In Einstein's theory of relativity, we learn that energy is equivalent to mass. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, or E=mc^2. I have seen that equation most of my life. It's probably the most famous equation out there. But I never gave it much thought. I always thought of it the way I would think of buying something at the grocery store. 1 candy bar = 1 dollar. The two things are completely different, but you can exchange one for another.
As I got older, I learned more about atomic theory. The smallest unit of matter is the atom, named from the Greek word atomos, meaning "that which cannot be divided." Well, actually the atom can be split. There are three subatomic particles that make up atoms, but that's it. Nope, I was wrong again. Subatomic particles are comprised of even smaller particles which are made of energy.
Wait, what? Matter is actually made out of energy? That means that matter and energy are not just equal, they're identicle! It's not like saying that a product is equal to money. It's saying that a foot is made up of 12 inches. They're the same thing.
Suffice it to say that it rocked at least part of my world to come to this realization. And yet, matter and energy aren't exactly the same. There is something different about matter. It's more than merely condensed energy. It does things that energy can't do, has properties that raw energy doesn't have. Somehow, matter is greater than the sum of its parts.
In my last blog, I mentioned how the artwork of comics is like condensed words. It can express pages of exposition into a mere panel on a page. And yet, I think that this is not quite accurate. I think that pictures are to words what matter is to energy. They may be the same thing in principle, and yet the denser structure is somehow greater.
There exist things in this world that can only be expressed with words that do not exist. A particular look on a person's face, a feeling in the body, a complicated emotion based on a complex set of circumstances (such as why we have to steal the German word schadenfreude). A comic can express all of these ideas perfectly and succinctly. The contours of a face that shows the undescribable emotion says more than words ever could.
There are certain stories that cannot be told. Sometimes an experience is awkward or strange in a way that is felt and not thought about. We are incapable of sharing the feeling, so all we can do is tell the story and end it with, "you had to be there." The you-had-to-be-there story is the bane of all storytelling. Well, almost all. With comics, we can create the world, show the situation, and make the reader feel the story instead of thinking about it. Only comics can tell the you-had-to-be-there story because you actually are there.
Some people may see comics as a bastardization of the written word. I consider it an evolution of it. Only through this medium can we do all the things that every other medium of writing is incapable of.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Visual Writing
Effective writing is generally visual writing. When you use your words to paint a picture, the audience can see what you mean. Being able to vividly describe a location, a person, or a sequence of action will allow the reader to better-understand what is happening. It allows them to enter your world.
When I read a good piece of writing, an image forms in my mind. I can see everything as though it was a picture. When I read a good novel, there reaches a point where I stop reading the words and a movie starts playing, right behind my eyes. Somehow, I am reading, turning the page, interpreting all of the words, and yet it is a moving picture to me.
This experience with novels has existed for as long as I can remember. I believe that it is and has always been a significant force in my own writing. All of my stories exist in my head. These stories are not words; they're movies. They have people, scenery, props, and everything else. My stories play through my head, right behind my eyes. When I write, I am logging the action of the movie. When people are talking, I'm transcribing the conversation. When people are driving a car or walking down the street or reaching for a flower, I am writing it as simply and concisely as I can. If I take too long, the movie will keep going and I'll miss something, which makes for a sub-par story.
My style of writing has always been described as concise and effective. I don't have a problem with it, to be honest. The only problem I have is that I know I can't paint a picture like others seem to. This is why I love writing for comics. I'm having somebody else paint the picture for me. My writing can remain the same, even become more concise, since no words need to be used to show emotion, action, or scenery.
It reminds me of the saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words." Only recently have I ralized the truth of it. When you take 1,000 words and compress them into the smallest space, you get a picture, which is the densest form that words can take.
When I read a good piece of writing, an image forms in my mind. I can see everything as though it was a picture. When I read a good novel, there reaches a point where I stop reading the words and a movie starts playing, right behind my eyes. Somehow, I am reading, turning the page, interpreting all of the words, and yet it is a moving picture to me.
