiful, don't say that" heroine Reine is fully aware of her looks (which isn't to say she's conceited, just aware of the reality), and Westley is quite a fallible hero, sure he comes out on top in the end but he gets his arse kicked consistently and almost dies due to his recklessness and low self-worth.
Flying Tigers isn't as deep but it still goes into rather serious territory (which I handled badly in its aborted comic form) and, despite being a teen drama, it centers around more than just romantic drama and highschool politics.

But with Sh!t Happens it was always meant to be a fun project (for readers as well as myself) and, especially in webcomics, a lot of the fun storylines are cliche-riddled, doubly so when SH was pretty centered around Max and Sammi's romance. Romantic comedies have been done to death in all their forms and any interesting ideas I can come up with don't really suit the Sh!t Happens moniker.
Side note: I keep a notebook with me at all times that I jot down ideas in, both for stories and art, because my brain pushes out more ideas than I can use, so maybe there's something in there.

The thing is, I need more reason than just nostalgia to bring these guys back otherwise I might as well just draw some fan-art (can you call drawing your own characters fan-art?) and call it a day.

Also anything I did create would have to pass muster with the critics, I'm not saying a glowing 5/5 stars review but I'd prefer not to get completely shat upon again. Lord knows I've had enough experience with that.



Oh well for now this is all just theoretical discussion, until I get on top of my current output schedule, I can't take on more work among 7 mini-arts a week, one chapter with 3-4 pics each week, actual writing time and the occasional blog/rant/essay type thing.

It just feels nice to be able to discuss this kind of stuff with people who actually understand what I'm talking about.

[Sortelli]

Like it was literally Leon's cartoon head on Perry Mason's human body.

THIS IS ALSO MY DREAM MAN

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Like it was literally Leon's cartoon head on Perry Mason's human body.

THIS IS ALSO MY DREAM MAN

sortelli i think we were separated at birth

[LibertyCabbage]

There's less strictly speaking superhero comics than it appears, I think. That's because the remaining part of mainstream is filled with action comics which act very similar if not identical to superhero comics. Even though they're nominally spy comics, crime comics, sf, horror, or even dramas, they're all about huge musculatures, big showdowns, clever quips exchanged inbetween punches...

I dunno. I'm not as familiar with print comics as a lot of people, but I feel like whenever I've been to a place that has 'em, there's been an awful lot of DC and Marvel. So much so, that I think anything that doesn't look like a superhero comic would immediately stand out. You're right, though, about mainstream comics, and when I've picked up stuff that doesn't look a superhero comic, it often ends up being yet another action comic with macho guys and big-chested women.

Regardless of him, I guess I'm expecting a lot from critics I really appreciate. I want them to be smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. Like how David A. Cook's History of Narrative Film changed my outlook on many subjects - for instance, that's the book that convinced me to like Hitchcock. He simply shed a different lite on it than the prosaic ones I used to see, and this lite was actually convincing, connected with me. Then there's Rudolph Arnheim who isn't a critic in strict sense of the world, but you know when he's analyzing a painting, he's gonna dig deep into why people see something in that painting, what is it that is appealing to them on subconscious level. And then there's how I catch myself quoting Pauline Kael because sometimes she's so good at hitting the nail on the head.

It'd be hard to say that any of the current webcomic reviewers live up to those expectations. Maybe one of 'em will develop to that point, or maybe a great reviewer will debut in the near or distant future. Our li'l forum here might actually represent the pinnacle of webcomics discussion, though, so even this thread might be part of Webcomics Theory 2013. But beyond webcomics, the state of comics in general might be pretty relevant here, and how much progress is being made (if any) on comics' path to be regarded as a legitimate artform (if it isn't already).

I guess there's appeal in reading someone you generally agree with and seeing your opinions validated by someone who (hopefully) can articulate them into writing. Also I would totally read such online critic for reccomendations, god knows it's not always easy to dig out a good webcomic. The ones that I appreciate the most, though, are the ones that I feel I can learn from.

I'd say that I mostly read webcomic reviews because I think they're entertaining, maybe even more than webcomics are.

Dunno my comics always start from the plot. If I try to put existing characters into some kinda plot that usually comes all forced, though others are better than that. But I think that if you wanna revive characters, first thing you have to do is come up with a good reason from the standpoint of reader - that means you have to come up with something that happens to those characters that is sufficiently interesting.

