The Gut

Okay, we know we need our intellectual and logical mind to: A) Learn our nuts and bolts writing basics, and to: B) Do our research and exploration of real-life elements that inform our story; no matter how bizarre the content may be, and to: C) Create a plausible “internal logic” for the narrative.

Then we must add the ingredient of creative invention to our storytelling to really put our own stamp on the process. Here is where we get to give our imagination free rein. It may not be possible to harness all of this stuff into the service of any given narrative, but much of it can be used once tempered with some structure.

This is the daydreaming, the flights of fancy that all people experience to one degree or another, and it’s what really sets you apart from other writers. Kirby and Lee were masters of this type of storytelling. In fact, they both functioned better as a team than they did individually. I’m not about to open the debate about who created what, or whatever, but I know this: Kirby, as a writer, was unrestrained imagination, and Lee was able to parse these wonders into a bizarre, but cohesive narrative.

Without Kirby, Lee’s work is predictable and unduly bombastic. Without Lee, Kirby’s writing is episodic, simplistic and even awkward. (I’m sure some people are yelling at me now, but I don’t care! As much as I like both creators, I believe this to be true!)

The point is; we need to temper the imagination with logic and spice the logic with imagination. Alone, neither can fully carry the tale.

As an example consider one of my favorite improv students, one Jan Pajak. He was a wonderful guy, fun loving and game for anything. He was, however, a very brainy fellow. As an electronics engineer and computer programmer he had overdeveloped certain logical areas of his mind. Improv calls for both an intellectual guidance system to bring narrative and cohesion to your scene, and a very spontaneous “in the moment” inventiveness. Jan was great at the former, but had real trouble with the latter.

After a few years as a student, having shown little improvement, Jan said something surprising. “Sam,” he said,“I’m writing a book on improv!” I didn’t know what to make of it. I hated to discourage the guy, but I wondered what sort of book someone like him would write, since he had seldom demonstrated much spontaneous creativity. The resulting“tome” as he called it, was an interesting item. Jan had attempted to codify an intellectual approach to improv. He had listed example after example of possible improv situations, and four possible responses to those situations, ranked by their relative efficacy as comedy. There were literally thousands of examples on hundreds of pages.

I honestly didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Jan had attempted to find a “formula” for improv comedy. An endeavor doomed to failure, because it lacked the cornerstone element of the form: Spontaneity!

Well, Jan and I had a long talk about it, and though he defended his work rigorously, I think he ultimately began to understand that this approach simply didn’t work on stage. It felt forced, and the core of entertaining improv is its easy-going impulsiveness, tempered with a solid understanding of its underlying principals.

But that was Jan.

Rest in peace buddy.

One of the aspects of developing your own style is to develop both your intellectual and creative mind. I often see beginners lean too heavily on one area of their creativity. This can leave your work feeling either dry and tedious with no spark, or crazily inventive, but without coherence.

The Head

Strong writing requires us to do some intellectual groundwork. Research! We may be writing about a war in space, but if we research both the real and theoretical science of space travel, we will imbue our story a certain believable tone. It’s OK to then apply our imaginations and make a leap into the unconsidered, but having done the groundwork our new idea will seem reasonable. 

Logic certainly need not be our paramount concern, but within the framework of our story’s rarefied reality it must make sense. It must have an “internal logic”!

Let’s return to our longshoreman/writer from an earlier post. We suggested it might be folly for him to write a story about Beverly Hills nannies. However, if the longshoreman did copious research on Beverly Hills, rich families and nannies, then applied his own personal knowledge of the interactions of people, he might still write a great story about the nanny scene. If he attempted this story without that investigative reporting, his story would fall apart under scrutiny.

And finally, the intellectual mind must be used to learn the aforementioned basics of spelling, grammar and story structure.

But, without the creative mind, the brainy approach alone can leave us with an arid and dreary narrative. It will become something that reads more like a textbook than a fictional piece. Balancing these two aspects is one of the keys to good writing.

Okay, this may seem obvious, but I see this all the time. People who love one writer so much they emulate them to a point where they have no style of their own. I love Mark Waid too, but if I write like Mark Waid, what is the point of my bothering to write.

Mark Waid is Mark Waid. We don’t need another one.

