T Campbell's Blog
Writer of Penny and Aggie, Fans (also called Faans), Rip & Teri, Search Engine Funnies and A History of Webcomics. Experienced webcomics editor, currently seeking full-time work and working on strange and interesting new things...Thursday, December 01, 2005
Klurkor 11 II.
Nicolas Juzda wrote me recently with some thoughts on Klurkor 11. He describes his process of reading comics, especially during fight scenes, which struck me as so interesting that I wanted to share it with all of you.
My question, for those who care, is: does his way of reading comics sound familiar? If so, it might inspire a new official style of writing them...
"I disagree with your statement recently that the dialogue in comic panels shouldn't exceed the length of time of the action in the panel. Or rather, I disagree with what I believe you mean by that.
Most comic book panels are snapshots of frozen instants in time. There are a few tricks, such as speed lines, multiple images, and simultaneous depiction of sequential events within a panel, to extend that time, but not by much. The reader extrapolates from these instants the actions that are occuring. If I understand correctly, you judge the "time" of a panel to be the length of time for the entirety of the actions explicitly shown to be carried out. (eg a shot of someone with their fist in midflight equals one complete punch.) I think this underestimates the amount of extrapolated events.
Unless the events clearly follow immediately after one another, I would tend to think that there is a lag time between actions that often is visually undepicted. Characters circle and feint between the depicted punches, or even deliver a flurry of incidental blows between the ones that are shown. This is even more the case during a non-action scene, where vast amounts of time might
be spend doing nothing but standing there talking, which can be compressed into a few images due to the lack of changing visual information of any interest...
I'd like to make clear that I don't consciously fill in the space between panels with material of my own invention. But I would say that, for me, dialogue is driving the pacing of what I'm reading. So, a lot of dialogue creates a sense that the actions being sequentially depicted occur a certain interval apart; my point was that this doesn't necessarily translate to the specific actions depicted themselves taking that long.
Obviously, there are times when the imagery shows actions that lead directly one to the next without much time between them (such as, say, a gun being fired in one panel and striking the target in the next). Scott McCloud discussed in Understanding Comics the different ways that panels can lead to each other, but I don't have it handy.
On the other hand, I certainly agree that, for certain characters in certain circumstances, dialogue of any sort is inappropriate because it's a situation where people would probably not speak. But this has little to do with the amount of time the dialogue takes. You presented it as a timing issue involving the relationship between imagery and dialogue. Your original point in
your blog, as written, would allow Wolverine and Sabertooth to debate at great length, provided that there were a lot of panels depicting separate punches for each point and counterpoint.
I think a comparison to film might be appropriate. Sometimes, dialogue would be ridiculous; the actors shouldn't be doing more than grunting, even if they have plenty of screen time in which to speak. On the complete other side of the spectrum, you have, say, Wesley and Inigo chatting as they duel atop the Cliffs of Insanity..."
I'm gonna cut him off here because I think the example is a poor one and doesn't do justice to his point. The Princess Bride is a self-consciously unrealistic movie (based on a similarly self-conscious book), and as such it's not terribly relevant to "a recipe for making worlds real." But what about a boxing match that involves a lot of trash talking? There, action and dialogue are both plentiful, but since one panel can depict (usually) only one action and many words, challenges ensue.
I'm tempted to declare this approach a third style of comics writing, Zoom Time, which combines some of the virtues of Klurkor 11 and StanChat. (Update 12/08): Specifically, I think that if StanChat is cartoony expressionism and Klurkor 11 is relative naturalism, Zoom Time is impressionism-- clearly based on the way things might really happen but far less interested in delineating it blow-by-blow. Zoom Time and StanChat probably have fewer rules than Klurkor 11, but I haven't decided on a firm list.
I'm curious as to how many people read comics the way Nic describes. Does his thinking sound familiar to you? What do you think?
My question, for those who care, is: does his way of reading comics sound familiar? If so, it might inspire a new official style of writing them...
"I disagree with your statement recently that the dialogue in comic panels shouldn't exceed the length of time of the action in the panel. Or rather, I disagree with what I believe you mean by that.
