VLADRUSHKA by John Linton Roberson (c) 2022.
I Didn't Write That!
06 March 2010
  “Always Allow For the Happy Brainfart”: Attempt at Advice to a Younger Cartoonist

Last week, a young cartoonist named Stephanie wrote me and, in a perhaps mistaken assumption I know what I’m doing, asked some questions about cartooning, which I tried to answer as best I could from my own perspective and experience. Which I’m not sure was so great, but she seemed to find a lot of it useful, so I thought perhaps others might.
So, with her permission, edited(in the case of my own words) slightly for brevity, and with some bits revised because of other things that occurred to me later, here are some of her questions alternating with some of my answers. I emphasize this is only the view from here and do not claim this advice to be universally applicable, but there may be some interesting ideas in here somewhere with which to play. (I should also mention that some of these links to my own examples I’m referring to will be to some of my 2003-07 work, much of which is NSFW)
Well, this is pretty involved, so bear with me.

Obviously, I want to work on a graphic novel or at least an ongoing comic strip, and while I doubt it will ever make money or get published, I still want to make something better than adequate.

I’m a fairly good artist, but I’m trained in a very classical, realism and observation based way, and am finding it nearly impossible to draw purely from imagination, much less tell a story with it. The only people I have to talk about this with are other fine artists or non-artists, so the only advice I get is "go to school for animation" or "that looks great!" and neither is helpful. I’ve even been copying graphic novels I like, and old silent films into comic page format, to try to figure out layout, composition, and visual storytelling, by trial and error. Short of getting an animation degree just to learn to make a decent comic, I don't want to reinvent the wheel if I don't have to.
First off: Silent films are an excellent training class for cartoonists, particularly German and Russian ones. More on why further down. And realism & observation are the best foundation.
On art school--You don't have to, and though those schools--I worked for one in San Francisco, the Academy of Art College--are great if your intent is to work for Disney or Pixar or like that, who draw a lot of their folks directly from those schools, if you're after something more individual they may not be of as much use. But just the same, I never knock education, and with art schools that still believe in figurative art, technique can be learned there which is vital and may save you years of “reinventing the wheel.” Had I one of those degrees, too, getting my work published might be less of a slog, if only for the connections. It’s probably better to get your degree than not. I will mention: there’s lots more money in animation, so unless you really, really love comics, go for it. Comics is hard work, and will break your heart, more likely than not.

So, here's what I'd like to know.
Do you draw from imagination? Do you use photo reference or models, and how much? Every panel, just for objects or angles you're not familiar with?
Imagination mostly, which may show in some of my worse anatomy moments. I sometimes use reference if I'm stuck or if I want to jog my thinking away from shticks I use. But the final pages are usually completely from my head; ref usually only comes in the character design process, like I talk about here with Lulu.
Another example: after designing Lulu I started using an Italian actress, Stefania Casini, as a general model, though more for feel than direct copying or anything(I like her expressions especially). Reference should be a guide but not a law, and you should take what you need to make that thing in your head real, not use it as a crutch, an affliction I think infects some mainstream comics—when they’re not simply using Photoshop to turn photos into “art” with very little modification. (though those are very useful when it comes to textures, but only as a start point)
Did you start with a distinctive illustration style in mind, or did it develop naturally? Have you played around with other styles?
It's been a gradual attempt to improve. I have played around with other styles. When I was doing stories for Eros/Fantagraphics, given the stories were intentionally meant as just fun, I took advantage of the chance to try new things, and developed an all-pencil(thank god for scanners) style which I have since integrated into the ink stuff. (you can see that in some of my Vladrushka stories) Photoshop is great that way. It allows me to layer the stuff in a way I never could otherwise and create vaster levels of greys.

This brings me to the next question:
How do you make each page - do you draw it directly into photoshop (like a lot of webcomic artists), do you draw it with pencil then ink and shade it digitally, or do you draw it out completely then scan it?
I've done it a few different ways. Most of my work till the Eros material was done with a crowquill, india ink, and a drawing board, on 2-ply bristol or thick, smooth illustration board—Bainbridge or Crescent. I still do all pencils, at the least, that same way—I believe it all should be based on problem-solving you have done on paper, by hand. It’s invaluable to begin that way, even if after the scanner it’s all digital. It’s not the same thinking as one does on the tablet.