This experience with novels has existed for as long as I can remember. I believe that it is and has always been a significant force in my own writing. All of my stories exist in my head. These stories are not words; they're movies. They have people, scenery, props, and everything else. My stories play through my head, right behind my eyes. When I write, I am logging the action of the movie. When people are talking, I'm transcribing the conversation. When people are driving a car or walking down the street or reaching for a flower, I am writing it as simply and concisely as I can. If I take too long, the movie will keep going and I'll miss something, which makes for a sub-par story.
My style of writing has always been described as concise and effective. I don't have a problem with it, to be honest. The only problem I have is that I know I can't paint a picture like others seem to. This is why I love writing for comics. I'm having somebody else paint the picture for me. My writing can remain the same, even become more concise, since no words need to be used to show emotion, action, or scenery.
It reminds me of the saying, "a picture is worth a thousand words." Only recently have I ralized the truth of it. When you take 1,000 words and compress them into the smallest space, you get a picture, which is the densest form that words can take.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Writing What You Disagree With
It is generally accepted that every character is an extension of its author. It sounds good, but I wonder how a person can create characters with very different personalities and beliefs.
From my own experience, I've found that I can write conflicting characters because I can take both sides of the argument. Sometimes, however, I come across an argument that I can only take one side of. What do you do when you can't take both sides of the argument? Does that mean that all of your characters agree on this one thing? That doesn't sound conducive to good writing.
The best answer I've found is to get out of your head. Instead of trying to win the argument, your characters have to have the argument. Even if you yourself think the argument itself is so stupid that it shouldn't even be made, other people disagree. If you want your characters to be realistic, they at least need to talk like real people do. They need to make the arguments that don't make sense and believe them. They need to say the things that sicken you and do it with conviction.
I think that this is how you truly make characters, to know them. While you can create a great deal by borrowing from your own thoughts and beliefs, your Dramatis Personae will only be so large and will eventually be stunted because of it.
From my own experience, I've found that I can write conflicting characters because I can take both sides of the argument. Sometimes, however, I come across an argument that I can only take one side of. What do you do when you can't take both sides of the argument? Does that mean that all of your characters agree on this one thing? That doesn't sound conducive to good writing.
The best answer I've found is to get out of your head. Instead of trying to win the argument, your characters have to have the argument. Even if you yourself think the argument itself is so stupid that it shouldn't even be made, other people disagree. If you want your characters to be realistic, they at least need to talk like real people do. They need to make the arguments that don't make sense and believe them. They need to say the things that sicken you and do it with conviction.
I think that this is how you truly make characters, to know them. While you can create a great deal by borrowing from your own thoughts and beliefs, your Dramatis Personae will only be so large and will eventually be stunted because of it.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
A Good Reader
I've written in the past that it is crucial to find a good reader for your writing. What I have not written is what makes a good reader. So let's do that now.
A good reader is useful and constructive. How they do that is relative. A good reader blends with you. What they say makes sense and it helps you write better works. However, since every writer is unique, the qualities that make a good reader depend on you. There are a few pieces of advice that are universal among good readers, so let me share those first.
Rule #1: Do not utter the cursed phrase. "It was well-written." This is the most offensive thing I have ever heard when people read my writing. It is worse than "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" because at least those tell me that it had a noticeable effect. Telling a writer that their work was well-written is like eating a meal and telling a cook that they didn't burn down the kitchen. It may be true, but it is thoroughly useless. (Sometimes, it is a compliment to say that the word choice and sentence structure is particularly delightful to read, but even still it needs to be emphasized that you are not saying it is well-written as a cliche.)
The purpose of rule #1, aside from not insulting the writer, is to help you as a reader be constructive and useful. Once you are not allowed to say anything safe and neutral, you now have to pay attention, which leads to the next main point.
