Mixing Art With Business

Setting Up An Organization I: Pragmatic or Moralistic?

2008-11-14T11:03:00.000-08:00

So, let's look at organizations in-depth for a moment; specifically, what kind of organizations are there? More to the point, how useful are they from a writer's perspective?

When it comes down to it, there are four ways to grade a potential organization: Pragmatism/Moralism, Sinister/Friendly, Secret/Transparent, and Supportive/Hostile.

Pragmatism/Moralism: This refers more the organization's moral standing relative to the general populace, and to what degree those morals are implemented. A pragmatic organization will tend towards dealing with any situation as expeditious as possible, and cares more about the results than the context. They have no problems using assassination, blackmail, and discrediting a target in order to accomplish their goals. It should be noted that such an organization can have moral reasons for this stance; MI6 is willing to do almost anything in defense of England, for example. New agents' conflicts are usually those involving their conscience (“Would you kill a four-year-old girl in order to save lives?”), whereas older agents are more worried if they still have a conscience; agents of such an organization are going to be world-weary and have some sort of vice that they engage in in order to feel alive. Sort of explains why James Bond has that issue with beautiful women...

A moralistic organization, however, is more interested in maintaining the high ground. The agents are going to tend to be more intelligent than more pragmatic agents, but they are also going to have more hurdles to deal with; after all, they'll need to allow for the various rights of the target, and will generally be seen as softer than more pragmatic agents. This means that they need to more circumspect than pragmatic agents, and will actually use the threat of using a more pragmatic organization to stop bad guys (“Deal with us and you might actually live!”). Also, they are more likely to use devices that have stunning options to slow down targets, and will gather more detailed evidence; the more pragmatic agent would just figure out a reason to shoot. Besides dealing with targets that want to kill them, all agents will have conflicts based on their conscience; besides having to deal with innocent victims, they will have to deal with possibly letting a dangerous criminal go. Suffice to say, some have the same addiction problems as pragmatic agents, just due to stress.

Although the stereotype is to use pragmatic organizations in dark stories and moralistic ones in comedies, they can easily be switched. The major concern you should have is what kind of point you are trying to make. A pragmatic organization is great if you are trying to make a point about people doing whatever they need to do, but can also make the point that sometimes you need to do hinky things in order to preserve things. It can also be used to show what happens when an organization takes itself too seriously.

A moralistic organization can be used to show that everyone has rights, and those rights take precedence over the group. It can also be used to point out that a rights-based enforcement system is ludicrous. Of course, if you just want a really friendly police system, this works as well. However, don't make the mistake that this can be a shallow system; sometimes there are good reasons for why it's been set up, and those reasons are very good.

Of course, you can always go with a middle ground (which is where most organizations seem to be), in which case your organization is basically one that allows rights whenever possible, but isn't afraid to shoot. You can also mix and match, where each agent makes their own decision on how pragmatic they are, or have an organization that has a specific unit that's very pragmatic, but the rest of the organization tends towards moralistic ends.

Next Up: Is your organization user-friendly?

Some Do's and Dont's!

2008-11-12T03:19:00.000-08:00

Here's a quick list so you know I'm thinking of you!

Do's:

1)Have a good reason for any exception. I'm placing this hear as a first rule because each and every suggestion has this as an exception; you can do anything you want, as long as you have a good reason for it. Keep this in mind as you read each suggestion, and you should hear in your head a lot of times!

2) Diversity is key. I don't mean this in a strictly racial sense; you need a variety of powers and weaknesses. Each character needs to have their niche and speciality; a character that can be outdone by another character is going to be useless. By the same token, a common weakness is going to take your entire team out of action, and that's annoying to readers (not only is it basic manipulation, but it's going to ask the question of why aren't they taken out more often).

3)Avoid cliches, but don't run from them. This is the hardest thing to deal with; you're going to want to create something that's unique, but you can't avoid the basic cliches because they work . The obvious one is Spandex; from a practical perspective, they are help you market the characters, and, well, let's get real: If you had super-powers, and had to use them in combat situations, you'd either go armor (which also helps market the character), or in something that covered you while being comfortable. Spandex does that really well. And, better yet, your super-genius can make it into something that either mimics powers or is otherwise unaffected by them (useful for that character who is covered with acidic slime!).

4)Have fun! I can't stress this enough. Too many writers forget this, and so get burned out quickly. If you aren't enjoying it, then no one else is either. At the same time, don't do something you don't want to do simply to make your comic something more popular or profitable; ironically, that will almost always make your it less popular and harder to profit from. Follow your heart, and hope others will follow.

5)Always have someone with glasses. A personal preference, but I find that groups that have at least on character with glasses and/or goggles is much more interesting than one without that accessory. But that's just me...

Don'ts:

1)Say that there is something you won't do. This limits your characters and your plot, usually artificially, and that's not a good thing. A lot of fantasy stories don't have elves; by advertising that, they may be favorites of elf-haters, but they usually replace elves with something similar or that takes their niche. Obvious stupid question: Did they actually eliminate elves? In the super-hero genre, you find comics that don't have costumes, secret identities, or world-shaking abilities; what fun is that? It also prevents you from have to be an apologist later on if you decide to introduce the banned subject. Don't do it in the beginning, and you won't have a problem later on.

2)Think that you require a pantheon. It may help to build your universe, but it's not necessary. You can have a character that is the only super-powered being, or at least the most advanced or experienced. For that matter, he could hunt down other powered characters. But don't think that you need a team that handles all of the heavy lifting; that can be just as limiting and harder to write.

3)All characters need powers. Consider Iron Man; he has no powers, and yet is able to keep up with the other Avengers. Batman? He's won every fight against Supes. Don't feel that you need to have every character having powers in order to have a great comic. Even Naruto has Rock Lee...

4)Avoid common origins. Although it irritates a lot of people, having a common origin liberates you in a lot of ways. You don't need to keep everyone's origin straight, you don't need to allow for different mechanisms, and you can leap straight into the story. And it gives you an excuse to have everyone join up and fight someone if the secret is to be revealed or if that common origin is threatened. This isn't to say that you need a common origin, just that you shouldn't avoid one because you were told that it sucks.

5)Obey the rules. It's your story! Not anyone else's; they aren't responsible for writing or illustrating it, and they don't know where you're going with it (if they do, there's problems!). Just remember that if you're going to break or bend them, understand why the rules exist in the first place.

Have fun!

Being Part of Something

2008-11-07T06:40:00.000-08:00

[NaNo is kicking my butt. I've got 10,109 words done so far, and I'm barely caught up. It's been sort of weird, especially as I'm writing scenes that I've only hinted at in some of my other writing. Here's hoping that I can keep it up!]

Reading my last entry, I obviously wrote it in a rush. I need to expand on relationships a bit. After all, keeping it real isn't just about adding real relationships; it's understanding how those relationships work. There's a reason anti-heroes are popular; they don't have any real relationships to slow things down and so they are easier to write about. However, by throwing some real relationships at a character, you add not only depth but can create hooks for when you are running out of steam later on.

Consider James Bond. Not only does he gain a lot of power from MI6, but the organization itself keeps things going. He not only gets some real cool toys, an expense account, and easy transport to any location in the world, he also has set goals to accomplish; all of that is custom-made for writing. You can create foreshadowing with the items (exactly how does a watch that creates an EMP going to be useful in the field?). That expense account can be good thing when he needs a boost or specific funding, but it can be taken away as the situation warrants, either by the organization, by theft (especially if it's represented by credit cards), or by situation (he's far away from civilization). The transportation puts him wherever he needs to be.

Best yet, though, are those goals. They provide the initial hook, the push that gets things going. Bond gets an initial list of things to do, and reason that the bad guy needs to be defeated. The important thing to keep in mind is that these goals are not iron-clad; if the mission goes bust obviously those goals will change, or at least be modified a bit. But, they provide an original reason to get Bond into the field, and that's good enough.

And don't think that the organization is nothing but help. After all, Bond needs to follow certain regulations before he can kill someone, and there are certain protocols that need to be followed for him to do his job effectively. He also has to worry about jurisdiction (there are certain areas where he can't go and he can't kill people for everyday crimes). He's even been hindered or helped depending on MI6's reputation (and not only the bad guys have disliked MI6). And that's ignoring the various office politics and interdepartmental conflicts that have popped up from time to time, or when he's seriously screwed up and so MI6 has restricted what he can do, has forced him to do menial tasks, or assigns him to duties a rookie can do.

And this applies even to gangs. The equipment, amount of money, and transportation available may change, but there may be other perks available (reinforcements, living arrangements, even internet access). An organization can be a source of strength as well as (and this is important!) conflict.

And even gods aren't immune to this. Consider Thor; his friends (the elves and gods) and enemies (giants and evil gods) are defined by the group he belongs to, as are his duties (defend the gods and humanity). He gets access to some pretty weird stuff (a cart pulled by goats, a really special hammer), transportation (a rainbow bridge to anywhere), and some pretty interesting resources (an entire army of dead warriors) if he needs it. Not to mention sibling rivalries that are even weirder (his brother Loki can be good or evil, depending on the writer, and either way he gets Thor into trouble).

The bottom line is that everybody belongs to an organization. And, for better or worse, there strengths and weaknesses belonging to one. As a writer, you need to learn how to mine those in order to maximize the conflict in your stories and to have a lot of fun with the characters. And then there are relationships....

Some Real Touches To Remember

2008-10-22T19:21:00.000-07:00

It's interesting that those most obsessed with realism tend to forget what realism is. It's not crack whores, kids molested by authority figures, and people more interested in money than love. It can be, but usually not in the same group. The problem is that too many people think that noir is reality, and forget that there is something to actual real life.

When you write, you need to keep in mind that there is something to basic reality. It's interesting how many characters have tattoos, prison sentences of which they are completely innocent, and have been corrupted by their hard lives. After a while, it gets pretty boring when Rocky Road becomes vanilla.

The super-agents of the past are ironically more believable than today's rock-hard anti-heroes. The super-agents had more grounding, recognized the sacrifices that they were making, and were actually more rounded. They had friends that they could count on, acquaintances that they weren't sure of, and enemies that could ally with them if the situation warranted it. In a weird way, Doctor Doom is a far scarier villain simply because he can be more interested in pursuing his goals than the Fantastic Four; sometimes what the Fantastic Four does doesn't really matter in hi s plans, and they've been really miffed about that for some reason.

Today's anti-heroes can't trust the ground that they walk on; anyone can betray them and usually do. It's fine to shake things up every so often, but when you do it every other strip it loses its impact. You need some cement in your strip, something that can be counted on; the protagonist needs something that he can count on, something that won't change. If the only thing that can be counted on is that people can be bought or be petty, then there is no reason for him to act heroically; why should he risk life and limb for a few thousand dollars when what he does won't matter in the long run? Salvation sounds great as a motivation, but it's hard to believe in Heaven when you've only known Hell.

I hate using my own comic as an example, but the strips I'm most proud of are the ones where Detective Tate is with family, when he gives Simon a hard time about being his wife, or where people are just enjoying each other. I'm not afraid of the combats, but the familial scenes are important as well. It's not that those scenes are padding, my any means; those scenes are necessary to show that there is a reason why they fight so hard against what they fight.

The ties that bind can liberate you in the right circumstances...

Should You Take An Art History Class?

2008-10-19T17:09:00.000-07:00

When it comes to college majors, it's interesting to me that all art majors need to take Art History. This amuses me; after all, it's more often than not looking at the history of painting alone, as if painting encapsulated the whole of art. There are classes that delve into the history of other fields, don't get me wrong, but art majors aren't required to take those classes, and they're not even mandated for their respective majors.

Read: As a writing major, I'm not required to any writing history classes, but I am required to study paintings. And that just feels weird.

However, I am a big fan of taking advantage of bad situations, and finding ways to turn them around. So...what is the advantage of a writer taking a class that's delving into the visual arts?

Obviously, even for potential comic scripters, there really isn't a major advantage at looking at paintings; most paintings don't really tell a story so much as they are pre-camera photographs. The vast majority of paintings were created as markers and wall decorations, The vast majority of painters, then as now, are mostly self-taught, and tend to take classes not to learn the basics but to refine their abilities.

So what is the value for writers?

Writing is about details. On writer's forums, it not hard to find people asking the most interesting questions, from a turn of phrase in Ancient Latin to how to kill someone and get away with it. Writers want those details both because it helps them get characterization right but it also makes them look like experts. Consider how much fun armchair historians had with the Titanic movie, or any biopic, and you should be able to quickly surmise that being considered being an expert should be something worth being. And the more of an expert that you are considered being, the more respect people will have for you, and the more likely that they are to want to read what you have to say.

And that's a good thing. Honest!

An art history class gives you an interesting way to learn a lot of weird stuff, and quickly. It shows you social mores, fashions, weapon details, and basically what people considered important enough to jot down for several millennia. By exploring art history, you can explore the mind of man since he first painted aurachs on a cave wall, and explore how we have changed since that point in our deepest memory. Especially when you realize that they are more accurate than writing, and were vital for non-literate societies.

You learn to appreciate just how much any person is a product of their era, and what that person had to deal with. You get a better appreciation for what created that person, and what it took for a person to survive on a daily basis in that era. More to the point, it's fun when you realize that people that we know so well could not have been created in any era but the one in which they lived. Einstein, for example, is a Jew; not trying to be anti-semitic, just making the point that due to the way Jews were treated throughout history, Einstein would faced an uphill struggle in order to just be taken serious, much less have risen to the top of the heap and have been able to affect national policy.

So it may be annoying to deal with the obligatory art history, but try to see it as a way to explore the past through the cheap time machine of visual images, and enjoy the trip!

Rape, Swears, and Violence: Are they really necessary?

2008-09-10T00:00:00.000-07:00

While I'm on a tear about reality, I figure I may as well as slam what some people figure are mandatory when it comes to "real" writing.

Swearing
For some reason, too many writers think that the more swearing is in their writing, the more "real" it is. However, even sailors and urban toughs don't swear as much as you see in realistic fiction, which would make it seem as if everyone used their favorite swear like a comma. The reality is that, even though there is swearing in real life, no one swears as much as they do in some movies or fiction.

The point is that swearing should be used when you need to make a point of some sort. It shouldn't be used for just creating an environment, but for actual shock value. If your characters use a constant stream of blue language, then it loses its value. It becomes just white noise, and is useless for any actual use. As such, you should limit its use as much as you can.

Violence
Far too many works use violence just for the sake of being violent. There is a lot of blood, a lot of broken bones, and far too many deaths. Now, I'm not saying I don't like to see violence (I like good horror movies, even lousy horror movies, too much). I would point out there is a reason that they are reported in incidents per THOUSAND. If they happened as often as they did in bad fiction, then we would dispense with police and just bring in the National Guard. Like swearing, violence is best used to effect, and not every two seconds. Limit it, and you may just see the quality of your writing improve.

Rape
If there is one reason I hate feminist fantasy and bad boy-love fiction, it's rape. It seems that far too many would-be heroines need to suffer being raped at some point, and some male writers have some seriously warped rape fantasies. And we're not even going to get into the sheer number of prison stories that involve dropping the soap as unintended invitation.

The problem is that the writer wants to either demonstrate how powerless the character is, either due to actuality or something in society. Although this can be fine if used once in a while, some writers tend to over-use it, or make it a point that they use it to show how realistic their writing is. You shouldn't use rape more than a handful of times in your career, and maybe once per character. Otherwise, you're using it far too much. If you honestly think that every sexual encounter is akin to rape, then use your writing to show a different way of how men and women should create kids without sex, or at least express affection in a different manner. Imagination is power; there is no reason that it should not be empowering as well.

Bottom Line
It should be noted that I'm coming down on the occasional use, or even when you want to make some sort of point. I even encourage beginning writers to do it and get it out of their system. Keep in mind that I am also a major horror fan (80's horror, not torture porn), so I'm not interested in seeing all violence disappearing, and definitely the same with nudity. All I'm saying is that moderation in all things should be key, and that definitely applies here.

What Reality Should Be

2008-08-28T10:51:00.000-07:00

After ripping what some think reality is, I guess I should set some guidelines for what I would like to see in a reality-based script.

Relationships: I want to see relationships where neither partner is wrong all the time, and shouting isn't the only mode of communication. You need quiet moments as well as loud ones, and you need people caring for each other; if the only thing that they do together is yell, then why are they together? Note that I'm not saying that a group should be nice to each other all of the time; however, they shouldn't be in what amounts to a negative relationship just because it fits the plot. The relationship needs to be balanced to at least some degree or else your story itself will suffer later on at some point.

Crime and Violence: Obviously I'm not going to advocate against them; they are too important to good plots. Rather, unless there is a good reason for it, don't have more than you need. If you're going to use violence, use it only when you need to make a point; too much and it loses its impact. Crime is just a form of polite violence; it's a violation of the person's rights. Again, use it just when you need to make an impact, or it's going to lose its ability to make an one.

Victimization: If using violence too much will make it lose its impact, making all of your characters victims will create an even more ineffective character. Women as victims of rape is a cliche, and rightly so; not every female needs to be that violated. The same obviously applies to young male characters as well. The point here is that there needs to be a limit to how much victimization occurs; not everyone needs to be damaged goods, as that can get boring quickly. You should have no more than one or two severely damaged characters; any more than that and your story is going to be more likely to be filled with cliches, and that will generally bring down the entire story.

People in Black: Too many characters wearing black is boring. Boring! Don't do it. Period.

If you are trying to create more realistic setting, then please stay away from one with gothic or street sensibilities; it may seem more realistic, but you're more likely to hit cliches....and there are only so many stories that you can write about wannabe rappers or people standing around talking about how things are so angsty. Yes, I'm over-simplifying, but even Neil Gaiman has been known to write happy stories once in a while. You should try it as well....

Realism....Why?

2008-08-26T17:45:00.000-07:00

One of the most amusing things I see critics saying about various stories is that they are more "realistic". Worse, they say that is a good thing.

I disagree.

What they are referring to is that the comic is grittier than the average, with more sex, drama, and uglier characters. The world isn't all that pleasant, as violence is more common, women are raped, and young men are forced to humiliate themselves to get ahead, and racism and homophobia are part of everyone's make-up. The people aren't centerfolds, tend to ignore basic manners, and generally have some sort of sex or drug vice, usually both. The society isn't much better, as it tears down the heroic, elevates the evil, and tromps on the morally neutral.

It's not a great place to raise kids, and few do; the kids are usually orphans, latch-key, or selling themselves on the street, either as whores, hustlers, or drug-runners. And when they grow up, they usually find themselves in a private hell of dead-end job, loveless marriages, and barely keeping their heads above water. Eventually, they are either forced to become virtually homeless, retired without respect, or killed for no real reason.

I just don't find such a world all that realistic. Don't get me wrong; I don't think that the world is full of rainbows and lollipops; I don't think that good things happens to good people and bad ones are punished. I know that bad things happen randomly, and that even the safest places have their dark places. There is no question that real life has its warts and police records.

However...Even though anyone who has seen my yaoi scripts, or even looked at the Hinami Neon script knows that I can do dark as well as the next, that doesn't mean I don't get bored of it. "Dark and gritty" isn't necessary realistic; not everyone gets laid every Friday night, and there's a limit to even Murphy's Law. I want a world in which even the quarterback fumbles at love, the cheerleader has to cry on the nerd's shoulder without laying the kid, and a group of boys can sing along with disco with none of them being gay.

In short, a world of Norman Rockwell paintings would be boring, but so is a world where no one can succeed without that success being marred. When you write, it's easy to explore the shadows and go away from the light, but every so often you need to explore the place between the two...it can probably be the scariest place for a writer to go.

My Sincerest Apologies

2008-08-19T02:46:00.000-07:00

I have not been posting for a while. I know it's a duhsich, but there have been a number of reasons I stopped posting. Of course, when I stopped, it was hard to get back into it. Suffice to say, I think I'm back. It may take me a few weeks to get back into it, but when I do, you should hopefully see three articles a week, two on writing and one on marketing. Here's hoping!

Adaptations: Fat and Skeletons

2008-01-03T20:20:00.000-08:00

The issue with most adaptations is to what you can adapt from the original source, and how to make it work. The obvious solution is to look at what you need, rather than what you want.

The first step is to look at the plot, and see what works as a book and what works as a comic. Although a comic is a literary work, it faces a lot of the same limits as film when it comes to literary adaptations. With film the source needs to edited severely, as only so much can be filmed, even with a full-adaptation. Look at it this way: A two-hour movie converts to about 300 pages of comic script. This means that a 200-page book of average complexity (think your average young adult book) should convert nicely to 300 pages. Obviously, you need to see if something can be dropped.

Start by shrinking the plot to a skeleton. Once you've done that, start stripping out threads that don't belong or don't really add anything to the plot. Try to limit yourself to four or five act breaks (events that signal that an act is ending and another is starting); this will not only help you eliminate huge swaths of the story, but will also help you focus the script a bit. Then start highlighting scenes that are important; you shouldn't need each and every scene in a book, so this should be easy. It may sound hard, but a lot of scenes in your average book are more flavor than substance; they are there just to develop characters or act as red herrings. If the scene doesn't work in one of your act breaks, then that's a good sign to get rid of it. If all it does is give history on a background character, get rid of it. If it just describes a character, get rid of it. Get rid of as much fat as you can.

At the same time, keep some of it in. If the scene is a fan favorite or allows the character a trademark moment, keep it in (not all of them, obviously; even though Tom Sawyer is known for its swimming scenes, you usually only see one or two in any movie). Just a like a good steak, some fat helps flavor it; just decide which fat is important for the right taste.

You should also cull characters. Don't touch the majority of the main characters; they are usually too important to the theme and hard to combine because of their importance to the story feeling right. By the same token, see what minor characters can be dropped or combined; as not all of them are important, but they do sometimes serve important purposes. It's important to see know which characters can be combined, and which are just chaff.

Once you have all of the events and all of the characters, you need to recreate the plot skeleton, but with only your chosen events listed. You also need to create a relationship chart between your chosen characters. Once you have those, you can then write your own script based on the original source.

Writing an adaptation is a lot more effort than it looks. But, if you truly love the source, then it can be a work of love. If you don't, then I hope you're getting paid well for it...

How To Make Your Adaptations Work!

2007-12-23T07:56:00.000-08:00

When it comes to your writing, you may be tempted to translate some story that's not your own into a script. Before you start writing, you need to keep in mind the audience.

The biggest problem with an established story is that it has a reputation, and that fans of the material want it to live up to that reputation. This can be good and bad, and you need to decide if that reputation is something you can deal with. Take a close look at “The Golden Compass”: When Phillip Pullman originally wrote the book, he wanted a book that would attack the Catholic Church (“undermine” was the word used). It's hard to read the “His Dark Materials” (even the title is evocative of anti-church sentiment) and not realize that the writer is anti-Christian; the Magestrium is obviously a stand-in for the Catholic Church and any dogmatic types are automatically bad guys. It also has everyone assigned a “daemon” that represents them, and the worst villains are those that seek to rend the daemons from their owners (in other words, dogma rips imagination and willpower from its adherents).

But, when it was made into a screenplay, a problem developed: In order to keep its fanbase, it needed to keep its atheist values, but atheist movies don't play well to an American audience. Thus, the message had to be toned down, but the atheist message is so intrinsic to the story that it ended up killing the movie. (Did you follow that?) What could have been a new franchise ended up flopping because the production company realized that it couldn't market a $180M picture about atheism to a Catholic audience; it's a gorgeous movie, but it has no heart. It needed to be done for no more than $75M, but that wouldn't have done justice to the story.

On the other hand, someone that paid attention to the audience is X-Men 3, written by Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn. Although a lot of drastic changes were made to the X-Men that ticked a lot of people off (such as the origin of Phoenix, the death of Cyclops, and more-than-cosmetic changes done to a lot of characters), those changes were accepted because the story itself was still strong and there was some great character development. Better yet, a lot of characters were given their trademark moments and sayings (such as the fastball special, X-Men vs. Sentinels, and Beast's “Oh my stars and garters!”). Because the changes made to the X-Men made sense, and the spirit of the original (that of an oppressed group in a world that is trying to stop them) remained, people were willing to trust that they would be entertained, overlook some major mistakes, and so it was a profitable movie.

