There is nothing like staring at a blank page to make you not fill it up. It's intimidating to most people to put pen on paper or fingers on a keyboard and start writing. A writer intimidated by writing? I swear, it really happens.
But why? A blank page gives a person the freedom to do anything they want; the last thing a writer should be is hesitant. But I believe it is because the blank page is too free that a writer can't write. I can fill a page with a poem, start a short story, or draw random doodles. I could write about family, nature, or make up a new world and write about that. I have infinite possibilities of choices. How can I hope to settle on any one thing?
Writing is much easier to do with restrictions. Ideas form that fit within the restrictions and the mind shapes those ideas to be represented within the restrictions. Think about your days in school. You may be asked to write several pages every single day for several months at a time. And if you weren't a complete flunky, you actually produced all of that writing. So how can you write 50+ pages in four months, but spend three weeks trying to write anything on a blank page? The difference is that the writing for college was restricted.
Write three pages on how smoking can lead to bankruptcy. I'm sure it wouldn't be very hard to do. I bet it also wouldn't be very fun, but at least it gets you writing. Write three pages on religion. This is less easy to do. It is so broad and vague that you can't be sure exactly what to say. It's better than being asked to write three pages on anything, but not much.
My comic has a very strict form. I have four panels of a fixed width and height. I need to fit in both a picture and words and I need to be funny at least once. Again, this is not the easiest thing in the world, but it does get me writing. It also gets me thinking, which is what really matters. The more I try to write in my format, the more it gets me thinking about how to write in that format and the more I end up writing.
On the subject of restrictive forms, I definitely have to point to Ryan North. One of the premises of Dinosaur Comics is that the art never changes from strip to strip. And with the exception of a handful of guest strips, his comic has had the same art from day one, which happened on Feb 1, 2003. His site is extremely popular and extremely funny. Because of having the same art, it forces the words to matter even more, which they do.
Now, I know of many successful and funny comics that do not even have a regular size, like SMBC and C&H (although it is actually made by multiple people), so I don't have the gall to say it is a necessity to force restriction to produce creativity, but I do believe it is a great help. If you ever find yourself frozen, staring at a blank page, give yourself an assignment (or have somebody else give it to you) and do it.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Three Problems
I have a theory about people. If a person has three different problems, they will balance each other out. Having one or two can lead to severe problems, but three seems to make for a relatively stable life, like a table and its legs. Let’s use me as an example.
My first problem is that I am extremely picky. There are extremely few things that catch my interest in the first place. My second problem is that I have an addictive personality. So once I find something that I do like, I won’t do anything else. My third problem is that I get bored very easily. After I obsess over one thing for long enough, it stops being interesting, and I have to start the whole process over again.
There are two ways to live with these three problems. One is to jump from obsession to obsession. This could certainly work if done properly, but seeing as how I prefer the security of a steady life, it isn’t good enough for me. That is why I had to find the second way to live, which is to find something that is flexible and malleable enough to take all the beatings of my three problems and still be viable. Writing does exactly that.
I’m very picky. Writing gives me a plethora of options. I could write short stories, flash fiction, nonfiction, essays, poetry, plays, and countless other forms. When I pick one of those forms, I can write and write and write and it will always be as original and interesting as I am. When I stop being interesting, I won’t want to write in the field anymore. But writing itself isn’t boring, just the kind of writing I’m doing. I can change from writing poetry to writing flash fiction and rekindle that excitement and obsession. Even if I don’t change the form, I can change my subject material, from super heroes to space exploration or from spelunking to carpentry.
Because writing is a world unto itself, it will never run out.
My first problem is that I am extremely picky. There are extremely few things that catch my interest in the first place. My second problem is that I have an addictive personality. So once I find something that I do like, I won’t do anything else. My third problem is that I get bored very easily. After I obsess over one thing for long enough, it stops being interesting, and I have to start the whole process over again.
There are two ways to live with these three problems. One is to jump from obsession to obsession. This could certainly work if done properly, but seeing as how I prefer the security of a steady life, it isn’t good enough for me. That is why I had to find the second way to live, which is to find something that is flexible and malleable enough to take all the beatings of my three problems and still be viable. Writing does exactly that.