Okay, it’s true, if you can emulate a popular writer effectively, you might get some work. Editors, (though they are wonderful, exceptional people, stroke, stroke…) are also human. Sometimes when a writer or artist is very popular, editors will seek people who can write or draw in a similar fashion, for the sake of riding a trend and perhaps boosting sales for a time. But, inevitably, the fashion changes and the copycats are soon out of a job. The originator of the style will probably continue to work though, because he is a unique voice.

Since many of us begin our comics careers as fans of comics, how do we separate the work of those we admire from our own? Again, it’s the element of time that usually does this. There is certainly no harm in emulating a good writer while we are learning our craft. There is much to be gleaned from studying and analyzing the work of talented practitioners of the craft we are learning. But, at some point, (AFTER we have learned our basics!), we have to reach inside ourselves for our own thoughts and ideas about what makes a good story. We must learn to trust our inner voice. Then, slowly, our style will begin to emerge.

Those writers we admire may still leave a subtle stamp on our work for a long time, but all writers have these “influences”. Roy Thomas was influenced by Stan Lee, but eventually became his own man. What we don’t want to do is decide that Chris Claremont is the greatest comics writer that ever lived and that we must write like him forever. This is the kiss of death. While Chris Claremont continues to grow, and change, and become a more mature and interesting voice, we would forever be a hollow clone, churning out stories in a style even Claremont himself has long ago left behind.

Who wants to be that guy?

1) Lack of knowledge and skill is NOT style.

2) If you derive your work, it will be DERIVATIVE.

3) Use both the GUT and the HEAD.

Lack of knowledge and skill is NOT style.

I have often been asked for input on the writing and art of people who are hoping to break into comics. This is always a double-edged sword. On the one hand I critique many people who have great potential and seem to really listen to my advice. Conversely, there are also those who are light years away from being able to function professionally in any way. That’s tough. You want to be encouraging, but truthful, which often leads some people to become downright indignant. They balk when I don’t get up on the table and dance a jig of joy at the obvious beauty of their efforts.

I might proceed in this way: “Well, you have some good ideas here, and this character is kind of interesting, but your story lacks structure and clarity. Also, in some places I was confused about who was doing what, and why they were doing it… and, well, the spelling and grammar are kind of off…

That’s when it comes. The war cry of the writer who hasn’t learned his basics: “You just don’t get my style!”

At this point I usually sigh and hand them back their story and say something like: “I’m sure you’re right. Good luck with your career.” At one time I would try to convince them that writing is first about effective communication and that the basic skills of the writer are imperative to achieve that ease of communication. But, I no longer do this. It usually just leads to interminable debate and often anger and hurt feelings. So, I just let it go… it’s easier on my ulcers.

But I’ll say it here one time for the record. Knowing your basics, such as spelling, grammar, story structure, characterization, clarity and simplicity are key to the writing of a good story. You may have the greatest story idea since 2001 a Space Odyssey, but if people can’t read it and understand it, they’ll never get the point.

It’s harder than ever to get this across in our era of E-mail shorthand, and txt mssg cltur, but I believe it is essential.

Before continuing with more nuts and bolts type info, I’d like to do a few posts about something a little more subjective; the issue of style. We’ll cover the issue of style for both art and writing, but let’s start with writing.

One Voice

There’s an old piece of writing advice that goes: “Write what you know.” This little ditty is perhaps in need of some clarification. It seems to indicate that one should stick to one’s own area of experience and knowledge to some degree. The point being that if you are a longshoreman from New York, you might write most effectively about events taking place on the docks and the characters who inhabit this world. If our imaginary longshoreman/author instead chose to write about Nannies in Beverly Hills, he might be less able to capture the feeling of the milieu. 

This is certainly sound advice up to a point. However, we are talking about writing comics here, and while writing about what you know is useful, it doesn’t encompass the idea of writing about giant space aliens, super powered heroes, zombies, other dimensions and intelligent ape men. No one has any real life experience with this kind of stuff. Or do we?

Perhaps an adjustment to our old saw is in order. Let’s try this: “Write what you are.” Each of us has unique life experiences. We have each encountered interesting people and personalities. No one has lead the life you’ve led, and no one has done it in just the way you have. This is our jumping off point to the wild and imaginary world of comics fiction.

Ed Brubaker and Joss Whedon haven’t met any more superheroes or villains than you have, but they use their own life experiences to inform the character and plot choices they make. Truthfully, the motivations of super-people aren’t any different from the impulses that stir any human being. We are all moved by love, hate, jealousy, anger, empathy, etc. Even the motivations of a crazy, world-eating, giant alien like Galactus are understandable. He wants to eat and survive. He gets pissed at his surfboard riding herald for crossing him. He backs down when he’s outgunned.