But the tablet is useful and I am no Luddite. And I can assure you it's still very much drawing, but the further possibilities it offers often makes me take twice as long as I used to. So it's actually more drawing, rather than a work-saver.
Lulu is being drawn physically in pencil, and then everything after that is on a tablet in Photoshop. (However, some of the pencil is later cut and used in the greys) First piece I've done like that. Martha was all physically inked in the usual way, except four pages in the middle which are digitally so. (see if you can tell which ones) After that all shading was in Photoshop. All my lettering is now in Photoshop. I haven't done it the other way since 2003. But I also use a font I made of my own style from bitmapped letters, with Fontcreator, which, if you prefer to do it that way, rather than directly on the page, you can find at download.com. (You can only use it for 30 days without paying, but that was more time than I needed to do it.) I recommend using your own style for that, because it'll look right with your drawing. Do not use those generic comics fonts out there, they suck. Use something neat that looks like your own.
The all-pencil ones were done in a way more like how movies are made. For instance, the Vladrushka story Gulag Gangbang was done from 52 separate pencil/chalk/charcoal drawings on regular sketch paper(SOFT CEILING the same--except that all the pages are in fact in a sketchbook) out of order--I did the most interesting scenes first and then worked my way down, then edited them into comics pages in Photoshop. Then did the dialogue last, quasi-Marvel-style. I also did a lot of adjustments to the pencil to make it smoother and more painty, but mostly that was just evening out some tones, nothing major. I found out that grey on a layer underneath a "multiply" layer of pencil can provide some nice, almost marbly effects.
How do you keep a consistent style through a graphic story? How do you keep characters recognizable and looking the same through a whole story?
A lot of work, and being very careful. I'm afraid I have no better answer to how to keep them on-model—for years my characters were often accused of being wildly off-model from page to page, and they were. You just have to keep watching what you're doing, but also avoid letting that make the characters look stiff; too much of that and you might end up with something that looks like animation stills. Small variation in design from panel to panel is more fluid than forcing consistency.

I’m really happy that you seem to have some more adult stories, how do you include sex or sexual themes in a story without it getting porny?
Well, ahem. That's a hard question to answer, but an interesting one, as some would say some of my stories are "porny," though I prefer the term "smut." But people seem to be able to read them and not only enjoy that aspect but look past it to the satire actually going on.
The brilliant Colleen Coover once said about her own stuff that the key is making everyone look like they're enjoying themselves, smiling. That tends to keep the squick off it. That’s what I followed in Martha, which was autobiographical and explicit; I thought of it as a romance that happened to be NC-17 rated. That did not mean softening the sex, though—I tried to present it just as it was, honestly, and with the humor already there.

I also did not pay any attention to anything recent when trying to figure out the genre, as well, as I am not a consumer of that kind of stuff, barring Coover, Molly Kiely, Gilbert Hernandez, Georges Pichard, Ignacio Noe, or Guido Crepax. Well, that is a bit. But anyway, those would be examples of those I think do the genre well without seeming awful, which is oddly easier--probably thanks to Crumb--to get away with in comics than in anything else but literature.
The initial motive was that I was getting paid, but as I read more--mostly European--I found some fun stuff to do in that genre and so explored it. I was really just trying to make stuff that amused me, and use that genre to do really bizarre stuff that I otherwise would not have tried, and that's the best rule to follow: pursue your obsessions and go as far as you wish. At worst you'll learn something. (or as Dave Sim once put it, you have to get those first thousand crappy pages out of your system)

