Frank’s Soapbox #2
by Frank Santoro
Friday, August 21, 2009
I’ve gotten some weird e-mails in regards to the “80%” quote I made in the comments section of my Tom K post from last week. In the original post I wrote: “For me, Tom’s work is an oasis in the desert. And the desert is contemporary alternative comics. I find 80% of today’s alt comics poorly constructed — a veritable colony of lean-to shacks that could be blown over in a strong wind. In contrast, Tom K builds comics that could be likened to a brick house. These are solid comics.”
And then in the comments section I wrote: “I worked all last week at Copacetic Comics and went through the shelves, book by book. I’m sad to report that how UNREADABLE most alt comics are. My 80% figure is not an exaggeration. I made a list (which I’ll never publish). It’s embarrassing how little structure alt comix have compared to mainstream comics.”
What I’m bummed about in hindsight is that the post was meant to be an appreciation of Tom K and not about how I feel most alt comics are structure-less. I try to go out of my way in my reviews to praise comics that have good structure, and when I point out that most alt comics do not, it is not my intention to “shame” anyone. If I review a comic that is structure-less, I’ll say so. But the point of my post on Tom K was not to criticize others but to praise Tom. Still, since the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, I thought I’d add a few more thoughts on the subject.
Okay then:
I said that 80% of alt comix are unreadable because of their lack of structure. I did not say these comics are “garbage.” I said they were “unreadable” and that they are “poorly constructed.” I’m specifically talking about sequencing, not really the drawing itself. “Unreadable” is a bit hyperbolic though. What I mean is that most alt comics are not well crafted on a narrative level. Alt-comix creators, for the most part, get away with being structure-less. They focus on style and “earnest-ness” at the expense of transitions and effective storytelling. Mainstream creators have editors and house styles. (While “house styles” and editorial constraints may sometimes lead to formulaic stories, they actually also often provide a solid foundation for the artists and writers to build upon. It’s not always conformist formula.) Alt-comics creators are “free to be me” and often bristle at the notion of editorial input. Editorial input is not necessarily the same thing as “structure” but I think the two go hand in hand.
I’m being vocal about this issue because I think too many alt creators don’t even realize it’s a problem. I want to wake them up to the fact that even the most experimental comics creators need to study story structure and craft (and could potentially benefit from editorial input) — not just their mainstream peers. I’m talking about myself here too. I study structure religiously and am trying to improve my own fundamental skills day by day.
I remember running into Chris Staros in 1997 (’98?) at the APE convention when it was still in San Jose. He told me a story about a young cartoonist he was working with named Craig Thompson. As I remember it, Craig turned in his manuscript for Goodbye, Chunky Rice and Staros wasn’t thrilled by the ending. So he suggested Thompson take another crack at it. Staros said, “It came back and it was unbelievable. It made me cry.” Fast forward to ten years later, and I’m talking to Nate Powell about his new book, Swallow Me Whole. I asked Nate how involved Staros was as an editor. Nate told me that Staros asked for the book to be drawn entirely in pencil first so that any changes would be easier. Makes sense to me.
What I’m getting at is this: Both Thompson and Powell are “alternative” cartoonists who have grown considerably in their short careers. And both worked closely with an editor who is well versed in comics structure. They both benefited from Staros’s critical eye and both have produced solid comics. Would they have made great comics without Staros’s input? Sure. But with an editor they pushed themselves to go beyond their comfort zones, and I believe they are better, more well-rounded artists because of the experience.
Another great example would be Paul Pope. He appeared almost fully formed, seemingly out of nowhere. Yet he was raw. When he began producing stories for Dark Horse Presents he worked with the editor Bob Schreck. I would argue that this helped Paul. Pope has said, “He’s an editor, but he’s also a friend. He knows how to get me working on it. Sometimes it’s flattery, sometimes it’s encouragement, sometimes it’s — well, he just opens Holy Hell before you.” Would Paul have made great comics without working with an editor like Schreck? Sure. But it didn’t hurt.
My beef with many alt guys is this aversion to structure, to editing, to criticism. Do you know that Chris Ware “sits” on a story for years before he releases it? From what I understand, he works on a couple of stories and strips simultaneously and over YEARS slowly adjusts them, until the story is finally ready to be published. He edits himself in ways that I think most young cartoonists cannot imagine.
