Random Observations about Cartooning

With as much effort as I'm putting into this graphic novel the thought has occurred to me more than once, "Buy a computer soft ware art program for the finished product." It's not the $600 price tag that deters me, it's the learning curve. Drawing on a tablet just doesn't seem right to this old time ink-slinger. Yet, the colored pencils and colored markers I've been using look terrible. Granted, I'm knocking out talking heads at this point rather hastily simply to give the dialog a mouth from which to emanate. But the Platonic graphic novel in my head looks much better than the way Draft 5 looks on the screen or on hard copy.

I just finished page 33 (66 half pages). The changing background color is working for me....but I've yet to crack the following problems:

1. How do I help readers keep the many characters clear? At least I haven't given them Russian names. I actually haven't given them any names in the text yet. Do I add a "Cast of Characters" page? If so, up front or in an appendix? Or sprinkled throughout the text when they each make their first appearance?
2. Do I need a background? All those photos of the university class room may be pointless since the talking heads take up almost the whole panel. 
3. What will sustain readers' interest? It seems at this point only a very dedicated student of Ecclesiastes would stay focused. Everyone else's eyes will glaze over given the monotonous repetition of panels, layout, and talking heads.
4. Do I cite references, days, name of lecture? I do on the blog where I'm posting the rough draft (click HERE). But readers of the final product will not have access to additional factoids.
5. Is there a way I can leverage 2000 talking heads to my advantage? Rather than trying to break up the monotony with a sly inclusion of field trips, long shots, Power Point and lap top screen images (pretending that 2000 talking heads in a comic book is normal), maybe I can claim the talking heads as my raison d'etre. I'm not interested in changing the name Ecclesiastes University, but maybe I can add a tag line letting readers know I'm including 2000 talking heads on purpose, with artfulness, and with existential intention. Now to come up with such a tag line: 49 University Students Recoil from a Socratic Cattle Prod, Ancient Existentialism Unleashed on One Hundred Fertile Cerebrums, or, Be Glad I Didn't Draw Each Synapse. I'll keep working on it.

The pace of production is slow, slow, slow. But it's a zen-like, pleasant slow. I doodle alone in this big house sans five kids and loving wife. I'm somewhat astonished that I can sit in silence (apart from the melodic noise of our neighbors chickens and horses) for five hours scribbling, inking, scanning, and uploading. If I were under an editor's deadline I'd be in big trouble. But as it is I'm progressing at a pace that fits my work load, energy load, and interest load.

Which raises this important question: is there rhyme or reason to the ebb and flow of one's focus? For the first time since last December, earlier this week I spent two days not working on Ecclesiastes University. I wasn't depressed (I don't think), bored, or passionless about this project. I watched TV, Netflix, read good books, cleaned the house, washed clothes, went to work. But I couldn't muster the oomph to put lines on paper. If I knew what factors deterred me from productive labor I'd know what to avoid. 

That facial expression book I bought a while back is helpful. As are the reference photos I've been taking of hands, body language, etc. I don't draw from nothing; I use reference materials. 

I perused a collection of a reprinted newspaper comic strip called Foxtrot. It's consistently funny in 4 black and white panels. It's hard for me to be objective about my humor since my humor-o-meter is distracted with the other meters against which I am constantly measuring myself: philosophy, character development, drawing facial expressions, and many more. My First Readers are giving consistent feedback that my book is not funny and I believe them. It's in my mind to rework the dialog once I complete Draft Five: inserting jokes into a narrative flow will be easier than adjusting the narrative flow around the jokes. Or so I tell myself.

Detail, page 29

I cut and pasted friend Mark's old caricature here which is illustrative of the style of drawing I anticipate using in the final draft. It also demonstrates why I'm so unhappy with the rough cartoons I'm using in Draft Five. I'm working with drawings that are only weak approximations of what I envision the finished product to look like. But even with shaded caricatures like this I'm not sure good drawings are enough to sustain readers' attention. I'm zealous to write dialog that is sterling in its own right, the addition of well crafted drawings only adding value. 

No wonder my lawn gets mowed so infrequently...I'm obsessed with this project.

Ten Observations about Creativity and Distraction

Before launching a new blog where I'm posting the first rough draft to go public I wondered how that new endeavor might affect my creativity. Here's what I've learned.

1.  A significant portion of my brain is now hooked on feedback. Rather than blissfully creating with nary a care, I spend a considerable amount of time hoping for, anticipating, and wishing for feedback.

2.  Once I get that welcome feedback I then spend considerable time answering. Both wishing for and responding to feedback takes away from drawing.

3.  I also spend time integrating that feedback into the pages I've completed. That is, I'm now editing those first pages incorporating the great suggestions First Readers have offered. This too takes away time from penciling, inking, and posting that public rough draft.

4.  While I miss time away from drawing I must admit my ADD prone brain doesn't mind juggling all these disparate tasks. Part of the message of Ecclesiastes is that variety is the spice of life and engaging with the public over these doodles certainly adds variety.