I tend to go by the Crumb rule: I cannot possibly go further than he, and his stuff was four decades ago, so, y’know.
Do you write a script beforehand? If so, is it just notes or do you do a full script of actions and scenery for each page/panel?
It depends: some are just done visuals-first, as in the quasi-Marvel style I've sometimes used--increasingly in the past six years--that I discuss above. The interesting thing about doing that is that the images end up being richer in narrative and this is an automatic limiter of words, so that the words only do what they need to do.
I like a lot of comics that are "wordy," but you should always strive first to say as much as you can through layout and images and sequence, just as good filmmakers do; also consider how much a Tom & Jerry or Road Runner cartoon gets across, the sheer number of distinct sequences, without any words at all. Or the better silent films, especially the German ones. Squeeze as much as you can out of the visuals, and the words will often take care of themselves, or will meet you at least 2/3 of the way.
In fact, they'll often seem obvious. I noticed when I was doing dialogue last, and more or less writing it as I was lettering it, with all the rest of the page completely composed, that it was almost like I was commenting on the visuals, but also filling in gaps or giving them a different spin. That's the best I can describe the effect. You remember how old Stan Lee/Steve Ditko Marvel comics have dialogue that has a major wisecracky feel to it--a large part of its charm? Well, the reason for that is that Ditko was really the one composing the story. Lee would give him a plot, sometimes no more than, "Aunt May has a heart attack and Peter is fretful, and can you throw in Electro?" and Ditko would go off and draw 22 pages which Lee would, after the fact, add the dialogue to. And in some ways he's making gentle fun of the visuals.
The effect, I noticed, happened in my own work, and reminded me of something else many can relate to. You know how, when you're a kid playing with dolls or action figures, or even hand puppets, the dialogue just comes of its own accord? I find that happens when observing my two cats going at each other as well. When you have the page with the figures doing whatever they're doing, it's kind of hard not to hear them talk. Try it. Do two pages that you will add dialogue to later, but avoiding thinking out the dialogue or writing any down till the pages are otherwise finished. Make the characters very definite, their expressions and interactions, everything, just avoid thinking about what they're saying and go for communicating the emotions through the visuals. Then improv the dialogue and see what happens. I guarantee it's at least fun, and the nice thing about comics is that if you're having fun, it transmits itself to the reader.
Now, I have done work from full scripts, like VITRIOL done, in fact, from what had been intended as a play script, and Janet Harvey’s GLASS HOUSE, which, I think, is the only panel-by-panel DC-style full script from which I’ve ever worked. Charles Alverson meant STORY OF OH! as a short film when he wrote it, RAPUNZEL too. But I've worked with very little too--COMIC SHOP EXPERIENCE was nothing more than a brief anecdote and all it was, was the dialogue and captions you see in the three pages I made of it, and that's it. Even when I do use a full script, of my own, I tend to throw out the boring parts as I go. With others--my collaborators and I have an unusual relationship--they usually let me do more editing than one would think. But that’s probably because I would never do so without asking first--when working with someone else my intent is to try to bring out the best of what they made. By doing so I'll only look better anyway, so it’s simply practical to respect your writer.
I find increasingly, though, that for my solo work, full scripts, unless you're working with someone else, or need to show one to a publisher, are more a time-waster than not, except when it comes to dialogue. I'll sometimes write a script of only dialogue and stuff akin to stage directions. But I cannot stand having to break it down in words by panel--that always changes. Best to just think about your page limits and make it work within that.(Problem-solving and space budgeting is a big part of making comics)
How do you break the action down for telling a story? Do you start with an establishing shot, then move into character closeups for dialogue? Do you do this on every page, or just at important points in the story?
I know a lot think in those terms, but I tend to be intuitive about it; I just start sketching a stick-figure layout and going with the first interesting image I can think of. Which for a while was whistling, but I've curbed that. I tend to approach it organically, for want of a better term--"make it up as you go" would be a better way to put it--I rarely lay out a story longer ahead than a page at a time, preferring to let the following page flow with what I last did, rather than the trap of hammering it into a preconceived structure; sometimes in the middle of drawing a page I will think of it totally differently and put something different at the end than I'd meant. I like those accidents. It's one of the reasons cartooning should be thought of as a form or writing(with a visual dimension) than art. Because the same thing happens when you're writing prose. You should always allow for the happy brainfart.
But you know who can give you some good specifics on that about how to actually do it? Jessica Abel and Matt Madden:Drawing Words and Writing Pictures
This is also an oldie but goodie just for general cartooning instruction and theory(all very pre-digital though):John Adkins Richardson's Complete Book of Cartooning
How do [you]pace actions - for example, say a character is answering the phone. You're not going to have a whole page of them walking to a phone, then panels showing them picking up the phone, hitting a button and talking into it, and every little motion they take. How do you represent that in the flow of the story and the page?
Panels - seriously, wtf. what are some good ways to break up a page to tell a story? I've heard the rule of thirds, but almost no graphic novel illustrator I’ve seen really uses it.
Think of rules like that more like guardrails. To keep your balance. Layouts--really hard to say because every story has its own problems to solve. Unless you’re like Dave Gibbons and want to use the structure as an overall motif for the story, it’s best to use your layouts as a way of playing with the dynamics of a story. I tend to also like to have at least one self-contained action begin and end on each page, which to me ties the layout together and makes the rest more solid. The simple act of trying to make things fit gracefully, you’ll find, tends to make the layout happen. Think in terms of the action and what moments you want to emphasize and what you want to downplay, as if you were doing music.
To go to your specific example of a small and ordinary action and how to use it, it would be easier to show a poor example than describe one. So.
Terry Moore once said it's about going from peak moment to peak moment. That's how you think of it. You pick the important steps in what they're doing and, like going across a river on a series of stones, you hop from one to another. Maybe you add business. Here's a page, not particularly impressive but relevant to what you describe, where I tried to solve this problem, from Martha.
Notice, I'm trying to concentrate on what the call means to him, but also the awkwardness of his reaction (it was important the phone have a cord for that reason). In this case a phone message, though. First, befuddled suspicion. Then surprise. Then desperation not to miss the message and much cheap slapsticky grabbing for pens. Then, disbelief that a 555 number is real, but eh. All out of checking a message, and hopefully both moving the story forward, and showing what the character that left the message means to him.
The point is that you can squeeze a lot out of the smallest actions, if you think not about how they look from outside, but how they seem to be paced from the inside. Think of the fact that in your mind ("time flies when you're having fun") time is elastic. You're best served in comics when you treat time and pacing subjectively, to get across what the characters perceive, because you'll never pace it "realistically"--it's not a film. The best you can manage is "convincingly." It will never be an illusion of reality, except in the way other kinds of books are. It's more like literature than it is film, though you can certainly learn much from film.
Ask yourself: what parts bore me, and why, and can I do without them? That's the best guide.
Alan Moore once wrote an excellent piece on ways of thinking when writing comics that addresses a lot of this and much more, and I recommend it.
Also, of course, we always return to Will Eisner. Eisner says some very interesting things about making your characters "act." This came partly from his background in theatre. It might just be that my training was in theatre, in Chicago, that this appeals to me. And that's probably why I tend to compose in long takes, sometimes one scene taking up a whole episode. But I find thinking of your characters as actors helps the pacing take care of itself. They have their own logic and their actions start to just occur to you, at least more than if they’re indefinite.