I’d like to recommend Dave Sim’s Following Cerebus #5. It’s all about “editing the graphic novel” and contains conversations with Craig Thompson, Paul Pope, Frank Miller, Chester Brown, Seth, and many others. It is where I found the quote about Bob Schreck.
[Thanks to Mr. Hodler, my editor, for help on this one.]
Labels: Bob Schreck, Chris Staros, Craig Thompson, Dave Sim, editing, Nate Powell, Paul Pope, structure
I don't mind autobio comics if their 'experiences' are as interesting and informative as Joe Sacco's, or have a hefty dose of imagination like Crumb, Barry or Rege, but a dull life is just a dull life.
The whole 'relationships can be difficult/my tenuous relationship with minorities/I masturbate a lot/most of my jobs have sucked/my mom's ill/my parents don't understand me/I was once humiliated as a kid' schtick is becomig as formulaic as anything from Marvel/DC
I'm not sure if you were responding to me Mr. Binky, but I wasn't talking about autobio comics per se. I mean, at least to the extent that I don't do autobio comics. However, I still feel like the comics I make are an extension of my life/identity, in the sense that my comics are where I turn to find freedom. Isn't that what we all yearn for?
I'm running out of steam here. I just see a lot of posturing going on, to be honest. I don't want to attack anyone, really, but I feel like I don't know what people are talking about anymore. Thinking about structure is not a way of refusing freedom, it's the means by which you'll get there, if what you want to do is tell a story.
It seems odd to me that people talk about comics- a form that comes in a tidy little package, is read in a very orderly fashion, often full of box after box to be read in sequence – as though it were free jazz or something. It's probably the least "free" form of art you could choose; If you are using the form, a structure is implicit. It's there wether you want it to be or not. It's up to you to use it well and accomplish what you set out to, or use it very poorly. Saying you don't care about structure is saying you don't care about comics.
It has nothing to do with style, or heroic mastery, it's only about using it for a purpose. It can look as unlike those boring 40 year olds* who don't like noise music as you want it to, but that has nothing to do with thinking about structure.
super old, btw, unless you're Panter, who apparently doesn't think at all about anything unless it's some magical, intuitive weirdness.
Well, maybe Panter wants you to think that, but from where I'm standing he's had one of the most thought-out 'structured' careers of all the 80s alt crowd…
Uland, I guess my point is that high-form may be my taste as a reader, but it's not necessarily my taste a creator. I can read Ware or Tezuka or Mazzuchelli and marvel at all the masterful technique, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I'd want to create comics in the same way.
For one, I've found over the years that I want to draw in a way that's enjoyable to me. I'm not a perfectionist, I like to put ink directly to paper and follow it wherever it leads me. That's my own personal catharsis. For Ware it might be working on a single project for 10 years. Like I said, I've got much respect for brain surgeons, but it's not crazy for someone to choose a different career.
There is plenty of ground to be explored in the "immediate & direct" end of the spectrum as opposed to the "labored and developed" end of the spectrum. Some artists like to labor over their creations ad infinitum. I think it's better to realize when you are not one of them rather that subject yourself to the rack.
In other words, if each one of us follows what's right for us we'll eventually arrive at what truly IS us. At least that's my attitude about it. I'm sure there are plenty of pissy old draftsmen that would tell me to shut the fuck up and work on my crow quill for 10 hours.
Frank: I understand what you say, and I agree in some points
but it feels opposite to what you spoke to Tom Spurgeon in the Comics Reporter Interiview.
There you said that kind of criticism wasn´t fine with you. For example:
Would you accept, today, Kochalka´s "editing" to giving Storeyville another ending?
I don´t quite get the difference between what you said few years ago and what you write in this post.