Obviously, don't worry about making the adaptation match the original completely; compromises will need to be made and you should have no problems making them as the material calls for it. Just remember that you need to find a new fanbase while at the same time making the current one happy. If you can't do that, you will tick off the old base while forcing potential fans to shy away trying to figure out what you did wrong. But, if you can bear in mind the needs of the old fans with the new material, you will make everyone satisfied with your changes, and your product will be successful!

Bad Business Practices and You

2007-12-16T21:22:00.001-08:00

[What's that other word in my blog title? Oh yeah, business...heh...]

When it comes to business, keep in mind that you need to come through on any obligations. Your business dealings have an effect on your comic; anything bad that you do will be translated to your comic as well, and affect its fanbase.

Consider Pepetual Entertainment. They are in the process of releasing Gods & Heroes, a MMORPG based on Roman mythology. Although the game looks great, it was set for a general release in October (not an issue in and of itself, as changing due dates seems to be an unfortunate part of the gaming industry). However, they had a major push in the PR department, hiring Kohnke Communications to do everything that it possibly could, which would include press release, web design, and reviews that would make it seem like cyber-Heaven.

However, Kohnke isn't getting payed. For that matter, neither are Perpetual's investors. Perpetual's new owners decided to shift funds from Perpetual to another company. Worse, Perpetual had asked Kohnke to create marketing materials for G&H, even though the decision to cancel the project apparently came down on September 27. Worse, Perpetual had apparently promised Kohnke a bonus when the game was released. Suffice to say Kohnke is suing Perpetual for $290,000.

So what's the relevance? It's that when G&H comes out, it will need to overcome a lot of negative publicity. The gaming community tends to be tight, and tends to take issue when someone get screwed by a company; gamers in general are cut-throat, and have no problem with nailing each other, but even the worst PvP-killer dislikes when someone gives gaming a black eye. Regardless of how Kohnke felt about doing business with a gaming company before, it's going to seriously debate doing business with one again. Also, the suit gives anti-gaming enthusiasts yet more ammunition in the next go-round.

And it gets worse from there. Perpetual is developing another MMORPG, Start Trek Online. Although it's going to be popular, it's not likely to do well; it's business will probably be limited to hardcore Star Trek fans who will be interested in the novelty, but may not attract the hardcore gamers who keep games like that going. The Strek Trek MMORPG is going to need the best game ever in order to do well over time; it's going to be interesting to see what Penny Arcade and VGCats do to them.

Thus Perpetual's decision to not Kohnke (which was meant to save them money) will probably cause them loss of potential profit down the road. And, even though it isn't a comic, comic creators should take note: Regardless of the quality of your comic, your business deals need to be done with an eye to fairness and good business practices, or the popularity of your comic will suffer, and that can spell bad things in your future...

2007-12-08T20:28:00.000-08:00

Guess I need to do the obligatory miscellaneous blog....

My apologies to the WiR site. It turns out that was wrong re: Alex DeWitt; she's the actual inspiration for the site. My confusion was based on reading the comic book in question (where Katma Tui died), and then not seeing DeWitt mentioned on the site beyond the clip of the comic. Again, sorry for any confusion created by my post.

It's Christmas, and time for presents. Please check out the sites attached to this blog (Lulu and SakuraCorp especially) and feel free to go on a wild spree. That said, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Holidays, and Fun Kwanzaa, and Happy New Year!

I'm also looking for an artist for Sex Percussions. If you're not interested in doing the 65-page script, would you be interested in doing a guest comic?

And since it's no surprise that I support the writer's strike, I guess I post something...so how about some fun stuff?

A World Without Writers

Voices of Uncertainty
The Office is Closed
Stop The Hollywood Writers Strike
Sandra Oh: How Greedy Can You Get?
Writers Strike: Unfair to Producers
Hollywood Writers Strike- Day 72
Videoblog of the Strike (one of the Colbert writers

Poor Colbert Show

[Thanks to Sam McManis, of the Sacramento Bee for pointing this out...well, some of it.]

--FR

Common Mistakes in Character Building

2007-11-30T13:51:00.000-08:00

There are some basic problems when people build characters. Let's see if we can handle those, eh?

Mary Sue/Gary Stu's: Some characters have too much power on one hand, and enough psychological issues to pay off a therapist's student loans. Girls' comics are filled with these characters, because not only is empowerment considered a great thing (thus the sheer number of abilities), but so is sensitivity and admitting your problems (thus the sheer number of personality problems). Another way to look at it is that they are given so much, and so must have a number of things to make up for it. There was a reason that I suggested no more than four good things and no more than two bad things; it's a simple way to balance out your characters. You should always strive for balanced characters, and should avoid characters that have too much going for them in either side of the balance sheet.

Caricatures: At the other end of the spectrum are the shallow characters, those that are more caricatures than characters. The problem is that these characters aren't intended to be serious characters, and so the writer doesn't treat them seriously. It needs to be remembered that all characters need to taken seriously, no matter how silly they are; in fact, silly characters need to be taken seriously if they are to be jokes. Think about: If you are making fun of something, you need to fully explore it, and can you fully explore something if you don't fully allow for it? Thus, you need to make sure that all of your characters are fully developed, and that characters that are caricatures show themselves to be fulyl developed in order to make your running gag go to the next level.

Disrespected Characters: Some people just shouldn't write certain types of characters. This is usually most obvious when it comes to military or religious types, or even authority figures in general, but it can apply to any type of character. The obvious example here is the character who is treated as a caricature; the FBI agent that is far too official, harasses the main character while spouting arcane laws or interpreting laws in order to nail the main characters, and is basically not someone who you want to invite to Christmas dinner. More than any other character, this kind has the most possibility of taking your readers out of the book, and possibly ruining any scene that he is in. The only real advice I can give you here is that you need to be aware of those types of characters that you don't have any respect for, and try to avoid writing those kind of characters. If you do need to write those characters, then you need to make an effort to not treat the character respectfully.

Mandatory Characters: Every genre seems to have those characters that are mandatory, and that everyone seems to make sure that they are in stories of that genres, such as the barbarian in fantasy stories or the cool alien in science fiction. The obvious solution is to don't worry about omitting the character type, and be happy about it. However, if you're using the character as part of a running gag, then see the notes regarding caricatures above.

Love Interests, Sidekicks, and Villains: Always make sure that these characters are well-developed. One of the problems is that these characters are part of the story, but combine elements of various character types as mentioned above; sidekicks may be treated as puppies, love interests may simply be elevated trollops, and villains limited to the Snidely Whiplash version. Respect these characters, as they are the most important ones to your story, and the ones that pop up the most.

Remember this advice, and your characters will love you for it!

Character Build For When Quick Characters

2007-11-29T19:31:00.000-08:00

When it comes to your characters, you should have a basic build system. For those that role-play, you know what I'm referring to; it's how you create characters. For those that don't do much role-playing, this should be an interesting entry...

“Character build” refers to how you create characters; specifically, it's a standardized process that allows you to quickly create characters, even if you need to create one on the fly. What you need to do is to create a system that allows you to create realistic characters smoothly and quickly. Although I could cheat and recommend the Champions system (which is complete (arguably too compete)), instead I'll lead you through my process.

The first step is to determine what role the character will be playing in the story. You can be as simplistic as hero, villain, sidekick, or bystander, for example, or work the character into the theme (“the character shows the hero that there is always hope”, for example). The more specific you can get the better, as the more specific you are at this stage, the simpler the other stages will be. It's important that you know what role the character will play; even if it amounts to a cameo, the character needs to do something or you're just wasting words, and every one of your words should be well-chosen.

Once you have established what the character's role is, you can then assign a power level. Even in stories where magic and superpowers aren't used, characters tend to have power levels defined in terms of the story; in a military story, for example, rank, experience, and access to weapons and vehicles would define power. In a high school setting, social status, skill sets, and grade level would be determined by power level (a senior with impressive hacking or athletic skills who is capable of asking anyone for favors would have a high power level, for example).

You should limit the number of god-like characters, however. If you have a lot of them running around, it quickly becomes a question of either why they don't take care of the problem, or why characters would want to know everything when they can't use that power. Tolkien had the right idea; the important action was in the background with Frodo, and the power characters were put on the front lines. Even Tom Bombadil was used to effect, even with his limitations of where he could go.

Even if the setting is exploring extreme powers, you need to keep in mind that the characters should not be the most powerful beings in the story. Even Superman and The Authority are not the most powerful beings in their respective comics; there are still entities that are more powerful than them. It's not a balance issue; it's more that, if they were the most powerful entities, there would be no challenges for them, and they wouldn't be as interesting. They would walk through any challenge and you would hard-pressed to come up with an interesting adversary for them, and without an interesting adversary your story would be boring before you even got out of the gate.

You should then determine the character's personality; combined with the power level and role, the personality will determine appearance, abilities, and other basic characteristics. You should define three personality traits, two good and one bad. That should give your character a balanced, three-dimensional personality. While you're at it, go ahead and give the character two to four advantages, things that he does that he does better than other characters, and that allows him to stand out. Also, define one or two negative qualities. Being an apprentice bears special noting, especially given the number of sidekicks and young heroes; an apprentice should be considered a negative attribute, but only because the character is sharing some of his uniqueness with someone else.

And that's my quicky character generation process. All other features should be easy to define; the broad strokes have been painted in, and you should just need worry about details. Hope this helps!

How Not to Put Women in Refrigerators

2007-11-19T21:22:00.000-08:00

As a means of interesting things to avoid, let me point you to this site: Women in Refrigerators

[For those who don't like great sites, “Women in Refrigerators” refers to the detail that women characters seem to suffer more in comics than other kinds of characters (in fact, the term comes from John Stewart's girlfriend being killed and being stuffed into a refrigerator during his tenure as Green Lantern). For example, look at the women in Spidey's life: Gwen Stacy was killed by Green Goblin, Felicia Hardy aka Black Cat has lost her powers and had her powers mutate, Aunt May has died and almost married Doctor Octopus, Betty Leeds was the victim of abuse, and even Mary Jane was kidnapped more than her fair share of times. They also seem to be depowered, maimed, and killed more often as well.]

Although I would dispute the issue when it comes to the fate of heroines that are art of ensemble casts or have their own book, I really can't when it comes to the girlfriend situation. One of the essays on the site points out that the same happens to boyfriends as well; you can't kill off the main character, so someone else needs to suffer, and that pretty much leaves the love interest and the sidekick. And since the sidekick has to put up with so much abuse, anything bad happening to him just feels wrong. Worse, you're killing off the love interest because you want the visceral effect, and you just can't get that if you kill off someone who isn't important.

So, how do you deal with the problem? You can't keep introducing new lovers and friends just to kill them off, or do other nasty things to them; have you noticed that you can tell who is going to die on TV when some new love interest is introduced? If it happens too often, then your fans will start asking why your hero hasn't committed suicide or at least suffering from intense depression (“Every time I meet someone interesting, they seem to die horribly. I need a drink.”).

The solution is to make sure that you have a stable of interesting characters. You need to make all of your characters interesting, and not just those that will be getting a lot of screen time. All of your characters need to have interesting backgrounds, depth, and a little extra dialogue; they need to have just as much as detail as your main characters, even if you never explore that in the script istelf. It's not wasted effort; it gives you a much better handle on the situation when you write, and that's worth any effort you can give him.

If you do this, then you can spread the pain around; whoever you hit with the damage will affect the reader in the way you want them to be affect: Deep and painfully. Also, because readers associate with background characters more, especially if they have been well-written, you can get the same dramatic effect from one of their deaths as well. I imagine that if J. Jonah Jameson died, you can bet that there would be a lot of people not happy with the writers.

In short, if you want to be taken seriously, then you need to take your characters seriously. Do that, and you really have no limits to what you can do. Don't, and you're just writing the usual, boring pablum; do you really want to about baby food or a rich seven-course meal?

[And, yes, this applies to writers of kid lit just as much as it does to novel writers!!]

[EDIT: I've gotten a couple of comment referring to Kyle Rayner's girlfriend Alexandra "Alex" DeWitt, killed by Major Force in GL Vol. 3, Issue #54, (in 1999) was the dead girlfriend of a Green Lantern to inspire the site (and, in fact, it's a picture of that scene on the current front page). However, I was under the impression that the original Woman in a Refrigerator was John Stewart's girlfriend Katma Tui (who was killed in Action Comics Weekly #601 in 1988), killed by Star Sapphire). Given that a few of the articles predate DeWitt's death, I've sent off an e-mail for clarification...]

2007-08-23T10:12:00.000-07:00

When it comes to dealing with marketing you have several options to consider, and you need to debate their use when it comes to dealing with your comic. Keep in mind that not all solutions will work for every person; it requires a certain mindset and a lot of time to take advantage of all of them.

Forum Postings: Discussion forums are places where people meet online in order to discuss pretty much anything. Posting in a discussion forum is great; not only does it allow you to ask questions, it allows you to demonstrate that you are an expert in something, thus earning respect, but it also allows you to advertise you advertise your comic in the signature. Better yet, as long as you make sure that your posts are relevant, it's not spamming! Better yet, they can be archived by search engines, so that you can create more backlinks for your projects (and if the forum is relevant to your comic, or is one for comics, it helps your search engine ranking!). Keep in mind that it works best if you post a lot, so limit forums to only those that you know you can post with some decent frequency.

Blogs: Better known as ways you can post whatever you want to, they can be tailored to create relevant backlinks to your comic, and demonstrate your incredible knowledge of something. Keep in mind that you need to post with some kind of frequency in order to make it work, and you need to know about what you are writing of, or people won't go to your site, thus voiding its use to you.

Advertising: Keep in mind that you need to advertise occasionally. Keep in mind that you may have to actually pay for it, but it can be a great way in get people to come to your site. Project Wonderful and Speechbubble are your friends here. Really debate advertising on Penny Arcade; they have a special term for what they do to servers (“wanged”) as they send a million visitors to your site and scare search engines.

Word of Mouth: Don't forget to advertise your site in the real world. If you're at a comic book dealer, let it drop that you have a webcomic, especially if you have collected it into a printed form. Not only can you possibly sell more of the printed version, but you may get a link out of it. Also, you can place posters as well as advertise on bulletin boards. If you can design a decent press release, you may even get local news to sit you down for an interview, which not only adds to your ranking as an expert, but can make you a local hero. In short, there is a practically unlimited potential out there; use it!

Merch: Besides the obvious profit potential, finding ways to create merch(andise, if you really needed it spelled out) also spreads the word, especially if you provide a link back to your comic. I recommend working with “print on demand”; these programs only create the merch when it is ordered, so that you don't need to guess at how much you will need and they will also ship direct to your customer, simplifying your life. Some places to look at are Zazzle, Spreadshirt, and Cafe Press, for general usage and 4imprint and CustomInk if you are getting ready for some sort of special promotion or conventions.

Fan Art: Draw a picture of your favorite characters from a webcomic, and send that art (with a link and a thumbnail) to one of your favorite sites. If they have a fan art page, and they list your art, then you get advertising for your webcomic. You can also do link exchanges as well...

Viral Campaigns: The hardest campaign to pull off. You need to be subtle, and create a buzz without it getting out that you are the one creating the buzz. Obviously you will need to hire someone, or a group of someones, in order to pull this off, as well as create some advertising in other areas to drag people in. Not advised for newbs.

Rose or Wallflower: Which describes your site?

2007-08-17T01:19:00.000-07:00

Here's a fun question: What would you rather your webcomic be, a rose or a wallflower? Roses are popular, make all of the top parties, and do well; wallflowers are shy, stay home, and don't really do well. Being a wallflower is easy; how do you become a rose?

You need to know how a search engine prioritizes the sites that it finds in order to fully appreciate the situation. When it comes down to it, there are four major criteria that determine how your site does in the rankings: Links, popularity, duration, and organization. Of these, organization is the most straight forward; the better your site is organized, the better your site will do in the rankings. Keep in mind that this also considers your meta tags (the more direct and appropriate the better; don't waste time on words in your description that just add words) and alt tags (those things that replace pictures for people that don't load images that they don't need), as well as any text that you put on the page. So, when you are designing your page, make sure that you use meta tags, alt tags, and text; search engines will love you for it.

Duration is something that you have no control over. Search engines look at how long your site has been around, and the longer it has been around, the better. When an SEO person talks about “sandbox”, he's referring to how long the site has been around, and will usual point out that it takes about six months for it to “get out of the sandbox” (most search engines want to make your site has been around before they rank it very high). Keep in mind that it also means that you should seriously debate completely re-doing your site, as it may put you back in the sandbox, and thus lower your ranking for a few months. As a side note, this also means that any changes to your site will usually take a few months to make any difference in the ranking.

Popularity is something that you can increase through successful marketing, and why you are debating link exchanges in the first place. The more uniques that your site gets, the better you do in the rankings. However, if your numbers suddenly spike and then go back to your previous uniques, the search engines will slam you; they don't like it when you play with your numbers, and a spike means that you are doing something interesting with your numbers. Therefore, you need to do something that increases your numbers slowly and surely, so that you don't set off any warning lights. This is the one area where link exchanges of any sort will definitely help you.

Links to your site are cool, with a caveat. In order to do you any good, links need to come from real sites and be of the same kind. Links from link farms (sites that have a large number of links going to a lot of practically random sites) are considered low quality, whereas links from sites that have something in common with yours are considered good links. So, linking to other webcomics and blogs about webcomic and forums about webcomics good, but linking to sites that sell Indian rugs are bad (unless your webcomic happens to be about Indian rugs, in which it's good).

What does this all mean for your comic? The sandbox will hurt you if you are constantly redesigning it, so design your site so you just have to change the images if you get bored with it and make it well-organized with meta tags and an alt tag for every image. Plug your comic as often as you can, creating backlinks to it. Debate link exchanges; if the sites are of the same kind (such as dealing with webcomics, or anime, or some common theme).

Design your site well, spread the URL in good soil, and your site will do better in the ratings. Do otherwise, and your site will be extremely lonely. Rose or wallflower, the choice is yours.

Sidekicks and Appropriate Use

2007-08-05T03:19:00.000-07:00

Sidekicks are the most abused characters in comicdom. As such, I need to re-iterate that they are useful.

The bottom line is that your hero can't be everywhere, and can't do everything. Worse, he can't talk to himself. Yeah, he clone himself and talk to himself, but that doesn't work from a dramatic perspective; without limits your character can get very boring very quickly, and insane characters can't really be understood (and if they are, are they insane?). In an ensemble setting, a group of characters that can do everything will definitely get boring quickly.

The sidekick takes up some of this slack. The sidekick can do things that the hero can't, and allows the hero to think things out when things have gotten rough. The sidekick can also act as a medic or seamstress, for those characters that regenerate or have self-repairing costumes. He can also set needed appointments, and remind the hero of those appointments. He can also make sure that the lair is clean and equipment maintained. Like the apprentice of old, the sidekick is capable of many things, and not just in the sense of super powers.

At the same time, the sidekick needs his own maintenance. He needs the slap on the back, the dint of recognition, and it helps to be paid every so often. The sidekick has his own goals, which, just because they align themselves with the hero, doesn't mean that they are the same or that they don't diverge. The sidekick has to be allowed to pursue those goals, and even have a live of his own that doesn't involve the hero.

And that's an important point that needs to be considered here: The sidekick has to be able to go to college, have a significant other, or just go to the local Indian casino every so often. Their existence need not be defined by the hero, and that serving as a sidekick may just be some form of community service, a way for a would-be hero to learn the ropes before becoming a hero themselves, or as a way to help someone do something that they could not. Some of them do it for baser reasons, such as revenge, lust, or even pay; those motivations need to be considered just as much as higher motivations.

The sidekick can also act to add drama, but I highly suggest you debate putting the sidekick in danger more often than you really need to. The sidekick may be an easy target for the villains to kidnap and endanger, but if it's more than a few times then it loses its punch. Not only does it question the competence of your hero and what the sidekick has learned, but it also questions your own skill as a writer (if the only way you can make things more interesting is to imperil the sidekick, then the question of your competence comes under fire). And this definitely applies to girlfriends!

The sidekick should be used to show why the hero does what he does, but he should also be used to plumb the depths of your world by occasionally getting away from the hero. The sidekick should be something that you have fun with; if you can't, then don't bother having one...

Sidekicks Aren't Just For A Villain's Target Practice

2007-07-28T00:36:00.000-07:00

The sidekick is another major character that needs to explored. As an extension of the hero, the sidekick acts as an interesting character, especially if handled correctly.

There are three basic types of sidekicks. There apprentice heroes, who are trying to learn how to be a hero from a hero (Robin is obviously the stereotype here). Then there is the “accidental” sidekick; this sidekick always seem to be able to be in a position to help the hero, even though he definitely shouldn't be there (Penny and Brain, for example). Lastly, there is the character that could be a hero in his or her own right, but is somehow tied to the hero (Supergirl (aka Matrix, and the one that's an earthbound angel), when she was employed by Lex, for example).

Each type fulfills a different need, and by exploring that need you can determine which sidekick you should strive towards. The obvious quicky note: You don't need a sidekick. They fill very specific literary needs, and so they aren't right for everyone. Also, don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone likes the idea of a sidekick; when sidekicks were introduced as a sort of avatar for the boys that read comics, the concept was despised (everyone wants to be Batman, no one wants to be Robin). Bear that in mind when you debate one.

The apprentice is the sidekick of choice, especially among male heroes. The apprentice provides a continuation of sorts, and represents the hero's legacy. He is responsible for training the sidekick, and the sidekick becomes an extension of the hero. This doesn't mean that the sidekick can't evolve; rather, that when the hero evolves, the sidekick will be the physical manifestation of that. For example, when Batman was finally able to let go of his past, Dick Grayson was allowed to become Nightwing and become a hero in his own right. Of course, it was quickly realized that Batman needed Robin (without Robin, he became depressed and focused too much on his work; he needed Robin to keep him balanced), and so a new one was quickly found (of course, Jason Todd didn't work out, so Timothy Drake was brought in).

The apprentice is best used when the hero needs to have some sort of symbolic reminder of what he is fighting for, and has some deep issues when it comes to legacy or family. The sidekick is the physical manifestation of the hero's dreams of the future, and provides a link to the past. In short, this particular sidekick is best used as a symbol, but with a conflicting personality to its hero, and abilities based off the heroes (to further enhance the symbolism).

The annoyance is straight comedy relief. The hero keeps getting himself into weird situations, and neds to either be rescued or has to have some luck fall his way; the annoyance provides that escape or luck as needed. The idea is to demonstrate that the hero isn't the end all/be all, and that he has some definite flaws. Penny and Brain are the examples here; Inspector Gadget is always getting himself into danger, and being extracted or rescued by Brain, even as Penny solves the case and provides back-up for her uncle. In pulp, Tonto is probably a good analogue, as he is there to merely provide an extra set of hands for the Lone Ranger. As noted, only use this sidekick when you need comedy relief; it sucks if used for serious reasons.

The equal is the weird one. This character is the hero's inferior only in rank; in all other ways, she is the character's equal or superior. There's a lot of reasons for this, such as some sort of binding spell, the hero has something she needs, or that the sidekick is being punished; the bottom line is that the sidekick is subservient to the hero. Although it can be used for comedy relief, the best way is to show that the hero is still learning his way around, and that the sidekick is going to show him the way; a shaman or pathfinder if you will.

At any rate, have fun with sidekicks; used correctly, they can add so much to your comic. Used wrong, however, and they tend to kill it. So use them appropriately...

Hillary/Obama: Threatened by their own community?

2007-07-28T00:33:00.000-07:00

Today, we live in a fascinating period of time. In just a few months the primaries will be upon us yet again, and we will be deciding who will represent the great parties of our nation. And those choices are most interesting for the Democratic Party.

The two front runners are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and present some very interesting choices. However, of especial note is that they are being attacked most often by those that you would think that would have supported them the most: Hillary by women, and Obama by African-Americans. Although I have no problem with anyone being able to have their own opinion, it scares me when people are finding reasons to not vote for someone based on gender or race, and it especially scares when it has the feeling of running from their own gender or race in order to demonstrate their solidarity with the opposing side.

Obama has been slammed as not being “black”, and that, while he may be African-American, he is not black. Because his family hails from Kenya, and because he is a second-generation immigrant, it has been said that he has not had an “authentic” black experience, and even at the Youtube Town Conference, one of the questioners wanted to know if Obama considered himself “authentic” enough to be considered black. Obama is being judged twice: Once by his race, and once again by his background.