Read the piece. It shouldn't need to be said, but it does. You need to read the piece so you have something to say. Read it one time and write down all of your first impressions (or tell them to the author). Then, if you can, read it again, even more closely. I recommend multiple readings for two reasons. One is that the audience will only read something they don't like once. That means that the impressions from the first-time reading need to have a certain effect. They need to be good enough to make the audience either read the piece again or like it the first time through. However, nobody gets the entirety of a piece with just one reading, so you need to read something multiple times to make sure that your first impressions aren't inaccurate.
When you finally do talk to the author, be honest. If you lie, you hurt everybody. If a particular sentence was terrible, say so. If five pages are terrible, say so. If an idea or a paragraph has confusing wording, say that you were confused and weren't sure what was going on. If something sounds unbelievable or just plain wrong, then again you have to say it. However, remember that criticism is not necessarily negative. If a character has a great line, point it out. If something made you laugh, share it. If you loved a sentence more than anything else in the piece, tell the author, "don't you dare change this sentence."
Although you should be honest, the way you say it is a whole other story. Aside from finding somebody who says something more than "I liked it", the hardest part of finding a good reader is finding somebody who says things in just the right way. Writers have different preferences in criticism. Some cannot handle anything negative. For these people, you have to be critical without being negative. Phrases like, "I think I would like it more if you. . ." and "What would you think if. . ." are going to be your bread and butter. Other people want to be torn apart. You may have to try to be vicious to appease these people. They're rare, though, so don't worry about it. Most people are somewhere between these extremes (though a majority are more toward the former).
What I've been talking about so far is being useful. It's saying things that have value and meaning. The next step is being constructive, helping to make the writing better for the next draft. What that comes down to is application. When a reader says, "I really didn't like this passage; it sounds awkward", the next thing they should say is, "Try saying it this way." This is usually focused on negative criticisms, which makes sense. If there's a problem, it should be fixed. But positive things can also be constructive. For example, "I loved the comparison of the pilot as a watermelon seed. I want to see that comparison expanded throughout the story."
I have two tests that I use to see if I will like somebody as a reader. The first test is if I want to continue working on my piece after a session. If the talk and advice is so good that I want to immediately start working on the next draft, I know I have a good fit. The other test is if they catch the sentences I don't like. I don't purposely put in bad sentences to catch my readers, but I do occasionally come by a passage that I just can't make sound right. I end up doing the best I can and moving on. My best readers point out those spots (without any help) ten times out of ten.
If you can learn what style of criticism you respond best to, you will be able to find a good reader for you. If you can figure out what a writer does and doesn't respond well to, you can be a good reader for anyone.
A good reader is useful and constructive. How they do that is relative. A good reader blends with you. What they say makes sense and it helps you write better works. However, since every writer is unique, the qualities that make a good reader depend on you. There are a few pieces of advice that are universal among good readers, so let me share those first.
Rule #1: Do not utter the cursed phrase. "It was well-written." This is the most offensive thing I have ever heard when people read my writing. It is worse than "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" because at least those tell me that it had a noticeable effect. Telling a writer that their work was well-written is like eating a meal and telling a cook that they didn't burn down the kitchen. It may be true, but it is thoroughly useless. (Sometimes, it is a compliment to say that the word choice and sentence structure is particularly delightful to read, but even still it needs to be emphasized that you are not saying it is well-written as a cliche.)
The purpose of rule #1, aside from not insulting the writer, is to help you as a reader be constructive and useful. Once you are not allowed to say anything safe and neutral, you now have to pay attention, which leads to the next main point.
Read the piece. It shouldn't need to be said, but it does. You need to read the piece so you have something to say. Read it one time and write down all of your first impressions (or tell them to the author). Then, if you can, read it again, even more closely. I recommend multiple readings for two reasons. One is that the audience will only read something they don't like once. That means that the impressions from the first-time reading need to have a certain effect. They need to be good enough to make the audience either read the piece again or like it the first time through. However, nobody gets the entirety of a piece with just one reading, so you need to read something multiple times to make sure that your first impressions aren't inaccurate.