I’m very picky. Writing gives me a plethora of options. I could write short stories, flash fiction, nonfiction, essays, poetry, plays, and countless other forms. When I pick one of those forms, I can write and write and write and it will always be as original and interesting as I am. When I stop being interesting, I won’t want to write in the field anymore. But writing itself isn’t boring, just the kind of writing I’m doing. I can change from writing poetry to writing flash fiction and rekindle that excitement and obsession. Even if I don’t change the form, I can change my subject material, from super heroes to space exploration or from spelunking to carpentry.
Because writing is a world unto itself, it will never run out.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Logical Progression
I was in a discussion about creativity in the writing process. I made the argument that creativity is a small part of the writing process. After the discussion/argument had ended, the day went on, I thought about it further, and I decided I was still right.
I am a scientist at heart. Science is repeatable. The universe is deterministic. If absolutely anything could happen at any place or time, you could never purposely do anything you intend to because you could never be sure of the results. And if you did one thing you liked, you could never know how to do it again. Medicine, technology, even cooking could not exist. The world isn't random, just complex. We can't accurately predict many things that happen because we don't know everything that went into setting up the situation.
Writing functions in exactly the same way. Things cannot happen for no reason. People act because of how they believe and those beliefs come from past experiences. Things happen in the world because something made it happen. Even if the process is long and circuitous, it always has a stimulus. The only difference between the real world and the world a writer creates is that the writer knows absolutely everything that happens in their universe.
The only actual creativity in writing comes from creating the world. Make people who are real and put them in a location or situation. If your characters are fleshed out, with histories and beliefs that come from those experiences, and your locations or situations are interesting (whether they be too close to home or couldn't be further from it), then the story writes itself.
In every book on writing I have ever come across, at some point, the author will talk about times where their characters take on a life of their own and they start doing things that they would naturally do instead of doing what the author wants them to do. This is logical progression. Things happen because they must.
The only other creativity, aside from making the universe, is what I like to call Playing God. It is also known as What If. Stephen King talks about it in On Writing. When your characters are in a situation, you ask yourself, "what if [something] happens?" If it would add to your story, you just make it happen (hopefully you can give some explanation, so it doesn't come off as a Deus ex Machina).
Writing a story is a lot like making a puzzle for laboratory mice. You can set up all the obstacles you want, but in the end, all you are doing is recording what these mice do. A writer makes up the maze and the mice, the rest of it is just the world turning.
I am a scientist at heart. Science is repeatable. The universe is deterministic. If absolutely anything could happen at any place or time, you could never purposely do anything you intend to because you could never be sure of the results. And if you did one thing you liked, you could never know how to do it again. Medicine, technology, even cooking could not exist. The world isn't random, just complex. We can't accurately predict many things that happen because we don't know everything that went into setting up the situation.
Writing functions in exactly the same way. Things cannot happen for no reason. People act because of how they believe and those beliefs come from past experiences. Things happen in the world because something made it happen. Even if the process is long and circuitous, it always has a stimulus. The only difference between the real world and the world a writer creates is that the writer knows absolutely everything that happens in their universe.
The only actual creativity in writing comes from creating the world. Make people who are real and put them in a location or situation. If your characters are fleshed out, with histories and beliefs that come from those experiences, and your locations or situations are interesting (whether they be too close to home or couldn't be further from it), then the story writes itself.
In every book on writing I have ever come across, at some point, the author will talk about times where their characters take on a life of their own and they start doing things that they would naturally do instead of doing what the author wants them to do. This is logical progression. Things happen because they must.
The only other creativity, aside from making the universe, is what I like to call Playing God. It is also known as What If. Stephen King talks about it in On Writing. When your characters are in a situation, you ask yourself, "what if [something] happens?" If it would add to your story, you just make it happen (hopefully you can give some explanation, so it doesn't come off as a Deus ex Machina).