Don't overthink. Try to be spontaneous when you can. The truth is you're really thinking the whole time, even if you can't distill it to words. Don't force and fret. The worst that can happen is you have to redo a page.
Here are some sequences to study for pacing, mood and page design, as well as suspense, two by Steve Bissette & John Totleben that were very influential on me, and one from Brent Anderson of which I can say the same.
  1. The Bogeyman
  2. Another Green World
  3. Somerset Holmes

Also, Dave Sim, whose High Society, Church & State, and Jaka's Story should be studied intently as masterpieces of how to make talking heads work in comics. His lettering alone is an example I've tried, not well, to follow, in its unique ability to create a character's voice in your head. When it comes to cartooning there are few who've gone deeper inside it.
He wrote an excellent series of articles--"meditations" he called them--about ways of thinking about cartooning, and also self-publishing, but it's the former that (given that too was all pre-digital; some of the specific self-publishing advice in some ways is slightly dated now) I found incredibly useful when I began drawing comics. He's a hell of a coach and teaches you to be productive. The book itself is out of print and will cost you 100 bucks on Amazon. So lucky for you, it's also here for nothing. Scroll down to the essays starting with issue 168.
Though this is a book on film (specifically, Soviet montage) theory, it's immensely useful for comics: Film Form by Sergei Eisenstein.
And for the art of setting mood—and how to stylize even ordinary moments and make use of them (check out Murnau’s the Last Laugh or Sunrise as excellent examples of what to do with the mundane)-- another film book: The Haunted Screen by Lotte Eisner, the Bible on German silent film expressionism.
Hmm, that's all I can think of right now.

Thanks so much!!