When you finally do talk to the author, be honest. If you lie, you hurt everybody. If a particular sentence was terrible, say so. If five pages are terrible, say so. If an idea or a paragraph has confusing wording, say that you were confused and weren't sure what was going on. If something sounds unbelievable or just plain wrong, then again you have to say it. However, remember that criticism is not necessarily negative. If a character has a great line, point it out. If something made you laugh, share it. If you loved a sentence more than anything else in the piece, tell the author, "don't you dare change this sentence."
Although you should be honest, the way you say it is a whole other story. Aside from finding somebody who says something more than "I liked it", the hardest part of finding a good reader is finding somebody who says things in just the right way. Writers have different preferences in criticism. Some cannot handle anything negative. For these people, you have to be critical without being negative. Phrases like, "I think I would like it more if you. . ." and "What would you think if. . ." are going to be your bread and butter. Other people want to be torn apart. You may have to try to be vicious to appease these people. They're rare, though, so don't worry about it. Most people are somewhere between these extremes (though a majority are more toward the former).
What I've been talking about so far is being useful. It's saying things that have value and meaning. The next step is being constructive, helping to make the writing better for the next draft. What that comes down to is application. When a reader says, "I really didn't like this passage; it sounds awkward", the next thing they should say is, "Try saying it this way." This is usually focused on negative criticisms, which makes sense. If there's a problem, it should be fixed. But positive things can also be constructive. For example, "I loved the comparison of the pilot as a watermelon seed. I want to see that comparison expanded throughout the story."
I have two tests that I use to see if I will like somebody as a reader. The first test is if I want to continue working on my piece after a session. If the talk and advice is so good that I want to immediately start working on the next draft, I know I have a good fit. The other test is if they catch the sentences I don't like. I don't purposely put in bad sentences to catch my readers, but I do occasionally come by a passage that I just can't make sound right. I end up doing the best I can and moving on. My best readers point out those spots (without any help) ten times out of ten.
If you can learn what style of criticism you respond best to, you will be able to find a good reader for you. If you can figure out what a writer does and doesn't respond well to, you can be a good reader for anyone.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Genre and Medium
I think the most frustrating thing about telling people I write comics is that people don't know what comics are. The only experience most of us have is either the strips in the newspaper or the superheroes at the newsstand. Comics have to be either short and funny, long and action-packed, or weird and Japanese.
The confusion comes from one simple misunderstanding. Comics are a medium, not a genre. A medium is simply a manner of communication. A genre is a style of communication. Media of writing include: comics, novels, short stories, essays, creative nonfiction, plays, etc. Genres include: comedy, drama, action, fantasy, science fiction, slice of life, etc.
Any given medium can support any given genre. Many combinations very rarely occur. Sometimes it's for good reason, though. An action play is probably too expensive, if even possible. A slice of life novel could be a marathon of dullness. However, nothing is certain, especially with somebody who is determined. I would challenge any writer to, just as an exercise, try to come up with the most ludicrous combination of genre and medium and try to make it work.
The confusion comes from one simple misunderstanding. Comics are a medium, not a genre. A medium is simply a manner of communication. A genre is a style of communication. Media of writing include: comics, novels, short stories, essays, creative nonfiction, plays, etc. Genres include: comedy, drama, action, fantasy, science fiction, slice of life, etc.
Any given medium can support any given genre. Many combinations very rarely occur. Sometimes it's for good reason, though. An action play is probably too expensive, if even possible. A slice of life novel could be a marathon of dullness. However, nothing is certain, especially with somebody who is determined. I would challenge any writer to, just as an exercise, try to come up with the most ludicrous combination of genre and medium and try to make it work.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Always Being 'On'
I think there is a great misconception with people who make regular content (comics, blogs, podcasts, etc.). You should always be 'on'. Every update needs to be great. If you are doing comedy, you need to have something funny. If you are doing drama, you need to have something interesting, even intriguing.
