Sequential Sunday – storytelling techniques

For some reason I was quite taken by this short comic, linked to from Journalista. It’s no more than a simple, short anecdote, but this simplicity makes it easy to see the form in which the story is told, the choices the writer and artist have made — consciously or unconsciously — to tell it. As Scott McCloud made clear in Understanding Comics and its sequels, this is an intricate yet easily overlooked craft. Until it’s laid bare for you like it was with me in this comic, you do not realise how much thought goes into these storytelling basics.

I hadn’t heard of either the writer, Jonathan Baylis, or the artist, Tim E. Ogline, before and I’m not sure what audience they had in mind for this comic. From evidence at the website it seems this is one in a series of comics done by Baylis, with different artists, all semi-autobiographical and starting with the word “so”. The style of the artists of the samples available is variable, so I think most of the credit for the presentation has to go to the artist, Tim Ogline.

It’s easy to forget if you’ve been reading them your whole life, but you need to learn how to read comics, how to interpret and order a sequence of images on a page; how an artist lays out the pages and tells the story can help or hinder this process. Tim Ogline’s choices here all seem designed to make the story easy to follow even for a non-comics reading audience. Some of his choices reflect what Bryan Talbot did for his Tale of one Bad Rat, one example of a comic deliberately designed to be readable by people unfamiliar with comics.


credits and introduction

Intrepid is only eight pages long, the first four pages providing the context for the heart of it, a two page flashback, followed by another two pages of wrapup. In it Jonathan Bayliss tells of how he went and visited the museum ship USS Intrepid with his uncle, who served on it during the Vietnam war, and how this visit triggered his uncle to talk about the day he lost his best friend there. It’s told as if Jonathan is sitting across from you in the pub telling it to you, as emphasised by the very first panel, just a head and shoulders shot of him, against an empty background, next to the credits. This headshot returns several times, each time with a simple coloured background, as a sort of guide.

The panel placement is interesting. On most pages they’re laid out in three rows, in a mixture of full length “establishing shots” and rows of two square or rectangular half length panels. But when the story comes to the moment of crisis the horizontal rows are replaced with narrow, angular panels, laid out in two rows of three columns, while the “camera” steadily moves inwards, closing up on the uncle’s face as he remembers. Since this takes place while the narrator and his uncle go down a stairwell into the bowels of the ship, the panel layout emphasises the claustrophobic, cramped feel of this. The layout is mirrored on the seventh page, after the flashback, when the “camera” moves outward again as they move back up.

When we enter his flashback we are back to the normal layout, but on the sixth page, the death of his friend is shown in four full length horizontal panels. Both choices slow down time, reinforced by the almost static images in the panel, but in the second sequence you also get an impression of the speed with which the accident happened.


an example of how the artists shows flashbacks

As the above image shows, Ogline represents flashbacks by way of a yellow-sepia background, then carries the feeling of the flashback over into the present by the character’s stance, repeated again on the following page, as well as, more symbolically and in silhouette after the main flashback sequence. This use of colour makes the flashbacks immediately identifyable and make it easier to understand them. Colour also plays a role in emphasising mood, getting darker leading up to the flashback, while the resolution is presented in bright, clean colours.

Ogline’s drawing style in general is somewhat streamlined, if you can call it that. His people have faces that show personality enough for you to realise that they’re modeled on real persons, but which are far less detailed than his backgrounds. Interestingly, in the flashback, there is much less detail shown, the planes more sketched than drawn, which again helps establish that these are memories.

To recap then, what makes this comic accesible to new readers are several techniques. First, the panel and page layout is kept deliberately simple, moving from top to bottom, right to left in predictable patterns, but with the panel shapes changed to emphasise mood. Second, there’s the use of colour to create a distinctive look for the flashbacks, as well as to once again emphasise mood and place. Third, there are the repetitive elements: the narrator’s headshot, the way the uncle stands, to guide the reader through the story. Finally, there’s the artist’s drawing style which keeps a fine balance between overwhelming realism and cartoon. These are all techniques used by all cartoonists at one time or another, on particular fine display here.

Your Happening World (3)

Read:

A reasonable definition of Hipsterism, of which Trainspotting, though it will have no cache among hipsters themselves, is a formative work, is the assumption that there is no position which the middle class subject can not occupy, both class and identity politics have been overcome, or at least class has been subsumed into identity and identity is for the other. The middle class assumes a kind of transcendent, post-historical emptiness into which all cultures can be incorporated. This is not simply hyper-consumerism it’s also a metaphysical claim, a claim to superiority, thus while others are bounded by ethnicity, class, gender; limited, objects, with a finite set of facets and characteristics, the hipster, viewing everything as simply a lifestyle choice, views her own not just as one lifestyle among many but the lifestyle of lifestyles.

Read. That the American rightwing is loony and over the top is a given as is liberal outrage towards the messenger if not so much the message. Remember: America is not Chile. America is not Chile. America is not Chile. Is it?

“THE…. [Sodomite] Hal Duncan”.

Listen.

Nobody asked for this. Did they?

Americans. Thick as shit. (But don’t flatter yourself your country is any better).