Writing a story is a lot like making a puzzle for laboratory mice. You can set up all the obstacles you want, but in the end, all you are doing is recording what these mice do. A writer makes up the maze and the mice, the rest of it is just the world turning.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Action and Location
I have found that people tend to write in one of two ways. They either describe action or they write about location. I have written about this before, but I have a new slant to bring. I have the gall to choose one style over the other.
I believe that writing in an active style is the better method. Every time that I read, no matter the subject, author, or genre, if the author starts going into heavy description of a place or a person, I instantly lose interest. Eventually, I reach a point where I'm saying "I get it, this place is dark and gloomy" or "I get it, this man is old and pathetic". In short, stop talking so much and get to the point. I never read a piece that had so much action that I was upset at not knowing where I was.
Action is inherently interesting. Because it is always moving, the audience must follow; otherwise they would be lost. But large amounts of description are like a painting. They are a single, unmoving scene. The only way to get something out of them is to wander and explore them, specifically to get lost because there is nothing to follow. Certainly there are people who enjoy that. Sometimes I enjoy it. The problem I have is that once you have action, stopping that action instantly drops the interest of a piece.
I enjoy a good scene, both reading and writing one. Sometimes we all need to stop, explore, and contemplate. But a single scene is like a picture. A picture, from what I hear, is worth a thousand words. A thousand words is about 2 double-spaced pages in a word document. That isn't very much, but it can describe a picture fairly well. If I had a collection of scenes that were a thousand words each, I think it would be lots of fun, very entertaining, and a great book to read a passage from every night before I go to bed.
If I'm reading a novel, it means I'm reading a story. A story is about things that happen. The scenery only matters when it affects the action. Reading several paragraphs describing the clothes and smell of an old man on a train really don't do anything for me. If the protagonist finds himself shifting uncomfortably or leaving his seat because the old man across from him smells like raw cat feces and rancid veal, then that description matters. But even in such a situation, the description can be given as part of the action. "He left his seat, choking on the smell of raw cat feces and rancid veal coming form the old man's beard." It doesn't matter what kind of coat he was wearing, what color it was, or the state of his shoes. Every relevant description is already given, as well as why it is relevant.
Be active. Be interesting. If you want me to read your stuff, make me want to read your stuff.
I believe that writing in an active style is the better method. Every time that I read, no matter the subject, author, or genre, if the author starts going into heavy description of a place or a person, I instantly lose interest. Eventually, I reach a point where I'm saying "I get it, this place is dark and gloomy" or "I get it, this man is old and pathetic". In short, stop talking so much and get to the point. I never read a piece that had so much action that I was upset at not knowing where I was.
Action is inherently interesting. Because it is always moving, the audience must follow; otherwise they would be lost. But large amounts of description are like a painting. They are a single, unmoving scene. The only way to get something out of them is to wander and explore them, specifically to get lost because there is nothing to follow. Certainly there are people who enjoy that. Sometimes I enjoy it. The problem I have is that once you have action, stopping that action instantly drops the interest of a piece.
I enjoy a good scene, both reading and writing one. Sometimes we all need to stop, explore, and contemplate. But a single scene is like a picture. A picture, from what I hear, is worth a thousand words. A thousand words is about 2 double-spaced pages in a word document. That isn't very much, but it can describe a picture fairly well. If I had a collection of scenes that were a thousand words each, I think it would be lots of fun, very entertaining, and a great book to read a passage from every night before I go to bed.
If I'm reading a novel, it means I'm reading a story. A story is about things that happen. The scenery only matters when it affects the action. Reading several paragraphs describing the clothes and smell of an old man on a train really don't do anything for me. If the protagonist finds himself shifting uncomfortably or leaving his seat because the old man across from him smells like raw cat feces and rancid veal, then that description matters. But even in such a situation, the description can be given as part of the action. "He left his seat, choking on the smell of raw cat feces and rancid veal coming form the old man's beard." It doesn't matter what kind of coat he was wearing, what color it was, or the state of his shoes. Every relevant description is already given, as well as why it is relevant.
Be active. Be interesting. If you want me to read your stuff, make me want to read your stuff.
