Some Thoughts on Graphic Novels
A friend on fb asked me to join in on a question asked by the writer, Ishta Mercurio. She said there:
“what makes a particular graphic novel stand out to you against other graphic novels? What is it about El Deafo and Roller Girl that caught the attention of a Newbery jury when Amulet didn't? I'm not trying to dismiss any book, I just honestly don't understand this format as well as I do novels and picture books, so I'm trying to address my ignorance about how graphic novels work. I really don't "get" them yet.”
I started to give my views on this, then it got a bit long, so I'm posting it here instead. Now, 'let me be clear' as they say, just because I’m a pro comic book writer I’m not saying I’m right about this and know everything. No one knows everything, of course. These are just my views…
Let me start by saying that Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics is a great book indeed, as several folk there said, and i was pleased that he bought our AX: alternative manga collection from me when i went to the big San Diego con, since i respect his work. But i dont think its much about HOW to do comics. It certainly can help us understand what they are, which may well feed into how we do them.
A friend on fb asked me to join in on a question asked by the writer, Ishta Mercurio. She said there:
“what makes a particular graphic novel stand out to you against other graphic novels? What is it about El Deafo and Roller Girl that caught the attention of a Newbery jury when Amulet didn't? I'm not trying to dismiss any book, I just honestly don't understand this format as well as I do novels and picture books, so I'm trying to address my ignorance about how graphic novels work. I really don't "get" them yet.”
I started to give my views on this, then it got a bit long, so I'm posting it here instead. Now, 'let me be clear' as they say, just because I’m a pro comic book writer I’m not saying I’m right about this and know everything. No one knows everything, of course. These are just my views…
Let me start by saying that Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics is a great book indeed, as several folk there said, and i was pleased that he bought our AX: alternative manga collection from me when i went to the big San Diego con, since i respect his work. But i dont think its much about HOW to do comics. It certainly can help us understand what they are, which may well feed into how we do them.
As to the specific things Ishta mentioned:
“I’m trying to address my ignorance about how graphic novels work. I really don't "get" them yet.”
Thanks for trying! Graphic novels are going through what is, possibly, their best ever era - right now! Judged on certain criteria anyway such as range of subjects, recognition among place of established culture, quality of printing and the range of people creating them (especially the increase in female and non white creators), etc. But on one key aspect they are not yet anywhere near enough - sales. We really need intelligent adults readers to buy and enjoy more graphic novels, or otherwise, since we are presently in a horrible capitalist system, the renaissance in comics will wither from lack of money… so, we need you!
One of the key problems that folk like me, who love comics have is that we forget they are a bit confusing to people who dont have the habit. Much in the same way that we forget that OUR language is not immediately easy to someone from another country. But the solution is simple though it takes time: we learn how to read them, step by step and become fluent at it. That starts with the absolute basic ‘grammar’ of comics, such as reading from left to right (or vice versa in Japan, where i live), or that the first person to speak in a panel/frame will normally be the speech balloon at the top left area. It also involves rather complex cognitive aspects of taking in the text and images as a whole, then perhaps focusing on one of them, then going back to taking in the whole, etc.
“what marks a graphic novel as a stand-out, vs one that's just okay.”
A large amount to say about just that already, but to keep it short: its the wrong question. In my opinion the best selling GN, that set, say 100,000 are often not very interesting, and the ‘stand out’ ones are often made my self publishers that sell only 100s of copies. So the wider economic situation has a lot to say here about what comics are known, what comics are rated highly, etc. The actual quality of the book is quite often not a good guide as to how much it will sell, what awards it will win, how much its loved, etc.
There is also the issue of the taste of the reader, their personality. Also of the wider sociological context that has shaped them. Person X loves the action of superhero books, but person Y thinks they are cliched rubbish. Person Y things the 4 wordless pages in a book are beautiful, but person X thinks its a silly waste of pages. So it makes it very tough for us to say THAT book is stand out, THIS book is ok, in a way that will apply across most readers. In my own books its common for some aspect in the story to be loved by one reader and hated by the next reader.
“I’m trying to address my ignorance about how graphic novels work. I really don't "get" them yet.”
Thanks for trying! Graphic novels are going through what is, possibly, their best ever era - right now! Judged on certain criteria anyway such as range of subjects, recognition among place of established culture, quality of printing and the range of people creating them (especially the increase in female and non white creators), etc. But on one key aspect they are not yet anywhere near enough - sales. We really need intelligent adults readers to buy and enjoy more graphic novels, or otherwise, since we are presently in a horrible capitalist system, the renaissance in comics will wither from lack of money… so, we need you!