Because his father comes from Eastern Africa, and not Western Africa as most slaves did, and because he comes from the wealthy rather than the inner cities, a number of black columnists have debated his ability to represent the black cause. Rather than looking at his record, and using that as the means of judging him, they are looking at his race, and his background. I find the semantics issue amusing; you would have thought that the black community would have used Obama as a rallying point, but the black community has decided to tear him down, as he lacks what they wish in an “appropriate background”. And the viciousness of those attacks is beginning to foster a new generation of racist sentiment, as racists are now able to show that the blacks are just as concerned about race as they are, and that it's thus acceptable.

Hillary represents a weirder issue. Even feminists that supported her first as First Lady and then Senator, are not supporting her for president. Although some are doing it because of Hillary's voting record, and other because she would effectively be another “dynasty” president. It's interesting that Hillary is being held to a higher standard, not by men, but by women, and she falls short of that standard. Some are against her, in fact, because she is a woman, and feel that they shouldn't be forced to vote for someone based solely on the person's gender.

The thing that truly shocks me is that feminists dislike that she is playing by the same rules that the guys are, and winning with them. Rather than winning using some sort of imagined feminist ideals, she is kicking butt and taking names just as the guys do. And that's offensive to a lot of them; personally, politics is a game, and you win by playing the rules of a game rather than making new rules. And if the only way you can win is through house rules, then you may as well stay home. Hillary has not only played the game by the rules, but has kicked butt in them. And for this, she has been derided.

This is not to say that blacks should vote only for blacks, or women solely for women, but it feels somewhat incredible that they should feel forced to tear someone down because of a shared race or gender. And that's probably the scariest aspect of the next primary...

The Villain As Supporting Cast

2007-07-14T13:46:00.000-07:00

The basic truth to any hero is that he's only as good as his villain. And as such, he bears some serious consideration. There are basically three kinds of villains: Failed love interests, Arch-rivals, and Elementals. Let's explore!

Arch-rivals are the meat of the relationship. The hero needs someone who is capable of testing him, and is going to make the challenge seem interesting. Sometimes the rivalry goes way back; Dr. Doom has been challenging Reed all the way back to their college days. Other times, it goes to when they first clashed; Lex Luthor wants to slam Superman because Superman sent him to jail when they first met. And then there are those that simply represent different perspectives; Ra's Al-Ghul is Batman done Evil.

However, the basics of the arch-rival will always be the same: The villain needs to challenge the hero, and a have a reason for the grudge. The challenge is the fun part, and it doesn't mean that the villain has to have the same powerset as the hero, or even have a powerset; Lex Luthor has done rather well, and he usually doesn't even have a powersuit. Luthor challenges Superman by threatening his ethics; Luthor is a womanizing, plotting, unrepentant bastard, and proud of it; he has fun doing what he does, and he's pretty good at it. But...he represents a threat that the Blue Boy Scout can't handle easily; he can't physically attack Lex, and Lex is a far more complex problem because he is part of the power structure of Metropolis. Lex has always been a fun villain; he's evil, he knows it, and he's always steps ahead of Superman.

And the grudge is just as important. No matter how multi-dimensional your villain is, if he doesn't have a grudge against your hero, then the villain just doesn't work. When you think grudge, screw the logical side of your brain; apply the angry side of your personality. And I'm not talking merely being anti-authority; I'm talking the villain has been arrested or humiliated by the hero, or thinks that he has been. Dr. Doom has gotten a lot of mileage out of Reed embarrassing him back in college, when Reed tried to point out his math error; he's seen every defeat since then as further humiliation. Batman slighted Ra's Al-Ghul by not marrying his daughter and wanting to take over his organization.

And, even though I'm using a super-villains, this doesn't apply solely to them. It can apply to high school (the Supreme Jock and Ultimate Popular Girl are the obvious cliches), the office (the backstabbing secretary and the sadistic boss), There is almost no limit to where you can find the arch-rival!

The Failed Love Interest can be downright fun. Besides revealing part of the hero's psyche (what kind of woman the hero likes can reveal a lot), it creates an interesting character that can sometimes annoy, sometimes support the hero. The FLI can be anything, from a stalker, a radical (getting into trouble by proving how good he is, for example), ethical rival (loves the hero, loves stealing more), or even obligation (needs to marry the hero in order to fulfill some personal quest). Anything that applies to the normal love interest applies to the failed one; after all, the FLI could have been the love interest except for some “tragic”mishap. Except, of course, that the FLI is just a bit twisted; she may be out to kill the hero, humiliate him, or even just be doing what she is doing in order to get the hero's attention. And, even more evil, she may team-up with the hero in order to save him; nothing ends a romance like the death of the romanced.

A special note on this one: One of two situations can really mess up the situation. The first is that the hero could represent the one way in which the villain is a potentially good person. This is great for tragic storylines, or when you just want to make the villain a bit sympathetic. It can even be used if you eventually wish to redeem the villain, and this is usually the first sign of that.

The other is much nastier. In essence, it's a version of the Arch-Rival, but nastier; the FLI is trying to prove herself, and the easiest way to do is to be the center of his universe, which is naturally enough his arch-rival. Or, the “failed” part could be humiliating to the villain, and forms the basis of her grudge. This can get really tragic...

The Elemental is something that is intrinsic to super-hero and fantasy comics. It requires a focus of mind that just doesn't work in other genres. I'm not referring to characters made of some elemental force; I'm referring to characters that represent some aspect of the universe. Consider The Joker for a sec: He represents the evil, insane, twisted part of the human psyche. He and Batman clash more because they represent opposing forces (Sanity versus Insanity) more than any mere rivalry. By representing some aspect of the Dark Side of the Universe, the Elemental allows you to play with the fundamental forces that make up your universe, and show that it can fight back on its own terms.

Sort of makes The Joker scarier, doesn't it?

By using these three kinds of villains, you do something weird: You give the hero something to do. You give him a chance to show why he's a hero, why he fights, and what he's willing to do to win. If you look at the support staff as providing the reason for why the hero does all of that, then the villain is ironically the best support a hero could ever have. Keep that in mind, and you will do really well!

Why Love Needs To Be Of Equal Partners

2007-06-24T13:23:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the love interest, the big problem is the power issue. In essence, the love interest is either more powerful or less powerful than the main character. This is a mistake.

Consider the TV series “Charmed” for a moment. As the series progressed, the power level of Leo (Piper's love interest) rose, hit a plateau, and then disappeared. He began with the power to teleport (in the series it was called “orbing”, but let's call a spade a spade, okay?) and heal. He then became an Avatar, becoming practically omnipotent, and then lost his powers completely. He still had his knowledge, but he was pretty much secondary to his wife. Although he was still a great character, it felt as if the character had been emasculated. Worse, what made him important to the team was taken away and his involvement in the team became more passive.

Although an interesting feminist statement, part of what made the Piper-Leo coupling interesting was that Leo was Piper's White Knight, the man who would come to Piper's defense no matter what. However, as the series progressed, Piper became more independent of Leo; this was great on the level that women shouldn't be dependent on the male in their life, but we had already had that in the season after the Avatar arc. However, Piper also tended to abuse Leo a lot; in a real-world marriage, they would have been forced into marriage counseling by The Elders early on. By diminishing Leo's power, they not only forewent making an even more important statement (that marriage partners should be equal), while at the same time creating a third-rate character.

At the same time, consider Tuxedo Mask from Sailor Moon. Because Tuxedo Mask was more powerful than Sailor Moon, it was easy for her to come to depend on his timely arrival, while resenting him if he didn't rescue her. In essence, she may have received top billing, but she was a secondary character every time he showed up.

The power level issue is one that needs to be seriously considered; after all, if the lover has a lower power level than the loved, then the relationship has a built-in conflict: Is the lover in an actual relationship, or is he or she just a pet? This is most obvious in super-hero and vampire stories; what does Lois Lane offer Superman? Worse, with vampires you have the problem that the current lover merely reminds the vampire of past days and his humanity; the vampire isn't necessarily in love with the person so much as the idea of being in love. The greater the difference in power, the more you need to justify the relationship.

So, how do you justify the relationship? You don't. Once you start justifying the relationship, you finish it; by exploring it, you remove the mystery that is inherent in any good relationship. Instead, go with the romance; a few surprise gifts, making sure that the lover is called no matter where the call comes from, and giving the lover some space. If necessary, give the lover a signal device or bodyguard, but she should have something in case she gets in trouble.

Now, if you think the romance is fun, imagine what happens when the romance is over! You have someone who knows the loved one's secrets, limits, and psychology; that could be one heck of an enemy...

Movie Star Ratings Uncovered

2007-05-26T17:40:00.000-07:00

[And now, for something completely different...]

Back when I was in junior high, I noticed that certain movies tended to get the same stars, unless they were incredibly good or incredibly bad. I had debated never publishing the list, but then I was watching a special on VH-1 on how the stars got started and I figured I may as well as write it up for comparison...The basic point to the system was that some critics were easy to predict how many stars that they would give certain movies; because of this, I basically decided that no critic should be allowed to be a paid critic for more than five years, unless they signed a contract that allowed a mob to tear them to bits after ten years (exceptions, obviously, would be allowed, but I think it would make reviews more of a “Should you see this movie?” as opposed to “Is this movie good for you?”, and eliminate words like “doyenne”, “zaftig”, and “mise en scene” from the review section and keep them in the arts section...

Oh, and don't worry about the system if it seems that an Oscar Award-winning movie seems to be short-changed; try a few examples and you should see that it works out okay. Also, any movie that gains more than five stars is considered five stars, and any movie that gets less than zero stars has zero.

[BTW: Where does VH-1 find those people? They kept pointing out that you can't get any real career going if you have done a horror movie, any kind of sex or nudity, or have been in a music video; yet, it seems that almost every star, especially the mega-stars, have done it. If you doubt it, pick a name and then do some research (start at the Celebrity Nudes Database (www.cndb.com) for some very illuminating information). They also spout off the stupidest things (may favorite has got to be that Japanese companies sign contracts with American stars that specifies that the commercials can never be seen in the USA, AS THE COMMERCIALS ARE BEING SHOWN; if it were true, how can show the commercials on an American program? Personally, I just think that the stars do it because the commercials are just so fun to do, and they just can't do them in the states because of idiot publicists....]

First, type the movie in the least favorable genre. The types are drama, historical, horror, westeren, comedy, sci-fi, and fantasy. This determines the base number of stars.

“Horror” movies are pretty cut and dried, but come in three types: Gore, Comedy, and Young Star. In theory, the idea is that someone is in danger of being killed. Gore movies are fun, kill the entire cast (or most of it), and tend to have an allegorical base (ie, there is a definite theme); Friday the 13th, Nightmare on Elm Street, Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Comedy horror movies make fun of the genre, generally ignoring their own premise (comedy horror movies tend to ignore the established conventions of horror movies, relying more on what non-horror fans consider the conventions): Scream. “Young Star” movies are those which publicize the cast more than the movie itself, and in which, ironically, no one really dies: Urban Legend, I Know What You Did Last Summer. Critics don't like movies that are fun to watch (even though you would have thought that they would love movies in which jocks get killed), but like it when the genre makes fun of itself. Base Stars: Gore: 0; Young Star: .5, Comedy: 1

“Fantasy” is any movie that features magic (even if it has some sort of pseudo-scientific explanation), regardless of historical era. It can also feature non-human races, quests, and medieval organization, but the magic is the key part. Critics dislike fantasy movies because they believe that they pander to some base instinct (the movies do tend to feature violence, idealism, and the ethos is black/white; critics tend to hate fun movies). Note that this includes any movie that features mythological themes, “everyday magic” (like wishes that come true), or religious themes where miracles occur (critics tend to be fanatic atheists for some reason). Base Stars: 1

“Sci-Fi” is any movie that features some sort of scientific mumbo-jumbo. They can also feature non-human races, military or pseudo-military organizations, and missions with big rewards, but it's the cyborgs, big ships and chrono-cataclysms that are the featured element. Critics apparently hated science class back in school, as well as movies that explore the human condition without depending on regular humans. Base Stars: 1.5

Comedy: These are movies wherein you are supposed to laugh. In general, however, critics place most humor at the low level of interest; they tend to forget that making a comedy requires a lot of skill from the writer in order to work once you get past the body fluid and burlesque stage. By the same measure, movies that make fun of the movie business or are based in dark humor tend to do really well (this is where it starts to get into the dividing line between what normal people are looking for in a movie, and what critics are looking for in a movie). Base Stars: Scatological/Drug Humor: 1; Funny: 2; Dark Humor: 3

Western: Hollywood in general seems to have a love/hate relationship with movies; they love them because they're fun and easy to produce, but hate them because of the perception that they are too simplistic. For this discussion, a “western” is any movie that features the Old West (Alaska or the states west of the Mississippi from roughly 1860-1915 (ie, between the Civil War and the WWI)). The emphasis is on anti-heroes doing good, however incidental. Critics dislike them because they are a remnant of Old Hollywood, and rarely seem to be done right or seem to sappy. Base Stars: 2

Drama: Dramas are movies in which people talk, get slapped, and die tragically. The basic point is that it's not funny, and the science stays within the realm of what most people can understand. This is also a catch-all category; any classical material (Shakespeare, anything Greek, even Jules Verne) counts here as well, regardless of whether or not the material fits better somewhere else (note Jules Verne). However, there is a difference between cheesy drama (think something that you would see on Lifetime or as a movie of the week) or serious (virtually anything else). Base Stars: Cheesy: 2; Serious: 3

Historical: In essence, it actually happened or could have happened. Critics invariably like these because they can do research and find all the trivial ways in which the movie is right or wrong. Base Stars: 3

The first modifier is the cast mod: Look at the IMDB listing of only the actors/actresses that appear on the movie poster and average the stars from the last movie and divide by 4. Do the same for the director, screen-writer, and producer, for each category. Then total the four and subtract 2, adding 1 if this is the one of the first four movies for more than half of those involved). It may seem like a bit of math, but it just makes the star rating more accurate. If they don't have anything prior, assume 2. If someone is in more than one category, they count for all possible categories, with an added 1 if the director and writer are the same person). The formula is:

((Average of Actors/Actresses)+(Average of Writers (+1 if also directing))+(Average of Producers)+(Average of Directors (+1 if also writing)))/4-2+1(if most of those are new to the movies).

Now look at the country of origin: Add another +1 if it's European (critics love European movies, on the idea that Europe invented it, so they obviously know what they are doing), and -.1 if Australian or Asian (silly newbies!).

And then there is subject matter: Rape gains +.5, graphic sex +.5, assumed sex (ie, just thrusting and maybe partial nudity) -1, and kids/animals -1. Violence comes in two flavors: Extreme violence that is meant to demonstrate how cheap life is or that violence is ridiculous gains a +1. If it's otherwise just violence, no matter how nasty, it's a -1 (note that this applies to most Gore horror movies and Fantasy movies).

Enjoy!

Who should be in your pit crew?

2007-05-18T17:01:00.000-07:00

The pit crew's composition is important, as it defines what is important to the character. The character is a rebel? Then you need a strong leader for him to rebel against. He's fighting for the people? Then don't forget to include a sidekick as a representative of those people. Here are your basic five pit crew members, and what they can do for your hero(es). Oh, and I'm going to pick on Batman, simply because he has arguably one of the largest pit crews of just about any hero (ironic considering his, “I work alone” status).

Love Interest: Romance is good; it provides a reason for the hero to do something (protect the love interest, get something for the love interest (to heal or to prove something, or just to show off), can provide conflict (either romantic issues or because the couple is having problems), and connects the hero to the setting (the love interest should not only be representative of the locals, but can also provide updates on any crisis that you have going on and provide an added poignancy. Bruce has a long list of romantic interests, and they have provided their own fun, ranging from hiding his secret identity (Vicki Vale), conflict of interest (Selina Kyle, aka Catwoman), or even your basic “Her Dad's a Villain?” (Talia).

Superior: Arguably the weakest pit crew member, the superior is whoever the hero reports to and who tells the hero that where he will be going. A great character in the right circumstances, too many weak writers create a total nimrod; in essence, the superior is there mostly to show why the military or corporate sucks, and I refer you to my segment on military and religion on things to avoid (note that I'm not saying that a superior can't be used to show how dark the world is, just keep in mind to keep a fine line). However, if used correctly, the superior allows for visible character growth (in terms of promotions, awards, and raises/bonuses), but also things like fun or more important assignments as well as respect. Mostly useful towards the beginning of the comic, and should be shifted to mentor at some point, but can also be a sidekick or love interest, or even a retainer (weirder things have happened!). Although it could be argued that he has no superior, Commissioner Gordon was effectively one at one point (as the Batman was obligated to uphold his status as deputy), or whoever was in charge of the JLA/JLI (as a member (depending on the situation), Batman is somewhat obligated to put in some time helping out).

Mentor: The hero needed to gain his skills from somewhere, and the mentor is that somewhere. Besides giving the hero a reason to prove himself, the mentor also allows for serious character development (demonstrating that the character is growing from student to master to teaching himself). The mentor also provides an excuse for training scenes, which seem to be popular in comics with a martial arts them. The mentor can also send the hero on quests, either for the group that the character serves, or for personal reasons (and the don't need to be serious; Inu Yasha has a monk send his protege on a quest for a special kind of sake). The mentor can also get away with a special kind of exposition: The field report (a briefing on what is basically happening), which is probably one of the least annoying methods of exposition ever created. Although few of Bruce's mentors have been shown, he did learn those ridiculous skills from somewhere. It is worth noting that Alfred used to count (as he taught Bruce most of social skills), as would Commissioner Gordon (even though it's on a technicality; although Bruce is definitely more skilled, Commissioner Gordon has shown Bruce how to be human on more than one occasion, and Commissioner Gordon's tight relationship with Barbara has helped to keep him somwhat romantic, as it's an example of a normal relationship that has worked).

Sidekick: The reverse of the mentor, the sidekick is a character that the hero is training, or as a surrogate son or daughter. The sidekick is best used to give the strip a comedy relief and to lighten an otherwise dark strip, but can also be used to drop a note of seriousness as needed. Bear in mind that a sidekick usually acts as the hero's conscience, as well as someone to bounce strategy off of, and a set of long-distance hands. The sidekick usually has a diminished set of skills or powers based off the hero, but this doesn't always need to be the case (in fact, if you wanted to give the hero a shift in perspective, make his sidekick someone who is there to learn more of the attitude than actual skills, or to chronicle the hero's journey). And keep in mind that the sidekick doesn't need to have respect for the hero (especially at the beginning); it can be interesting to have a sidekick that actually hates the hero yet is forced somehow to be protected or trained by the hero. This includes any member of the Bat-Family (Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Batwoman, Spoiler, etc.); the guy likes taking in strays.

Retainer: This covers a lot of evils, but the essentials are the same: The person has skills that are vital to the hero, that the hero doesn't possess himself (such as computer, healing, or administrative skills), skills or abilities that are useful enough to replicate (such as combat skills or super-powers (a lot of bricks start off this way), or even just a different perspective (a civilian in a military group, an observer who can't keep his observations to himself, or even a naïve or cynical character). Keep in mind that this includes soldiers under the command of the hero, people that the hero has hired, or even people that just follow the hero around (those silly friend and companions-in-arms things). Alfred is an obvious example, but so is Azrael (who was hired to take his place prior to going, well, bats). Also, the Sons of Batman (from the Dark Knight Returns) would definitely count as well.

How To Make Great Art

2007-05-06T18:16:00.000-07:00

Okay, I've been looking at a lot of galleries lately, and I think I've hit on some things that everyone is missing. In that regard, I present some things that more people should be doing:

10) Leave the anime at home. I'm seeing too many artists that have a great personal style, but, nonetheless, the 75%+ of their gallery is mangaka-wannabe stuff. Why settle for doing the same stuff as everyone else if you can do it better?

9 ) Dynamic poses. Anyone can do a pose of someone standing up and smiling. I want to see something fun! Crouching shyly, smiling over a shoulder, even jumping...but enough with the standing!

8 ) Human interaction. I'm not referring to sex; that's way too easy. I want something more subtle, like a head on a belly or a hand on a chest. Even just a basic handshake. It doesn't even have to be close contact; two guys glaring at each other. Something to show that the people in the piece recognize that the other person lives...

7 ) Non-muscular anatomy. I always look for geeks and fat guys; it's mainly because anyone can draw a guy that's got Olympian proportions or women that look like they stepped of a Vogue cover. But...can they people with realistic figures? If even movies and TV have figured out that portraying regular people is good (we've seen Eric Foreman's BVD's how many times?), then why haven't comics figured it out?

6 ) Kids. I'm not talking shota or pedophilia here. I'm a big fan of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn; I fgure that a lot of people are. And yet...kids are really rare. I want to see more Norman Rockwell stuff where kids are playing, eating, and just, well, being kids...

5 ) Animals. Okay, I know the limitation is that animals are something that you won't see a lot of. Yet I'm at the point where I would like to see more 12-year-old girl stylings of pretty ponies just to see how an artist would do animals. Even with fanpics of Naruto's pal Kiba you don't see many dogs. I guess I should write more animal mascots; nonetheless, normal dogs and cats would be nice to see.

4 ) Anthropomorphs with muzzles. A cat boy needs more than just a pair of ears and maybe a button nose; they should have a muzzle as well. If you're going to experiment with the concept, have fun with it; don't just stop at the ears! Yeesh...

3 ) Monsters. Okay, so I'm obviously a big fan of Greek mythology. I like hydras, and dragons, and griffins (Oh my!). I would have figured that everyone would have. And yet...there are almost none of them in any gallery. I see angels, I see nagas, but where are the monsters?

[Silly PETA...Time to crank out those "PETA Unfair to Monsters" T-Shirts...]

2 ) Little details. I'm not referring to clothing wrinkles or tattoos; I want to see backpacks, watches, multi-layered outfits. I want to see spit curls, long hair, and even bald people with little bumps. And freckles; why do people in art always have clear complexions when no one in real-life does?

Spandex is fine; wrinkles are fine. But where are the plaids?

1 ) BACKGROUNDS! I see a lot of colored backgrounds with filters. I may see a bed or a torture device, but rarely where they are sitting. People do not float through space; why should your characters? Yeesh...

If it helps...

The Pit Crew

2007-04-21T05:19:00.000-07:00

In racing, the pit crew is the group of people that makes sure that the racer can continue racing: They make sure that the car is maintained, that the racer is fed, and that the racer never gives up. Without the pit crew, the racer might do well for a good part of the race, but can't possibly last the entire length without a pit crew.

The pit crew are a step up from your flavor characters. These are characters that do important things, and not just help define your setting. These characters are the ones that not only provide a service for the main character(s), but also act as occasional confidante, friend, and even lover.

Consider Alfred Pennyworth. Alfred not only helps define Batman's world (Bruce Wayne is rich, so of course he has a butler), he also makes sure that equipment works, deflects the occasional noseybody, and even helps Batman do research. He has also acted as Batman's conscience, and has been one of the few people that has stood up to Batman and told him off. Alfred is probably as close to an uncle as Batman has ever had.

Commissioner Gordon is also an interesting supporting character. Besides giving Batman a somewhat legitimate official backing (Batman has been deputized more than a few times), as well as access to some information that even the Batman has access to, Commissioner Gordon has also stood up to Batman (yes, it can be done!), as well as provided some plot hooks and a friend to Batman.

How about Mary Jane Watson? Peter Parker needs someone to keep him grounded; you can't go up against one of the nastiest rogue galleries in all of comicdom without having someone ground you. Mary Jane may not have many contacts, may not have any powers, and may be one of the weakest wives ever, but she does something that no other wife in the comics can do: She keeps one of the most average heroes average. And that's no small accomplishment when you realize that Spider-Man has arguably one of the most eclectic rogues gallery of any established hero (it includes psycopaths, heroes, shape-changers, magical beings, and true multiple personalities).

May as well through Lex Luthor into the mix (ever notice how many double-L's there are in Superman's life [Lana Lang, Lois Lane, Lex Luther, Lara-El]?). An unlikely supporting character if there was one, Lex has shown the weaknesses in Supes, as well as his strengths. By taking one of the most mercenary personalities ever and adding in ambition and a megalomania that knows no bounds, Lex acts as Supes' best foil; because he adds so much to Superman, it's hard to imagine Superman without his dark shadow. It's because of how tied the two of them are, as well as how much The Businessman defines the Boy Scout, that Lex is more of a supporting character than arch-villain.