Yeah, I'd say that I'd prefer to first come up with a general outline of a story and then, afterwards, think of the roles that need to be filled. And that's when you can really start dealing with personalities and concept art and stuff.

The other thing is, theoretically, I think, you can make rounded characters from archetypes... archetypes, well some of them, are simplifications of kinds of people that exist in real life, but you gotta go to depth, see what differentiates this particular example from others, what does he like, how does he act in various situations, what is it like talking to him... don't make him too consistent to character, don't make all of his likes/dislikes the first thing that comes up to your mind when you think of that archetypes, but then still leave enough recognizable. Cause everyone's some archetypes, but then also noone really is one because if you get to know them at least a bit.

Plus, your main characters can't be the same throughout the whole story, or else you aren't having any character development. Basing minor characters on archetypes is more palatable, though.

The story is where I'd try to keep away from cliches. It's said that you can't come up with a completely new story, but I sure don't like to read variations of standard storylines that I've seen in dozen of movies and cliches. I detest stories for which I know how they'll play out and where I can guess most of plot points far ahead. I guess it's hard to say how much variation it takes for a story to really be considered original, but I guess it simply has to have something that I haven't seen before. The reason I read or watch most of things is to see something I haven't seen before.

I think the goal's to find the right balance between familiarity and novelty. Be too familiar, and your work's clichéd and predictable, but be too original, and you'll have an artsy work that most people won't like or understand.

One thing that is particularly good advice for webcomics, I think, is to think long term but to also think short term. Many people are drawn to writing long-winding, overarching stories, but then that often seems like something that, from reader's perspective, doesn't get anywhere, or doesn't get anywhere fast enough. The idea of interweaving plots which all develop in different paces, so that you hold reader's attention with shorter plots while slowly developing the overarching one, that is the idea that seems particularly suitable to webcomics, specially to those who want to develop these big stories.

Definitely. The key thing here's that writing for webcomics is different than writing for other mediums, including print comics, because creator output's slower. The creator who emulates the writing of a monthly 24-page print issue finds out eventually that the month's worth of print content ends up being six or more months of webcomic content with the same amount of stuff happening. I also don't think amateur creators should be making stories longer than Bone. Even if they actually make it past the introduction, which is pretty unlikely, there comes a point where it's time to wrap things up and move on to a new story. Otherwise, a webcomic could go on and on forever without the story going anywhere.

My concern is that I have several archetypes that have been common across my works - eg the lovable pervy guy (Roy in SH, Brad in FT, Snow in MH), the flirty colourful girl (Nessa in SH, Storm in FT, Fyre in MH) and more - and while that's not a completely bad thing, Joss Whedon for instance has success with it, it leads to a certain degree of predictability.

Characters just need to be more complex than a couple words or readers will get bored. The challenge, then, is making the characters interesting while keeping the story moving at a brisk pace.

Also anything I did create would have to pass muster with the critics, I'm not saying a glowing 5/5 stars review but I'd prefer not to get completely shat upon again. Lord knows I've had enough experience with that.

On the bright side, you're better off now than you were in the past because you have the opportunity to learn from your previous mistakes.

It just feels nice to be able to discuss this kind of stuff with people who actually understand what I'm talking about.

I imagine everybody here's had to deal with having at least one unsuccessful major creative project. And if not, then they probably will at some point.

[robotthepirate]

It just feels nice to be able to discuss this kind of stuff with people who actually understand what I'm talking about.

I imagine everybody here's had to deal with having at least one unsuccessful major creative project. And if not, then they probably will at some point.

I have never finished anything. No really, nothing.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

It just feels nice to be able to discuss this kind of stuff with people who actually understand what I'm talking about.

I imagine everybody here's had to deal with having at least one unsuccessful major creative project. And if not, then they probably will at some point.

I have never finished anything. No really, nothing.

You finished this post, though! *pats on back*

[McDuffies]

I'm so writing the review of that post.

My concern is that I have several archetypes that have been common across my works - eg the lovable pervy guy (Roy in SH, Brad in FT, Snow in MH), the flirty colourful girl (Nessa in SH, Storm in FT, Fyre in MH) and more - and while that's not a completely bad thing, Joss Whedon for instance has success with it, it leads to a certain degree of predictability.