One of the key problems that folk like me, who love comics have is that we forget they are a bit confusing to people who dont have the habit. Much in the same way that we forget that OUR language is not immediately easy to someone from another country. But the solution is simple though it takes time: we learn how to read them, step by step and become fluent at it. That starts with the absolute basic ‘grammar’ of comics, such as reading from left to right (or vice versa in Japan, where i live), or that the first person to speak in a panel/frame will normally be the speech balloon at the top left area. It also involves rather complex cognitive aspects of taking in the text and images as a whole, then perhaps focusing on one of them, then going back to taking in the whole, etc.
“what marks a graphic novel as a stand-out, vs one that's just okay.”
A large amount to say about just that already, but to keep it short: its the wrong question. In my opinion the best selling GN, that set, say 100,000 are often not very interesting, and the ‘stand out’ ones are often made my self publishers that sell only 100s of copies. So the wider economic situation has a lot to say here about what comics are known, what comics are rated highly, etc. The actual quality of the book is quite often not a good guide as to how much it will sell, what awards it will win, how much its loved, etc.
There is also the issue of the taste of the reader, their personality. Also of the wider sociological context that has shaped them. Person X loves the action of superhero books, but person Y thinks they are cliched rubbish. Person Y things the 4 wordless pages in a book are beautiful, but person X thinks its a silly waste of pages. So it makes it very tough for us to say THAT book is stand out, THIS book is ok, in a way that will apply across most readers. In my own books its common for some aspect in the story to be loved by one reader and hated by the next reader.
“What is it about El Deafo and Roller Girl that caught the attention of a Newbery jury when Amulet didn’t?”
I have not read either. But I just had a quick look at El Deafo and I would guess that its attractive points that may have helped it with the Newbery jury include: its mixes ‘serious’ autobiography with some fantasy stuff of cute rabbit appearance and some superpowers, which often seems to be a popular way to do it. The subject includes hearing loss and that fits in well with what has become a whole genre or subgenre of graphic novels over the last 10 years especially - someone dealing with a tough physical or mental health condition. That type of books is attracting a lot of focus now (which is largely a good thing, as it indicates how comics are seen as being capable of handling serious topics well, in a dignified manner, which is wonderful. But it's not completely positive, as it means that other good books on different topics are sometimes overlooked). Lastly, the publisher, Abrams, have good distribution and promotion system which helps the sales of the book and to get it presented before such prizes and awards. A lot of good books get neglected because of a lack of distribution and promotion and contacts. None of that is meant to downplay the specific book El Deafo. As i say I have not read it so cant comment on it in detail. It looks good to me, maybe i'll order it.
I also noticed a few interesting comments by other folk there, such as one that talked about:
“a deeply personal and real connection to the story and simple graphics that back up that story.”
I agree, but a couple of problems with this. As i say above people relate to different stuff. Some people really love superheroes, and others relate better to realistic stories. also they illustrations dont need to be simple, as long a they do the job. they could be very complex and work well too. and if we state it as ‘ack up the story’ then it seem to suggest the script is the REAL story, and the art just its bodyguard, standing behind. i dont think John above meant that, but just to focus on it because, as Will Eisner said, the story comes alive in the DANCE between the words and art. at some points either can lead the dance, lead there story on…but the basic point is that its in the flow of the ‘partner dance’ that comics are made.
I have not read either. But I just had a quick look at El Deafo and I would guess that its attractive points that may have helped it with the Newbery jury include: its mixes ‘serious’ autobiography with some fantasy stuff of cute rabbit appearance and some superpowers, which often seems to be a popular way to do it. The subject includes hearing loss and that fits in well with what has become a whole genre or subgenre of graphic novels over the last 10 years especially - someone dealing with a tough physical or mental health condition. That type of books is attracting a lot of focus now (which is largely a good thing, as it indicates how comics are seen as being capable of handling serious topics well, in a dignified manner, which is wonderful. But it's not completely positive, as it means that other good books on different topics are sometimes overlooked). Lastly, the publisher, Abrams, have good distribution and promotion system which helps the sales of the book and to get it presented before such prizes and awards. A lot of good books get neglected because of a lack of distribution and promotion and contacts. None of that is meant to downplay the specific book El Deafo. As i say I have not read it so cant comment on it in detail. It looks good to me, maybe i'll order it.
I also noticed a few interesting comments by other folk there, such as one that talked about:
“a deeply personal and real connection to the story and simple graphics that back up that story.”
