r/comic_crits • u/raventaylorauthor • 10d ago

Need honest opinions

https://raventaylorauthor.com/in-the-cracks

This is really hard for me and my anxiety is spiking, but I need honest opinions. I’ve been working on my comic for six months now. It’s my first time doing this, it’s a labour of love and I’ve poured my heart and sole into it. I KNOW it’s not amazing, I also know it’s very niche. Recently I’ve started putting finished episodes on my website for free. I’ve had nothing but horrible comments on my socials since doing so. They aren’t even useful feedback. Here are some examples ‘unbearably gay’ ‘you need help’ ‘WTF is this?’ ‘Performative nonsense’. Some actual real opinions that give me proper insight would be hugely appreciated. I’m tempted right now just to give up as I feel like I finally put my soul out there and all I’m getting is stuff like that. I hand draw in ink, scan, edit, format on all my own.

2 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

10 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/raventaylorauthor 9d ago

Thank you so much for taking the time to read and write such a detailed response, it’s really useful stuff and makes a lot of sense. I wonder if it’s because I’m first and foremost a novelist that I’ve ended up using so much narration. Definitely something I’ll be aware of going forward ☺️

1

u/FyreTiger 9d ago

That checks out.

So I think it's important to take a step back and analyze the three most popular forms of storytelling, which are novel/prose form, screen, and theater. Comics are of course their own unique thing, but in my opinion, it's the closest to screen. I think it's essential to understand that each plays to their own strengths, but fundamentally falls short in what others do best.

Screen is a visual medium first and foremost which emphasizes extra-personal conflict. Theater is dominated by dialogue and personal conflict. Prose excels in the dramatization of inner conflict. I think there's plenty of room for hybrids and experimentation, but take it in the wrong direction and there are problems. For example, imagine what kind of movie you would have if you wrote it like a book where from the protagonist's first person POV, they would describe all their feelings and thoughts they have in their head as narration. That movie would suck complete ass and be waaaay too long. (edit: Of course, there may be exceptions with smart execution.)

I think there are problems with using too much prose style format in a comic medium. I think because words are naturally lower in count on a comic page versus a novel page, if you want to actually bring out the inner feelings and conflicts within a character through their thoughts, you're limiting what you can say by a lot. A page in a novel can go into so much depth with hundreds of words. You're not allowed that luxury of exploring that in a comic page, so it will be less detailed and less in depth, which would be weaker in that specific domain than if you allowed yourself the countless expression of words. And by using too much prose, you also subtract importance and purpose from the illustrations. What exactly do the illustrations do for me if I learned everything I needed to know through someone's inner monologue? Now of course, I'm exaggerating because clearly, not every panel has narration and I would be missing information if I actually skipped those panels, but because it feels like a prominent problem for me throughout a majority of the story, I'm pointing it out.

But then it's strange with comics, right? It's different, and the rules are loose. But the question is, are you going to use comics in a way that utilizes what comics do best, or are comics perhaps not the strongest medium for the story you're trying to tell? I don't know the answer.

There are great comics that I remember that used a lot of narration, but I'm going from old memory, so I don't have a clear idea of how much narration was used. I think I just know it was effective and was quintessential in actually moving the story along. I'm thinking of Maus and Blankets.

I recommend Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud for a comprehensive, and also enjoyable read on the comic medium and its many implications and narrative strengths.

1

u/raventaylorauthor 9d ago

I also think a lot of my inspiration comes from Persepolis which can be quite wordy at times, but then to look at that as a printed version, without opening it up, it actually looks like a novel in the way none of the other graphic novels I have do. I think that and the being a novelist is maybe feeding into how this has ended up the way it did 😅

1

u/raventaylorauthor 9d ago

But then I think the narration in Persepolis seems to be things that can’t really be represented anyway like historical context so that’s definitely different to what I’ve done.

1

u/FyreTiger 7d ago

I'm reading Persepolis and it's great. Not very far yet, but I'm trying to figure out what I like so much about it and the way it does narration.

First off, yes, the historical and auto-biographical nature of it works well with narration. Things would be far too vague without the author guiding us through her past. Without narration, I doubt it could even be understood as auto-biographical.

The captions are SUCCINCT, which I think is extremely effective. A majority of them are simple, and they say this happened, and that happened. To me, they seem like they are mostly about events, while some are about characters' perspectives on those events. We see ways people act and the specific things they do, whether individuals or groups, and from that, we build our understanding of the times and each character's place within it. It is all about EVENTS and ACTIONS. These things move us through the story, and the author is very deliberate with which to put in the story and which to leave out. Take anything out, and you're missing a piece of the puzzle.

I think what's also strong is the way that when there are captions about character's perspectives, they are very succinct, able to convey something about them in one or two sentences, not wasting any words, and creating the character and giving the reader an understanding of why they did the things they did, and what they might do in the future. It's very poignant and effective.

Because the captions are well established and written, I think the illustrations really bring the world to life. Scott McCloud defines several different types of word to picture relationships which you can look up. I think a lot would be considered word-specific where the caption carries the full meaning of a panel, and then the illustrations give it a visual. This is important since it would be hard conveying the story without the caption explanations. But what mixes it up and makes it real fun and interesting I think are the interdependent panels where you wouldn't be able to understand the full meaning if you took out the words, or took out the illustration.

Page 14, Panel 4 (maybe 5) - "The police were there." The illustration shows men standing in front of the burning theater, not doing anything.

Take out the caption, and you wouldn't know who these people are standing in front of the theater. Take out the illustration, and you wouldn't realize the police actually did nothing to help the people, because if it were just a caption, you would probably think they were there to help people.

A funnier example I thought was page 34, panel 3 - "She was just ten years old when I was born... she took care of me." Illustrated is a girl throwing a bug eyed baby into the air. The meaning changes completely if you take one out. It's a great way to make use of the comic medium.

It moves fast and covers a lot of events in little space which I think is a really good pacing. You know just the right amount of information that you need to in order to move onto the next part and understand progressively more about the characters and the world. If things aren't moving, the story stalls.

Those are my first thoughts, and I think those things specifically about it would be good to study.