There is nothing unusual about an author always reaching for kinds of characters he identifies with, or those who are interesting to him. But how exactly is that guy pervy? What does pervy mean? Some would say that we are all pervy, what does make him specially so? Does he have a stronger libido? Does he lack speech filter? Does he compensate for something? What drives the guy? What makes him loveable? Etc etc, I think you gotta have a good feeling of the character, better than simple action-reaction scenario where he hits on girls and drops in pervy comments just because.
There's always a lot to think about.

But with Sh!t Happens it was always meant to be a fun project (for readers as well as myself) and, especially in webcomics, a lot of the fun storylines are cliche-riddled, doubly so when SH was pretty centered around Max and Sammi's romance. Romantic comedies have been done to death in all their forms and any interesting ideas I can come up with don't really suit the Sh!t Happens moniker.
Side note: I keep a notebook with me at all times that I jot down ideas in, both for stories and art, because my brain pushes out more ideas than I can use, so maybe there's something in there.

I did a fun project once and it turned out like this(nsfw). To me these lightweight projects are an occasion to go nuts and do things that you wouldn't have done otherwise for fear of ruining the story. To paraphrase Faulkner, to not kill your favourite children for once.

Also anything I did create would have to pass muster with the critics, I'm not saying a glowing 5/5 stars review but I'd prefer not to get completely shat upon again. Lord knows I've had enough experience with that.

Well with all the kinds of comments you've been getting, I'm not surprised you're reluctant to show your work, it's also impressive that you've stuck with it.

It'd be hard to say that any of the current webcomic reviewers live up to those expectations. Maybe one of 'em will develop to that point, or maybe a great reviewer will debut in the near or distant future. Our li'l forum here might actually represent the pinnacle of webcomics discussion, though, so even this thread might be part of Webcomics Theory 2013. But beyond webcomics, the state of comics in general might be pretty relevant here, and how much progress is being made (if any) on comics' path to be regarded as a legitimate artform (if it isn't already)

Maybe it's not that bad. Maybe you just have to be able to read the subtext of the comic, to look at it from different angles, and average reader who misses that sort of stuff, will be surprised to find that those those things were there all the time.

I'd say that I mostly read webcomic reviews because I think they're entertaining, maybe even more than webcomics are.

Well... reviews of bad comics are more so... but they're bad for your health...

I think the goal's to find the right balance between familiarity and novelty. Be too familiar, and your work's clichéd and predictable, but be too original, and you'll have an artsy work that most people won't like or understand.

Shrug. Some of my favourite things ever are works that don't even seem to exist in the same referential system as other art. Like, David Lynch, Terry Gilliam or Italo Calvino...

[Peripheral Descent]

I'm going through one of those times where I've been plotting out all sorts of things I'm really excited about, but they are things that are relatively far into the future, that I probably won't get to work on until the very earliest the end of next summer, knowing my work methods. So my mind is loops and races ahead of where my comic actually is, and I have this unignorable yearning desire to work on things that aren't anywhere near happening yet. I'm trying to tell myself "Get working on the PRESENT comics so you'll get to the future ones sooner," but right now my brain is like a seven year old and you're telling them to eat their vegetables so they can go get ice cream later, and all the kid can think about is the ice cream ice cream ICE CREAM WHY CAN'T WE HAVE IT YET

I stole this quote from the first page (I hope I'm not derailing this thread by doing so, lol). I wanted to say, I KNOW THE FEELING OMG

I have almost a hundred pages in notes of awesome amazing things that will happen - way in the future. Not now, not even close, but eventually. And it sucks, because I know by the time I make my way to the point, I won't be as excited with those scenes, haha. But the nice thing is, by planning things so far in the future, you get lots of chances to look it over and over again for continuity errors. Plotwise, I'm slowly plucking all the errors from my story, which is awesome. So the wait doesn't bother me as much, because I know by the time I get to those scenes, they'll balance with the story and "make sense". Thinking up plot points for the future can only be an awesome thing, because it forces you to go through the editing process several times before your story arrives there.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I'm going through one of those times where I've been plotting out all sorts of things I'm really excited about, but they are things that are relatively far into the future, that I probably won't get to work on until the very earliest the end of next summer, knowing my work methods. So my mind is loops and races ahead of where my comic actually is, and I have this unignorable yearning desire to work on things that aren't anywhere near happening yet. I'm trying to tell myself "Get working on the PRESENT comics so you'll get to the future ones sooner," but right now my brain is like a seven year old and you're telling them to eat their vegetables so they can go get ice cream later, and all the kid can think about is the ice cream ice cream ICE CREAM WHY CAN'T WE HAVE IT YET

