Dos and Don'ts of Webcomic-dom, part II

FinbarReilly · Post by **FinbarReilly** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:15 pm

Just 'cause: My usual method is to plot it out, with a general idea of the characters I'm going to do, usually in a very rough outline form. I then set up the characters (basic stats, general personality, and notes on relationships with other character), and only then do I start writing the script, adjusting the plot as I go as scenes just don't work, or the characters' interactions suggest new scenes.

By the time I'm done, the script is about 90% of what I originally plotted, and you get stuff like this and this. (I've really got to do a gag-comic someday...)

Keep in mind that those same screen-writing classes teach you that you need a strong story first; without it, your characters may be ultra-sympathetic and really cool, but...is there anything to actually see? Hamlet may be cute, but could you really just watch him stand around in tights for a couple of hours? Or do you go for the plotting and thr problems that he runs into?

Also, by putting characters first, there's usually less character development, and the cast doesn't really change (characters don't get married, die, have kids, or even graduate); the creator is usually nervous about doing anything to his characters that changes them from the version that he liked.

Note that I'm saying strong characters are important (you'll see that in just the first couple of pages of either script), but that the characters are just part of the story, and should serve the needs of the plot rather than the plot serving the characters...

In essence: The characters are the draw, but the plot keeps them in their seats...

But that's just me...

FR

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:41 pm

I have to disagree, Finbar. Often people will get too attached to their plot (or more specifically, scenes of their plot). This creates two problems: one is that the plot becomes a series of connect-the-dots, rather than a flowing story. The other is that, to make these scenes happen, the characters they've created will either be one-dimensional, or act out of character. Rather than treating them as people, they treat them as plot devices. That's where you get both plot holes, and scenes where characters do things "for the sake of the plot."

"Hamlet" is a poor example because it's a character-driven plot. A plot otherwise is something that happens to the characters, while in "Hamlet," the characters are making the story occur. You can't have a plotless "Hamlet" without having one where many of the key characters are removed, as their existence together makes it happen (or, to simplify, remove the character of Hamlet and nothing happens.)

It's when you're dealing with a plot with cyclable characters that your scenario of boredom comes up; a plot that is in itself important and the characters could really be exchanged. It happens to them rather than forming from them. It won't really make a difference if the characters are already well-formed on their own; then the plot and characters can grow off of each other. But then the plot needs to be made maleable, something only the smart writers seem willing to do. Characters are already maleable, so the goal would have to be not getting to attached to a specific path you want them set on. Poor writers get too attached to the ideas they've had and disregard any impact the characters would have on the story aside from what the story already designated from them. And this does happen; their are excellent character writers who are awful when applying character growth to the plot.

A plot of 1-dimensional characters will only satisfy a niche marker, as McDuffies said. The best stuff is really made of a balancing act, and in my opinion a character-driven story. Those are the ones that last. Of course, you can have a plotless look at a character, but no matter how awful one of those might be, it can still draw immense critical praise for no good reason.

FinbarReilly · Post by **FinbarReilly** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:46 pm

Do feel free to steal things that you like in stories.

Don't do it enough that you are obviously stealing or break copyright laws.

Do try new things, just to see if yo can pull it off, if nothing else.

Don't be afraid to make big changes if things just aren't working out.

Do feel free to put weird things on the walls of your characters' rooms.

FR

Dutch! · Post by **Dutch!** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:05 pm

I agree with that last one...

One of my kids has a Mr Squiggle bed lamp and a Crocodile Dundee 3 poster on his wall...

FinbarReilly · Post by **FinbarReilly** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:00 pm

Yeah, it can be fun; we got a lot of great remarks on a Vash Wanted poster that was on a cafe wall...

re: Hamlet (sorta OT)
Sorry, I've got to mention this....I've been having a lot of fun trying to imagine the production meeting for Hamlet (if Shakespeare had had to deal with today's producers). Damn you, Escushion! I can see two variations of how it would go:

Version #1:

Okay, there's like this ghost of this murdered father that gives a warning to his son, and scares the shit out of these two guards. The dead guy's brother is marrying his wife, taking over his castle, and generally not being nice to the locals. The son decides to fuck with uncle, and so is acting totally ape-shit insane, to the point where his fiance gets depressed and drowns herself.