Here goes the transcription:
SANTORO: Oh, for sure. I remember when I did Storeyville, it was "You shouldn't do it like this, you should do it like Rubber Blanket. Have you seen Rubber Blanket? Check this out." Or "If you could just tighten up your drawings." Everybody had something to say as opposed to, "Hey, cool comic." It was raked across the coals. Even John Porcellino, we were exchanging letters. He was like, "I just don't understand it. I don't like the ending. I don't get it. It just ends." I remember James Kochalka wrote me a letter and said, "It's too many pages; there's so much you can cut out." [Spurgeon laughs] That's fine, but I didn't invite that kind of criticism. I just sent it to people. You're welcome to criticize it whatever you want, but it was people telling me what I should do.
I think, honestly, I could have had less of an attitude about accepting criticism.
no, storyville ended as it should. fuck it.
come on, its like listening to the Beatles versus listening to Sun Ra. Sure, the Beatles were master craftsman but they died and got spread out across every Mall in the world. Sun Ra on the other hand, he died and became possibility and mystery.
Its like Lucifer Rising/Kenneth Anger versus Lord of the Rings/Peter Jackson. At the end of the day, or maybe the end of a combined amount of days, i want the thing that leaves me with questions, i'll go with Lucifer.
There seem to be multiple issues/arguments going on here.
Sometimes its nice to read some raw unedited shit.
but you can be experimental and still be edited
Things can be edited to be a Major Work with a Vast Readership but that doesn't qualify them as being important across all avenues of the medium.
Look some people like reading Peanuts and some people like holding the paper up to a lamp and reading Peanuts combined with Ziggy.
Chris Ware is boring as hell.
my capcha is "Damit"
"Look some people like reading Peanuts and some people like holding the paper up to a lamp and reading Peanuts combined with Ziggy."
This is now my favorite quote I've ever read in my life. I'm officially stealing that one!
I'll phrase it another way: I worked with an editor on Storeyville. I was very pleased with how it all turned out, as was he. However, when it got out in the world and I started getting the "you should have done this" kind of responses, it pissed me off. Now, that I'm older I realize that I could have engaged these folks and asked them "tell me more." I could have listened to them and decided to pick and choose what I thought was valid criticism. Instead, I shut them out. These were peers who were trying to help and I just didn't want to hear it. Now, I feel differently. I wouldn't have changed a thing but I would have LISTENED.
There can be bad editing. Editing isn't a matter of having a boss that tells you what to do. Have you ever showed a strip to a friend, who tells you they're unclear about what's happened between panel four and five, and you changed it so it would make sense? That's editing. I don't think Franks' argument is being understood.
Are you guys really thinking this through?
Knut- It might feel really good to draw really loosely ( it's possible to remain loose and be very structured, I'm sure you realize). I'm sure it feels very free, but if there is nothing in particular that you are attempting, there is no particular reason to read it. Comics are a form of communication, and if the only thing you're trying to communicate is your own special-ness, a) Not interested.Life is too short. There are too many interesting things to read or take-in that might actually involve thinking. b) Why do art comics that have this M.O look so much alike?
If your goal is to explore your own distinct world view or persona, how are you going to get that across if you don't structure it in a way that makes sense? If you are not interested in that, why are you printing this work? Why is it in comics form?
If anyone thinks Sun Ra woke up one morning playing the way he came to be known for, you're delusional. He played in pretty straightforward jazz groups for years before that, and even his crazier stuff was all about structure.
Let's get this straight: Structure does not mean one thing. It's not like writing a standard prescription for every problem. All it is is thinking about the best way to make your comics read the way you want them to, regardless of how it feels, or how cool it will make you look at the next art school drop out party.
Is "Maggots" well structured?
Are the experimental comics in "Breakdowns" "correctly" structered?
Are the comics in "Kramers Ergot" well structured?
I like a bit more of the old Frank who didn´t want to listen. I don´t think someone should tell you how to make your art. That quote on The Comics Reporter was a reall inspiration. That´s why I remembered it so much and have it at the top of my mind.
I like that kind of Dylan "I don´t beleive you" arrogance.
I think fear is the worst enemy of the artist AND strucure is ALSO a confort zone where there is less fear.
That´s a tricky game.
I think you need that braveness and "i don´t give a dam" type of thinking when you are growing up as an artist.
Hasn´t Picturebox got a little bit of that attitude?
But I also like the Frank teacher who is really giving a lot of himself to the comics medium. Just for the love of the thing.
Come on, his passion is contagious.