Upgrade Me

Upgrade Me looked interesting, but unfortunately went something like this:

“Hi, I’m Simon Armitage a succesful poet and completely unqualified to actually talk about this subject, but I love gadgets and the BBC loves “name” presenters. I’m on my tenth phone already and while I love gadgets, I feel a vague unease about it all. Let me go to John Lewis and talk about how John Lewis completely revamps their John Lewis product lines in their John Lewis stores every six months. Now I’m talking to some kids of some nicely multicultural London school and see how many technogadgets they have. They all would love to have an IPhone. Oh look, I’m showing them my generation’s portable media player — a battery operated turntable. Now onwards to the future, courtesy of Samsung, as I travel to South Korea, home of Samsung, to talk about the Samsung future. It’s a bit scary and not very English and although I can set up a Skype videocall with my wife, I don’t use the internet enough to find what Manchester United did yesterday. So let’s go home and meet a lovely English eccentric that has lived without gadgets or indeed electricity for years. It’s very nice and I think I could live that way too, but I do need my e-mail and mobile phone, not so much the washing machine. This woman is a modern day Luddite and I make it clear I have no clue what motivates the real Luddites but ascribe to them my own vague sense of discomfort about material things, just like I keep assuming the seventies when I grew up was much less gadget obsessed than today. Anway, the conclusion is that it’s all very difficult and there are two sides to every story but I had fun meeting all sorts of people on the BBC’s tab.”

John Mullan is a silly ass

Booker Prize judge made a bit of a silly ass of himself responding to Kim Stanley Robinson’s challenge to the Booker Prize about the lack of science fiction on its short lists, by saying:

John Mullan, Naughtie’s fellow judge for this year’s prize and professor of English at University College London, said that he “was not aware of science fiction,” arguing that science fiction has become a “self-enclosed world”.

“When I was 18 it was a genre as accepted as other genres,” he said, but now “it is in a special room in book shops, bought by a special kind of person who has special weird things they go to and meet each other.”

He’s so wrong. Science fiction has always been “in a special room in book shops, bought by a special kind of person who has special weird things they go to and meet each other”! Even when he was eighteen this was the case unless he was that age sometime in the early thirties or so, science fiction cons have been around longer than he has. It has never been fully seen as acceptable literature by the sort of people who sit in Booker Prize juries and there has never been “a genre as accepted as other genres” though admittedly there have been times when mainstream authors and critics have been more in tune with it than others.

The responses to such backhanded snobbery are predictable. As seen in the comments to Ken’s post on this, many science fiction fans are defensive and hurt and respond like a teenager bounced from the Kool Kids Klub — “I don’t want to join your smelly club anyway”. Some, as seen on Torque Control ignore the insults and earnestly try to explore the question of why the Bookers boycott science fiction and what to do to change it. Finally, there are the people who’ve seen it all before, amused both by the snobbery and the philistine defensiveness of many fans.

For myself, I’ve sort of lost that reflexive defensiveness, where you take out your annoyance at the casual dismission of science fiction by erm casually dismissing everything else, but I don’t like to entirely dismiss this reflex either as seem to be the trend amongst sections of online fandom. Look at how grownup and above it all we can be, not like those stinky nerds still living in their mommy’s basement who actually take all that stuff seriously. In the high school reenactment society that’s fandom, that’s just pandering to the jocks by making fun of your fellow nerds, not realising they’re laughing at you as much as with you…

The Killing Joke

In retrospect, Dorian Wright doesn’t like The Killing Joke:

In the long run, it was probably a mistake. While it’s still a masterfully crafted story, and Brian Bolland’s art is exceptional, the overall trend towards “darkening” Batman did serious damage, I feel, to the character and the comics industry as a whole. It was an attempt to chase a post-adolescent audience’s brief, media-driven flirtation with comics, but it froze out younger and more casual audiences. The audiences comics really needed to grow as a medium. It’s only lately, with the The Brave and The Bold cartoon and Grant Morrison’s Batman work, that a serious attempt to rehabilitate Batman from the brooding, angsty loner with mommy issues has been made.

Hear, hear.

Killing Joke always felt cynical to me, an attempt by Moore and DC to cash in on his surface reputation as a mature superhero writer, where mature equals R-rated sex and violence, for those readers who thought the nudity and brutality in Watchmen and Miracle Man were “deep” and missed anything more subtle. Even Moore at his most cynical offers glimmers of interest so it’s not completely bad, certainly not as bad as the glut of post-Watchmen, post-Dark Knight “mature” superhero titles that crowded the shelves in the late eighties/early nineties.

and yet it’s still awfully superficial and glib in its philisophy, the loveingly and lingering depiction of the the crippling and implied rape of Barbara “Batgirl” Gordon as a device to “break” Batman not that different from any such seen in a revenge movie like the “Deathwish” series, a device to propel the hero into action but only seen as an affront to the hero’s honour rather than as what it does to the victim, just a broken toy in this context. The ending where supposed hero and supposed villain meet in the middle and laugh it all off is annoying as well, as is its trite message, that all it can take is one bad day for a normal man to become a monster.

But the Bolland art is gorgeous.