I stole this quote from the first page (I hope I'm not derailing this thread by doing so, lol). I wanted to say, I KNOW THE FEELING OMG

You just broke my time machine. The pages I was talking about on that first page are actually the ones I'm starting to work on now :'}

I have almost a hundred pages in notes of awesome amazing things that will happen - way in the future. Not now, not even close, but eventually. And it sucks, because I know by the time I make my way to the point, I won't be as excited with those scenes, haha. But the nice thing is, by planning things so far in the future, you get lots of chances to look it over and over again for continuity errors. Plotwise, I'm slowly plucking all the errors from my story, which is awesome. So the wait doesn't bother me as much, because I know by the time I get to those scenes, they'll balance with the story and "make sense". Thinking up plot points for the future can only be an awesome thing, because it forces you to go through the editing process several times before your story arrives there.

This is definitely true. I'm glad I don't do the fly-by-seat-of-pants method anymore. It worked for the short comics I used to make, and the rambling directionless slice-of-life ones I made in middle school, but for a longform comic I intend to work on for a good chunk of my life, I need to be a bit more prudent and not just cast my seeds to the wind. Changing my mindset toward longer term plot planning has had some significant effect on my writing in general.

[LibertyCabbage]

Maybe you just have to be able to read the subtext of the comic, to look at it from different angles, and average reader who misses that sort of stuff, will be surprised to find that those those things were there all the time.

I guess that's the next step that I should be moving towards with my writing.

Well... reviews of bad comics are more so... but they're bad for your health...

What's bad for my health is a "the emperor has no clothes" social dynamic. Legit criticism and analysis is pretty healthy for everybody in the medium.

Shrug. Some of my favourite things ever are works that don't even seem to exist in the same referential system as other art. Like, David Lynch, Terry Gilliam or Italo Calvino...

I'd say David Lynch is sort of the poster child for "artsy work that most people won't like or understand." Some people will wanna do that kinda stuff, but a majority of creators won't want to take it to that extreme. But anyways, there are rare exceptions like that who have the creative genius and intuition to pull off doing really different stuff, and I'd say that the guidelines aren't directed towards them. Creative guidelines are meant for the 99.9% of creators who aren't extremely gifted like that. And I'd expect that, even for above-average creators, a work balanced between familiarity and originality will probably be better than one trying to be highly avant-garde.

I have almost a hundred pages in notes of awesome amazing things that will happen - way in the future. Not now, not even close, but eventually. And it sucks, because I know by the time I make my way to the point, I won't be as excited with those scenes, haha. But the nice thing is, by planning things so far in the future, you get lots of chances to look it over and over again for continuity errors. Plotwise, I'm slowly plucking all the errors from my story, which is awesome. So the wait doesn't bother me as much, because I know by the time I get to those scenes, they'll balance with the story and "make sense". Thinking up plot points for the future can only be an awesome thing, because it forces you to go through the editing process several times before your story arrives there.

I think the main strategy once you've finished your script or outline is to just try to focus 100 percent on the page you're currently working on and make it the best you can.

Changing my mindset toward longer term plot planning has had some significant effect on my writing in general.

That seems to be a pretty normal development.

[McDuffies]

Maybe you just have to be able to read the subtext of the comic, to look at it from different angles, and average reader who misses that sort of stuff, will be surprised to find that those those things were there all the time.

I guess that's the next step that I should be moving towards with my writing.[/quote]

In that case may I recommend the book "Interpretation and Overinterpretation" by Umberto Eco. He's a bit tougher nut to crack because his non-fiction writing style is not exactly general-audience-friendly, but it's a book that argues about subtext inherent in literary works, as opposed to subtext that we project onto it, which is I think one of the major issues in art criticism.

What's bad for my health is a "the emperor has no clothes" social dynamic. Legit criticism and analysis is pretty healthy for everybody in the medium.