And his validation of mainstream comics (I read Ronin because of him and I am very glad)which is true: they do have a big value and we were all forgeting about them.
He is risking his "reputation", what most fear, by telling what he really thinks.
The same way he risked a lot when he made the groundbreaking Chimera or Incanto.
That´s very valuable.
Also, "Cold heat" is a masterpiece that brings together the braveness of Storeyville with his new apreciation for structure. So there is a concrete point to all this argument too.
I will listen every time to this man, though I don´t agree with all this editing thing. Some of it, perhaps.
Recent Brain research has shown clearly that children are literally unable to view themselves as anything but the center of the universe. The parts of the brain responsible for restraint, and ultimately what we'd call empathy, have not developed. They don't fully develop, in most , until our late twenties and early thirties. It's during this gradual process that we all go from sputtering, selfish monsters to what are called adults. Between it all, we gradually learn ways to fake empathy because it offers new rewards ( like telling a girl you love her to get laid, fer instance.). It's especially egregious in teens, who basically don't know how to fake it very well and are frustrated in those efforts even more so by new emotion/desire that they don't understand how to satisfy. We might convince ourselves we believe these simulations of empathy are real .We certainly start to believe other simulations ( remember your emotional response to music at 18?). It's a necessary process, and eventually, if you're not a psycho, it does become "real", in the sense that your brain has actually developed a capacity for restraint, or an ability to delay gratification.
(cont.)
— There is a last stage, however, wherein the 20-something has become very good at these simulations, so much so that they become enthralled with notions of "personal potential" ( this is backed up by tons of market research, btw); their simulations of empathy cannot easily be made distinct from *actual* restraint; if it looks like art, it is. If I look like an artist, I am. If I act like a businessman, people will want to do business with me. Yet this causes discomfort. It's when people start placing importance on concepts of authenticity, torn between an acknowledgment of their own simulations and their sense of potential; usually a last gasp is made by those who have a great deal invested in that *unreal* sense of potential, usually ones who've found easier access to greater rewards ( some call them "spoiled"), or are more dependent on them for many reasons, none of them pretty. The last gasp usually involves a re-dedication to "the dream" of meeting that sense of potential, and is usually propelled by a sense of magical thinking ( recent Subaru ad directed at late-20s' demo: "I just let the universe take care of it".) Sometimes this carries people through middle age, but many do break through and achieve a more sober vision of themselves and the world around them. To those still in thrall of their own market-purchased awesomeness, these people are "boring", the worst thing that can be said about anything in market-speak; they cannot or will not flatter the clearly false sense of potential those "in development" rely upon.Like Seth or Chris Ware. Sun Ra doesn't either, but because the message is so diffuse and subjective ( "Wild", i.e, more "natural", i.e, more like what I imagine I could be if every lame thing got out of the way so I could better satisfy desire.) , it can be re-codified more easily. Everything really is relative to these people, including their "personality" as it is expressed in "art".
So, explaining that to people in that stage is met with rhetoric about, basically, not wanting to be someone else, or being myself as much as possible.
I think there is some kind of intuitive awareness that the potentially magic self would probably not thrive if it were to subject itself to "editing"; they want to make their "own rules" in order to protect it from being made boring, wherein the potentials for gratification are limited or delayed.
But this response is motivated by that central delusion, of course, and it gets in the way of recognizing how much it would benefit them to develop a critical awareness of the process they are going through before they reach a critical mass wherein the rewards they've relied on for so long no longer satisfy. It will happen.
If you'd rather keep the dream alive and look for new t shirts to buy, that's fine. That's what lots and lots of people do, but there is no reason to engage with this sort of dialog in that case. There is nothing to say that will make you feel good here, so it's of no use to you.
Does Sun Ra turn to outside forces to make his music more digestable? Or was it created through playing and responding to his own lifelong mutating form of language.
Is an editor just a "hitmaker" on some level?
Are editors actually Missionaries?
Franks right, its good to listen.
Erics right, you need to not give a dam. You need to be a brave fool.
until you hit a wall and then you listen.
I mean who are you guys making comics for? an audience of 8 comic forum nerds?
