Friday, December 12, 2003
I'm going to stop by Rob Walker's book signing at Brain Snack Books., 5221 Main St., Downers Grove, IL
It runs from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m., I'll probably be there closer to 3 p.m.
It runs from 3:00 - 5:00 p.m., I'll probably be there closer to 3 p.m.
Don't forget to bring this song along to the caroling party!
Thursday, December 11, 2003
Hey, I passed 400 pages a few weeks ago and didn't know. Happy anniversary to me!
Speaking of anniversaries...
Speaking of anniversaries...
What? You haven't voted in the Thrillies yet?
Wednesday, December 10, 2003
This thread over at TCJ forum touches on a subject I've been wrestling with: Backgrounds.
When I started Odd Jobs, I was very character-specific: I would spend a lot of time working on people and frankly I didn't focus on their immediate surroundings. That was pointed out to me in a very usefull critique session.
Anyway, two schools of thought came up in this thread, both characterized in this quote attributed to Dan Clowes in TCJ #250:
“In trying to capture a mood and show how a character fits into the world around them, I try not to let it get overloaded with details. I don’t find it fun to look at stuff where it’s over-researched, with photographic background detail. You see that in a lot of European comics, where every cobblestone is there and it’s supposed to be specific corner in Paris. I prefer Charles Schulz – he’d sketch in a little brick wall and you’d imagine this entire suburban town. I have a much clearer image of the world of the Peanuts characters than I do of any of those fancy French detective stories.”
Personally, I think I fall somewhere in between. I admire artists who can create a seriously detailed world but I just can't see me keeping to a regular schedule while trying to do something as detailed as, say, Paradigm Shift.
On the other hand, sometimes a story needs more than just a few stray lines that suggest space.
I think spaces should have emotional content - mood - that contributes to the storytelling. And if a space is cold and emotionaless, that should be part of the story too.
So that's what I strive for: Enough detail in the background to place the characters in a setting and contribute to the overall tone of the story. Not so much that I'll miss my update time.
Tell me what you think!
When I started Odd Jobs, I was very character-specific: I would spend a lot of time working on people and frankly I didn't focus on their immediate surroundings. That was pointed out to me in a very usefull critique session.
Anyway, two schools of thought came up in this thread, both characterized in this quote attributed to Dan Clowes in TCJ #250:
“In trying to capture a mood and show how a character fits into the world around them, I try not to let it get overloaded with details. I don’t find it fun to look at stuff where it’s over-researched, with photographic background detail. You see that in a lot of European comics, where every cobblestone is there and it’s supposed to be specific corner in Paris. I prefer Charles Schulz – he’d sketch in a little brick wall and you’d imagine this entire suburban town. I have a much clearer image of the world of the Peanuts characters than I do of any of those fancy French detective stories.”
Personally, I think I fall somewhere in between. I admire artists who can create a seriously detailed world but I just can't see me keeping to a regular schedule while trying to do something as detailed as, say, Paradigm Shift.
On the other hand, sometimes a story needs more than just a few stray lines that suggest space.
I think spaces should have emotional content - mood - that contributes to the storytelling. And if a space is cold and emotionaless, that should be part of the story too.
So that's what I strive for: Enough detail in the background to place the characters in a setting and contribute to the overall tone of the story. Not so much that I'll miss my update time.
Tell me what you think!
Let's start out with a serial killer, shall we?