In short, a supporting character can add another dimension to your character by allowing him to be human. They allow him to mess up, and be called on it. They become just as vital to our perception to the character as what they wear, do, or say, and even become our friends and examples of what we can do (I wonder how many police chiefs have modeled themselves on Jim Gordon or businessman wish they could be Lex?). They show that the hero has someone to hang with, and just be human (or as human as some of these people get!). Ultimately, they represent aspects of the character that they support, and in such a way that we gain some measure of respect for both.

Sort of makes for an interesting pit crew. Mary Jane Watson may look gorgeous in coveralls (of course, she could look gorgeous in a burlap sac), and Alfred and Gordon might find it a change of pace, but I would not mess with a pit crew that had someone as vicious as Lex Luthor. How could you lose with a crew like that?

And that's sort of the point...

2007-04-12T12:27:00.000-07:00

Guess I'd better comment on it; everyone else has!

For the few that don't know: Todd Goldman recently sold a painting based on the artwork of webcomic artist David Kelly. Apparently, Goldman has stolen a lot of artwork, and even has a pipeline in the form of T-shirt design submissions to his company. He apparently uses the work to help him make fun of pop culture (he takes the work and then parodies it). I'd really like to see someone take him to court and see if his work would be protected by the Fair Use Act (which covers parody)...

Is Todd Goldman scum? Definitely. But only because he's an illustrator. If it had happened in the world of writing, the argument would be less cut and dry; being a writer means that you will occasionally be tempted to steal something that you see in someone else's writing. And you generally will!

You need to realize that there is a difference between illustrators and writers, and that the two worlds can be bridged, but never really be together. Those that write and illustrate can appreciate the difference; whereas an illustrator takes less organization, can really be done anywhere, and is considered really cool, writing takes tremendous organization, can only be done where you feel comfortable, and isn't cool. It's a right brain vs. left brain issue; writers are at their best when they are being analytical, whereas illustrators do better when they are in the moment.

This difference applies to how they do things as well. Illustrators that steal should be blacklisted; it shows a lack of imagination to steal someone else's artwork, and to just throw on your own special touches. Writers that steal, however, gain praise. Characters, plots, and concepts are treated as tools, and can be shared as long as you DO something with them. Consider how many characters with BIG swords there are. Besides making Freud nervous, they're fun to draw; they're also fun for writers to include because WE GET THE JOKE. Think about it: The Japanese are fascinated by the length of certain organs, and so it's interesting to see how long the swords will get.

But...other things are stolen as well. It's almost part of the craft to steal from someone at some point, and to see what you can do with it. It's not that writers are naturally dishonest; rather, we are highly competitive with each other, and the need to one-up each other is part of who we are. We like to push each other, and show that we can write better than anyone else. The easiest way to do that is by taking something that someone else has done, and show them what are take is. We recognize that we are at the bottom of the food chain; that's probably why we are so competitive.

We try a lot more, and we find inspiration easier than illustrators. It's almost as if we grab onto things, and then see what we can change about them, to make them part of our universe. Writers need to write, and we will write about anything that inspires us. So realize that being a writer makes you kin to gypsies, where property doesn't mean that much, and the group is more important than the individual members.

So steal, and be happy that the commandment about stealing is not your worry. At least, until somone catches you!

Extras That Return

2007-03-29T13:29:00.000-07:00

If extras are those characters that are just there to provide filler, you will have those that perform specific tasks that show up all the time, but aren't part of the main cast. The perfect example of this is Nurse Joy and her infinite sisters from the Pokemon universe; every town has one, and her function is to merely heal pokemon and show how big of a pervert Brock is.

The “font” extra is just an extra; his or her identity changes each time, and the actual person doesn't matter. That is, it's a generic seer, a thug found in a bar, or just a random someone you pick every time you need a specific type of information dispersed. In this situation, the character doesn't matter, and so he's still just an extra.

However, you need to show that your characters have real effects on the world. By having a real person having been affected by the characters' actions, you show that your world has depth. And in order to do this you need recurring extras. If your characters eliminate hunger, you need to show that someone who was famished is enjoying a good meal; it really brings home the point that they have done something (eliminated hunger) and that it has had an effect (people are eating).

In cartoons, recurring extras are used extensively. You have the poor boy who the hero treats with respect who ends up saving the hero's life (usually as a sacrifice). There is the mother of six that has adopted the heroine, usually for succor. And don't forget the caravan owner that seems to be everywhere...

A recurring extra should never become an actual permanent character; occasionally you can highlight them, using them as a plot hook in order to get a character into the story, but the character should then disappear into the woodwork. They should only show up when you need someone from the world to show that your characters are having an effect; bring them up early in the story, and then when the effect has occurred. You can show the character as events change things, but don't get too crazy with showing the character; he may be a human being, but he's still just part of the background.

Keep in mind that he's there just to create some kind of sympathy and to show how important the character is; he's not there to add to your cast, but how your cast is perceived. Sometimes it's hard to create sympathy for your characters; they may be extreme anti-heroes, cold, or extremely professional and are thus unable to truly interact with other characters, and so showing the human side of your characters is difficult. By creating an extra that shows that the characters are human, and that the character is cold for a reason, you create a little more sympathy for your characters. Without that human touch, your comic just doesn't have any relation to your audience. And without that touch, your comic just won't become popular. And you want to become popular, right?

So remember those single mothers with large families, roaming caravan owners, and sacrificial urchins; you may need them!

Part V: ThoseThat Inspire

2007-03-24T02:43:00.000-07:00

[Last one; sorry this is taking so long, it's just that I've been connection and work issues...Monday]

The last step in getting rid of racism is to show that every group has heroes that have contributed something to society, as well as have been around for a while. The link to history is important; the longer the roots go, the more solid the group. (Because of that, and to encourage you to look them yourself, I'm purposely not putting any dates in.) So...are there ten black heroes that have nothing to do with the various performing arts or athletics? Let's see...

Harriet Tubman: A conductor of the Underground Railroad, she ferried over 1000 slaves to freedom over 160 trips. Even though she was epileptic, illiterate, and having a reward for her head. Her career as a conductor lasted until the Civil War, when she was forced to retire. In her “retirement” she became a major voice for both the black and woman's equality movements.

Frederick Douglass: MLK, Jr., was not the first major speaker for black equality. That particular honor could be arguably given to Mr. Douglas. He struck up coalitions with other civil rights organizations, including the nascent women's rights movements; this allowed the small organizations to pool resources, and it made sense as members of one group sometimes belonged to others.

Mary McLeod Bethune: President of the National Association of Colored Women and the founder of the National Council for Negro Women, she is the subject of the first black OR woman to be placed in any park in the nation's capital. She also held one of the Top Twenty position in the New Deal administration. She was responsible for increasing the education opportunities for African Americans. If you ever complain about blacks not having opportunities, her ghost may just say hi in a very rude way.

George Washington Carver: The only person to have invented more than Thomas Edison; his inventions generally involved the peanut. His inventions include peanut butter (the formula is virtually unchanged since it was first invented) and peanut oil; he was single-handedly responsible for helping Georgia.

Jessie Redmon Fauset: The mid-wife of African American literature, she was a major figure in the Harlem Renaissance. She was also the editor of “Crisis”, a magazine published by the NAACP. She taught English, French (presumably practiced when she went to school at the Sorbonne), and literature, and wrote a number of books for adults and children, which were revived in the 1960s.

Crispus Attucks: Death makes all men equal. Born of Native American and black blood, Attucks was an escaped slave that became the leader of fifty men that advanced on a British unit, yelling, “Do not be afraid!”. The soldiers fired on the men, and he and four other men were killed. Over a thousand people attended the funeral.

Fannie Lou Hamer: From humble beginnings grow mighty things. Starting off as a sharecropper, she eventually became best known for the line, “I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired.” Although beaten for doing so, she encouraged voter reform, eventually causing the Voter Reform Act signed into law by President Johnson. Her charisma and singing talent lent her voice strength, and she was a well-known speaker and it took diabetes, cancer, and heart problems to stop her. The Mississippi House of Representative passed a resolution honoring her activism at the state and national levels; the vote was 116 to 0.

Benjamin Bradley: Necessity can be the spirit of invention. Working at the Annapolis Academy, where he helped set up experiments, Bradley invented a steam engine for the warship. Unable to patent the invention (he was a slave at the time) he nonetheless was able to sell the plans and purchased his freedom.

Augusta Savage: I figure I need to keep slamming the education issue; Augusta is my last hope. She had but one talent: Sculpture. She went to Cooper Union in New York to study, and the school eventually sponsored her when she was no longer able to take care of bills. She was able to go to Italy to study (which she did for three years based on a single statue paying the tuition and a scholarship to get her there and back home). Although she did some political options (a rejection from Paris based on her race encouraged her to get into politics), it was her work for the Works Progress Administration and the 1939 New York World's Fair (the latter pieces were destroyed after the fair, but pictures remain).

James Van Der Zee: Photographers often see more than the light that comes through their lens; sometimes, they can see the soul of their of the subject and record that. Born to the maid and butler to Ulysses S Grant, Van Der Zee opened his first studio in Harlem, and photographed Harlem over the next sixty years. His photographs were eventually included in the “Harlem on my Mind” (1969) exhibit in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

I figure these people should inspire anyone. I only hope that they did...

Part IV: Why Obama Won't Be Elected to President

2007-03-08T01:07:00.000-08:00

[Sorry about the lack of updates...One more part after this, and I return to the usual silliness...]

The 2008 Election promises to be one of the most interesting elections we've had in a while. However, I think that the Democratic Party Primary will be even more interesting. If nothing else, that you have a woman and a black man that may be our next leader is probably the most interesting point. However, regardless of his other attributes, and what you think about them, Barack Obama's biggest problem is that he's not a black man.

Too many blacks have made the point that, whereas Obama is no doubt African-American, he isn't black. The problem is that Obama's heritage is that of Kenya, of Eastern Africa rather than Western Africa. As such, his ancestors didn't need to do deal with slavery and the subsequent racism; in other words, even though Kenyans had to deal with being slaves in their own country, and that subsequent fall-out, they lack the “proper black experience”.

I doubt that racists would make the same quibble.

This is yet another public relations strike against the black community. It seems that, every so often, the black community does something that actually sets the cause of equality back. Ebonics is probably the best example; in recent years, that any conflict involving a black person being called racist is probably the worst strike against civil rights. By defining conflicts as racist not only ignores the true roots of racism, but does nothing but provide more reason for blacks to treat themselves differently than others, and also being on the defensive against others. By splitting blacks from others, not only do you create a hostile situation, you also make civil rights harder to enforce.

Consider a black woman going into a store, looking for a specific tea, and she ends up looking at a number of different teas. A white grocery clerk, seeing that she is looking for something, goes over to help. The black woman tells, the clerk, “I don't need help”, and walks off. She then claims that the clerk was racist to all of her friends later on. Was the clerk really racist?

Look at “driving while black: seriously for a moment. You're going to seriously tell me that a policeman can tell a person's race, sex and age through tinted windows, or through window glare in a vehicle going more than fifty miles an hours, and can do so with just a glance? That's someone you don't mess with. I appreciate that blacks get pulled over more often, but why does it have to for some racist reason, and not just that blacks are simply worse drivers?

Heck, look at the current American Idol crisis: Racy pictures of Antonella Barba were recently leaked to the internet. Almost as soon as they were leaked, it was already hitting the blogs and op-ed pages that they were proof of American Idol being racist; after all, when Frenchie Davis' pictures were revealed, she was disqualified from American Idol. There's a huge difference between Davis' pornographic pictures, and Barba's pictures, especially considering that Barba's pictures weren't meant for public consumption. I'd love to say that there was a double standard here, but....No. Pictures taken while drunk that are of debatable taste are a universe away from pictures of simulated sex on a kiddie porn site.

Basically, if you want “racism” to mean something, use it when it applies, not just for when it's a problem between black and non-blacks. Otherwise, it just cheapens the concept, and makes it no longer relevant. Worse, it ensures that no one takes real racism seriously, and that benefits no one.

Part III: There should be more Black C&W Singers

2007-03-01T23:40:00.000-08:00

Okay, I don't get rap or hip-hop, and yet I have no problem with that. I like that there is some experimentation going on with the music itself, but it just seems that they have hit the limit with the vocals. Worse, I don't see any changes involving the themes of the music since over twenty years ago. Just how many songs can you make about bad things, quick women, and the need to shoot cops? Would it hurt rap to be fun?

At the same time, rap is some emblematic of the problem blacks have with society in general. Your music tends to reflect who you want to be, and what kind of dreams you have. You seek out music that represents what you want to be, and listen to it, sometimes exclusively. Usually, this isn't a bad thing, as most genres seek to encapsulate life itself, attempting to explore every aspect of reality. You can usually find some song for any emotion or experience.

However, rap limits itself to a very select group of experiences. Rap rebels solely against those with authority. Women either are exploited, or use their bodies to purchase what they can. Celebrations are in the mode that Vikings would understand: Celebrate now, because you never know what tomorrow brings. And the world is a dark place, especially if you don't have light skin. When was the last time that you heard a rap song that celebrated life itself? How often does rap look to the light side? Why does it seem that supportive families, heroes, and just hanging out (without sex or violence) just aren't part of the rap repertoire?

It's been long argued that rock music is responsible for many of the problem of today's youth. Although I don't think rock is to blame, just as I don't think rap is to blame in and of itself. I do, however, think that rap acts as a medium, that kids are listening to it, that the attitudes of those that do rap music needs to change. Rap is being used to reinforce attitudes, wrong attitudes, and that needs to change. I appreciate that adolescents, and especially males, will always be entranced by violence; however, there is an attitude that rap represents reality. Rap singers are ranked by what they have done, and so there is a reason for kids to commit violent crimes in order to not just emulate their heroes, but to also gain cred should they ever decide to try rapping themselves.

Unlike rock music, where having fun is encouraged, rap encourages violence in order to get cred. Although a lot of rappers eat Thanksgiving at home and have great family lives, they tend to sing about the negative aspects of life and touch even innocent, fun moments with some corruption. The problem is that it reinforces stereotypes, and assumes that society in general looks on them like they did in the 1950's and 1960's, when blacks were oppressed. Now, when there are virtually unlimited opportunity for blacks is the norm, it's odd that such an attitude would be prevalent. You honestly have scholarships that aren't being applied to, grant money going unclaimed, and companies that are looking for talented blacks to fill spaces. At the same time, you have black leaders decrying that there aren't people claiming the money, filling the positions, and trying to escape poverty.

Rather than blaming some mythical institutionalized racism, why not look to your communities for a cause? Rap is spreading a poison that will kill the black community, by telling them not to succeed when they can, that drugs are the only acceptable business and pleasure, and that they will never be good enough to get out of the ghetto.

Is that really something that you want? Rap needs to change. It doesn't need to change into the mind-numbing pablum of bubble-gum rock, but it does need to borrow more from gospel and rhythm and blues. In a way, it needs to reach a balance, as country has, between the need to shock and the need to be the voice of the black community, and become something that fights for the uplifting of the black community, rather than keeping it back.

Seriously...there needs to be more blacks in country music. Toby Keith has tried rap; why should 50 Cent be afraid of a steel guitar?

Part II: Destroying Yourself From The Inside

2007-02-07T21:34:00.000-08:00

[I decided to do a four-part series for Black History Month on each Friday of this month. Part I explores how far African-Americans have come, Part II explores the New Racism, Part III looks at things holding African-Americans back, and Part IV looks at heroes (with a weird twist). I make no apologies if this offends anyone; it is my opinion, and I refuse to apologize if someone feels I have stepped on toes when I haven't...]

The problem with the fight with Civil Rights is that it's been won. Unfortunately, the black community still needs something to fight.

Note that I'm not saying that the fight is completely over; however, the war itself is over. There will always be racism, but now it's an aberration not the norm. Opportunities abound, and the internet allows anyone to pursue their dreams. However, the black community is now eating itself.

The biggest jerk statement I'm going to make in this entry is this: Rodney King is the worst example of a police beating ever. If Rodney King had been white, the tape would have made the police chase shows, and that's it: A white guy that exceeded the design specs of his vehicle and then decided to take on the LAPD while on as much PCP as King was wouldn't have made a splash any other way. But because he was black, the drugs in his system and murder on his mind were forgiven; all that mattered was that he was black.

The riots afterward make no sense in any other context; only that blacks have had an adversial relationship with police allows any context at all. Admittedly, as enforcers of segregation, defenders of society in the days of protest, and with the occasional racist episode, police have deserved that antagonism. However, if the black community is to flourish it needs to start supporting the police. Police are there to stabilize society, which is why the antagonism exists in the first place. As both groups have a number of goals in common (elimination of crime, safe places to walk even at night, and making the neighborhood thrive), they need to work together in order to better serve the community.

The black community also needs to start looking for opportunities, not trying to destroy them. It needs to be realized that the black leaders do their communities a major disservice when they look for “institutionalized racism”; the problem is that kids are dissuaded from pursuing a further education, and in today's world, where education determines everything, that's a major liability. The surest sign that education isn't being pursued is that less than 1/3 of scholarships and grants available to students of color are claimed each year. Wouldn't it be great to see all of that money used up?

The word “nigger” definitely needs to be used up. Even though it remains as a racial epithet, it's also taken on a more familial tone: A black person can use it in any way he pleases without it being an issue. If any other person from any other race use the word, however,and the fight is on. This makes the word inherently racist; it segregates communities just as effectively as a brick wall. If segregation is to be destroyed once and for all, that word needs to fade into history.

The gangster attitude is another thing that needs to fade. Some rebellion is fine; when that rebellion affects the opportunities that a person can take advantage of, then it needs to be debated. It's fine to walk around with an attitude, but when that attitude doesn't allow you to back down or forces you into something that you would rather not deal with, then that attitude needs to be left at the curb with the other trash.

I appreciate that it's a refinement of the warrior code that any teen-age male holds as an ideal, especially with alcohol and women attached, but it's easily forgotten that warrior does what he does for the community, not himself; a warrior defends the community, not tells it what it to do. Also, respect is gained, not taken; a gangster takes his respect by demolishing his enemies, rather than gained by doing all that he can in defense of his community. A gangster is ultimately nothing but a bully, regardless of how it's spelled.

The need for conflict definitely needs to changed into one of compromise. Too many black people don't back down, even when backing down would gain them respect. It makes sense giving the fight for civil rights, but that need to fight and hang on no matter what can be a problem; it can make you hold on even when it could be hazardous to your health. It needs to be realized that that attitude, whereas once a good thing, is now going to be potentially hazardous to the black community. Conflict needs to be replaced by compromise if the community is going to survive.

I think that this sums up the changes that need to happen if the black community is going to survive. However, the community still needs ways to pull together and financial wherewithal in order to succeed. How and where will these come from? See the next section...

Here's to the little people!

2007-02-06T09:16:00.000-08:00

Any movie production has extras. The same should apply to comics as well. Wait....It does!

Extras have a very basic use in comics: They not only act as window dressing, but they fill things out. Extras are those characters that do nothing, yet are all around. Those characters in the background haggling or just walking around? Those are extras. The guys ordering beer that we'll never see again? Extras. The geeks being slapped in the foreground that we have no reason to care? Extras!

Extras are characters that can be used for humorous purposes, or to establish that world is populated by more than the main characters. If you want to slip a joke in, or a subtle bit of exposition, your extras come in really handy. They can also be useful to establish that your world is busy as the real world is, or to show how extravagant a party is. Admittedly, they aren't a writer's issue, but the writer should bring them up to artist.

Also, bear in mind that there several advanced types of extras. The first type is the “mook”. You know those characters that all the heroes wade through on the way to the main action? Those are mooks. Mooks are the ultimate window dressing for the bad guys; they do all of the common tasks that the main bad guys have neither the time nor inclination to do, such as balancing checkbooks or kidnapping sidekicks. The palace guards, or any other character that is just window dressing and usually appear en masse are also mooks.

There's also insignificant characters, which are just modified extras. They may have a use, but they are usually just background characters. “Nurse Joy” from the Pokemon series, for example: She may be a running joke (every town has one!), but she has no real effect on the plot, and her capabilities (outside of medical and causing Brock's heart to race) are not well-developed. As such, she's basically still just an extra. The local barkeep is another example, as his staff. They may give the tavern a certain stability, but they are only useful as far as the tavern is concerned; they are useless (plot-wise) outside of it.

Oh, and let's not forget “fonts” (short for “font of information”). These are characters, like snitches, sages, and the occasional barkeep, whose sole reason for being is to dole out information and get quests started. Cliché, but very useful.

By applying these characters liberally, you can create a world that is more detailed than one that just holds the characters. It's neat to have powerful well-developed characters, but you need more than that in order to really have fun with the comic!

BHM Part I: You Didn't Just Walk Into Mordor

2007-02-02T10:43:00.000-08:00

One of the problems with the fight for Civil Rights is that people tend to forget how much has been won. Occasionally, you need to pause, smell the flowers, and see how far you've come.

And African-Americans have come a long way. Prior to the Civil War, owning a black slave was a mark of a successful plantation owner; if you owned a hundred or so, you were really successful. Admittedly, they had no rights and were only counted as 3/5 of a person, but it was a start...

[The jerk in me needs to point out three things: 1) Slaves weren't just black, 2) Less than half the states had slaves, and 2) Black slaves were actually considered an investment, and were thus treated better than most slaves. Compare to the treatment of Central American natives or the Irish...]

The South would fall to The North in the Civil War. In a lot of ways, this saved The South; their dependence on their agricultural base would have caused problems. At the same time, the newly freed slaves needed to fit in; rather than acting in its own best interest, Southerners needed someone to punish, and so they punished blacks. Voting rights were restricted, Jim Crow laws were created, and life was not fun.

Fortunately, wheels had already been set in motion. The Northerners started passing laws and constitutional amendments to safeguard black rights, and to get them on as even a footing as they could. Although they had to renege on the forty acres and a mule, the basis for civil rights had been created. If the US had not been hit by a depression in the 1880's, it would have been interesting to see what could have happened.

After the depression, the US was hit by a few major wars, suffrage, and another depression. During this, racism thrived; it festered in the dark even as blacks started doing well. By the time of the Harlem Renaissance, from 1919 to 1930, blacks had realized that staying in the South would be a bad thing, and so moved on, literally and figuratively. I think it can be reasonably argued that,if the Great Depression and WWII had not happened, the great civil rights battles of the 1960's would have been fought in the 1930's. Blacks were successfully challenging stereotypes, as well as creating some incredible strides, showing that they were no longer merely ex-slaves.

Nonetheless, the events did happen, and so the major civil rights fights happened in an already nasty couple of decades. Not only did the US need to deal with civil rights, it also had to deal with Viet Nam, the sexual revolution, the first major peace protests, and disco. In this, they had to deal with their own inner problems, such as the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the rise of black militism, which, combined with the “Uncle Tom” politics (ostracizing those that wanted more for themselves or their families) actually set the movement back.

Think about this for a moment from the side of the authorities: You have all this civil unrest happening, the constant threat of nuclear armageddon, and even a president quitting amid scandal. The 1970's was not a great time to be a politician. Mistakes were made, as they were bound to be. Somehow, blacks survived all of this, and it actually somehow moved forward, even after hitting the road bump of “Sir” Charles Barkley, who wasn't a role-model.

However, the respectablity of gangsta rap and the inability to give up the word “nigger” threaten to undo a lot of what went before. Worse, the damage that black leaders did by pointing out that school is not just a waste of time, but can actually be dangerous, created a nasty side-effect: In a world where education defines your job, blacks were losing ground. Which, of course, was blamed on “institutional racism” rather than the attacks on the school system. Just as blacks are on the cusp of political greatness (which includes a possible black woman running for president in the next decade), they are holding themselves back...but that's for Part II...

Most Annoying/Brilliant Marketing Ever!

2007-01-31T20:15:00.000-08:00

[Bear in mind; part of the idea behind this blog is marketing! So, I guess I need to do something about that every so often...]

Whatever Daniel Radcliffe (you know, the guy that plays some wannabe wizard) is paying his marketing guy, is definitely worth it. Radcliffe is going to be making two appearances, and they arguably the best two ideas ever. Or at least in the Top 100;-)....