Meanwhile these, like, traveling performers come and give the son a chance to really mess with the uncle's head. Later, the son is talking to his MILF (and would I!), and it's obvious that he's falling for her. He hears something, and, being paranoid, stabs at the bulg in the tapestries, killing the steward (and father of his dead fiance!). Justifying the paranoia, he finds that he is supposed to shipped off to England to be killed, and he sends the comedy relief instead, who end up getting killed thanks to some letter the son had placed in their packs.

At any rate, there's this big duel at the end, where people are dying left and right because the uncle tried to poison the son (it worked once, right?), but the son ends up killing everyone in the room, before sucumbing to a wound.

Oh, and I'm throwing in all of this flowery stuff to give the guy playing the son some serious scenery to chew on so he can show off his acting chops. Sound cool?

Version #2:

So, this guy has is having some issues. His dad died, his uncle is trying to take his place, and he's got a definite Oedipal complex going on. He's also neglecting his fiance, who's getting seriously depressed. So he's acting up a bit, and decides that acting insane is the best course. He has a lot of dialogue to show what he' thinking, and some chances to act out.

By the end of the play, his fiance has drowned herself, he kills her father thinking he's a spy, and sends his two friends off to get killed because he thinks that they are acting against him. He also uses a troupe to send a not-so-gentle threat to his uncle.

In the big duel at the end, he gets wounded by a poisoned blade, and takes down everyone in the room before dying. When do we shoot?

[Yeah, yeah, I probably got some details wrong. Obviously things changed in the re-write

.]

Back to On-Topic:
You'll note that the first is plot-based (what happens is stressed), and the second character-based (why it happens is stressed), and that they arrived at the same conclusion. As long as you're consistent with whichever method you choose, I don't see why either way is better than the other...I just prefer plot because it gives me structure, and then I flesh it out using characters and settings, sorta like using a skeleton.

But, to each their own...

FR

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:07 pm

But you seem to understand the difference and I figure this thread is for novices. Most people new to writing go for their plots first-hand and neglect their characters. These plots tend to suck anyway, but a ho-hum plot can be livened and altered with interesting characters. Not that their characters would necessarily be good, but they're the skill that should be worked on first, and it's advice I wish I'd had when I was much younger.

Of course, I suppose an abstract thinker could just treat the plot like the primary character

. This is rarely done, but is a good way to balance the two.

FinbarReilly · Post by **FinbarReilly** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:26 pm

So...let me put it this way:

Do have a plot with twists, turns, and a definite end. You can always do a second chapter.

Don't have one-dimensional characters. Ask yourself one question before using a character: Would I go to a bar with this character?

Do remember that the three-act structure is your friend, not your enemy.

Don't forget that characters react to each other and the universe.

Do allow your characters to change.

Don't be afraid to change your plot details if something happens between your characters to make it change.

Do have fun with the plot and characters.

Don't have perfect characters; perfect diamonds are boring (they require a flaw for fire).

Do leave the angst in your head; a truly angsting character doesn't react to anything. They make great victims, lousy protagonists.

Don't forget that a plot is the character's actions and the reactions to those actions, and that it's a vicious circle...

[ I "seem" like I know the difference. Hmph. I keed.]

FR

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:31 pm

Yeah, that sounds good.

McDuffies · Post by **McDuffies** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:36 pm

Dear god not the Hamlet discussion again.

FinbarReilly · Post by **FinbarReilly** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 3:41 pm

Dude, relax; this is entirely different. Besides, Hamlet needs to be made fun every so often...All that angst in one place just asks to be made fun of...

FR

Robin Pierce · Post by **Robin Pierce** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:38 pm

If this turns into another Shakespeare discussion, I swear I will bite your heads off.

FinbarReilly · Post by **FinbarReilly** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:09 pm

We were past that, but if you really want to discuss it:

Do steal from Shakespeare (or any other classical source); inspiration is where you find it.

Don't forget the limits on copyrights if you really need material; "Peter Pan" becomes public domain sometime next year.

Do put things into new settings; "Forbidden Planet" is a classic sci-fi movie based on "The Tempest".

Don't be afraid to use famous characters in your comic; Titania and Oberon show up a lot.

Do analyze The Bard's plays. He's the master for a reason.

Don't be afraid to use anachronisms; Big Ben could be heard in Julius Ceasar.

Do use violence, but only to make a point.