Most comic book panels are snapshots of frozen instants in time. There are a few tricks, such as speed lines, multiple images, and simultaneous depiction of sequential events within a panel, to extend that time, but not by much. The reader extrapolates from these instants the actions that are occuring. If I understand correctly, you judge the "time" of a panel to be the length of time for the entirety of the actions explicitly shown to be carried out. (eg a shot of someone with their fist in midflight equals one complete punch.) I think this underestimates the amount of extrapolated events.
Unless the events clearly follow immediately after one another, I would tend to think that there is a lag time between actions that often is visually undepicted. Characters circle and feint between the depicted punches, or even deliver a flurry of incidental blows between the ones that are shown. This is even more the case during a non-action scene, where vast amounts of time might
be spend doing nothing but standing there talking, which can be compressed into a few images due to the lack of changing visual information of any interest...
I'd like to make clear that I don't consciously fill in the space between panels with material of my own invention. But I would say that, for me, dialogue is driving the pacing of what I'm reading. So, a lot of dialogue creates a sense that the actions being sequentially depicted occur a certain interval apart; my point was that this doesn't necessarily translate to the specific actions depicted themselves taking that long.
Obviously, there are times when the imagery shows actions that lead directly one to the next without much time between them (such as, say, a gun being fired in one panel and striking the target in the next). Scott McCloud discussed in Understanding Comics the different ways that panels can lead to each other, but I don't have it handy.
On the other hand, I certainly agree that, for certain characters in certain circumstances, dialogue of any sort is inappropriate because it's a situation where people would probably not speak. But this has little to do with the amount of time the dialogue takes. You presented it as a timing issue involving the relationship between imagery and dialogue. Your original point in
your blog, as written, would allow Wolverine and Sabertooth to debate at great length, provided that there were a lot of panels depicting separate punches for each point and counterpoint.
I think a comparison to film might be appropriate. Sometimes, dialogue would be ridiculous; the actors shouldn't be doing more than grunting, even if they have plenty of screen time in which to speak. On the complete other side of the spectrum, you have, say, Wesley and Inigo chatting as they duel atop the Cliffs of Insanity..."
I'm gonna cut him off here because I think the example is a poor one and doesn't do justice to his point. The Princess Bride is a self-consciously unrealistic movie (based on a similarly self-conscious book), and as such it's not terribly relevant to "a recipe for making worlds real." But what about a boxing match that involves a lot of trash talking? There, action and dialogue are both plentiful, but since one panel can depict (usually) only one action and many words, challenges ensue.
I'm tempted to declare this approach a third style of comics writing, Zoom Time, which combines some of the virtues of Klurkor 11 and StanChat. (Update 12/08): Specifically, I think that if StanChat is cartoony expressionism and Klurkor 11 is relative naturalism, Zoom Time is impressionism-- clearly based on the way things might really happen but far less interested in delineating it blow-by-blow. Zoom Time and StanChat probably have fewer rules than Klurkor 11, but I haven't decided on a firm list.
I'm curious as to how many people read comics the way Nic describes. Does his thinking sound familiar to you? What do you think?
Comments:
<< Home
I disagree. Overall dialogue weakens the fight, because it makes the whole situation look like "hey, they don't really care". Dialogue is forgiven, for me, if...
* It's necessary (and understandable). Example: "Don't kill me! I'm Robin but they injected me some serum that makes me look like the serial killer" etc etc etc
* It's *short*. Badass lines? They are understandable for certain kind of fighters, that depend on them to intimidate and keep their winner mood.
* They are actually a ploy to distract the other guy in the fight.
Maritza
CRFH.net
* It's necessary (and understandable). Example: "Don't kill me! I'm Robin but they injected me some serum that makes me look like the serial killer" etc etc etc
* It's *short*. Badass lines? They are understandable for certain kind of fighters, that depend on them to intimidate and keep their winner mood.
* They are actually a ploy to distract the other guy in the fight.