The second is his guest spot on Extras. In it, he plays one of the most obscene boy scouts ever, who tries to pick up anything in a skirt. Regardless of whether or not you find it amusing, that you have an actor who is well-known for playing a straight-laced boy wizard showing up and doing Benny Hill stylings is going to be a great boon to his career, especially when it hits Youtube. Any time you have an actor that, to at least some degree is purposely going after his own career, especially with a few more movies in his hit franchise still to film, it can be interesting. With the sheer amount of popularity that the HP series has going for it, this (hopefully) one-shot appearance is great.

Then there is Equus. Equus is one of those plays that has a tradition: All the characters involved (except for the psychiatrist) usually do the role fully nude. For most actors, this would mean that the internet would be filled with pictures of the naked actor. The actor would have absolutely no control over his image(s), especially if it was in public. Even if they tried enforcing copyright laws, the image would spread across the net like wildfire.

Well, Radcliffe has a unique situation, and he's taking full advantage of it. Specifically, he's 17. Yes; he's a minor doing full-frontal nudity! Not that I'm trying to encourage this, but, in terms of image control, this is a seriously brilliant idea! Look at it for a moment:

1) No adult site (such as sites that archive nude celebrity photos) can carry the pictures as they aren't allowed to have pictures of nude minors. Even if it may be legal, they have a chance of having their IP's being yanked. That is, if they post even a bare butt, odds are good that they will get nailed for child pornography.

2) "Boy-lover" sites (those that say that they appreciate the nude youth as a symbol of beauty) won't allow those pictures in order to avoid the issues of child pornography. Even reasonably innocent pictures usually don't stand the occasional purge on image-holding sites. In short, the pictures won't show up there either.

3) Nude pic on a discussion board? Not likely; TOS's usually stop the posting, and they have special reason to avoid copyrighted material (it's easy to track). A nude pic of a famous minor would result in the poster being banned and the post deleted.

4) Fan sites are usually hosted on free web hosting services that don't allow nude photos or copyrighted material. The website would get nuked once someone complained about it.

Bottom Line? If Radcliffe stops Equus before he turns 18 in July, and anyone posts a nude picture of Daniel Radcliffe while he's performing Equus, then that person/site will not only get his IP nuked, but face possible charges of child pornography as well (assuming the images were being used for titillation or similar uses; I'll get back to this in a moment!). Even worse for the person, Radcliffe doesn't need to file a civil suit; the authorities are the ones enforcing it, not a reasonably regular person. That is, anyone notifies the authorities about the pictures, then they may be going to jail.

In short: He is doing a major nude role, and not having to worry about most of the consequences!

Yeah, I know I'm simplifying the laws a bit; Fair Use still applies, and using the images for art appreciation reasons may mitigate the penalties a bit (ie, make them go from criminal to merely civil). Also, I know nude pics of kids in movies make it online all the time (do a websearch for "devon sawa" "now and then" sometime). What I'm trying to point out is, to a limited degree, Radcliffe limits the availability of the pictures (let's face it: Someone will post the pictures somewhere!) and forces the authorities to enforce the situation. By taking advantage of the fact that the better sites police themselves, and that the lesser sites will get nuked, it's it'll be interesting to see what happens when the play opens...

A Cast of Dozens

2007-01-26T23:56:00.001-08:00

You need to realize that the word “characters” covers a lot of evils. Not only does it cover the main characters (heroes and villains), but it also covers their respective minions, as well as a number of plot devices and window dressing. It also covers a lot of other things as well. Let's take a long look at characters, and what they really are, and let's ignore the obvious ones.

“Window dressing” characters are your basic extras. They're necessary because they help make your world feel inhabited. A lot of comics forget about them, either because they're too complicated to draw, and so figure out ways to not have to draw them, such as keeping the strip inside or in isolated places. Admittedly, this is more of an artistic consideration than a writing one, but it's something that needs to be considered. After all, it's sorta like going into a forest and not hearing anything; it's sort of creepy.

It may seem weird to think of a “plot device” as a character, but it can happen. Consider Galactus from Marvel Comics; any time that The World Devourer shows up, it's for an important reason. He has put Phoenix on the right path, gotten the Fantastic Four in trouble with the Galactic Council, and ended wars. In short, his appearance moves the plot forward, or helps it conclude. Admittedly, this applies to most of Marvel's cosmic entities, but it applies to any character with a large amount of power that needs to stay in the shadows for most of the comic.

And then there are those characters that aren't characters. The environment itself can be a character; horror comics and any comic set on the ocean would do well to remember that. It may sound weird, but the setting can have its own personality, and that personality will come through; it can be pleasant most of the time, but there are times when it will be a challenge.

The same applies to vehicles and weapons. And I'm not talking intelligent swords or vehicles that operate themselves. Consider Bonaparte from Tank Dominion or Mr. T's van; when those vehicles were in trouble, their drivers were in a state of distress, just as if a son or daughter were in the hospital. When they perform beyond expectations, their drivers are ecstatic. They also encourage them, love them, and basically treat them as their kids. THAT makes them characters, and just as important to the script as the characters. Consider the care some characters give their weapons; those weapons are characters as well. When you say to yourself, “Man! I liked how Excalibur cut through that guy!”, you are no longer treating a sharp, pointy as a mere object, but as one of the cast.

Characters are not necessarily people that interact with the environment. Keep that in mind over the next several postings...

Some other things for your bag of tricks...!

2006-12-29T16:49:00.000-08:00

Consider this more of a catch-all entry for some interesting tricks you may want to try sometime. After this, I’ll get serious about characters…

Irony: Regardless of the dictionary definition, “irony” iswhen something happens that comes as a surprise, but you’ve managed to earn it. Unlike a bad movie, where the plot twist is put in there just to have a plot twist (such as the murderer being someone completely out of left field, or a psycho killer that couldn’t have done it in the first place due to logistics reasons), irony can be something real fun for the reader and writer. The best example is probably MD Geist, where a person that acts like a villain, but you expect to come around, well, doesn’t.

The point here is that you need to “earn” your irony. Throw in some subtle (or not-so-subtle) clues at the beginning, and then just leave them alone. Towards the end, spring it. If it’s been done right, it will come across as great. Never have a plot twist just for the sake of having a plot twist, or your readers will cry foul, and you’ll not be very liked in the community afterwards (especially if it involves doing something nasty to a well-loved character!).

Dramatic Irony: People love knowing things that others don’t, and this is the ultimate expression of that. Dramatic irony is when the audience knows something that the characters don’t. In essence, there are two kinds here: The first is when characters reveal information that other characters don’t know. For example, the villain’s plans or a piece of vital information. In this version, the other characters act without knowledge of that information, usually to their sorrow (such as being in the middle of an ambush or if the information was vital). The readers know the information, and squirm because they know what’s going to happen, and can’t warn anyone that can do something about it.

The second version is when none of the characters know something that the player’s do. The usual variation of this is when clues are laid out on how to solve a problem, but the characters don’t put it together because they lack the reader’s perspective. Eventually (and hopefully) the characters will start putting it together, but the readers will be so smug until then.

Prophecy: In this case, I’m actually not referring to the usual twenty-seven verses of clues to the future that the characters need to unravel. I’m actually referring to showing the end results of something that happens in the story before the story actually gets going. For example, showing gravestones and characters that are scarred, and then going back to the past, where the story is just starting. Besides throwing a somber mood over everything, you’ll find that some readers will get fanatic, especially if one of the doomed characters becomes really popular. I’d hate to be the author that did that, but it can make for some interesting reading…

Parallel Narration: Although it’s usually used in flashbacks, it can add some interesting suspense or humor to something going on. The basic idea is that, as something is going on, you provide a narrative from other characters. Note: Not the usual caption-style, where the writer tries to explain something, but where you show something going, and a character describes what is happening. The character supplies added information, as well as describing what’s going on. It may sound redundant, but it works; it comes across as a mix of campfire story-telling and confessional. It works really well as part of a flashback, especially when a character is revealing a major secret.

For suspense purposes, it works well when the character is describing what should be happening, but the plan goes slightly awry. For example, the character says, “They should be reaching the door right about now. Good thing there weren’t any guards.” Of course, the group being described is heading into an obvious ambush (readers can see the bad guys in the shadows). In essence, the situation that the character is describing is about to go south, the character can’t do anything about, and there will soon be major issues to deal with.

If you want to try it for comedy, the narration has to be 75% accurate. That is, although the basics are there in the narration, it’s describing a mission that’s completely different. The classic example is when the narrator is describing a super-serious spy mission, but the actual action is more like a trip to the mall: “There was a frenzied melee, from which I barely survived!” sounds all nice and scary, but not when it’s describing a sale in a clothing store.

Acting Appropriately Stupid: For those few that really need an example: You ever see a person head off alone to check something out in a movie, and then die horribly? No matter how prideful a person is, walking into almost-certain death without back-up would probably not be a strong possibility. However, you need those occasional moments; they’re fun to do, incredibly dramatic, and can create some great visuals. Yeah, it may sound really, really bad, but it is one of those reasons that some people get into comics in the first place…

Normal Human Reactions: It may sound silly, but remember that you need your characters to react normally in some situations. If something happens, remember that it can be fun for the characters to react as they normally would, not as your plot demands that they do. I’m considering those moments when everyone glares at another character, or something embarrassing happens and they laugh at a character, or when the camera is supposed to off moments happen (walking with the girl in a park, for example).

If these are done right, they come off as unscripted and really cool; if done poorly, they come off as contrived and just annoying. So practice a few times before you try to pull one off, or your fan base will desert you…

But what about the baby plots?

2006-12-29T16:48:00.000-08:00

Okay, creating a big plot is easy. You define a conflict big enough to get everyone involved, and then just figure out how everyone fits into it. Subplots, however, are harder.

A subplot doesn’t usually involve more than two or three characters; just because a number of characters may know of it, doesn’t mean that they are involved. However, let’s cover ourselves by pointing that there are numerous kinds of subplots, and one is the plot’s subplot (yeah, the plot can have its own subplots); however, I’m going to leave that one alone for a little bit, okay? The major kinds of subplots are side-trip subplots, conflict resolution, romantic subplots, and running gags.

Side-trip subplots are usually only seen in long-running comics. The basic idea is that occasionally you need a break from the plot, and so one or more of the characters are sent on a personal quest, even if that personal quest is just to get a great tan. This gives everyone a chance to blow off some steam, and just try something new. In regular comics, they would be considered one-shots and limited series; in webcomics, they are considered “intermissions”. Nip and Tuck has some great examples, as do most of the better comic books. If you want to see a great quest subplot, track down X-Men (old series) #247, where the X-guys go and try to get drunk in Australia, but end up saving the world from an invasion (they were making fun of DC’s Invasion maxi-series, which needed to be made fun of). Other examples of quest subplots are from TV shows; you know, the episodes which have little to do with the regular plot, but nonetheless showcase one character and is usually done either more dramatically than the rest of the series, or, more likely, more humorously? Yeah, that one. They’re great to do when it’s getting too serious or too silly, and you need a break. Just mentioning it, as it’s done so rarely, but making sure that you don’t trip over it when it does show up.

Conflict resolution is when the character is allowed to resolve his personal conflict, but in such a way that it doesn’t affect the plot directly. These can be highly useful when you want to highlight just why someone is part of the plot, or what they offer to the team, but can’t figure out how to make them part of the plot proper. As long as they involve the theme of the plot, they should be okay. If, on the other hand, you just want to have fun with the character, wait until you hit a point where the comic needs to take a break from the main action, and involve the character in a side-trip.

You should always have at least one romantic subplot. Obviously, a romantic subplot involves at least two of the characters, and may involve more of them (such as the dreaded romantic triangles). The basic concept is that they tend to draw in readers by promising sex, even if does just tease it, and, well, is arguably realistic, as it’s just a matter of time before someone would fall in love. In shojo manga, they are pretty much mandatory (girls love romance, and it’s part of the wish fulfillment represented by such characters); in shonen manga, however, the romantic subplot may either be severely downplayed, or be replaced by a relationship that’s based on hero-worship, or may even feature a same-sex relationship. Just have fun with it; even if it degenerates into a love cube, they tend to add to conflicts, as well as make for some interesting denouements.

Running gags are a very weird kind of subplot. Some actually involve plotting, others are just interesting scenes strung together. Some are even just quirky observations. Nonetheless, they do need to be noted. The best kind of running gags are when you use them to break up the pace a bit, and put them towards the front, so that they add to character development. Others can add that special “UMPH!” to the finale, as a character that has, for example, been trying to do something all during the plot, keeps getting frustrated because he just about but not quite nails it, and then manages to do it at the end. These are usually sex-based (such as in “Porky’s”, where Peewee is doing his level best to lose his virginity, but fails horribly several times, until he loses it in the movie’s final scenes), but can be tied to the plot as well (the major invention that the mad scientist keeps getting wrong gives the good guys a major advantage when he finally gets it right), or can be a source of frustration for the readers (for example, having a character’s major secret not reveal itself, but nonetheless constantly being brought up; of course, revealing at the end makes the reveal so much sweeter!). Just remember to have fun with it, and remember to not let it get in the way of the real plot.

Hopefully, that gives you some other stuff to use when you plot your comic. If not, why not? Yeesh…

Ready to fight?

2006-12-29T16:46:00.000-08:00

[I’m going to eschew the classical conflicts. They may be useful in English class or in literary discussions, but we need to look at them from a writer’s perspective.]

In simplistic terms, a conflict is what the main issue of a given character; it’s what he’s trying to solve or deal with. As far as the story is concerned, all conflicts should tie into the theme.

You are going to have various conflicts going on. Obviously, you will have some sort of exterior conflict that overarches all other conflicts; individual conflicts need to be defined in terms of the big exterior conflict. War, or other competition, is popular for this purpose because, well, they are easy to get everyone into. Consider war for a moment: It involves all the characters, and aligns them into two or more teams. It becomes really easy to determine who is allied with who, and it helps simplify work for the writer.

Same with competitions, however, competitions allow you to break down the big sides into individual teams, and complicate things a bit. After all, you can go crazy defining allies and competitors, even aligning them into meta-teams, and it can get really weird really quick. For example, you can have a lot of teams that come from various countries/cities/villages, and the teams from those villages are aligned together. You can have a team from one country ally with a team from another country in order to help nail a third team from either a completely different country, or from one of the two countries already mentioned. Even with just four teams from a country, and three countries, you can have endless possible conflicts.

Another possibility is to have something that forces everyone to work together, like a natural disaster, a bigger enemy, or even just something (like getting caught on a ship in a storm) that forces them together. You can still have one (or more) sides working to use the emergency to off one of the sides, or even weaken another side for an easy kill afterwards, but they need to work together for the duration of the emergency.

However, each character needs to have at least one defining conflict, preferably an interior one. For example, are they having a crisis of personal faith? Problems with (annoying/missing/dead) parents? Trying to learn how to use new abilities? Not sure if they can handle the stress of the situation? Have an ability that can kill them if used, and thus afraid to use it? Heck, afraid of losing their humanity? How about trying to fall in love? Or even not sure if they belong to the group in question?

You’ll find that most inner conflicts are faith or confidence related. Most people are not sure of themselves on some level, and writers are definitely in that group, and so it’s easy to relate to. You need to realize that a conflict is created by wanting something that they lack; figure out what the missing element is, and that’s your conflict.

And bear in mind that even your antagonists need conflicts as well. Sure, Dread Overlord Deathmate wants to take over the multiverse, but why? If he wants to destroy it, don’t just leave it at that; why does he want to destroy it? Maybe he fell in love with someone long ago, and wants to commit suicide so he can forget her, but can’t bring himself to commit suicide, but if he tries to destroy the multiverse, someone may succeed at killing him (thus committing suicide by proxy). Obviously, overcoming that grief or getting killed is his conflict. Lesser villains obviously have smaller conflicts.

Conflicts tend to make your character more three-dimensional; after all, they may have really cool powers and skills, and even a function, but they need the conflict to make them even more human. They also help you write them, as you now have a way to link them to the plot (a conflict makes their involvement necessary, so that they can resolve their conflict), as well as something to do with that character (if you ever get writer’s block, you can just look at any unresolved conflicts, and look at ways to at least partially resolve them).

In short, conflicts not only make your life easier, but they make sure that you keep readers...

Hey! It's time for characters!

2006-12-28T03:40:00.000-08:00

Okay, remember how I said you needed to wait on developing the plot before worrying about characters? The reason is simple: It’s easier to make characters when you know where they will fit.

Think about that for a moment. When you create the characters first, you are stuck with the characters that you have created. You’ll almost feel guilty about throwing a character out. If you find that you don’t need a character, you’ll try to write that character in, no matter what damage you will do to the plot. On the other hand, if you wait until the plot has been developed, you’ll know exactly what characters you need, which makes designing them a bit easier.

Another consideration is that by looking at the plot, you’ll see some characters jump out at you as needed that you hadn’t considered. Even better, you’ll be able to see where you need minor characters that you didn’t think about when designing the characters in the first place.

Keep in mind that you can always change the plot; it’s hardly immutable. However, the plot gives you an excellent skeleton on which to place your story. If you decide that a minor character would be fun to have a romance with, or otherwise need to give him more lines, so to speak, go ahead; plug into the plot and see what happens. If nothing else, the romance can either end up helping later on, thus bridging a potential plot gap, or add a more organic feel to the comic.

By setting up the plot, you’ve also decided how dark or light the story will be, and your characters can be designed accordingly. And, since your plot only dictates the basics of the characters, you can design full backstories for them. Had you designed the characters first, then you would have been meshing in all sorts of strange backgrounds without much care how they really connected.

Oh, and don’t be stuck by some silly arbitrary number when you create characters. It’s easy to say that you need X characters per Y pages; that’s hogwash. Just realize that there is a balance that needs to be struck: The fewer characters you have, the more you can explore their backgrounds, but they also need to be far more capable (after all, they’ll be needing to do more). On the other hand, if you have a larger cast, you may not be able to explore their backgrounds as much, but you can also have more fun, you don’t need to worry about consistency as much, and you don’t need massively able characters (which means that the combats won’t last as long).

In short, by doing the plot first you save yourself some grief later on. And that can be a great thing when you have some world-spanning epic you are debating…

So...What does it look like all strung together?

2006-12-28T01:58:00.000-08:00

Okay, so what does this all look like together?

Let me show you with a quicky script for Sex Percussion:

Okay, I need a quick script; this is your basic “fill in the intermission” piece. So, figure 10-15 pages. I also need something that isn’t epic; something light or different from the norm will do nicely. I decided to something that’s a straight contest of wills.

It should be no surprise that Simon is my favorite. So…something with him. I figure something that involves Donal is probably also a wise idea, and it would be nice to explore Simon’s backstory a bit. Okay, I’m playing with the shonen-ai (man-on-man love, but with relationships) angle a bit with those two, so I need something that expands on that. At the same time, I’ve established that Simon comes from a tribe of shape-shifters (were-lynx, specifically), and that he’s basically a breeder. So, if he wants to explore a gay relationship, he needs to probably get some time off.

Now, since he is based of a World Of Darkness character I run, I have an interesting solution: There is a rite called “Nala’s Boon to Kin”, whereby a Kinfolk character can ask his kin for a favor, but he needs to needs to do a favor for three of them. Thus, I have my conflict (Man vs. Culture) and Theme (What would you do for love?). I need it simple, so I figure two of them will have him nail poachers, and the third will make him do it in a loincloth. Each one of them gives him a tattoo that will fade when he completes the assignment.

Now, I need a twist. What if the poachers are together, guiding another person through the woods. That other person is the actual challenge, and Simon will need to defeat him in order to get back to civilization. Heck, let’s make that other person a werewolf; Simon is a purely mental city boy character, so a purely physical woodlands character will be a nice challenge, especially as the action happens in the woods. I also decide that there will be three poachers, and the werewolf.

Oh yeah, I need two act breaks: I figure I want to end an up-note, so the first act and third act need to be rising up, and that makes the second act need to be falling down. So, the first act break will be when the werewolf reveals itself, and the second act break will be when Simon realizes that he can fight back.

So, summing up:

Plot: Simon needs to complete three mini-quests so that he can spend a year with Donal. Theme: What would you do for love? Act Break I: Werewolf shows up Act Break II: Simon figures that he can fight back.

I then set up the following plot:

Flashback: Night w/three werekitties painting tatoos on Simon. They giggle as they him their quests Current: Simon stalks the group, waiting his chance One hunter sets up camp as the others continue The camp and the hunter are swallowed by the earth Two hunters stop to enjoy a spring as the other decides to fish The fisherman is surrounded by fish The fish attack, pushing him into the river where he is eaten The other two start to dress One falls, a spear in his back The other hunter glares at Simon as one of his tatoos fades

**The hunter shifts to Crinos** (Act Break I) Simon is not happy The werewolf charges Simon dodges, but is scratched nonetheless The werewolf throws a punch Simon tosses it, landing the werewolf in a snowbank Simon runs The werewolf smiles and runs after him

**Simon casts two spells as he runs, but doesn't complete them** (Act Break II) The werewolf traps Simon in a canyon Simon completes the spells as the werewolf leaps Simon teleports to the top of the canyon as an avalanche fills the canyon Simon smiles, until he sees the werewolf crawling out Simon frowns The werewolf shakes it off, sees Simon, and smiles Simon pulls a gun from his medicine bag, loads a clip, and shoots The werewolf falls as another tatoo fades Later: Simon delivers four hairs to the werekitties and another tatoo fades Even later: Simon is in a hot tub w/Donal

Okay…The plot is now set up. But what about the characters?

Pacing and Why It Sucks

2006-09-01T14:23:00.000-07:00

The nastiest thing you need to deal with is pacing. It’s arguably the single scariest thing you can do, and it requires a certain degree of natural rhythm. It’s why scripts are long-form poetry.

Okay, we’ve covered acts and scenes, as well as rising and falling actions. Now, we’re going to put them all together. By now you’re tired of me saying rising and falling action, and the only place you want to see them is in a Shannon Tweed movie. Unfortunately, now we need to take a closer look at them, as they define the pacing of the script.

Each scene needs to push the script forward, and fit into the act structure. At the same time, they need to keep it interesting. In order to do this, you need to do something weird with the scenes: You need to decide if the individual scene as a whole is a rising or falling action.

Consider a roller coaster for a moment; if it went straight up, straight down, and then straight up again, it would be boring. You need the loops and banks to keep it interesting, as well as sections that allow the rider to catch his breath. After all, a ride that doesn’t allow the rider to occasionally to catch his breath will be just as boring as one that just goes up and down.

The same applies to your script. Although you need to have all the scenes in a particular act going the same way, you need to do something to keep it interesting. This is where pacing comes in. Each scene needs to be more intense than those behind it, and less intense than those following it; this is called momentum.

Then you need to look at each scene, and how it works with the script as a whole. You need to decide if the scene not just moves the plot forward, but also how it reacts to the scenes in front of and behind it. It should be one of two types, either be more intense than the scenes surrounding it, or it should be slightly less intense than the scenes following it. Also, these scenes should alternate, so that you have one scene that’s really intense, one that allows the reader to catch his breath, and then another that’s more intense. Consider an action movie: Ever notice how each action scene has a less stressful right after, and then the next scene is more intense? That’s what you need.

The challenge is to keep the balance between momentum and intensity. If you can pull it off, then you’ll be able to give your script the proper pacing. It’s just a matter of finding a pace that you can maintain. So, now we’ve covered acts, scenes, threads and pacing; ready for some plotting?

Threads of Pearls

2006-09-01T14:22:00.000-07:00

Your script depends on your ability to pull scenes together into threads, each of which helps the script. It helps to organize your scenes into threads, each of which has its own act breaks.

You’re most likely going to have a lot of little threads organized into bigger threads. Your biggest threads should be as follows:

Main Thread: This is the biggest thread of all, and is the actual plot. All of the action should happen here, as well as all of the big scenes. In essence, you should be able to cut out all of the other threads, and still have something. If this is the plot, all other threads are obviously subplots. At least half of your scenes should be part of this thread, and subplots should have about 10-15 scenes each (so a full sixty-scene script would have thirty scenes in the main thread, and two or three subplots).

Romantic Subplot: You need at least one romance, however contrived. Of course, it’s best if the romance can build naturally, with its own ups and down. This can act to add some interesting clashes that can be brought out in the main plot, as well as mess with other sub-plots. Try not to have more than one romance per script; anymore, and it’s more soap than story.

Character Subplot: This sub-plot is strictly to develop a character, fleshing out his personality and history, and should make the conflicts more interesting. Any character can be victimized by this sub-plot, even the villain’s henchmen; just have fun with it!