Same here. I hope this is of some help to someone.
This Sickness #6, featuring LULU Chapter 1, available now here!
Buy THIS SICKNESS #6-Exclusive here!

Labels: , , , , ,


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home
"Eternity in the company of Beelzebub, and all of his hellish instruments of death, will be a picnic compared to five minutes with me & this pencil."
--E. Blackadder, 1789

JLRoberson Self-Portrait 2005.
Questionable words & pictures from John Linton Roberson


John L. Roberson at PATREON


LULU Book 2 by John Linton Roberson introduction by Donna Barr
VLADRUSHKA Issue 2 (2021) 

VLADRUSHKA (c)2010 John Linton Roberson
VLADRUSHKA Issue 1 (2010) 

LULU Book 2 by John Linton Roberson introduction by Donna Barr
LULU Book 2 (2020) 
with an introduction by Donna Barr

Amazon | Google Play

LULU Book 1 by John Linton Roberson introduction by Martin Pasko
LULU Book 1 (2013) 
with an introduction by Martin Pasko

Amazon | Google Play

SUZY SPREADWELL Issue 1(2018) 
Amazon | Google Play

Frank Wedekind's LULU
VLADRUSHKA (adults only)
STORY OF OH!(2008) Written by Charles Alverson (adults only)





April 2013: LULU Book 1 Interview at Comics Forge 


July 2017:
Steve Pugh and the Flintstones

Interview of Steve Pugh by John Roberson & Tim Young!

December 2016: Politics in Comics
With Emmet O'Cuana

November 2016: Wonder Woman-Earth One
With Emmet O'Cuana

April 2016: Batman Vs. Superman, an Assassination
With Emmet O'Cuana & Kumar Sivasubramanian

October 2015: 
Erotic Comics, Erratic Censorship

Discussion with Tim Young; also featuring Dale Lazarov & Tim Pilcher.

August 2014:  Crumb’s Confounding “Genesis”
Discussion with Tim Young.

April 2014:  Corporate Comics: Love'Em, Hate 'Em
Discussion with Tim Young, Deb Aoki, & Jason McNamara.

April 2013: Lulu”- Staging a classic on paper - interview by Tim Young.
August 2012:
Flex Mentallo - discussion with Troy Belford.
January 2012:
Comics Events - discussion with Tim Young.
May 2011:
Theatre and Comics - interview by Tim Young.

August 2006 at Talkaboutcomics.com

Sept. 2001 at Spark-Online

WHERE IT BEGAN: John L. Roberson's first graphic novel
VITRIOL(serialized in PLASTIC from 1998-2003)
...Free Online

All contents ©2022 John L. Roberson and accomplices.

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

October 2002 / November 2002 / February 2003 / March 2003 / April 2003 / May 2003 / June 2003 / July 2003 / August 2003 / September 2003 / October 2003 / November 2003 / January 2004 / February 2004 / March 2004 / April 2004 / May 2004 / July 2004 / August 2004 / September 2004 / October 2004 / November 2004 / December 2004 / January 2005 / February 2005 / March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 / January 2012 / February 2012 / March 2012 / April 2012 / May 2012 / June 2012 / July 2012 / August 2012 / September 2012 / October 2012 / November 2012 / December 2012 / January 2013 / February 2013 / March 2013 / April 2013 / May 2013 / June 2013 / July 2013 / August 2013 / September 2013 / October 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / May 2014 / June 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / October 2014 / December 2014 / February 2015 / March 2015 / June 2015 / July 2015 / August 2015 / September 2015 / October 2015 / November 2015 / December 2015 / January 2016 / February 2016 / March 2016 / April 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / August 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 / April 2017 / May 2017 / June 2017 / July 2017 / August 2017 / September 2017 / October 2017 / January 2018 / March 2018 / April 2018 / May 2018 / June 2018 / July 2018 / August 2018 / September 2018 / October 2018 / November 2018 / December 2018 / January 2019 / February 2019 / March 2019 / June 2019 / October 2019 / March 2020 / April 2020 / August 2020 / October 2020 / November 2020 / April 2022 / May 2022 / June 2022 / July 2022 / November 2022 / December 2022 / February 2023 / March 2023 /

Powered by Blogger