Why Do I Do It?
Whatever you do with your life, if it comes up in conversation, somebody will ask you why you chose it. It's an inevitable question, so the most useful thing to do would be to find a good answer to it.
I've found that I write comics for all of the classic reasons people will give. I enjoy the process of writing. I love making people laugh. I love creating characters, giving them life, and watching them live. Overall, it's not too impressive or inspirational.
What I found far more interesting than why I write is why I don't do anything else. It's not as though I've never done anything but comics. I've done math, various sciences, linguistics, music, and a whole host of other kinds of writing. I have both ability and interest in all of those subjects, yet I chose comics. Why not any of the others?
Math I am good at. I can add, subtract, divide, multiply in my head and I manipulate numbers for fun. But for every higher level of math I go into, I get less good at it. Math is a field I could not pursue indefinitely. I would reach a point where I couldn't learn what I was expected to and would have to leave. The best I could hope to do is teach high school or freshmen in college (which is the same thing).
Most of the sciences fascinate me. Psychology has been an interest of mine since middle school. I've always wanted to learn how the human mind works. The problem is that I could never do all of the papers in the exact, perfect APA style, nor could I ever remember all of the anatomy and physiology needed, let alone all of the psychology vocabulary.
Chemistry is also interesting, seeing the world in the smallest whole structures and finding out how they interact. Next to chemistry is astronomy, seeing the super massive objects of the universe, what they're made of, and how they act. The problem with the two sciences is dealing with all the math involved. It eventually becomes overwhelming and it eliminates my interest in the subjects. I have found that with the sciences, I will always learn what I can about them, but it is not enough to make a life out of it.
I have had music in my life longer than anything else (even air). I've always been making music and always been listening to it. In high school, when it came time to figure out what I wanted to pursue, my first thought was music. The problem was that I didn't have the drive for it. I didn't go home and practice for hours on end. I didn't push myself to be better; others pushed me toward a goal and I rose to the challenge. I saw my peers, some of whom knew exactly that they were going to pursue music, and I knew that I wouldn't stand a chance compared to them. Music was nice, but not a passion. Writing was my passion.
But why comic writing? Why not novels, short stories, newspapers, or any of the other multitude of writing possibilities? And the reason is that half of them I hate and the other half I suck at. Journalism infuriates me. The style is stale, uninteresting, and often painful to read (and write). Journalism isn't about writing; it's about finding the story. I don't want to go find stories; I want to tell great ones. As much as I enjoy the essay, the short story, and the novel, I find myself not particularly great at them, and I don't have the desire to put forth the effort to reach that level. I also don't have the desire to claw my way through the tribulations of becoming a successful novelist, essayist, or short story writer.
Comic writing fits my style perfectly. My writing, which tends to be short and to the point, allows the pictures to describe the scenery so my words don't have to. It allows me to present my ideas in any form that I desire. I have a constant drive to write them and to get better at writing them. I love learning about them, what makes them work and not work, how a person monetizes them, what has been done and what has not been done yet. This is something I think I will only get better at with age and time and I look forward to finding out.
I've found that I write comics for all of the classic reasons people will give. I enjoy the process of writing. I love making people laugh. I love creating characters, giving them life, and watching them live. Overall, it's not too impressive or inspirational.
What I found far more interesting than why I write is why I don't do anything else. It's not as though I've never done anything but comics. I've done math, various sciences, linguistics, music, and a whole host of other kinds of writing. I have both ability and interest in all of those subjects, yet I chose comics. Why not any of the others?
Math I am good at. I can add, subtract, divide, multiply in my head and I manipulate numbers for fun. But for every higher level of math I go into, I get less good at it. Math is a field I could not pursue indefinitely. I would reach a point where I couldn't learn what I was expected to and would have to leave. The best I could hope to do is teach high school or freshmen in college (which is the same thing).
Most of the sciences fascinate me. Psychology has been an interest of mine since middle school. I've always wanted to learn how the human mind works. The problem is that I could never do all of the papers in the exact, perfect APA style, nor could I ever remember all of the anatomy and physiology needed, let alone all of the psychology vocabulary.