Running Gag: This is a joke that you have decided needs some building, from a small scene to resounding crescendo. Go lightly here; it’s tempting to have a number of them running around. You shouldn’t have more than two or three; anymore, and they become annoying rather than humorous. Also, you only need about five to ten scenes for a running joke; running gags are best used sparingly.

When it comes to threads, you can have scenes that are part of multiple threads. The ideal is to have each scene be part of its own thread, but sometimes it is more interesting to have a scene affect several threads; most commonly, the main thread and romantic threads will cross, as the romance hinges on the main plot. Nonetheless, do what feels right for you script; not all scripts are the same.

Keep in mind also that threads are what drives your script; each one strings through your script like strings of pearls, each pearl a scene that makes the next pearl possible. Thus, you can have weak scenes (and it’s good to have a couple, as they allow your audience breathing space). This is where you actually start building your script; these threads will coalesce into the script, with each one flavoring what happens. Just like recipes, combine the ingredients carefully, or you’ll make something rather unappetizing!

Making Scenes, Lots of Them

2006-09-01T14:21:00.000-07:00

I’m used to plotting movies. As such, I know that a good movie is made up of 40 to 60 scenes. A sitcom is based of off far fewer, with only about eight. As that’s what I’m used to, I think in terms of movie scenes.

Each scene needs to have its own little act breaks; that is, it needs to have rising actions and falling actions. Consider a four-panel gag comic for a second, if you think this is hard; the first panel provides the introduction and set-up, the second is the rising or falling action, the third opposes that, and the fourth is the punchline. Or something like:

Panel 1: Dweeb enters with a pie. [Intro]

Panel 2: Layla sees the pie, looking bored. [Falling action] Layla: Oh, it’s a pie joke.

Panel 3: Dweeb puts the pie on the table. [Rising action] Dweeb: Nah, it just looks like a pie joke.

Panel 4: Dweeb lifts the table and the pie hits Layla. [Falling action] Dweeb: Okay, so it’s a pie joke.

Yeah, lame, but it illustrates the point. The page is one scene by itself; in a serial comic, this could have been just the first page of the scene. Just remember that the scene needs to be a three-act play in and of itself, and you’ll do fine.

There are few other things to keep in mind when you build a scene. In a serial script, the scene needs to do something for the script, or it’s wasted space, and that’s bad. You can have special pages (especially for holiday scenes), but that’s an exception. Try to avoid pages done for the sake of art; they sound like a good idea, but not if you’re trying to tell a story. It’s sort of like a bad commercial; it wastes time, doesn’t sell anything, and just annoys the reader (this is why filler pages need to be avoided at all costs).

When you write a scene, keep in mind that it needs to do something for the story, even if it’s just to build a character. And building character is always good, as long as you don’t go too crazy with it; by filling in the blanks, you make the characters more interesting, and therefore it’s more likely people will keep reading the comic.

Keep in mind that scenes tend to work in tandem with other scenes, so any one scene doesn’t need to be incredibly strong, it just needs to do its job and get out so the next one can come along. Because of this, don’t worry too much about each scene being the world’s best; if you do, you may put too much stress on yourself and not be able to write more. Just have fun with each scene and see where it goes; let them write themselves and see what happens…

Getting Your Acts Together

2006-09-01T14:20:00.000-07:00

There are four things to consider when you start plotting your script: acts, scenes, pacing, and threads. Once I cover those, I’ll show you how to plot. Honest! Let’s deal with acts first.

An act is a section of the script that has the same basic direction, either up or down. Most plays and movies are based off three acts. A happy ending has a positive first act, a lot of stuff hits the fan in the second act, and the third act brings it all together. A tragedy reverses those directions, with an introduction to the loser’s life in the first act, a lot of cool, fun stuff happening in the second act, and the loser dying horribly in the last act.

It’s important to base everything off the basic three-act structure. Admittedly, a lot has to do with it providing a base that your readership will be comfortable with, and that you can far easier write from. At the same time, scripts with fewer acts don’t tend to work as well, and more acts just confuses people and are harder to write, as you need to look at the rising and falling actions more intensely.

[A rising action is an action with a positive connotation, and a falling action is one with a negative connotation. Big ones define acts, small ones define scenes.]

By breaking it down into acts, you are better able to organize your plot. However, the biggest problem you have is that you need to decide what the act breaks are going to be. These are scenes that are major changes in the flow, positive if the act is negative, and negative if the act has been positive.

Consider your standard action movie: The first act break is usually when the hero is having a great day, and is then forced into a defensive action by the villain. The second act break is when the hero takes the offensive, eventually winning the day. In a tragedy, the hero is losing the battle, and then gets the villain on the run (first act break), and then the villain starts winning (second act break).

In a romance movie, you have a couple just starting to get into each other, and then the first act break forces the romance apart. The second act break is usually when the lovers start coming back together. Unless it’s a tragic romance, in which case they are falling apart, something forces them together, rekindling the romance (first act break), and then the romance starts falling apart again (second act break).

Your first act should be the first fourth of the script, the second act should be the next half of the script, and the third act should be the final fourth. This makes a lot of sense, as the second act is the meat and potatoes of the script (making the first act the appetizer and the third act the dessert; these are apt analogies).

Your act breaks define the difference between acts. Your acts form the basic frame from which you will hang your plot, and need to be a major part of your plotting. But these are just beginning of plotting; scenes are the next consideration.

Before you begin plotting…

2006-08-23T15:43:00.000-07:00

Yeah, yeah; I’m going on a bit more than I probably should. Nonetheless, they are some things that you need to consider. Before we go on, it should be noted that I’m assuming that you’re trying to do more than just a gag strip, BTW; although a gag strip requires its own kind of continuity, it’s an entirely different kind of continuity. It’s more a continuity of character and not disregarding what has been said more than A->B->C of a serial strip.

Also, you shouldn’t get on some sort of stupid artistic high horse that gag strips have no artistic merit and therefore shouldn’t be tried. A gag strip is somewhat harder in ways because humans look for patterns and try to do things in patterns; it’s thus easier for us to think in patterns and thus in terms of story arcs. A true gag strip, one that is nothing more than unassociated gags, is thus actually harder to do than a serial strip. Now, throw in that a decent gag strip will also have continuity and character development, but absolutely no plot development, and it’s actually harder to do. Keep that in mind next time that you read Penny Arcade and think that it’s easy…

At any rate, there are three things to keep in mind before you start plotting. These are:

1) The outline should adapt to the script, not the script be forced to adapt to the outline.

The first is to bear in mind that the script will quickly get away from your outline when you start writing; this is not only to be expected, but is a good thing. It shows that the script is a living breathing thing, and you need to let it flow rather than restrict it. Use your outline merely as a guide, and adapt it to the script rather than forcing the script to follow the outline.

Be aware that you will encounter issues when you are writing the script that was not foreseen by your outline. Something that looked really cool when you were outlining the script may not be as cool when you start writing it. Also, you may come up with a better solution to a problem, and hesitate to move away from your outline. Remember that the outline is just a guide, not a rule; it was made to be changed!

2) Kill your darlings without mercy.

When you write a script, you will of course write some really cool scene and then realize that it doesn’t fit the script. In fact, it may be the best scene that you’ve ever written. You may even be tempted to rewrite the script so that it fits the scene. Don’t. Delete it immediately or paste into a file for later review; no matter what, get that scene out of your script, and do so without regret or mercy.

The issue is that one scene should not define your script, and it may hard to live up to that one scene. Rather, a script needs to be a collection of scenes that go together, one leading to the next, which leads to the next, and so on. One scene, no matter how powerful and cool, will not make your script; you need a number of them. Therefore, don’t be afraid to cut the scene, and possibly go back and do something with it. At the same time, don’t feel that you have let someone down if you never use that scene or forget about it. Being a great writer sometimes means leaving something behind; dude, you’re a writer, not a marine (even if you are a marine; you’re a writer first, and a scene is not a wounded soldier).

3) Even [insert favorite writer] had an off day.

You’re allowed an off day, and you will have one. The words don’t flow, or that scene just isn’t working out right or whatever; you just can’t write. That’s cool; you can occasionally step away from the keyboard. After all, there are just some times when you need to party and forget the world you were living in.

However, don’t use it as an excuse to take long periods of time off. If you do, think long and hard if you’re a writer. Of course, if you do, you’re not really are you? After all, a real writer would fantasize about a long holiday from writing, think about someplace really, really fun, and then just smirk as he returned to keyboard. Being a writer is the unusual mentality of ignoring common sense and realizing that it’s the best thing you could do…

Hmm....guess it's time to look at plotting...

Don’t be an ice cream truck!

2006-08-23T15:42:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I’m called in to this post the other day (so I’m a rent-a-cop; leave me alone!), and I don’t have time to fix dinner. This means that I’m stuck in the suburbs, with no fast food places to grab something quick at.

So, I hear this ice cream truck come by. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t come close to my post, but seems to come really close. That got aggravating really quick. About an hour later, another truck comes by, but just doesn’t stop. Suffice to say, I just don’t like ice cream trucks right now.

So, what do these have to do with marketing? An ice cream truck is a simple business; the basic idea is that you drive a truck around hoping to find customers that buy your product, and stop when you find someone that wants it. Although it can be hard to miss you, you need to be going slow enough so that your customers can catch you, and you need to make sure that you’re in the right place to make some sales. Not to mention that timing is everything; see many ice cream trucks during winter?

A webcomic doesn’t need to be seasonal, but can benefit from it (holiday strips can be very cool!). However, the lesson here is to avoid advertising like an ice cream truck: You just can’t grab attention and then disappear. Also, you need to be available for anyone that wants to read your strip.

You need to have some sort of advertising that works even when you don’t, and this marketing needs to be around a lot of places. In a way, this is why I suggest advertising in your signature in every forum you post in; that gives you a dependable marketing area. Also, link exchanges; by exchanging links, you get your ad on someone else’s site. And if you can advertise through such sites as BuzzComix, do it! And definitely look for other ways to advertise; Comics Day, for example.

More importantly, you need to update regularly. People need to be able to plan on seeing your comic; otherwise, they may look at it a lot, but will stop coming if you don’t put it up according to some sort of schedule. You can argue that your true fans will stick with you, and that not being constrained by regular limits is a good thing, but it’s not as cool as you would think.

In short, buy ice cream from a truck, but don’t be use it as an example of how to market your business…

How big is your comic?

2006-08-23T15:38:00.000-07:00

Before you get too serious about plotting out your comic, you need to decide which audience you are shooting for. Your audience will determine a lot about your comic.

Consider that, when it comes to law enforcement, there are several different types of agencies: bureaus, sheriffs, highway patrol, police departments, and security guards. Each one has its limitations and jurisdictions; those define the law enforcement agency, and what it does.

A bureau is the most geographically unlimited agency. At the international level, national, and state levels, they can pursue lawbreakers within their jurisdictions, and can call on a lot of resources that the other agencies just can’t touch. However, it faces two major limitations: First, their investigations must be within their bailiwick (so that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, for example, can only deal with crimes that deal with alcohol, tobacco, and firearms; if the crime involves drugs, they can only notify that agency). Second, they need to worry about things that will affect a lot of people, not just a very local area; if the investigation shows that the crime is localized, they will usually turn it over to the local authorities.

Highway patrols are the second most ranging, but they are limited to traffic crimes; they do have some investigative patrolman, but they are limited to crimes involving vehicles and roads. They have a lot of power in those areas (especially given their isolation), but have limited jurisdiction.

Sheriffs have a lot of power locally, but must bow to the other agencies first. This isn’t to say that they are weak; just very focused on a specific locality. Although there is some competition with bureaus (as some investigations may be under different jurisdictions, due to the laws being broken and scope of the crime), the sheriff usually takes care of crimes that affect the county.

The police department takes care of the rest of the crimes. As such, they tend to deal the most with jurisdiction issues (being the low man on the totem pole, after all), and tend to deal with the most heinous crimes.

Oh, and let’s not forget security personnel; although limited to citizen arrest powers, they do help in some investigations, as well as catching some crooks. They have very limited powers, and extremely limited areas. And they automatically fold when it comes to jurisdiction issues, as they have none.

So, where does you comic fit into this? Most comics are like security guards; they are generally limited to jokes specific to a specific game or genre, and are most funny to your friends and family, but, well, just aren’t ready for general release. These are more in-jokes and other weirdness than anything else. Just post them, and let it go.

Good gaming comics and “artsy” strips (those trying to do something experimental or just more interested in the art) are like police departments in that they tend to be well-known is specific circles, and get a lot of word of mouth, but don’t really get fans. They may get the occasional reader, but have problems sustaining those numbers over a period of time. Some graduate to sheriff status, and actually get some fame, and tend to make a lot of “READ THIS!” lists, but are usually limited to a specific forum or group. Think Jhonen Vasquez strips; although interesting, they have a limited range of fans. A lot of comics at Drunk Duck and Comic Genesis fit these criteria. Most of the income associated with these strips (ad it’s not much!) comes from the donation button.

Highway patrol is where a lot of genre-strips and slice-of-life comics end up. Although they tend to have a specific focus, they tend to cover a lot of ground (this is where Sex Percussions fits in; it focuses on a specific group of people, but tends to make fun a lot genre conventions). Generally, fantasy comics make up the bulk, but there are a lot college strips and other fun stuff in this category. These strips are fun to read, and tend to attract a certain notoriety; tend to think Keenspot or Spider Forest type of comic strips. At this stage, you can add merchandise, and some of it may actually sell!

The majors are the bureaus. These are the strips that just don’t bother with the Top Ten lists (such as Buzzcomix); they have enough readers as is, and even show up in news stories about webcomics. They sell merchandise, get a lot of donations, and tend to have fans that follow the artists around. At worst, they have some notoriety (such as MegaTokyo) or stir up some controversy on their own (such as Penny Arcade or PvP).

At any rate, figure out where you belong, and plan your marketing accordingly…

Jhonen Vasquez Fans Suck

2006-08-10T15:26:00.000-07:00

A lot of art is well-loved because it appears ground-breaking, rebellious, and counter-culture. And that pretty much sums up its artistic value; past that, there’s not really all that much to it.

On the other hand, anything that’s popular is despised in artistic circles. Critics see it as selling out, tripe, and basically vanilla. In essence, if something is popular it has to have absolutely no artistic value.

If you want to see my point, track down your local liberal or art paper or magazine, and read the reviews, and chart the star ratings (or whatever they use) against how much it took to make the film. The trend is that the more money it took to make the movie, the fewer whatevers it gets; conversely, the less money it took to make it, the more whatevers it gets. Foreign and independent movies tend to get the most whatevers, but potential blockbusters rarely get more a number of them. An Adam Sandler movie will never get four stars, regardless of how much fun the movie is.

Jhonen Vasquez is a great artist not because of his edgy artistic style (whatever that means), but because he has fun doing what we all want to do: He takes those things that we deal with everyday and want to see die in the most painful way possible. That’s what makes his art Johnny the Homicidal Maniac comics so much fun to read. He despises his fans, and it’s not hard to see why. They see that he is making fun of popular culture and the corporate mentality, and that there is a lot of blood, but they just don’t get the actual joke. By concentrating on the “gothiness” they just don’t get the point.

Consider Warhol’s Campbell soup can. He wasn’t trying to make an ironic point, in that an artist can make art out of anything, but rather that there is a lot more art out there than we are aware of. Consider the can in and of itself: It’s an attractive can, and when you see it you have a definite feeling of comfort, mainly because the product is associated with fond memories (in my case, grilled cheese sandwiches and Campbell’s tomato soup). This isn’t to endorse Campbell’s, but rather point out that there is some artistic merit to the product (this is an art AND marketing blog, after all).

The thing to consider here is that a true artist doesn’t care about whether or not your art sells. The point is whether or not you get you point across. A Campbell’s soup can definitely gets its point across: We have a product that we think is good for you. On the other hand, a lot of independent films don’t; they’re too busy celebrating that they are making a movie and tend to forget things like characters and plot. Oops, but look at us!

Sorry, but I’d rather have my art represent something than just do it. Tomato soup is actually filling. Not all art films have much more than pretty pictures; nothing to fulfill you there. Art doesn’t have to be dark, boring or cheap; it can be light, exciting and expensive. Artists rebel against authority when they are young; why do they do nothing but listen to them when they get older. Why do critics hold so much sway when it comes to defining art?

Can you be a fan of both Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks?

2006-08-10T15:25:00.000-07:00

[I am disrupting your normal blog for personal opinion. All I’m going to say is that it’s my blog and I’ll whine if I want to.]

I like country music. You can dance to it, and that there is usually an actual story makes the writer in me really happy. Also, I like that the chorus can change meaning each time in some songs.

However, a lot was made of the extreme positions of Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks. Basically, one of the Dixie Chicks said that she was embarrassed that President Bush was from Texas, the same state she was from. The Dixie Chicks came under a lot of fire because, well, it was just after 9/11 and that was a bad time to say anything bad about America. Conversely, Keith came out with a song that was, well, extremely patriotic and was best known for suggesting the placement of a certain piece of footwear. Keith’s popularity soared (he had a number of great songs, but a lot of people shared his feelings at the time).

The catch is that I agreed with both. Keith’s song is a great patriotic song; it’s a great bar song, and you occasionally need a song that kicks butt. It was a song that was a product of its time, and a song that expressed the feelings of the people at the time; isn’t an artist supposed to go with their emotions at the time, no matter where it leads them (except for illegal or immoral areas)? At the same time, isn’t part of being American the ability to say anything you want to (provided it doesn’t kill anyone), especially something bad about the president? After all, no one should be above criticism. Period.

[Yeah, yeah; I was for the war; I was getting a bit tired of Saddam doing the “No, I don’t have WMD’s! Wait, I do! Just kidding, I don’t! Wait, I do!“ thing…If you, as a leader, feel the need to tick off people just to buoy your approval rating among your clique while your actions cause those under your leadership to die, then someone needs to come in and kick your butt. I have changed sides, but that’s more because of my dislike for how it’s being handled than for anything else. I’m weird that way…]

Now, it’s a few years later and the Dixie Chicks have released a new album. Because it has a song on it that describes how they feel (“Not Ready to Make Nice”), so of course the whole is coming back. Now, I appreciate how they feel (they have no reason to apologize and shouldn’t feel obligated to do so), but I’m disliking the tone I’m seeing in some of the reviews; too many critics are keeping in mind the original problem, but are putting a current spin on it (basically, that they were correct to take the stance they did).

The issue is that it’s fine to discuss why a particular event is important to a song; I do see that as important, especially when the event is extremely relevant to the song in question. But…to put your own personal spin on it is just ridiculous. When I read a review, I don’t want to know what the critic’s politics are; I want to know if the item being reviewed is worth buying. If you spend most of your review telling me how brave they were or why they shouldn’t have cancelled tours or why you think their reasons are suspect, then you aren’t really reviewing

If you want to insert your personal opinions, fine; just put the review in the opinion section but not in the review section. Don’t waste my time wile you slam or praise something that is only peripherally pertinent to the actual review; discuss the meaning behind things, sure, but not your personal opinions of whether or not you think the item’s artistic merit should be based on your interpretation of actions that didn’t happen in or on the item. You may think it was a worthy stance, but that it was cowardice to cancel concerts, but I don’t care.

I just want to know if I should put down $20 on a piece of plastic or if I should buy more art supplies, not get some diatribe about the on how correct it was say something bad about the president or wrong it is to express your patriotism. But that’s just me…

“Those dogs are going to have to kill me to get me to stop!”

2006-08-04T16:52:00.000-07:00

9:42. That’s the time it took a woman to cross a yard on “Who Wants To Be A Superhero?”.

Yeah, I’m a geek. And yes, I’m really starting to get into the “Who Wants To Be A Superhero?” show. Yeah, I know: Cheesy effects, obvious drama, some interesting plot twists, and I definitely like what they did to Iron Revenger (a super-villain was definitely an interesting twist). But Monkey Woman is definitely the star.

There was a task where the would-be heroes had to cross a yard. Only one woman made it, and it took her nine minutes and forty-two seconds. What could make a yard so difficult to cross? Two guard dogs.

The guys didn’t have much of a problem; one even let them attack his arms and he just carried them to the door, hanging on his sleeves. But the women either gave up quickly or let their fears get to them. Only one didn’t, and refused to surrender until she touched the door. And it took her over nine and a half minutes to cross what must have been twenty feet.

In a lot of ways, that’s what you need to do as a writer. No matter what, you need to keep pushing forward no matter what. It may seem impossible, but you can finish what you are working on. It’s just a matter of time. You need to persevere throughout, and realize that there will be end; it just seems like a long ways off.

Once all of the organizing is finished, the research is done, and you make the last save of your fifth rewrite, you story will be ready for abandonment (paraphrasing Wilde, no script is ever finished, just abandoned). But you will be finished. It’s just a matter of time!

So, take heart from Monkey Woman’s example: Just keep plugging away until you get it finished. There is an end to your task, and you will reach it, but don’t give up.

The yard will be crossed, no matter how many guard dogs are in it.

Would Darth Vader Drink Guinness?

2006-07-21T16:40:00.000-07:00

It’s strange that none of my characters, even the NPC’s I run as a gamemaster, have ever been called been called Mary Sues. Part of it is because they’re usually guys, but it’s usually because the characters are fun. It’s really easy, and soon you shall know my secret.

Any time I create a character, I ask myself one simple question: Could I see that character at a bar? It doesn’t need to be an Irish pub, even though it helps; the basic question is if the person (note: “person”, not “character”) is capable of holding a conversation. Even the most obsessed psychotics are capable of holding a conversation; even an autistic can communicate their desires, albeit in limited fashion. In essence, is their something in the character that makes that character a person, with desires and wishes, balanced against their flaws and handicaps?

The problem with alien psychologies is that the writers too often ignore that even an alien psychology has to deal with motivation of some sort. It’s easy to forget that, but even an insect has a motivation, even if it is just finding the next meal and surviving. Most of the alien psychologies aren’t that alien when you analyze them from the stance of what their motivation is. There is no real alien psychology, at least, not in the since that it has no similarities to a human one.

A Mary Sue is the closest I’ve seen to an alien psychology. Think about that for a moment: There is no long-term motivation for the character, as any goal she sets is easily attained. And when she does set a long-term motivation, the obstacles that come up are easily dealt with, thus making even world peace just a few weeks away. Worse, even the flaws would only take a few sessions of therapy to deal with. Interestingly, the character may have been the victim of rape or molestation, and yet she still manages to dream about losing her virginity with a handsome man. Just once I’d like to see a Mary Sue fall for a the geeky boy that virtually stalks her…

A Mary Sue is an aberration from a writing perspective. I appreciate the fantasy nature of the aberration, yet, the character and most of her friends are usually not people that you could hold a conversation or debate anything of worth with. I bet you could at least debate Nietzsche with Darth Vader, and it would be interesting. A good writer will create the full personality of his characters; try to hold a basic conversation with one, and if you can, then the character is solid. Otherwise, try, try again. Please!

Character or Plot: Which is more important?

2006-07-21T16:39:00.000-07:00

There are two schools of thought on what is more important, plot or character; you need to decide before plotting which school you like.

The character-first school believes that character is important because it’s the choices of the characters that define the story. The major advantage is that avoids “Acting Appropriately Stupid”, that requirement where the only to further the plot is if a character or three makes a stupid decision that is against their character (such as splitting up and taking showers while the psycho killer is a known factor or ignoring their intuition which has served them well). Also, it allows for plumbing character depth, but usually at the cost of a coherent story; the plumbing usually presents so many side trips that the story is ignored in order to better explore the character.

Admittedly, I’m for anything that avoids the AAS issue, but the character-first story has a problem with it: Little actually happens. The writer usually gets so wrapped up in the character, that he is afraid to affect the character long-term; the character is considered sacrosanct, and is thus not allowed to change. After all, if what the writer likes about the character changes, then it’s no longer the same character and will no longer be as fun to play with. However, a static character is only so fun to read in the long term; people want to see some change in the character over the long term.

Worse, it becomes harder to avoid the Mary Sue problem (a “Mary Sue” is a character, usually female (males are “Gary Stu”) that is perfect in every way, and has abilities that far outstrip any competition, and has a “destiny”, but has some dark history that or desire that is counter to her plans). Instead of a realistic character, the character ends up gaining more abilities and sending her further away from any kind of reality in order to make some sort of change in the character. This further alienates the reader, as he can no longer relate to the character (she may have a dark secret (she may have crush on the bad guy, and hopes to reform him, but she can defeat anyone, has a really cool magical pet, and has a lot of really nifty abilities, and she can’t do anything wrong except as required by plot). Could you relate to her?