So, applying your life experiences to your imagination can help you find grist for your comic book mill.

Write what you are.

However, I am escaping from the crazy, metallic head-trap long enough to appear at the Hobbystar “Fan Appreciation Event”Comic Convention at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre this weekend. It’s a 3 day event this year and goes Firday 5-9 pm, Saturday 10 am-6pm, and Sunday 11 am-5 pm.

I have a table there and I will be selling both pre-drawn and drawn-on-the-spot convention sketches. like these two here:

I will also be showing around my latest comics samples, in hopes of duping some editor into giving me paying work.

Again, I don’t know how many people are reading this dang thing at the moment, but if you are reading it, and liking it, and are living in, or visiting the Toronto area this weekend, why not pop in and say Howdy to me, Sam Agro, your internet pal.

Hope to see you there, and I promise more entries are coming in a week or so when I wrap up work on Saw 4.

Later,

Sam

We currently enjoy some of the most sophisticated art and writing ever to grace the pages of the comics. However, at the same time we suffer some of the most anemic and cynicalcomics content ever assembled. There have always been good comics and bad comics, but right now some of the stuff sullying the stands is exceptionally heinous. This is true of the poor quality of its content, and also of its ethically empty underlying philosophy and its Draconian business models. For my part I lay this wave of darkness at the altar of Money! SpecificallyHollywood Money, but that’s another rant!

Today I just want to talk about how hard it is to break in to the business of comics right now, and why I think that’s so, even for someone like me, who’s managed to ooze into the lower echelons. 

First of all, there is supply and demand at work here. In comparison to some of the comics ages of the past, there are fewer titles being printed today, at least by the major companies and their second tier rivals. Of course computer pre-press, and on-demand printing, have created a virtual gold rush of both crappy and wonderful independent publishing, but again, that’s another rant.

Into this relatively small market, which faces staggering competition from movies, video games and cell phones that can practically sit up, beg and roll over, comes a virtual army of wanna-be comics professionals. In the 1970’s there were probably less than a thousand people in all of North America who aspired to work professionally in the comics biz. Today you can find nearly that many hopefuls at any large sized convention. In my youth, in the late 70’s early 80’s I recall only running into about 10 or 12 guys at any convention who were there schmoozing the editors. The last time I lined up to talk to an editor at a convention here in Toronto, I was number 27 of over 50 guys booking a portfolio review. 

The numbers definitely aren’t on our side! Also, right now, no company has any kind of strategy for developing talent. They don’t have to develop talent because of the vast numbers of hopefuls and the small number of jobs. Editors can afford to wait until some guy whips out some art samples that blow their minds. Why take time and develop talent when there are even a few desperate geniuses out there begging to get into the biz?(Given this, how some of the really questionable talent out there still manages to break in is quite beyond my reckoning!) 

Things are even worse for budding writers. Right now, the medium seems to be only interested in hiring has-been writers from TV and movies, or more generously, popular writers slumming in comics-land for a quick buck. (Now certainly some of these guys really love the medium and a few are even good at writing comics, but many aren’t!) Not that this matters to the companies in question, because it is really a cynical attempt to boost sales with the so-called “Marquee Value” of these recognizable names. Hollywood’s influence again, but I’ll hit them at another time

The problem with this approach is that so much potentially great comics talent is being ignored because it isn’t yet “brilliant”. This approach leaves a lot of talent out in the cold. Talent that 20 or 30 years ago would have been given some small pro jobs and “brought along” until they had developed the chops to take on a regular book. These are guys (and a few gals) who became great talents after a reasonable period of professional development. 

Guys like Berni Wrightson, Mike Kaluta, P. Craig Russell and Arthur Suydam. Then later, guys like John Byrne, Michael Golden, Paul Gulacy and even Frank Miller. Whatever you may think of Frank’s current drawing ability, his first professional jobs were far too weak to get a foot in the door today. One of the medium’s brightest lights would have had to distinguish himself in some other medium, or worse yet, spend his lifedelivering mail! The same is true of all the names mentioned above!

You are no doubt asking yourself right now: “How do I break in under these circumstances?” Unfortunately I don’t know. I’m still struggling on the fringes myself. I can only offer my advice on improving your work, and hope you are more successful than I have been. (Although, I haven’t given up yet! I’ll crack this nut one way or another!)