Chemistry is also interesting, seeing the world in the smallest whole structures and finding out how they interact. Next to chemistry is astronomy, seeing the super massive objects of the universe, what they're made of, and how they act. The problem with the two sciences is dealing with all the math involved. It eventually becomes overwhelming and it eliminates my interest in the subjects. I have found that with the sciences, I will always learn what I can about them, but it is not enough to make a life out of it.
I have had music in my life longer than anything else (even air). I've always been making music and always been listening to it. In high school, when it came time to figure out what I wanted to pursue, my first thought was music. The problem was that I didn't have the drive for it. I didn't go home and practice for hours on end. I didn't push myself to be better; others pushed me toward a goal and I rose to the challenge. I saw my peers, some of whom knew exactly that they were going to pursue music, and I knew that I wouldn't stand a chance compared to them. Music was nice, but not a passion. Writing was my passion.
But why comic writing? Why not novels, short stories, newspapers, or any of the other multitude of writing possibilities? And the reason is that half of them I hate and the other half I suck at. Journalism infuriates me. The style is stale, uninteresting, and often painful to read (and write). Journalism isn't about writing; it's about finding the story. I don't want to go find stories; I want to tell great ones. As much as I enjoy the essay, the short story, and the novel, I find myself not particularly great at them, and I don't have the desire to put forth the effort to reach that level. I also don't have the desire to claw my way through the tribulations of becoming a successful novelist, essayist, or short story writer.
Comic writing fits my style perfectly. My writing, which tends to be short and to the point, allows the pictures to describe the scenery so my words don't have to. It allows me to present my ideas in any form that I desire. I have a constant drive to write them and to get better at writing them. I love learning about them, what makes them work and not work, how a person monetizes them, what has been done and what has not been done yet. This is something I think I will only get better at with age and time and I look forward to finding out.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Vocabulary
I would have to say that vocabulary is the single most important tool to a writer, regardless of what they write. It seems pretty obvious that a writer needs words in order to write, but there is much more than that skin-deep observation.
A writer needs to have basic, functional words. There are tens of thousands of words that people with no formal education know. Since everybody knows these, they don't need to be learned, but one should understand that basic words are universal and can explain everything in daily life.
A writer needs to have technical words. If you are writing about a field outside of basic, universal experiences, you will need to be able to use the terms that are part of that field. Are you in an office building? Make sure you call ink "toner". Few people have an answering machine, but everybody has "voice mail". However, if you aren't a technical writer, you will need to make sure that somebody outside of that field will still understand what you're talking about.
A writer needs to have rhythm and melody. If a sentence is awkward to say, the reader will have difficulty understanding it. A sentence that has a beat to it will be easy to read and packs a stronger punch. Similarly, sentences with the same sounds seem smoother.
A writer needs to have excitement. Why should I "draw nice pictures" when I could "craft exquisite beauties"? Why should I "walk really quickly" when I could simply "run", "sprint", or even "dash"? Are my clothes in a "fancy closet" or are they in the "armoire"? If you have descriptive nouns, you will never need adjectives. If you have exciting verbs, you won't need adverbs. You will also have strong writing.
What this all comes down is having a mastery of your language. It's very easy to be vague and it's easy to use a whole lot of boring words to describe complex ideas or images, but it just doesn't have much power to it. When you use the perfect word, you save a lot of energy on your part and you save the audience the same energy. When you put words together so they flow and produce a sound to match your intent, the audience experiences your writing on a whole new level. It makes people not simply read what you wrote but feel it.
When words are all you have to express yourself, make every word count.
A writer needs to have basic, functional words. There are tens of thousands of words that people with no formal education know. Since everybody knows these, they don't need to be learned, but one should understand that basic words are universal and can explain everything in daily life.
A writer needs to have technical words. If you are writing about a field outside of basic, universal experiences, you will need to be able to use the terms that are part of that field. Are you in an office building? Make sure you call ink "toner". Few people have an answering machine, but everybody has "voice mail". However, if you aren't a technical writer, you will need to make sure that somebody outside of that field will still understand what you're talking about.