By going with the plot-first approach, the character is forced to change, and in a realistic way. Also, the characters won’t drag the story down, as you won’t explore the side trips; you’ll focus on the plot, and that’s a good thing. Your characters will also change as they adapt to the plot, and react to it realistically. Also, it allows you kill characters and not feel guilty about it. By making the plot more important than the characters, you can also throw stuff at the characters and see how they react to it.

That is, you can explore the characters’ characters in ways that also move the plot along, and that way you can have fun with your characters. As long as you can avoid the AAS syndrome, you can actually do what you want (explore the characters), while doing what you story needs (the plot). By reaching that compromise, you can build a stronger plot, and have fun doing it!

Personal Heroes

2006-03-05T11:21:00.000-08:00

[Yeah, I know this is late, but I figured better late than never...]

Two of my personal heroes are Harriet Tubman and Wilma Rudolph. Wilma is the easier to explain: She was on the 1936 Munich Olympics American Track & Field Team. Hitler had, at the start of the Olympics, pointed out that the Aryan race would crush every other country. The Track & Field team did the most serious damage to the speech, as the blacks were one of the least significant races and should have fallen easily to the Aryans.

Instead of falling, the American Track & Field team won gold medal after medal. Wilma Rudolph was one of the standouts, doing almost as well Jesse Owens. Sometimes the most serious defeat doesn’t require a battle or war; by being who they were, and doing what they did, they were able to defeat Hitler. A valuable lesson for those that think that battles can only be won through violence.

Harriet Tubman is a bit more complex. She was an escaped slave that became the best conductor of the Underground Railroad, with over 160 successful trips and no failures (she would have been killed had she been caught). She became a major voice for the Black Civil Movement after the Civil War forced her into retirement.

The important thing about Harriet is that she did what she even though she had epilepsy. On a few missions, she suffered seizures that caused some panic, but she came back. She didn’t apologize for who she was or what she had, and did it anyway. She persevered and did she what did because she felt she had to, even though she had a potentially life-threatening disease (having to deal with seizures in the middle of being chased by guys with rifles can be very life-threatening). Her personal bravery is what matters, and her ability to improvise under stress, as well as taking steps to make sure that the mission succeeded.

Both women were major heroes, in two vastly separate ways. If I needed two better examples of people that succeeded, and thrived under pressure, and did what they needed to do, I can’t think of two better examples. That they were black women is merely an interesting coincidence, and not as necessary as that they were who they needed to be.

Tales of the Writer

2006-01-25T00:56:00.000-08:00

First, read this: Hard Onions

The best writers are those that look at things as they are, not as they want them to be. In order to do so, they need to be able ignore popularity, as popularity creates a shroud for the item that is popular, a shroud both attracts fanaticism (so that anyone criticizing is wrong) and the wrong kind of criticism (if it's popular, and art must not be popular, then there are those that wish to prove their artistic integrity by bringing it down). Too many artists are affected by the shroud, and base their judgments on it.

Consider William Shakespeare and Jerry Bruckheimer. The two may not seem to have a lot in common, but when you start looking at what they have done, there are a number of striking similarities. Shakespeare's original intention was not to create art, but to fill the Globe Theatre, just as Bruckheimer fills theaters today. Bruckheimer's films are filled with deceits, people brought down by their own pride, star-crossed romances, and those in power abusing that power; sound familiar?

Seriously look at Top Gun for a moment. At the core of the movie is Maverick's pride and how it creates problems for him, even to the point of causing the death of his friend, losing a prized assignment and an accommodation, and creating a problem with his romance. I can easily take out the fighter planes, and still have a solid movie. However, it's an easy bet that any critic of Bruckheimer's will concentrate on the planes.

Now, look at Hamlet. By the end of the movie, there have been eights deaths from a variety of causes, including a sucide caused be neglect, two comic reliefs sent to their deaths, one basically random stabbing, and four deaths in a duel from stabbing, poison, and a stabbing/poisoning. Throw in one guy going nuts and the possible incest issue, and you have a plot that any schlock Movie-of-the-week director would love to get his hands on.

It's easy to dismiss, but seriously think about it for a moment. The purpose of any play or film is to entertain; if it can't do that at least, then it's a failure from the start. But...it needs to do more to be considered art. It needs to touch something within us, and find a resonance that we can understand. It's that resonance that's the difference between something that's mere entertainment, and something that's more. "Hamlet" and "Top Gun" both show what happens when something is obsessed over to the point that it becomes harmful: Hamlet wants revenge, and Maverick wants the Top Gun award. We all know what it's like to obsess, to ignore our common sense, and do something because we have to do it. The main difference between the two is that in "Top Gun", Maverick moves beyond that and learns that love is more important. There is a reason that it's considered a great date movie.

But, because "Top Gun" has fighter planes, has a great soundtrack, and appeals to regular people, there is no way any respectable critic would ever call it a great movie. The shroud is in effect.

Now, look at Robert Mapplethorpe. The guy's a great photographer, and definitely deserves most of the accolades he's been given. However: I'm personally annoyed by the guy. He threw a cross into urine and asked one question: If you create a work that offends someone, and that's the point, is it art? That is, if the sole point is to make critics happy and tick off a particular group, creating division between artists and others, is it really art?

Don't get me wrong: Art should ask questions. But, should it be used by artists to create a line between artists and everyone else? Should it just be artists that appreciate art, or should anyone be able to appreciate it? If I say something is art, does that automatically make it art? It doesn't take talent to create division, but it does talent to make people ask the right questions. By taking on the religious right, Mapplethorpe is covered in his own little shroud...

You would have thought that artists would have learned from high school that popularity isn't something you should strive for, but something that shold be ignored. A lot of artists have decided that being popular is more important than doing art, and that's dangerous.

And they've found that a great way to become popular is to take on popular things, and make fun of them. Rather than wasting time figuring out how to skewer the latest movie, why not instead try to figre out if there is something below the flash, if there is some steak to the sizzle. After all, a shroud is what they bury things in, right? Why be in such a rush to cover everything with one?

Inspiration-Movie Spoilers!

2005-12-31T21:47:00.000-08:00

You know what I like about blogs? You don't need to be linear!

I watched a silly movie on Sci-Fi called "Decoys". It was okay, but it had some really cool stuff going on at the end. Since you will probably never watch it, I'm giving away some of the stuff towards the end.

One of the alien girls falls in love with a guy named Roger hoping she'll take his virginity. She does the full-on expository thing, telling him why they're here, and that they're having a problem mating with humans (the poor guys end up as corpsicles). He actally then seduces her! (He ends up dying later, but still...!)

Later, same alien has been injured enough to show her native form, the hero nails her and yells, "For Roger!" She pauses meaningfully, and then just lays into the guy (remember she loved the guy that he's avenging, which was Roger's own fault). She dies, but it was a nice touch; you have a three-dimensional bad guy, who has to choose between survival (she could have easily ran away), or just getting ticked.

And this was a Sci-Fi channel B-Movie...

Something to remember when you are looking for inspiration is that sometimes the best inspiration can be found in the worst places. It seems that B-movies and bad comic books know that no one will watch them, so they try some of the most interesting stuff just because they can. Sometimes a movie really is interesting enough to watch it for two minutes of sheer coolness.

But...the point here is that don't assume that when you're told to read/watch stuff, to limit yourself to just the good stuff! Sometimes the really, really bad stuff will be inspirational, or at least show you what NOT to do, which can be just as important...

Backing Up: Themes

2005-12-30T01:17:00.000-08:00

Heh. Just realized that I forgot to mention themes.

Oops. So...backing up a step...

The theme is the arguably the most important part of the comic. You'll find that a theme does one thing really, really well for you, and that one thing is extremely important: It ups the importance of your comic. By making it a lesson, you make it important for other people to listen to you, because YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY!

Think about that for a moment. By deciding the core of your comic, by deciding on what you want to say, you add something to you comic.

Better yet, it allows you to remain focused, and centers your imagination. As you are trying to figure out what needs to be done, you have something that helps you to concentrate the wildest parts of your imagination on telling a story with a moral, and that keeps you on track.

So, what is a theme? It's your message. It's what you are trying to say, and what someone should go away from your comic with. The "Lord of the Rings" was that anyone can help, and that size is not important. Mine, Sex Percussions, is about that love comes in many forms, but it's important to love something. Dominic Deegan's is that things are rarely as they seem.

You can even change the theme for each story arc; Tales of the Questor seems to change each storyline. It started with "You can achieve anything" to "Anything can be overcome" to "Everyone has a message" to "Mothers are important", and the last arc was "Never leave friends behind." It looks like the next will involve paying for mistakes...

Just decide what it is that you would like to say, and go for it! State the theme as succinctly as you can, and constantly refer to it constantly. But...decide on what you think needs to be said, and let it guide you.

Oh, and just as important: Don't feel that it's necessary to have a theme! Some comics, especially comedy comics, don't have a theme. That's fine, too; just be entertaining!

Other Issues To Keep In Mind

2005-12-28T23:03:00.000-08:00

Good vs. Evil: This represents a three-fold issue; be very wary of it.

First is that there may be the cliche turnaround; who you introduce as the bad guy and good guy actually are the good guy and bad guy respectively. This is just annoying because there's just no way to handle it right. It's either obvious from the get-go, or it feel like a betrayal. I appreciate the temptation; it's either a way to keep things fresh, or to show that good vs. evil depends on perspective, but it always comes off cheap.

The second is that you may feel like making the good guys corrupt and the bad guys downright nice in order to show that there are many shades of gray. That's the time-proven wrong reason to do it. Now, if you wanted to show that what's important is the decisions people make and why they make them, that works. I'm not trying that I don't disagree with that style of writing; the flawed hero and honorable bad guy are definitely important archetypes. However, the important issue is that they are still good guys and bad guys; a long as their reasons for doing what they do is valid, such as cops taking bribes because it at least slows the bad guys down a bit is okay, but the cops taking bribes because they like it is a problem.

The third is the worst of all: That anything is good given the right context. The problem is two-fold: First, you need to keep in mind that, as a race advances certain things are left behind; murder and rape are arguably the two best examples of that. Aa a corollary, you can't judge a race's morals by what it becomes; in other words, there has to be a point where a reasonably peaceful race can no longer be judged by the crimes it committed centuries before.

Consider slavery: Originally, it was agreed that it had definite advantages. Eventually, it was decided to be an evil and abolished. Should the American south be forever hated because it once participated in the practice, or should that sin be fogiven?

The other aspect to this is to not judge a culture by modern rules. The issue here is that our rules may not apply to cultures past, and that it is far too wasteful an exercise to blame a past culture for its rules when they are different from ours, especially if you assume that the same issues that beset the current culture effected the past one as well.

Consider that a women's place is not in combat; in the medieval era this made perfect sense as women were far more valuable giving birth; it may sound sexist now, and it should. However, when half the children were dying before they were five, and wars and disease got the rest, there needed to be as many children born as possible. Now, a woman need only birth a single child, maybe two, in her lifetime and her responsibility to the race is done. Now, if she wanted to go into combat, there should be no stopping her; the original reason just doesn't exist anymore.

As noted, people change and are respected for it. Shouldn't that apply to cultures as well?

Magic: This needs to be defined rather tightly as quickly as possible. Stories in which magic is defined or limited tend to be better than those where magic can do anything. You just can't provide any actual sense of suspense when it's entirely possible for someone to use some magic to get out of any situation. It also means that the characters will have to think their way through. At the same time, avoid elemental magic; cliche issues.

Chaos: True chaos is neither evil nor silly. This isn't to say that it's always a good thing; it just is. Chaos should foment change, growth, and allow for some reflection. At the same time, it can damage organization, cause too much growth, and get caught up in the moment. Balance in all things!

Sorry; I'm a big Monkey fan. I see far too much of the latter three, and not nearly enough of the former three. I really wish people would remember that sometimes you need a bit of randomness; too many heroes get too angsty because they forget that there is more to life than just the usual scheduled battle; the little random bits, such as a beautiful smile after a hard battle, a child needing protection from the normal monster under the bed, and gentle rain after a heat wave, color life and make stories so enjoyable. More people should read Tales of the Questor; it does a beautiful job of combining magical spells and magic moments. Okay. so I like racoons, too;-)...

I think that that's enough for tonight...

Themes To Avoid: Anti-Military or Anti-Religious

2005-12-26T23:18:00.000-08:00

Something to really watch out for is taking on an anti-religious/anti-military theme. This isn't because of some need to avoid controversy or to avoid fanatics of either flavor. It's because you can't always pull this one off.

The inherent attraction with both themes are that they are large organizations with an inherent organization, and with a history of doing bad things. This is definitely antithetical to the artist, who must rebel against authority and seeks to do good.

It must be realized that they are organizations, not individuals. Both organizations have done a lot of good, especially for the arts. The various armed forces have defended the same freedoms that they stand accused of destroying. They have helped those in emergencies, given people a way to change their lives, and given confidence to those that didn't have it.

Unfortunately, too many people see the violence and that the military needs to have a different set of rules in order to function. They also see a lot of crimes that tend to not happen, or at least not as bad as the conspiracy theorists would have you believe. This isn't to say that the military doesn't commit crimes. It does. But you need to realize that there is a huge difference between a soldier raping someone and that being sanctioned (it never is).

Dealing with an alien species is always difficult, especially if you don't like that species. Artists have always likened the military to ants; following orders no matter what, even if it means its doom. How can humans follow orders that could mean their deaths? It's difficult to understand, but that loyalty, with the understanding that your life may be save hundreds of others, makes the action have sense.

If you could save thousands of people, would you? Are you willing to draw a line in the sand, and then back it up? If someone was going to do their level best to destroy your country, including destroying all that you holdd dear, would you fight for it or run? Either choice is legitimate; running and setting up elsewhere is an acceptable decision. However, it needs to be realized that taking a stand is just as legitimate a decision. Pacificism is more extreme than violence is; one willing to defend is willing to defend all, but a pacificist will attack those defending him...

The various organized religions may have committed crimes throughout the ages, but they have also done a lot of good. The same church that burned witches also found a way for girls made pregnant to escape their families. They also ofered what succor they could during disease, famine, and war. In times of war, they were the ones to barter for peace; boxing was the creation of a priest wanting to find a way to stop nobles from fighting to the death. Religious men have led the fight for civil rights, or was it forgotten that Ghandi and MLK, Jr., were a priest and a reverend respectively?

The various religions may have flaws, but they weren't without their share of merits as well.

And both have done their fair share for art, as well. Religion has inspired and commissioned some of the greatest masterpieces in the world, and that military's need for records has also shown to be a springboard for art, especially in those who job it was to go along with the soldiers. Just something to consider when you are about to do yet another "it sucks to be in the military" and "the church should go away" story...Does the benefits of the organization outweigh the issues, or do the issues outweigh the benefits?

Plotting II

2005-12-25T22:01:00.000-08:00

Before plotting, you need to decide on act structure. Before you can do this, decide on how you want it to end: On a good note, or a bad one.

If you want the standard feel-good ending, then the last act needs to be a rising action; basically, it needs to have been bad, had something good happen, and rise from there. If you want the bad guys to win, then it needs to have been going good, then something bad happen, and it goes down from there.

Those points are called "climaxes". It's when you have risen or fallen as far as you can, and have started going in the opposite direction. Assuming a standard three-act play, the action will rise, hit a climactic point, and then start falling. It will hit a second climax, and the action starts rising again.

It'll sorta look like this (if you plotted it in terms of positive actions (things go good for the hero) and negative actions (things go bad for the hero)):

--+------- -+-+------ +---+---+ -----+-+- ------+---

A bad (ie, not non-good, but more "bad guys win" ending needs the opposite: A falling action, then rising action, and back to the falling action:

-------+-- ------+-+- +---+---+ -+-+----- --+-------

Note that I'm assuming a standard three-act play; most movies are based on them. The beginning is short (about 10-15 scenes, or 20-30 minutes), the middle is twice as long (about 2-30 scenes, or 40-60 minutes), and the end is as long as the beginning (about 10-15 scenes, or 20-30 minutes).

For a comic, the same basically applies; think about it: First act is when the heroes find out about the problem, and by the end of the act are either forced to deal with it, or have decided to deal with it. However, then various plot complications come to play (why they can't succeed, or why they shouldn't, better known as "The Quest"); this is the second act. When they can finally start being able to deal with the issue, that's the third act.

This is not to say you can't add on new acts; just keep in mind that they should keep up the pattern (otherwise it's just a continuation of the current act!).

This isn't to say you need to keep up the pace; it's good to vary the pace. I'm not talking battle-chase-cliffhanger; that's keeping the pace on high. I'm talking, battle-catch breath-chase-regroup-cliff-hanger. Ever been on a roller-coaster that never lets you catch your breath? Bored at the end? The same applies to stories; you need the audience to catch their breath or your breakneck pace story ends up being boring.

Throw in the subplots, the running gag, and don't be afraid of exposition! People don't like exposition because they see it as "the boring parts"; when it's done badly (just talking, or a Q&A session), then it does nothing, and it is boring. But, with as a flashback, or with the proper graphical back-up, or even when it's virtually asked for, it can be great.

Oh, yeah: Plot vs. Character. This is sort of a weird one; there's a debate going because there are two groups out there that believe one or the other is better. The "Plot is better" group think that the plot should go not change no matter what after you have written it. The "Character Rules" group believes that plot should change as you find out more about the characters.

Personally, I'm a fan of not forcing a character to do anything that feels unnatural unless you can justify it. Plot First types generally don't allow for characterization beyond needed for the plot; should something come up, the plot comes first and won't be changd. Character Rules groupies have no problem changing the plot to facilitate characters, but that gets annoying after a bit to readers. Thus, I go with the compromise to not change what I'm doing unless it feels right for both plot and character, with an edge for characters.

So...get plotting!

Plotting I

2005-12-24T22:45:00.000-08:00

Okay. You have an idea. Now, write it down. Just the idea part! Don’t worry about plot details, characters, whatever, except those that are important to your idea. Don’t worry about length; that’s not the concern. Just write as long or as short as you want.

[Come back when you’re ready…]

Done? Good. Now, right down a logline for it. A “logline” is used in Hollywood as part of the decision-making step before a script is bought; it’s the simplest concentration of the idea. If you take more than 50 words to write it, then you’re not trying; think in terms of TV Guide entries (short, to the point, not really clever, but still manage to get the point).

Remember “Die Hard”? It became part of a lot of loglines. “Under Siege“? “Die Hard” on a sub. “Under Siege II”? “Die Hard” on a train. “Speed”? “Die Hard” on a bus. “Masterminds”? Die Hard” at a school. If you liken your idea to a popular movie it makes life easier, even if it’s a couple of them.

Example: “Sex Percussions”: “Cast a Deadly Spell” in Canada, with the detective backed by a band of capoeiristas.

Now, summarize it in about 200 words or less, bolding possible cliches. Variation on the above: If you can’t, you’ve either got too many cliches (in which case you had better start over or simplify things), or you’re just not really trying. Use a slash to separate phrases that are close together.

Example: “Sex Percussions”: A Mayan GODDESS has CURSED THE WORLD to be less fertile. A Vancover-based DETECTIVE has FIGURED IT OUT, and ASSEMBLES A TEAM of MARTIAL ARTISTS / MAGES to HELP him THWART HER PLANS and SAVE THE WORLD.

Once you have done that, the next thing is to start plotting it out. Now, if this were a movie, you’d need to do about 40-60 scenes (drama-40, action-60). As this is a comic book, that doesn’t really apply; with each scene at about 4-6 pages of comic book, that converts to roughly 160-360 pages. Figure out how many pages you are writing, and perform the following calculations:

To your main plot, add some sort of sub-plot (may or may not add to plot, or even parallel the plot. (for 1 page of subplot for every three of the main plot). For every 120 pages, figure you should have one subplot (so a good 300 page book will have 2-3 sublots), and for every 30, there should be one page of running joke.

Example: “Sex Percussion” is short: 60 pages. It has one subplot (Detective Tate and his romances), which is allocated 15 pages. It also has 2 pages of running joke (why Xquiq is a bad person). The remaining 43 pages are for the main story.

Don’t get hung up on page numbers, however, as 1 scene doesn’t equal 1 page. When you right the beats, figure one scene will equal (on average) about 3 pages (so Sex Percussion was planned for 20 scenes total ( 2 running joke scenes (always plan for at least two running joke scenes, or else it’s a one-time gag and not a running gag) and 5 subplot scenes).

But...You're not quite ready for plotting yet...

Which pidgeonhole is yours?

2005-12-19T21:17:00.000-08:00

Too many beginners don't really know what a genre is and too many wannabe's think that a genre is "limiting." So, to help, here's how genres breakdown. Sort of.

After some quick notes: First, don't make the mistake that a genre is all-encompassing. Too many beginners think that a genre has to touch on every aspect of the comic. It doesn't. Just because your mecha comic has a running joke doesn't make it a comedy; it's only a comedy if the whole comic is supposed to make you laugh, not have points at which you laugh. And drama/comedies don't exist; if the comic has a lot of drama in it, as well as comedy, just leave that part of. ABC Networks tried "dramedies" in the mid-80's; although the shows (such as "The Wonder Years" and "Doogie Howser") were popular and critically acclaimed, and are even thought fondly of today, they quickly ran from the "comedy" aspect of the concept and became half-hour dramas.

Second, don't feel that it's limiting: Genres are wide open spaces and you can always make up new genres. You can even go Chinese menu with. Have fun with it; there have been mecha westerns, medieval magical girl horrors, even futuristic magical soap operas. My personal favorite has to be SF/Action/Adventuer/Detective/Cannibalism/Independent Film/Disco/Post Apocalyptic/Greasers/Hippie/Satire; "Radioactive Dreams" (Tagline: "Just your typical action-adventure-science-fiction-musical-fantasy in the post-nuclear world") is a great movie!

Realize that genres are extremely general classifications, and that they are more for marketing than anything else. All it takes to be considered a "western" is horses, frontier, and a lot of desert. And even those are negotiable. So, without further ado, here are twenty-four genres for you to start with:

Sci-fi: Involves technology and the isues created by technology.

Fantasy: Involves magic and the issues created by magic. Usually b&w morality, but not mandatory.

Historical: Could have happened; happens before the present day. Has no magic or tech that didn't exist at that age.

Modern: The majority of the action happens in today, or around it.

Pulp: Generally, modern but exagerated. It's darker (no one is innocent and life is cheap), more violent, and heroes are more gray than white.

Comedy: The basic idea is to poke fun at conventions or just have fun. Not as easy as it sounds, and too many people try anyway...

Drama: Serious. Shakespeare/Greek Tragedy serious.

Romance: Comic where most of the challenges and drama are based on two people finding each other and looking for a long-term relationship.

Hentai: Comic where most of the challenges and drama are based on two people finding each other in weird positions and looking for a short-term relationship.

Mystery: Drama with an emphasis on solving some sort of crime.

Horror: Comic with an emphasis on unnerving or scaring the reader. Generally allegorical, and can be lovecraftian (psychological horror featuring other-dimensional beings), splatter (fear-factor depends on intense and messy physical violence), or thriller (straight psychological horror).

Action/Adventure: Generally B&W morality with an emphasis on action. There may be some philosophical musing, but the final showdown is on how survives, not who ascends.

Martial Arts: Action Adventure, but the emphasis is on martial arts.

Racing: Action/adventure based on racing.

Super-hero: Action/adventure featuring characters with psuedo-scientific abilities.

Magic Girl: Generally a girl with special abilities who has found herself under a boy's authority (Urusei Yatsura or Oh My Goddess).

Magical Girl: A girl or group of girls with magical abilities that require some sort of transformation in order to become powerful.

Shonen: "Boy-style." B&W morality with an emphasis on overcoming challenges. Ironically, as it believes that there are no useless characters, if females are present they are in a command position or occasionally take center stage, making it less sexist than you would assume.

Shoujo: "Girl-style." B&W morality with an emphasis on, ironically, combat; generally has romantic elements. Generally, has to be done well as it borders on parody.

Mecha: Specific sci-fi sub-genre that features human-controlled robotic vehicles, generally human-shaped.