The most depressing thing I ever heard from an editor reviewing my work went something like this:

“This is really pretty good. The storytelling is good, the anatomy and perspective are good and mood is pretty good. But, you know… good isn’t good enough any more.”

Good isn’t good enough? Well damn, what do I do now? Become freakin’ brilliant, I guess. Or maybe I have to self publish to get noticed, like Eric Powell… Inside, I feel like: “I’m ready, already! Hire me!” But, the editors still spurn me, and I keep coming back for more.

Why not check out my web site samagro.com and let me know what you think of my stuff. Of course, if you happen to be aneditor, and you want to offer me paying work, more’s the better!

Later,

Sam

Our bodies can have a profound impact on what we are as individuals. If we turn out tall and handsome we are going to develop differently than if we turn out skinny and near sighted. Also, if we are born into a family of junkies, on the one hand, or a tight knit Mormon family on the other, it will also affect who we become.

It’s not as simple as it appears on the surface, of course. Those from challenging backgrounds and with physical limitations can rise to great heights in the same way a person born into a handsome and rich family might, but his past and his limitations will still help define who he is as a person. Stephen Hawkinghas done astounding things in spite of limitations of body, and health.

It’s also quite possible for someone who has all the advantages of good genes, great education and monetary stability to end up being a spoiled deadbeat. Like, Paris Hilton, for instance.

Still, whether we follow the obvious or less obvious interpretation of NATURE and NURTURE, it is another important aspect of developing a character. Some of this history may not even come out in the text of our story, but it will still affect how that character behaves in any given situation.

Exploring the permutations of these indicators of character, either in the text of the story or not, is all part of good character creation.

Okay, next we’ll talk about the PHILOSOPHY and theMORALITY of your characters.

Everyone has a fundamental PHILOSOPHY by which they live. It may be a vague rule of thumb, or a very clearly thought out creed. It might be as simple as the Biblical adage “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Or it might be a complex code such as Ayn Rand’s OBJECTIVIST philosophy.

The point is, whatever your philosophy, it will affect your choices as a person, even if you happen to be a fictional character. Of course it’s interesting to see a character follow their principles, but it can be even more interesting to put them into a situation where they may have to go AGAINST that philosophy.

MORALITY is a related, but subtly different, thing. Morality has the element of religion, which is a spiritual form of philosophy. Obviously one can tend to follow a religious approach to life without really being a churchgoer or believing in God, but often the two go hand in hand.

Again, forcing your character into situations which test their chosen faith are rich in drama and interest.

For instance, a pious man who is put into the position of having to kill, perhaps to save himself or his family from a roving band of murderers, tests his conviction to his moral choices, and their limits.

Interesting writing!

A person who is HIGH STATUS, handles themselves well, physically and intellectually. They are capable, smart, incisive, and able to tackle almost anything.

LOW STATUS individuals are timid, clumsy, and unsure of themselves and their abilities.

Of course, there is a whole range of levels of competency between the two extremes. When I teach improv, I often take a deck of cards and let each performer in a scene draw one card. A KING represents the highest possible status, and an ACE the lowest. The actors then improvise a scene in which they play the status of the card they drew. 

Working with a king or an ace is pretty easy, because you can go deep into high or low status. A 5 card or a 7 is much harder because it’s more subtle, but it’s also more like a real person. Try to include a wide range of status in your character roster.

Both Superman, and Lex Luthor are very HIGH STATUS people. One is evil, and one is good, but they both have pretty high opinions of themselves, and are both very capable and highly intelligent. Superman, in order to appear more likeable to the reader is certainly more modest than Lex, but he still feels himself to be highly adept and effective. Being super strong and nearly indestructible can sometimes foster that impression.

However, as Clark Kent, Superman puts forward a LOW STATUSfront to help conceal his true self. Check out Kill Bill part 2 for an interesting take on this particular conundrum of status.

A good writer will include characters with many levels of status in his story. It’s also interesting to put characters into situations which may cause a change in their status.

In Frank Miller’s Daredevil story arc BORN AGAIN, the character of reporter Ben Urich is a medium status character. When threatened by the Kingpin’s goons, he at first gives in to their threats, lowering his status. However, after continued attacks against himself and his family, he fights back, raising his status, but leaving him questioning his own violent actions. This makes for a very compelling character arc!