A writer needs to have rhythm and melody. If a sentence is awkward to say, the reader will have difficulty understanding it. A sentence that has a beat to it will be easy to read and packs a stronger punch. Similarly, sentences with the same sounds seem smoother.
A writer needs to have excitement. Why should I "draw nice pictures" when I could "craft exquisite beauties"? Why should I "walk really quickly" when I could simply "run", "sprint", or even "dash"? Are my clothes in a "fancy closet" or are they in the "armoire"? If you have descriptive nouns, you will never need adjectives. If you have exciting verbs, you won't need adverbs. You will also have strong writing.
What this all comes down is having a mastery of your language. It's very easy to be vague and it's easy to use a whole lot of boring words to describe complex ideas or images, but it just doesn't have much power to it. When you use the perfect word, you save a lot of energy on your part and you save the audience the same energy. When you put words together so they flow and produce a sound to match your intent, the audience experiences your writing on a whole new level. It makes people not simply read what you wrote but feel it.
When words are all you have to express yourself, make every word count.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Comics and Poetry
I am the harshest critic I've ever met when it comes to poetry. It's not because I'm avant-garde or because I think poetry has to be in a very specific form to be acceptable. My main problem is that I don't think people understand that poetry is condensed language.
In a poem, every single line has to be necessary. Every word in that line has to be necessary. They all have to convey meaning. There's no reason to say "I was going to go the store" when I could drastically shorten it up by saying "Walking to market". If you can say something in a simpler way, do it. If you can cut out words or lines or even whole stanzas and still retain the same meaning, cut them out.
The efficiency from poetry lends itself to denseness. Once you start thinking about making very word count, the next step is to make every word count twice. Words can not only say what you want them to say for surface meaning, they can use sounds for melody, words that fit in a theme for subtext, shorter or longer words for rhythm, etc.
Comics are just like poetry. They are efficient, condensed language. A single panel has to show the audience location, action, characters, and emotion just with pictures. And since the pictures need to show so much, the text needs to be just as powerful. Anything that can be cut needs to be cut. Having the right words to say just what you mean helps tremendously to do that.
I am less harsh of a critic of comics (in the sense that I won't go into violent tirades at the sight of bad comics) only because not as many people think they are good at it. However, I am still very critical of it. If a comic has a lot of fluff in image or word or in some other way just doesn't excite me, it is instantly recognizable and I won't continue reading it.
The one nice thing about comics and poetry is that, no matter how much theory that people can make up, no matter how much people will create something and then justify its quality, the fact of the matter is that the work speaks for itself. If the reader doesn't like it, no amount of rhetoric in the world will change that.
In a poem, every single line has to be necessary. Every word in that line has to be necessary. They all have to convey meaning. There's no reason to say "I was going to go the store" when I could drastically shorten it up by saying "Walking to market". If you can say something in a simpler way, do it. If you can cut out words or lines or even whole stanzas and still retain the same meaning, cut them out.
The efficiency from poetry lends itself to denseness. Once you start thinking about making very word count, the next step is to make every word count twice. Words can not only say what you want them to say for surface meaning, they can use sounds for melody, words that fit in a theme for subtext, shorter or longer words for rhythm, etc.
Comics are just like poetry. They are efficient, condensed language. A single panel has to show the audience location, action, characters, and emotion just with pictures. And since the pictures need to show so much, the text needs to be just as powerful. Anything that can be cut needs to be cut. Having the right words to say just what you mean helps tremendously to do that.
I am less harsh of a critic of comics (in the sense that I won't go into violent tirades at the sight of bad comics) only because not as many people think they are good at it. However, I am still very critical of it. If a comic has a lot of fluff in image or word or in some other way just doesn't excite me, it is instantly recognizable and I won't continue reading it.
The one nice thing about comics and poetry is that, no matter how much theory that people can make up, no matter how much people will create something and then justify its quality, the fact of the matter is that the work speaks for itself. If the reader doesn't like it, no amount of rhetoric in the world will change that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