I'm thinking more about how reading bad reviews has a car-crash-can't-look-away sort of appeal, but I'm concerned about what it does to my head when I binge on them. Like I mentioned before, I think art will be valued by it's heights, not it's low or averages, and putting main focus on the lows, as internet always does, just means focusing on the wrong thing, which can distort one's perspective, among other things.

I'd say David Lynch is sort of the poster child for "artsy work that most people won't like or understand." Some people will wanna do that kinda stuff, but a majority of creators won't want to take it to that extreme. But anyways, there are rare exceptions like that who have the creative genius and intuition to pull off doing really different stuff, and I'd say that the guidelines aren't directed towards them. Creative guidelines are meant for the 99.9% of creators who aren't extremely gifted like that. And I'd expect that, even for above-average creators, a work balanced between familiarity and originality will probably be better than one trying to be highly avant-garde.

Lynch has also created a once-mega-popular tv show and made at least a few widely popular films in his time, including Palme d' or winner and oscar nominees. But there's little doubt that his works will outlast most of the popular filmmakers, which again means that his work resonates across the timeline - perhaps to a smaller number of people at the time it is produced, but resonance is strong and it always gains momentum.

I was thinking about why I watch the movie, and I'd pretty certainly rather watch something completely oddball like, say, "Forbidden zone" (which is a much better example of artsy obscure movie than Lynch's stuff), than an average movie whose beats and twists I've already seen over and over. I'm aware that most of people go the other direction, they want to be lulled into conformity by their entertainment, not the other way around, but I don't think that's actually what they need, you know.

Bottom line, I dunno what is the rate of success of brave experimental authors, but if Lynch and others show something, it's that higher risk-taking reaps better reward. I really don't agree that great works have to have a degree of familiarity to them, in fact I think that some of the greatest works are so great partly because at the time they appeared, there was nothing they could be compared to. What that means to a young artist who has to decide which direction to go I don't know, but ultimately I think that every young artist has already decided, whether he's aware of it or not.

[RobboAKAscooby]

Hey Cuddly, are you painting your backgrounds with watercolours?

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

Hey Cuddly, are you painting your backgrounds with watercolours?

As of this chapter, yes. Once I realized that it wasn't going to muck up my pencils, inks, and markers it felt like a huge gate had opened, lol.

[Cope]

I think I'll soon start being late for updates for the first time since I started Book II back in January.

[VeryCuddlyCornpone]

I think I'll soon start being late for updates for the first time since I started Book II back in January.

but how will you


cope

[McDuffies]

ugh

[LibertyCabbage]

In that case may I recommend the book "Interpretation and Overinterpretation" by Umberto Eco. He's a bit tougher nut to crack because his non-fiction writing style is not exactly general-audience-friendly, but it's a book that argues about subtext inherent in literary works, as opposed to subtext that we project onto it, which is I think one of the major issues in art criticism.

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I'm thinking more about how reading bad reviews has a car-crash-can't-look-away sort of appeal, but I'm concerned about what it does to my head when I binge on them. Like I mentioned before, I think art will be valued by it's heights, not it's low or averages, and putting main focus on the lows, as internet always does, just means focusing on the wrong thing, which can distort one's perspective, among other things.

I find myself more concerned about the quality of the review than the subject, though, which leads me to avoid bogus websites. Well-written reviews are the ones I'm interested in.

Bottom line, I dunno what is the rate of success of brave experimental authors, but if Lynch and others show something, it's that higher risk-taking reaps better reward. I really don't agree that great works have to have a degree of familiarity to them, in fact I think that some of the greatest works are so great partly because at the time they appeared, there was nothing they could be compared to. What that means to a young artist who has to decide which direction to go I don't know, but ultimately I think that every young artist has already decided, whether he's aware of it or not.

Yeah, but it seems too idealistic to me. In a perfect world, maybe you'd have a lot of webcartoonists doing stuff like Forbidden Zone and David Lynch's movies, but actually you end up with very, very few even attempting it. And it doesn't seem pragmatic to say, "Everybody's a bad creator for not being like David Lynch." I'd rather try to be more relevant by suggesting a creator aims for more originality while still being familiar enough to be comfortable for them.

[Cope]

I think I'll soon start being late for updates for the first time since I started Book II back in January.

but how will you


cope

You can't see it, but my face is contorted in rage right now.