Don't forget that royalty makes for more fun than regular people. Their responsibilities make for more interesting consequences when they fail.

Do use poetry every so often for that touch of class.

Don't worry about reality if it get in the way of a great scene.

I'm incorrigible; don't corrige me!

FR

Jeffy · Post by **Jeffy** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:42 pm

DON'T become so engrossed in the story and your need to tell it that you stop drawing a comic and begin to just post a script and say that you didn't have time to work on the comic

(damn you that one comic that I can almost remember the name of that was really popular before I got sick of it and still might be if it's still going! ... of course, I think I stopped reading it because of the angst, like so many others...)

I remember! Everything Jake! I point my pointy fingers at you!

Jeffy · Post by **Jeffy** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:48 pm

FinbarReilly wrote:Do use violence, but only to make a point.

FR

I say violence can be used for much more than just making a point, for example, there are such things as senseless violence... which I guess makes a point of showing that someone is capable of senseless violence...

I dunno, I can't think of any type of violence you could use that doesn't make some sort of point... explain?

FinbarReilly · Post by **FinbarReilly** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:58 pm

Gratuitous violence: Using violence just for the point of violence. Having a fight because you can't think of anything else to do...You know that scene in most action movies where they are interrogating someone and they rough him up a bit? Sorta like that (they didn't need to rough him up, but did it mostly because it's the genre).

Slapping someone usually doesn't count because you are using the slap to show superiority of one character over the other, and gaining sympathy for the character slapped.

FR

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:22 pm

FinbarReilly wrote:Slapping someone usually doesn't count because you are using the slap to show superiority of one character over the other, and gaining sympathy for the character slapped.

FR

Yeah!

But if you're going to make someone get slapped, make sure they aren't based on any friends of yours.

Unless they deserve it.

Jeffy · Post by **Jeffy** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:26 pm

FinbarReilly wrote:Gratuitous violence: Using violence just for the point of violence. Having a fight because you can't think of anything else to do...You know that scene in most action movies where they are interrogating someone and they rough him up a bit? Sorta like that (they didn't need to rough him up, but did it mostly because it's the genre).

Slapping someone usually doesn't count because you are using the slap to show superiority of one character over the other, and gaining sympathy for the character slapped.

FR

eh... you don't have me convinced, scnenes as described in movies where they rough someone up while interrogating isn't because of nothing else to do, but because it would be a logical thing to do if interrogating someone. Doing something like that doesn't leave an audience saying "why the hell did they do that?"

I think I can honestly say that any violence can be justified, if you're trying to show that someone is insane, have them suddenly and violently kill someone or something. If you're trying to show that someone is evil, have them beat the crap out of someone they supposedly care about.

Sure, there are other ways to show the same thing, but violence is a viable way to demonstrate something to the audience, be it in movies, comics, books, whatever. Violence used to show someone's anger can be just as effective as non-violence used to show anger, it's just that it's sometimes easier to express and has a better chance of getting accross what you mean than a more subtle method that may not be able to be expressed as well thru artwork.

Or something...

Escushion · Post by **Escushion** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:04 pm

Movies often have pointless action sequences that serve no purpose other than to pad out the running time. These action sequences will often include violence. Violence with the purpose of padding things out is as pointless as musical numbers of the same purpose = their meaning isn't towards the product, it's towards the productions.

Your examples start with a reason and then continue towards violence. That's not pointless. It's hard to come up with pointless violence circumstances because with circumstance, it ceases to be pointless.

The only one I give you off-hand is redundancy, where there's already been one scene (violent or not) used to establish a point, and then something similar is done again, despite the point already being established. That's not really just towards pointless violence though, but pointless scenes in general.

None of this discussion is anything against the great webcomic Pointless though.

Rabbitz_ · Post by **Rabbitz_** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:35 am

(So much wisdom around here...)

Don't be afraid to wrap the story if you get to the point when the story needs it... Sometimes it's best to write off "The End" and move to something new than just carry on with a plot that doesn't carry itself anymore...

Komiyan · Post by **Komiyan** » Sun Jan 22, 2006 5:59 am

pierce studios wrote:If this turns into another Shakespeare discussion, I swear I will bite your heads off.

FinbarReilly wrote:We were past that, but if you really want to discuss it:

You have a funny way of interpreting people..