It's ironic because as your fans grow to know you and get accustomed to you, they will be more forgiving about an update not blowing them away. The problem with this kind of thinking, though, is that every update might be somebody's first experience with you. If you have a bad joke on your current edition, people may not give you a second chance (people can be jerks like that). If you are building up a story toward a major plot point or a super funny joke, you better make sure that there are still good parts in every update. People are only so patient (again, they're jerks).
I don't mean to sound like an imposing jerk. I am more giving fair warning. I know it's impossible to make every update your best one, and I know that sometimes a joke just doesn't work as well as we'd like. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be teases and we should always try to make the audience want to come back for an update, new and old members alike.
It's ironic because as your fans grow to know you and get accustomed to you, they will be more forgiving about an update not blowing them away. The problem with this kind of thinking, though, is that every update might be somebody's first experience with you. If you have a bad joke on your current edition, people may not give you a second chance (people can be jerks like that). If you are building up a story toward a major plot point or a super funny joke, you better make sure that there are still good parts in every update. People are only so patient (again, they're jerks).
I don't mean to sound like an imposing jerk. I am more giving fair warning. I know it's impossible to make every update your best one, and I know that sometimes a joke just doesn't work as well as we'd like. I'm just saying that we shouldn't be teases and we should always try to make the audience want to come back for an update, new and old members alike.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
I Have Nothing to Write
It seems that all writers at some point have the problem of not having something to write. Though it seems a simple enough problem, there is actually much to say on the subject.
If you're having this problem, the first thing you need to know is why you have nothing to write. It could be a simple case of writer's block. The best explanation of writer's block I've heard is that your mind is being hypernegative. It's not that you don't come up with ideas, but that you shoot all of them down, believing they are no good. If this is your problem, the best cure is to put yourself in a state of boredom. Do something repetitive and mind-numbing. Sometimes your job covers that perfectly. Sometimes it's a matter of going outside and staring at clouds. Or maybe if you are lying in bed and you're in that state between being awake and going to sleep (we actually start to dream before we fall unconscious). Any of these tasks promote daydreaming (or regular dreaming), which leads to much thought generation. It also tends to be a frame of mind free of negativity, where you can explore ideas without worrying about "good" and "bad". If you find an idea that you really like or that you really want to explore, keep on it. Just write it down so you don't forget. Now you have something to write and you're writing.
Maybe you don't have writer's block. Maybe you're just in a dry spell. Where writer's block is "I can't think of anything good," dry spells are "I can't think of anything." Dry spells are frustrating because your conscious mind has nothing and your unconscious mind isn't telling you what it's doing. But despite that, the number one thing to do is have faith. Even if your mind doesn't have any water it's always drilling for a new source. One day, you will have an idea, which is usually followed by several more and then you will barely be able to get everything down (do try to, though). If you are lacking in faith, the methods for dealing with writer's block are still very effective in trying to speed up the process.
A lot of writers think they don't have anything to say. Usually, the more accurate problem is that they have nothing they want to say. Writers tend to be very personal and very private. I think that's what drives us to write. It's like communicating with people without having to actually be around other people. Even still, writing is never easy. Sometimes we have to write about the things that hurt, the painful moments, the events that scarred us for life. Sometimes we have to say the stuff that we swore we would never tell another soul. Sometimes we have to write the things that might make your family disown you. Interestingly enough, when you write these things, you might find out that people won't hate you and won't judge you. If you write about real reality, the nitty gritty truth, people will respect your courage and honesty. The only people who could be offended by the truth are the people who can't handle it. And, frankly, you don't need those people.