5.  Knowing that I've now got followers on that other blog (I think about 10 of the 30 I invited) I feel additional motivation to keep on top of my self imposed posting schedule. I'm aiming for two posts per week. I'd like to do more but turning my latest rough draft into a printable rough draft is still agonizingly slow. I'm just trying to cram too much data (pencil layouts, character development, more tweaking of the dialog, inking, coloring) through too small a pipe (my brain).

6.  Posting this very rough draft feeds my sub personalities which are already prone to shame, embarrassment, and discouragement. The work in progress is a fool's errand. Each of the ingredients (humor, layout, facial expressions, section divisions, dialog, etc) are sub par and painful to read. Thus, a considerable amount of psychic time is spent fighting those self critical parts and pushing through the wall of resistance to accomplish the task at hand--illustrate the whole book of Ecclesiastes.

7.  I'm "forced" to continually dangle in front of my imagination the Platonic arch-type of a polished, finished, and honed final product. In my mind it "works." It's witty. It's unique. It's helpful. It's drawn to perfection. Readers get it. Theologians, philosophers, and depressed existentialists welcome it. This fantasy is shamed by reality--what I've posted so far falls way short of this ideal. It looks to me garish, confusing, halting, insipid, and the work of a deranged mind. Oh well. There is a perfect graphic novel based on Ecclesiastes in essence somewhere in the universe and my efforts will bring it into existence.

8.  I frame this psychic battle in positive terms. Moderating the internal debate builds character, strengthens synapses, and to be frank, is fun. Like the gambler whose dopamine neurotransmitters flow like Niagara when tossing dice, anticipating the finished product keeps my brain chemicals in a nearly constant state of mental bliss.

9.  Posting the rough draft reveals many new problems to be solved. How do I conquer the tedium of boring talking heads? How do I help readers distinguish one character from another? How do I color the thing so it looks pleasing and not so childish? How do I elevate the humor? Will the overall effect of student reactions bring clarity to readers' minds about matters of faith, existentialism, and suffering? When do I invite more First Readers? Should I invite more First Readers? These challenges distract me from the drawing task at hand but they are a pleasant distraction.

10.  Inviting a tiny slice of the public to evaluate these pages forces me to define success. If writing like Tina Fey is my goal, I've failed. If drawing like Herge is my goal, I've failed. If musing like Kierkegaard, Pascal, Dostoevsky is my goal, I've failed. If creating a work that goes viral is my goal, I've failed. If creating scenes, settings, and camera angles like Steven Spielberg is my goal, I've failed. If winning a Pulitzer like Art Spiegelman is my goal, I've failed. But if marshaling and merging dozens of tasks from my fevered brain to create a hefty existential comic book and having fun while doing so is my goal, I'm king of the hill, a gold medal winner, I get the yellow jersey, Heisman trophy, and lifetime membership in the hall of fame.

The Joy of Feedback

NOTE: Now that rough pages are being posted for public review elsewhere (click HERE) I will continue to use this blog to muse about the process. Why keep these comments separate from the other blog? I want readers of that other blog to put their energy into critique of the product, not get blogged down in the process. This is the place to get blogged down in the process!


Professional graphic novels involve specialists:


writers
editors
pencilers
inkers
letterers
layout
camera angle
colorists
humorists
casting
dialog coaches
costume
cover art
setting
props
continuity
philosophy/theology
scanning/uploading 
and more.


Since I'm an amateur doing each of these tasks I'm setting myself up for harsh criticism. Pick any one of those tasks and compare my work to the work of pros and I'm toast. What will keep me optimistic even in the face of likely negative feedback? 


1.  my task-cluttered brain overlooks a zillion glaring mistakes, omissions, and gaffs. Clear eyed critique from others will help me see those mistakes and suggest improvements.


2.  The computer that beat Garry Kasparov at chess could not play backgammon. The computer that beat the world backgammon champ could not play chess. The human brain loses chess and backgammon when pitted against specialized computers. However, no computer can multitask like a human. Not only can we play chess and backgammon simultaneously, we can sing, cook, love, and do a zillion other things machines can't. Thus, when my skills as writer, inker,  etc. are compared to pros I know I fall short. But ask any random person to complete all of the above tasks and odds are they'd not come up with 428 pages of stuff. 


3. I feign no illusion of greatness. What I lack in quality I make up for in quantity. While I'd rather come up with 10 pages of brilliance rather than 400+ pages of piffle, I'm content to crank out what I crank out. Mediocre is better than nothing.


4.  Woody Guthrie has been quoted, "I write 1000 songs in the hopes that one or two of them will be good ones." I concur. I crank out volumes of stuff in hopes that one or two items may have merit on the scale of Washington's state song by Guthrie, "Roll On Columbia."


5. Einstein is credited with the following quote, “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” One can either reinforce a negative self image by judging one's self by what they can't do (write like CS Lewis, draw like Albrecht Durer, beat Deep Blue at chess), or take comfort in what they can do (a bunch of things at once).

6.  My success won't be measured in book sales but the bliss of creating. So by that criteria I've been successful for a long time. 

So with these thoughts in mind bring on the critique, I'm ready!