I agree, but a couple of problems with this. As i say above people relate to different stuff. Some people really love superheroes, and others relate better to realistic stories. also they illustrations dont need to be simple, as long a they do the job. they could be very complex and work well too. and if we state it as ‘ack up the story’ then it seem to suggest the script is the REAL story, and the art just its bodyguard, standing behind. i dont think John above meant that, but just to focus on it because, as Will Eisner said, the story comes alive in the DANCE between the words and art. at some points either can lead the dance, lead there story on…but the basic point is that its in the flow of the ‘partner dance’ that comics are made.
Another person there made a comment about great characters and story development being key points.
Those do indeed seem to be key aspects, I agree. But again, its more complicated than that and depends on the type of reader. I can think of books with almost no character or story development at all, which are still really interesting. for example Jori Taniguchi’s ‘The Walking Man’, in which the guy walks around his area thinking a bit… and, er. thats it! Im exaggerating, but only slightly. There is no story development in the sense of a classic 3 part structure, no enemy,etc. The man is a very common Japanese everyman, not what we could call a clear or great character. Yet the book is wonderful. Or ‘Rumble Strip’ by Woodrow Phoenix, who has been doing interesting comics in the UK since the 80s. There are no characters in the book at all, not one over 170 pages. all the visuals are just roads, road signs, empty car parks, etc. Yet, its an impressive graphic novel. a good experiment in the form. most fans of the X-men are going to hate it. But the small but growing strata of folk who like ‘mature of literary’ graphic novels will probably think its interesting.
Those do indeed seem to be key aspects, I agree. But again, its more complicated than that and depends on the type of reader. I can think of books with almost no character or story development at all, which are still really interesting. for example Jori Taniguchi’s ‘The Walking Man’, in which the guy walks around his area thinking a bit… and, er. thats it! Im exaggerating, but only slightly. There is no story development in the sense of a classic 3 part structure, no enemy,etc. The man is a very common Japanese everyman, not what we could call a clear or great character. Yet the book is wonderful. Or ‘Rumble Strip’ by Woodrow Phoenix, who has been doing interesting comics in the UK since the 80s. There are no characters in the book at all, not one over 170 pages. all the visuals are just roads, road signs, empty car parks, etc. Yet, its an impressive graphic novel. a good experiment in the form. most fans of the X-men are going to hate it. But the small but growing strata of folk who like ‘mature of literary’ graphic novels will probably think its interesting.
Another comment was about how there is often too much dialogue or too many words in general in some comics.
Basically I also agree and its a key point to take into consideration when writing a script and laying out a page - how many words will be ok here in that panel and this page, is it too much, can we reduce it, can we show this part instead of saying it, etc…however, I want to say something about that, and not just to be contrary, but cause i really think it so: there is an unnecessary prejudice among many comic book folk against words.
The text CAN sometimes be quite a lot, depending on the book, its ok. It's a question of what STYLE you are dancing in, to go back to Will Eisner's analogy. It’s a question of what style was chosen to do the comic in. And that choice is influenced by the question ‘How much information needs to be conveyed in how many pages?’ or perhaps ‘What type of comic is it?’ For some comics a lot of text on the page is ok.
We might say the options when making a comic book are to make it one of these 4 types:
1. A heavily caption-narration approach.
2. A visual only or largely visuals approach.
3. A dialogue heavy approach.
4. A mixed approach with a moderate amount of dialogue/and or narration mixing with a moderate amount of visually dominate panels.
The level and affect of the mix between the dialogue/narration/visuals in type 4 can vary quite a bit while still being within the type 4 group. We might say that type 4 is the normal way, what most comic books are done in. But that does make it the only way or the best way in every case. Many readers appear to think that type 4 IS comic books, that the other three are mistakes or illegitimate. That they make it 'not really a comic'. I think that's wrong. All 4 types are fine, depending on the type of book and the affect we are after.
For example, our book Portraits of Violence is an educational type comic in which a very large amount of complicated sociological information needs to be conveyed in only 10 pages per subject. Therefore the narration/caption style with a lot of text of type 1 is probably the best. We could have done it in type 4 way, but that would have almost definitely meant we could convey less of the subject matter. It would have to have been a different style of book. So chosen type 1 or 3, with a lot of text puts a certain structure and stricture on how it can be done. And its from that style choice that what some readers see as a ‘lack of execution’ or 'poor mix of visuals and words' or 'too much text' is mostly derived, I think. Some how they dont seem to realise that it was a deliberate choice to do it that way, dependent on 'the type of book and the affect we are after.'