Some people will never feel comfortable with the secrets they keep. Though I will always recommend telling them, I can understand that some things you may just refuse. I know that I have trust issues, so I never talk about myself. And yet, I still have found much to write about. I tend to write to explore ideas. I'll start with a premise like, "what would happen if I couldn't use my legs", then I would write the story starting with me waking up in the hospital without my legs. There is a lot to consider with such a scenario. How would I get around? What hobbies could I no longer do? How different is the world when you're always sitting down? Would I look at my new life with sorrow or would I crack jokes about it? Would I even think my life was worth living anymore? This is a very serious subject, which means very serious questions need to be asked and answered. You can also choose to write comedy in the same way, though. "What would happen if I could press a button that casted magic, but I couldn't choose what spells it did?" There are infinite amounts of wacky situations that could come from it, including a story of trying to resist the temptation to press the button, hoping for the magical jackpot to occur.
If you have nothing to write, then stop writing and start finding things to write. If you have nothing you want to write, that's your problem and you either need to get over it or hang up your pen forever. If you're a writer, I advise against that last part. If you're not a writer, I still advise against it.
If you're having this problem, the first thing you need to know is why you have nothing to write. It could be a simple case of writer's block. The best explanation of writer's block I've heard is that your mind is being hypernegative. It's not that you don't come up with ideas, but that you shoot all of them down, believing they are no good. If this is your problem, the best cure is to put yourself in a state of boredom. Do something repetitive and mind-numbing. Sometimes your job covers that perfectly. Sometimes it's a matter of going outside and staring at clouds. Or maybe if you are lying in bed and you're in that state between being awake and going to sleep (we actually start to dream before we fall unconscious). Any of these tasks promote daydreaming (or regular dreaming), which leads to much thought generation. It also tends to be a frame of mind free of negativity, where you can explore ideas without worrying about "good" and "bad". If you find an idea that you really like or that you really want to explore, keep on it. Just write it down so you don't forget. Now you have something to write and you're writing.
Maybe you don't have writer's block. Maybe you're just in a dry spell. Where writer's block is "I can't think of anything good," dry spells are "I can't think of anything." Dry spells are frustrating because your conscious mind has nothing and your unconscious mind isn't telling you what it's doing. But despite that, the number one thing to do is have faith. Even if your mind doesn't have any water it's always drilling for a new source. One day, you will have an idea, which is usually followed by several more and then you will barely be able to get everything down (do try to, though). If you are lacking in faith, the methods for dealing with writer's block are still very effective in trying to speed up the process.
A lot of writers think they don't have anything to say. Usually, the more accurate problem is that they have nothing they want to say. Writers tend to be very personal and very private. I think that's what drives us to write. It's like communicating with people without having to actually be around other people. Even still, writing is never easy. Sometimes we have to write about the things that hurt, the painful moments, the events that scarred us for life. Sometimes we have to say the stuff that we swore we would never tell another soul. Sometimes we have to write the things that might make your family disown you. Interestingly enough, when you write these things, you might find out that people won't hate you and won't judge you. If you write about real reality, the nitty gritty truth, people will respect your courage and honesty. The only people who could be offended by the truth are the people who can't handle it. And, frankly, you don't need those people.
Some people will never feel comfortable with the secrets they keep. Though I will always recommend telling them, I can understand that some things you may just refuse. I know that I have trust issues, so I never talk about myself. And yet, I still have found much to write about. I tend to write to explore ideas. I'll start with a premise like, "what would happen if I couldn't use my legs", then I would write the story starting with me waking up in the hospital without my legs. There is a lot to consider with such a scenario. How would I get around? What hobbies could I no longer do? How different is the world when you're always sitting down? Would I look at my new life with sorrow or would I crack jokes about it? Would I even think my life was worth living anymore? This is a very serious subject, which means very serious questions need to be asked and answered. You can also choose to write comedy in the same way, though. "What would happen if I could press a button that casted magic, but I couldn't choose what spells it did?" There are infinite amounts of wacky situations that could come from it, including a story of trying to resist the temptation to press the button, hoping for the magical jackpot to occur.
If you have nothing to write, then stop writing and start finding things to write. If you have nothing you want to write, that's your problem and you either need to get over it or hang up your pen forever. If you're a writer, I advise against that last part. If you're not a writer, I still advise against it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