Post-apocalyptic: Take world. Do a lot of damage to it. Technological comes in hi-tech/scary and low-tech/not as scary flavors. Add mutants to taste.

Western: Generally, looks like the American Southwest, with a B&W morality (or at least, evil actions have nasty consequences), and emphasis on story-telling rather than violence (although it can be highly violent, the emphasis is on story and symbolism). Technology generally limited to transport and ranged weapons.

Game: Comic with an emphasis on video/computer games; in essence, the emphasis is paralleling various game universes and not really caring about the fourth wall.

"Real Life": Comic with an emphasis on realistic reactions and either parodying real life or attempting to simulate it.

Top Ten Worst Offenders II

2005-12-18T18:50:00.000-08:00

Guess I'd better finish...

5) Team Comics: Teams can be good and bad. The good is that you can split up tasks, have a range of personalities, have intra-team conflict, and have an easy excuse for some exposition.

These are all great things. Splitting up tasks allows characters to define who they by what they do. A range of personalities allows people to pick someone they like to root for. Conflict is always good, and if you make it natural (such as five people living together in cramped quarters) rather than forced so much the better. And it's only natural that you need to explain things to someone in the group that wan't there or isn't following along.

However, too many writers (beginning and advanced) learned too much from the sentai (think: Power Rangers) school of teams. This means that the team has the following types:

Leader: This is the guy in charge. He's only wrong when it's dramatically right, he can do whatever he wants and no one cares; he is the hero, after all. The older brother of the group and the guy who the Lone Wolf usually rebels against. If there is a long-term romantic relationship, he's usually involved somehow.

Lone Wolf: The rebel. The guy who everyone likes because he's straightforward and does what he wants, something that they can't do. He's the perverted older cousin who's probably into whips and chains. Whatever the leader aquires, he wants. Usually.

The Geek: He knows everything except how to deal with social situations. Usually the least liked character because, well, no one likes the group brain. He's the most dependable of the group (except when it comes to shooting the 300'-tall monster directly in front of him). He's the little brother of the group who is sex-obsessed and the group mascot. If the group has a fanboy, The Geek is usually it.

The Brick: He can lift pretty much anything, punch through pretty much anything, and take pretty much anything. Usually the group mechanic. He's sorta the fun friend of the family; the guy who kicks your butt at Mortal Caliber VII, makes you cringe through his puns, and is the guy you go to for advice, or tickets you can't get yourself.

The Girl: She points out the obvious, is the love interest of The Leader, temporary goal for romance of The Lone Wolf, defender of The Geek, and grudging friends with The Brick. If it's a unisex team, change "love interest" to "best friend" and "of romance" to "of assassination." She is yin to the team yang, and is usually the most effeminate. Aggressively effeminate. Usually the best shot in the team. And the richest, especially when there is no monetary system in the universe.

Now, it may look good, but EVERYONE uses the blueprint without thinking about making changes. When they do, it's the leader that gets in the shorts. If they take characters away, The Brick goes first followed by The Geek. It's a working cliche, but be aware of it anyway, and try to change it.

4) Elemental Powers: This is starting to get ridiculous. Change that: It is ridiculous. The default is: Fire, Earth, Water, Air, and either Heart or some psychic ability (usually Precognition). Each character has abilities that stem from their respective element, and personality traits that stem from their element.

When the elemental base of any powers are changed, it's usually to weather (thunder, lightning, wind), sound, some other psychic ability (cyberkinesis, telekinesis or telepathy), teleportation or desolidification. Although these are visually interesting, they are sorely lacking for imagination.

Just be aware of the problem, and plan accordingly.

[Just out of curiosity: Why is it that the oriental elements are wood, metal, fire, water, and earth, but you only see the Greek elements of water, fire, earth and air? And why rarely (if ever) those from the periodic table?]

3) Angsty Hero: O Woe is I! I accidentally killed my best friend, my lover commited suicide because I was a day late coming home, and my dog has worms. Oh, and my house is trying to kill me.

Today on Oprah: Angsty heroes and the fangirls that love them. Note: These people would not survive Dr. Phil.

I understand the attraction: Girls like guys that need them, and this guy needs something alright. I know that the angsty hero is an old literary tradition (yet another thing we can blame on Ancient Sumeria: Gilgamesh, anyone?). And I know his existence validates that of the artistically dark.

But...give the guy a good day once in a while! Gilgamesh let his hair down! Elric did smile every so often. King Richard cracked wise. Even Macbeth had fun!

But this hero has nothing good happen to him without cost. If he a million bucks, he gets sued and ends up owing money. His new car is possessed. Just let the guy have some fun without cost every so often.

2) Avatar/Sprite Comics and Doujinshi: For the three individuals who don't know what any of those are:

Sprite Comics: Take a video game, take the characters and use them in your own comic.

Avatar Comics: Take avatars from Gaia Online and use them in sprite comics.

Doujinshi: There are many translations, but the one in use here is fan comics using the characters that the fan likes. Included here because, well, if sprite and avatar comics are examples of someone being a lazy illustrator, doujinshi are examples of lazy writing.

I'm sort of in a weird spot on this one. On one hand, I appreciate not having the ability to draw/write and having a cool script that you need to see done. But...this isn't the way to do it.

Besides the obvious legal issues, there's just a lack of imagination here. I mean, you're taking someone else's characters, throwing them into situations that their creators never intended, and then claiming that you're creating something original. Worse, I see it justified because it's a great way to get started!

The issue is that to be a good writer you need to be ableto stand on your own two feet. You can't rely on the crutch of using someone else's creations as the base of your own. It's fine to be inspired; it's lazy to copy. Find the difference, and you begin to walk.

[I'm including this under cliches because cliches are just lazy creating. It just fit...]

1) One-Dimensional Institutional Figures: Okay, this is my least favorite cliche of all time. I appreciate that a lot of artists don't like religious figures; there are a lot of reasons to dislike people that put a lot of limitations on what you do. And I understand why military types aren't exactly popular.

However, that shouldn't be an excuse to make them one-dimensional or explore themes that simply don't exist. When you make any excuse to have one-dimensional characters in your strip, you're wasting my time. I don't mind if you've decided to make a villain that's high-up in the military, just give him a realistic reason for doing what he does.

At some level you need to realize that any group has those members that aren't exactly shining examples of their organization; the more in the public eye the group is, the more likely you're going to see the dregs of that group. There are going to be priests that molest choirboys; but, that's because there are men that molest any boy that they get their hands on and this particular one happened to be a priest, and because he was the gaurdian of the morality of his community the sense of betrayal cuts all the deeper. Priests are ultimately just men, with all the weaknesses thereof. Not trying to mitigate the situation, just trying to say that you need to be avoid stereotypes at all costs.

Top Ten Worst Offenders, Part I

2005-12-15T01:21:00.000-08:00

Some cliches can be stopped. To help you avoid cliches, here are the Top Ten Worst Offenders:

10) Vampires. They're dark, angsty and supernatural. Perfect for artists that are trying to explore their dark sides.

Unfortunately, few think vampires all the way through. They look at the angst factor, mostly the night-onnly existance and the parasitism, but not the advantages of being a vampire. Once you get past the need for blood and darkness, you don't have to pay taxes, the money you were paying for most bills and food becomes disposable, and you can concentrate on what makes you happy. Okay, so you can't have kids either, but that's sorta plus/minus.

On the flip side, there are those that try to find psuedo-scientific reasons for vampirism. Obligatory: Huh? They haven't thought one major thing through: Vampires only work when they are mysterious, and they end up not working as well when their secrets are grounded in reality. Not saying you can't do it; just be aware of the problem.

If you are going to use vampires, don't get drowned in the angst, and consider that they would revel in their advantages (such as their heightened senses, the ability to pursue things for a longer period of time, and immmunity to a wide variety of things). If you can't, just remember that not enough people use werewolves.

9) Collector Comics: This is a corporation's favorite: A comic with a built-in collectible. Although there's only two major offenders (Pokemon and Yugi-Oh), there are a lot of minor ones (Digimon, for example). However, it goes far behind just toys.

The basic idea is that a hero (or group of kids) are looking for a group of objects or animals in order to solve his (their) quest. Although great in that success is measurable, and tension is guaranteed to mount with each piece collected, it starts getting monotonous as battles start to mount, especially if every fight is the standard "old trick gets negated, hero almost loses, finds a new trick, wins" formula.

This is great if there are just a few pieces (Dr. Who's Key of Time only had seven pieces). But there's a reason it works great in games, and not so great in comics: Each goal accomplished limits the time left. However, try to avoid this one unless you have a good reason; the reason that it's on this list is because (besides being used a lot) is because too often authors use it as a crutch (by setting measurable goals, you feel good when you have accomplished one, and feel better if you know the path has been that much more finished), and there is the temptation to add/reveal "just one more" collectible.

If you can keep to the objects that you have revealed, and have fun with it, go for it. Otherwise, avoid like the plague!

8) Magical Girls: I'm not trying to be anti-feminist, but heroic girls set the feminist movement back by ten years each time they show up. ("Super-Sailor Charon, let's defeat Masculinor and then go to the mall! Magnifence Cherry Beam of Cheeriness!"). Yuck.

I'm sorry; this is just a genre that needs to either mature or die. But, since it comes up, how do you deal with it?

First off, make sure that none of the girl's involved are Mary Sues (almost-perfect with special abilities, flaws that are more dramatically appropriate than real, and worry about their perfection). If you do have them, kill some of their specialness, and give them normal issues, not hyped-up petty ones (she needs to defeat the bad guy quickly in order to make a date, not because he messed her hair-do).

Second, make the guys real. I like WITCH because the recurring males are realistic guys, not merely foils for the girls. Even without powers, Caleb (the rebel leader), Blunk (the "pet"), Matt (Will's love), Martin (their fan), and Uriah (Caleb's friend) are just as vital to the fight as the girls, albeit in far different capacities. I could have an episode with just those characters, and it would be interesting. Contrast that with the guys in the Winx Club, who are easily replaceable. They have enough problems just being on-screen; there is no way they could sustain an episode by themselves.

Third, and last, don't try to be feminist. It invariable works against the story. Just let them evolve as characters. I cannot emphasize that point enough!

7) Game Comics: This is not to say that there aren't great game comics. Penny Arcade and Goblins are great examples. However, because gamers tend to be computer literate, and some are decent artists, they try too hard to relate what happens in games to others, and it just doesn't always work.

If you are serious about making a comic based on a game, do up a script, and then show it to someone who is not in your immediate circle. If they think that's entertaining, go for it. Otherwise, just put it down and either try something else, or just do it for yourself and your immediate circle of friends.

6) Conspiracy Theories: Every action has a reason for happening, right? And, as we're interested in looking for reasons behind why things happen, we're liable to assume that if we can't see the reason, then someone made the decision. Most people realize that some decisions are by nature arbitrary; a decision needed to be made, but several options were acceptable, so one was chosen.

Others, however, believe that there is no such thing as an arbitrary decision, and that every decision is made for a reason. The next leap of logic is that the reasoning behind the decisions is part of some struggle, and that there is some sort of war going on, making every decision important. Thus are conspiracy theories born.

A lot of writers like them, as they feel powerless in their own life, and seek to demonstrate this by showing how powerless the average man in a world where all his decisions have already been made. They then make the hero someone who rebels against the conspiracy, proving that there is free will in the universe.

The issue here is that it removes free will from the situation. After all, the easiest way to deflate tension is to make it obvious that any decision that's going to be made has already been made. Think about this for a moment: You have two organizations that have been going against each other for milennia, and they can predict the other's moves.

So, if I belonged to one of the big organizations and I knew someone would be making a choice, and I knew how the other organization was going to react, then why not give him some sort of information that affects his decisions, and then affects his decision towards my preferred result? Thus removing any actual choice, and gaining an ally against the enemy organization because he feels so good that I allowed him a choice, even if he thinks that he's acting against mine as well.

There is the question of whether or not there really is free will, which is rather depressing. The ironic thing is that the writer usually says that he is an atheist because he thinks that God has a destiny for everyone, and that there is no free will. And then he then proves himself that everything is, in fact, pre-destined.

Just pointing out that when you start down the path of conspiracies, you remove a lot of dramatic tension from your comic, which rely on dramatic tension.

What exactly is "cliche"?

2005-12-14T16:25:00.000-08:00

The biggest problem you will have is the cliche problem. Far too many people will use it as an excuse to hate yoiur comic, and so this needs to be discussed.

A cliche is anything that has been over-used. You know: magical girls, card games with living monsters, giant ships with bigger guns. Something that you see way too often.

Cliches tend to be used either by beginners or commitees. For beginners, cliches allow them to stay in a safe area, roughly akin to bunny trails and shallow areas. There's very little danger, and they know the curves. For comittees, it means a guaranteed success; after all, the idea has proven itself over and over and over, and works as new viewers who haven't seen it but saw the old generation like it. Yes; an entire generation that hasn't seen Card Captor Sakura, and to whom the magical girl show is actually new! Weird, but true. And it's that new audience that allows cliches to be perpetuated.

So...how do you avoid cliches? Think it through and plan. If the idea is that you will fall back on cliches when you need something safe, don't put yourself in a position where you need that fallback. By planning ahead, and taking an honest look at your script, you can avoid the vast majority of cliches.

Also, know the industry. Before you get really interested in your idea, take out a piece a paper and list every comic you can think of that even looks like your idea. if there are more than a handful, then odds are you're dealing with a cliche. Another way is to go to your favorite comics spot (like Buzz Comix or Comic Genesis), and use keywords that would apply to your comic and see how many comics pop up.

I point this out because far too many beginners replicate almost word-for-word ideas that are just a few years old, and then get quickly frustrated when a number of people point out that their great original idea is already cliche. The best way to avoid this, obviously, is to know what has gone before you.

Hmm...Guess some examples would help....

Let's Start With An Idea

2005-12-14T00:27:00.000-08:00

You know, instead of giving an instruction guide, I think I'll just show you how to make a comic, and reference the workbook every so often. If you don't like it, deal.

So...Where do you get an idea from?

Better question: What do you want to do? Make a list. And don't be afraid to put titles of anime, comics, TV shows, movies, or even books. Heck, even put in random word if that works for you.

Or you can ask a question.

Oh yeah: Don't be afraid to steal.

You need to be aware of the originality issue. There are two sides to it.

The first is that there is nothing new under the sun. On the other hand, everything is new under the sun.

Consider Romeo and Juliet. Basic Plot: Boy meets girl. They fall in love. They find out that their families are at war. They get married. They commit suicide. Everyone is happy.

Now, more importantly, consider the variations. One, both or neither die at the end. It can be a boy and girl, two boys, or two girls. Marriage is an option, or can happen after the final act. Heck, replace "fall in love" with "fall in hate" and save the romance until after the onflict. Or they can continue to dislike after the conflict.

You can even change the conflict. Instead of "different, warring families", make them of different social classes (he's poor and she's rich, or vie versa). Or they belong to different gangs. Or he's a geek and she's a cheerleader (wait, that's different gangs...). Or even ideological differences. Or one's an alien and the other's human. In essence, as long as the conlict complicates the romance, you're good to go.

You don't even have to start with a conflict. Road trips movies are always fun, as the trip changes those on it. Or you can compare societies and show that they are the same. At this stage, you can be as specific or as general as you want. Here's my scripts, and what started them, if it helps:

Miner's Glory: I just wanted to do a Western. I'm a big fan of A Man Called Horse, and I wanted a gatling gun. I was in South Dakota, and so it's Gold Rush and Native American culture fitted in. Also, I wanted a woman avenging her slain fiance.

Ogre's Pendant: I wanted something fantasy. Also, ever notice how easy it is for someone who has never met anyone in the party can become friends so quickly, betray them, and the party never blames the new member? Wouldn't it be great if they had protocols in place to deal with it?

Chinese Chess: Don't you get tired of seeing dragons slain or gone to as sources of wisdom? How about making a treatu with one for self-defense?

Hinami Neon: I'm a big BubbleGum Crisis and Blade Runner fan. Plus, I wanted to see just how nasty I could get. This answered a lot of questions in that regard.

Sex Percussions: Someone entered a title contest with this. I had to steal it. It started with a group of performing capoieristas, and degenerated from there. Now, I am using to systematically make fun of everything that I can...

Brass Ring: The basic idea was that there is always a another chance (some carousels have a brass ring that you can toss into a hole for a prize; you have a chance at the brass ring at every pass). In the Champions RPG, it's mentioned that the worst enemy a hero can have isn't the most powerful villain in the universe, but a detective with obscene skill at observation. So, what would happen if a telepathic detective went after super-heroes' secrets, and used them to make them play fair? And what would happen if those secrets were released?

Strip Poker: Everyone that is a big fan of 80's movies knows that there were a lot of movies that featured the beginning of a strip poker game, the middle of a strip poker game, or the end of a strip poker game. I wanted a full game, darn it.

Shorn Wool: Ever notice in the stories of the Three Fates you rarely hear of where the wool comes from? What if it's a metaphor for beginning your life? (Yeah, I know it's from a herd of Apollo's sheep, but what kind of story is that?)

Hope's Last Stand: I wanted a sitcom pilot script, and all I could think of was combining my work experience (at the time I was working at Taco Bell), and T-NBC was sort of fun to watch. So you got this woman reforming a fast-food joint on the edge of the parking lot with a crew of teen-agers and a pair of misfits as her assistant managers.

So what ideas have you thought of?

How To Create Comic Books Handbook

2005-12-12T13:53:00.000-08:00

[Remember I said I would be plugging my products? This is because I'm trying to help beginners (and some more advanced people) make their lives a lot easier. I'll publish an "instruction book" a bit later...]

With this handbook, you will be able to: ---Plan your comic; ---Be able to set up your comic online; ---Know what your characters look like, how they interact with your world, and possibly even why they do what they do; ---Have pictures of your settings, and know who hangs out there; ---Have pictures of your bases, vehicles, weapons, and other sundry equipment; and ---Have plenty of space for notes and drawing!

Cafe Press: $7 Lulu: $.60 (download)/$9 (book)

Publishing Info Making A Plot Character Info Group Info Setting Info Equipment Info

Enjoy!

Top Ten Tips

2005-12-08T10:29:00.000-08:00

First off, my apologies; it also seems like something comes up when I start something I think is important. That said, I hope these help...

-------------------------

My Top Ten Writing Tips:

10) Take acting classes. It may sound weird, but having the ability to role-play characters is a major advantage, and doing it by getting into the character's mind is a major plus.

9) Study script-writing. Look at more than just the format; consider pacing, beats, and why the three-act structure works, as well as proper escalation.

8) Take some journalism classes. As a writer you need to learn that less is more, and this is probably the best way to do it.

7) Spend some time in a bar or a park. You want somewhere busy, where people are talking to another, the busier the better. The idea is that you're going to need to learn conversation, and where better to learn than where people do a lot of talking? There's a reason so many writers have a reason for being drunks...

6) Kill your darlings. If something is cool, but it doesn't fit with what you are doing, then don't be afraid to not use it. The cool scene may end up being the albatross that kills whatever you're working on. You can note it, and use it later, but don't feel obligated to use everything you write.

5) Character>Plot. Don't force your characters into doing things that they wouldn't do. If your plot requires that your villain make a really stupid mistake, give him a realistic reason for making the mistake, like his girlfriend is breaking up with him or he has some serious bad news to deal with.

4) Avoid gratuities. Always tip your waitress, but don't use sex, violence, and language unless you have a reason, and shocking people isn't an acceptable one. John Woo should be your role-model, not Quentin Tarantino. Now, if you're making an erotic comic, use all the sex you want, but otherwise try to avoid it.

3) Read and watch. Any arguments re: "but then you don't have any of your own ideas" are BS. You would be surprised when those bits of trivia come in handy. Also, you need ideas to get your own. And watch the bad as well as the good; you never know what diamonds you'll find in the mud.

2) Have fun. Don't do this if you see it as a chore; just remember to take it seriously.

1) To thine own self be true. If you're doing this to pick up girls, or impress people with your ability to write, this is the wrong place. Write because you need to do as badly as breath, not because you want to get rich or laid...

Why Do You Write?

2005-11-20T18:38:00.001-08:00

Before you sit down and start writing, you need to ask why you are writing in the first place. Different people write for different reasons, and some of those reasons don’t make for great writing.

Money: Let’s nail this one right off the bat. The odds of you making any money at this are slim to none. You may make enough to pay for materials, but that’s about it, and that’s if you are extremely lucky. The problem is that most people either don’t go in with a business plan, or they go in it specifically for the money. Because this is a business that depends so heavily on the art, you can’t really predict what kind of money you will make; the art will either be incredible or mediocre, and either a fan favorite or not. And neither has anything to do with the other.

Fame: This is most likely, but still not a good enough reason to start a webcomic. Fame in any art is fleeting; that is exacerbated in an internet-based art-form, given the web’s time dilation effect. If you want fame, try a rock band instead or an acting career instead; at least you will have something permanent to remember your fame by, not to mention some interesting stories.

Advertising: This is sort of debatable. The idea is that the website acts as an advertising panel for your art. The problem with this is that, because you are trying to run two entirely different kinds of business. The art business requires a certain kind of mindset; you have the same kind of self-promotion, but you can go for weeks or months without having to post something. A webcomic, however, requires a posting at least once a week. Also, an art studio can be dependant on just one type of art (photography, painting, what have you); a webcomic requires not only good drawing ability, but good writing as well. Even the best artists don’t have usually decent story-telling skills, and without them the comic falls flat. As it was your source of advertising, your business dies quickly. Seriously debate this.

I Needed A Hobby: NO. Just run away now. Don’t look back, and have no regrets. A webcomic represents a commitment. I know that a lot of hobbyists are capable of some extreme commitments, but this requires a long-term boring commitment; this is a marriage-type commitment. There will be problems, you need equipment and software that isn’t cheap, and this is not good for a momentary rush. If you need a creative outlet, take up painting.

Because You Have To: Now, we’re talking. The more passionate that you are about what you want to do, the more successful it can be. If you need to draw, and you don’t feel good unless you have written or drawn something, then that’s the best sign. You may see it as way to the Major Leagues (Marvel, Dark Horse, Tokyopop), and you need the training. But this is something you see yourself doing for a long time, just like you intend to breath for a long time, but you consider breathing optional; without the strip you are nothing. That’s what I’m talking about, and that’s the only acceptable response.

Writing. Where to begin…?

2005-11-14T23:30:00.000-08:00

Anyone can be a writer. Ask anyone that frequents any kind of board that features webcomics or manga, and they’ll probably roll their eyes. They’ve seen virtually every plot involving college life, cat girls, and twelve-year-old saving the universe, sometimes in the same plot. Yep; anyone can come up with an idea.

However, not everyone has the skill or ability to write. I have seen so many ideas that were nothing but clichés strung together that it honestly scares me. It’s nice to see people wanting to write, but I wish they had paid attention to their English classes. Spelling and grammar aren’t optional, and it definitely helps to know your material.

Aight. This is going to be a bit more informal than most books. This allows me to go off on rants every so often, and to have some fun with it, and really get my point across. So…My apologies to those that get annoyed, and definitely to those that don’t like someone tramping all over their dreams. Then again, screw it. If you can’t take some criticism and you can’t do the homework, you don’t deserve to get into writing. So…get over yourself, and be prepared for some hard lessons.

Shall we begin…?

Plugs

2005-10-27T11:39:00.000-07:00

Guess I should get this out of the way as soon as I can.

My "home page": I do "creative services" for money. This means that I write, do graphic design, and even make simple websites. So...if you need any of those services, give me a few details, and we'll negotiate a price.

Sakura Corp Company Store: The obligatory CP store. Original set up for the Hinami Neon webcomic (that's not up yet), I've since then used it for just about everything. Feel free to stop by and buy something!

Sparrows Book Store: Just because I wanted my own book store. In it, you will find the Evil Mastermind Management Handbook, which is a great way to run your business. Check it out; there's even a sampler...

Enough plugs for now...Expect more!

First Post

2005-10-27T10:33:00.000-07:00

First posts. Gotta love 'em.

After a long debate, decided I'd start this. There are a lot of things I'd like to say on forums that I can't say there, and some stuff I'd just like to say in general. Thus, this.

Expect the usual rambling you've come to expect from blogs, and a lot of interesting stuff. Odds are I'll probably find a way to use this as the HQ of my burgeoning internet empire.

Well, enjoy!