But Sun Ra's made variations on language that he learned as opposed to inventing. He received feedback every night he played out, but he was also, arguably, a genius. Most of us aren't, and really do need to test what we've done on a set of educated ears that have our best interests in mind. If you're working with an editor that is trying to simply make you more palatable to a wider audience, that's one thing, but it's not what Frank is talking about.
It all depends on your intentions, Brian.
Think about someone like David Cronenberg, or someone in that boat; being more palatable was never a real concern, I don't think. He managed to present some really crazy, invigorating imagery, but the reason it was so powerful, I think, is because he had finely tuned the concepts he was working with— ideas that are actually relevant to us — to imbue the more sensational images with meaning. It's almost only a critical process that became what it became because of scrupulous editing.
Shit, I meant "shit-pak", not Brian.
God damn it, i hate long posts, so now i am an asshole too.
if i had an editor on Maggots it would have been a big blank white book. and a few people would have been happier. i see that book as a perfect thing, uneditable. i couldn't care less about changing it then or now. never questioned a thing. And what, maybe 50 people have read it. Really read it. and again. I don't care. If someone had demanded that I change something i wouldn't have even understood what that meant.
i can't do that anymore. now i self edit because i want to communicate a story. but in doing so, in editing, i am gaining ability to pass along story(maybe) and i am losing raw power. If no one understands If and Oof, my new thing, then i will be bummed.
But still i have no interest in an outside editor. Nadel saw it and gave me one piece of advice so now i might actually be able to finish the thing, but other than that. i have a plan. But i am no Paul Pope. I'm not looking to get DC to knock on my door.(and i can't draw as awesome as that dude) I do this stuff for me. sure. selfish. sure, inconsequential to most people. But really, who cares? Do i want to be the next Blankets? Watchman 2? Answer peoples personal questions about life?
no. i like to draw sequential drawings. and that is the criteria of comic books.
Thats why my preferred route is self publishing, or in this scenario, working with a liberated publishing dude like Picturebox. Like some of those old ESP Sun Ra records say. "only the artist decides what goes on your ESP disk"
II've been through lifes natural editors, like you said Uland, crowd reaction at a show. or constant uninterest and shoulder shrugging from people you give your books too.
If you want super comic discipline than go work for disney, pretty soon you'll be shitting perfect Snoopies.
or Bones.
a good editor might definitely make you more money.
I really dug that issue of Following Cerebus. Really interesting read.
-blake
I think the "no structure" argument would work better with examples. WHAT didn't work? WHY didn't it work? Isn't it possible to discuss that without ripping someone to shreds?
Also, too many comments have acted as if by editor, Frank really means Hollywood producer/exec. You can have an editor with a critical eye giving honest advice (with which the creator can hopefully disagree) without being forced to consider marketing and sales.
Obviously if the editor has very string opinions, or is also a publisher who is insistent in only publishing work they like, this can lead to a house style and a lot of similar books and artists changing their books to fit into "what works" instead of producing something unique.
It all depends on what your intentions are, shit-pak. I guess if we're talking about story, I'm not interested in one that isn't interested in being told well. And that goes for any kind of content or style, really.
I don't like Craig Thompsons' comics, but I could see how having someone you respect say 'this didn't work for me, bring me something else' and being forced to really consider what it is you want to get across.
I'm sure if Thompson really loved his first ending, that's what we would have seen, but he thought his editor was right, he could make it better, and apparently he did.
This is going to be my last comment on this thread.
Joe said "I think the "no structure" argument would work better with examples. WHAT didn't work? WHY didn't it work? Isn't it possible to discuss that without ripping someone to shreds?"
It is my hope to do just this in a future post with a willing student.
Actually to clarify I think most comics should be edited, but that's based on the genre of those comics. If you are going to work in fringe methods then you better be making fringe content, like Maggots.
I used to do narrative humor comics when I first started and people would tell me "your stuff is good but you need to make your art slicker for it to work." I didn't want to draw that way. It wasn't inspiring to me, it was a chore. I eventually realized that the problem wasn't with me but was with narrative humor comics. Eventually I gravitated towards comics that were drawn in a way that I enjoyed drawing and realized how that type of drawing worked for a certain type of storytelling, fringe experimental stuff.