Just like if someone is doing ballroom dancing it is less likely they will have room for freestyle improvisation of the body. That does not mean they have little or no consideration of what makes dance effective, does it? It also does not mean they are incapable of dancing in other ways. It's the same for comic books that have a lot of text (as in types 1 and 3) or ones that have almost no text (as in type 2). It just means they have chosen to do it in THAT way, for THIS book. They are making the moves fit the dance.
There are other comics of mine, which by comparison, are in different styles. Like my autobiography book ‘Once upon a time in Morningside’ in which the main sections of the book have no captions at all, and often no dialogue either. Or my original story ‘Breaking the 10’ which is 99% told in a dialogue/action/visuals style. There you will see me ‘dancing in a different style’. As fits the book.
Basically I also agree and its a key point to take into consideration when writing a script and laying out a page - how many words will be ok here in that panel and this page, is it too much, can we reduce it, can we show this part instead of saying it, etc…however, I want to say something about that, and not just to be contrary, but cause i really think it so: there is an unnecessary prejudice among many comic book folk against words.
The text CAN sometimes be quite a lot, depending on the book, its ok. It's a question of what STYLE you are dancing in, to go back to Will Eisner's analogy. It’s a question of what style was chosen to do the comic in. And that choice is influenced by the question ‘How much information needs to be conveyed in how many pages?’ or perhaps ‘What type of comic is it?’ For some comics a lot of text on the page is ok.
We might say the options when making a comic book are to make it one of these 4 types:
1. A heavily caption-narration approach.
2. A visual only or largely visuals approach.
3. A dialogue heavy approach.
4. A mixed approach with a moderate amount of dialogue/and or narration mixing with a moderate amount of visually dominate panels.
The level and affect of the mix between the dialogue/narration/visuals in type 4 can vary quite a bit while still being within the type 4 group. We might say that type 4 is the normal way, what most comic books are done in. But that does make it the only way or the best way in every case. Many readers appear to think that type 4 IS comic books, that the other three are mistakes or illegitimate. That they make it 'not really a comic'. I think that's wrong. All 4 types are fine, depending on the type of book and the affect we are after.
For example, our book Portraits of Violence is an educational type comic in which a very large amount of complicated sociological information needs to be conveyed in only 10 pages per subject. Therefore the narration/caption style with a lot of text of type 1 is probably the best. We could have done it in type 4 way, but that would have almost definitely meant we could convey less of the subject matter. It would have to have been a different style of book. So chosen type 1 or 3, with a lot of text puts a certain structure and stricture on how it can be done. And its from that style choice that what some readers see as a ‘lack of execution’ or 'poor mix of visuals and words' or 'too much text' is mostly derived, I think. Some how they dont seem to realise that it was a deliberate choice to do it that way, dependent on 'the type of book and the affect we are after.'
Just like if someone is doing ballroom dancing it is less likely they will have room for freestyle improvisation of the body. That does not mean they have little or no consideration of what makes dance effective, does it? It also does not mean they are incapable of dancing in other ways. It's the same for comic books that have a lot of text (as in types 1 and 3) or ones that have almost no text (as in type 2). It just means they have chosen to do it in THAT way, for THIS book. They are making the moves fit the dance.
There are other comics of mine, which by comparison, are in different styles. Like my autobiography book ‘Once upon a time in Morningside’ in which the main sections of the book have no captions at all, and often no dialogue either. Or my original story ‘Breaking the 10’ which is 99% told in a dialogue/action/visuals style. There you will see me ‘dancing in a different style’. As fits the book.
A related point is the 'show dont tell' thing. That is a basic rule taught to you on screen writing courses. But, one odd thing - look at most movies, even big action hollywood movies. I notice that there is a quite a lot of TELLING in them! Even in that film with Superman, Batman and Wonder woman, when were fighting some huge monster, they still stuck in some bits of 'cute' dialogue between them, which are hardly realistic when facing a massively powerful monster.
The 'talking heads' approach in comics is one element of this which is often attacked as being lazy or boring or bad crafting. Yet, again, i think its much more valid than that. Take this example from Harvey Pekar and Robert Crumb, which has purely talking heads/dialogue approach, and is, for me, just fine. One thing to note here is that the sameness of the visual and textual approach across the page gives the two panels where there is no dialogue a special purpose and feeling, that may not have been there if the visuals had been different on each panel:
A final comment there was: “not always for the artist to tell the whole story, but to outline it and let the experiences of the viewer fill in the rest."
I think thats a key point, and brings in a whole other range of things - but since I've already said a lot, I'll stop for now.