In other words, if you're going to be fringe be fringe, otherwise conform. You can't have it both ways.
Or, conform to the fringe, I guess.
Well, you could make an argument that the avant garde is just another genre. It's wild and wooly by comparison, but it shares many aspects of a "genre", built-in fanbase, etc.
Plus, anyone doing fringe works tends to start off in familiar territory that other artists have trailblazed. Where would Chippendale and Brinkman have ever been without Panter? Where would Sun Ra have been without Coltrane?
The true testiment is where the artist takes things from that jumping on point. Either you end up a real trailblazer or just another imitator. That's the fun of the game.
ah man, this is fascinating, to see comics discussed with outsider art and all this other things, who comics are made for etc.
But you need to give some examples because 'alt comics' is like saying "mainstream comics". does that include self-published mini comics?
Maybe before you can be edited you need to play and put out some stuff that isn't very good, and figure out some things that you know you are good at, so that if you find someone you feel can edit you, you know enough about what you want to do with your work, when to disagree and when you should change something.
also, maybe it would help to define "structure" a bit more;
does this include many different things:
the way a series of actions moves across a double page/this sequence happens too quickly and this bit is dragged out for too long/this characters emotional response its confusing considering the time that has passed since this event a few pages ago/the proportion of this speech bubble to this picture frame is ugly
i think the best thing it to just be a comics Terminator
actually they say that Coltrane saw John Gilmore from Sun Ra's Arkestra play a free set and thats when he started going down the wild path. Sorry to throw Sun Ra in this so much but hey, it all goes around.
for what felt like an age, the only emails i was getting after my son was born at 17:32 (12:32 NYC i think) on sunday 23rd were comemts to this weak ass post.
(I didn't actually think it was 'weak assed'. i just thought that scanned well but then I haven't slept for two day so I may be wrong.
Congrats Oliver, I just had my son last Saturday!
BTW, what's sleep?
I'm Oliver's editor and publisher and this discussion does touch on many of the points that come up dealing with a cartoonist who is learning and stretching. Oli, you already know some of my opinions about what should and shouldn't be edited – bad spelling etc. makes us all look lazy and uninterested in what costs your time and my money – for me, unacceptable.
Structure is a completely different matter and not something we have discussed, as for the most part you have turned the books in completed and i've published them. I've had little problem with the 'narrative' of the first two books and felt no need to attempt to change them. I like them both immensely. Your work isn't dealing with tight structure for the most part anyhow – although it progresses in a linear fashion. Given what the books are about – start here – finish here – they have at least a linearity about them which keeps the narrative on 'rails' so to speak. I do think we might have a conversation about Berlin sometime though – although it is a great, big, art project of a book – I wonder if the narrative isn't somewhat lost there – although I need to read the whole book and not just the pages with text to ascertain that. You up for a discussion? Or do you think should be left well alone?
I'm interested in editors being only those who are peers – and I'm not sure it works. It's true that artists will have more idea of process than non-artists when considering or critiquing something someone has produced but when it comes to structure and 'readability', to borrow from Frank's original criticism, I'm not so sure.
I can't draw, but I can – for the most part – read comics. I think many artists aren't good at doing that and they allow themselves to develop a sort of 'hive mind' around each others work. Here they aren't considering the work per se but more considering their relationships with the artist, their place in a creative group and lots of other factors that will tend to make them supportive of something they might 'feel' they should like – rather than actually like or understand. Both artists and editors like and endorse 'bad' comics but I think there is a greater chance of an independent (as much as possible anyhow) editor finding some of the real faults in a work, than artists who are friends.
If your editor is your publisher as well – he likely want's your work to be presented in the best light possible. The case of the two Top Shelf artists mentioned seems to point very much in that direction, good editors don't want to 'interfere' for the sake of it – just to let the work be all it can be. The process shouldn't be adversarial, if artists accept that editors are trying to improve in a distinct and very focussed way and not just meddle with the high concept that is good ground for consultation and discussion which may in the end allow us all to make and publish better comics.
That all sounded a bit West Coast by the end there – I need to go out and look at a grey british day now and get my 'reality' back.
Great comment. Thanks.