Maritza
CRFH.net
I can see the point of K11 in fight and other busy action sequences, but I think it can break down in other cirucumstances. Take the last panel of this strip. Visually it shows a single quick action covering less than a second: the character whipping out her piece of paper. A ruthlessly strict enforcement of K11 would reduce the dialogue to "Boom!", or force a couple more panels into the strip. In practice the single panel works fine: the dialogue shows the time covered, and the action comes across as a single fast movement in an otherwise still interval. Same principle with the arrow-strike here.
Yes, that is how K11 would handle those situations, and to me at least, the result would be realer. It certainly doesn't mean the approach "breaks down" there, unless you take it as a given that all this action MUST fit into the pre-existing number of panels. It also seems to me like those examples challenge the reader to puzzle out the exact sequence of events (did the arrow fly AFTER, DURING or BEFORE "Actually, she's with me?")-- or treat them as though the exact sequence doesn't matter. Sometimes it really doesn't, and that's when Zoom Time seems useful, but I think it does matter most of the time (it is SEQUENTIAL art, after all).
I'm still turning this over in my head, obviously. I don't want to be one of those cranks who shrieks "We're all doing it all wrong!" But I worry sometimes that we might be.
I'm still turning this over in my head, obviously. I don't want to be one of those cranks who shrieks "We're all doing it all wrong!" But I worry sometimes that we might be.
I'm inclined to agree with Juzda, but with a slightly different take on the matter. When I read comics, especially ones with superheros, I've come to realize I treat them much as I would a soap opera. Realism isn't entirely thrown out the door if you have Superman duking it out with Captain Marvel in the skies of Metropolis, but you come to expect internally consistent rules within the superhero universe. Not merely physics that violate accepted science (time travel... by treadmill) but a certain "thought/emotion" drive, for lack of a better term.
For example, Batman in his core books is a crime fighter. He fights mobsters, deals with the freaks, ans his tales involve all manor of horrible things that happen to people for no reason. In short, it's as close as a DC book gets to being in the real world setting without being a Vertigo book. Granted, the real world doesn't have the Joker, but it does have murder and child abuse, issues discussed in Batman books (or at least used as tropes). But Batman also fights with the JLA. He can go to the 5th dimension or go one-on-one with Darkside. Batman, in short, can do anything the writer needs him to do. "I'm Batman, and I can breathe in space."
Only... the Batman that single-handily takes out a Martian invasion with a book of matches isn't exactly the same Batman that were shown busting coke dealers. Detective Comics' Batman might deal with Zantana and Green Lantern, but his book's internal rules say he is a detective dealing with Gotham crime first and foremost. Alan Scott may operate in Gotham City, but in the "gritty realism" of Detective Comics they don't often reference or bring to bear the more superheroic aspects of Batman's existence.
To use a gamer analogy, it's like in an old SNES role-playing game. We see the sprites on the screen but, "in reality", the sprite are just representations to aid in conveying the game's world to us. The hero doesn't live in a world or pixelated colors and speak in blue dialogue boxes filled with off-white font. Their "real world" is what we build in our heads.
Basically, the soap opera nature of the superhero comic means that we accept certain unrealistic aspects (stylized dialogue, spandex, always saving that one helpless kid from beneath the falling helicopter) in order to enjoy a good yarn. Because of the way words play off the artwork, the way dialogue is written changes the tone and pace of a fight. The decision is up to the writer (and artist, to a varying degree).
For instance, take the Ultimate Spiderman book. Bendis is a fiend for dialogue, and through this book we see a Bendis-style Spiderman-fight (basically, all Spiderman fights must involve witty banter or bad puns, unless this time IT'S PERSONAL). A common tool of Bendis is to write US with multiple panels cutting back and forth between Spiderman and whoever he's fighting/bantering with. We get the sense that Spiderman is talking at the same speed he's fighting; fast, rapid bursts. This style tells us that 1) teenage Spiderman is a wise ass motor mouth and 2) he's a very quick, agile fighter. Such a fight scene doesn't seem to take long to to me, the reader, since the impression of quickness is drilled into me by the method of dialogue pacing. For me, that enhances the story.
Compared to a standard Superman fight, Spiderman is an ADHD kid on crack. Superman talks in long, often earnest slabs of dialogue while he's slapping Brainiac around at supersonic speed. He's moving many times faster than Spiderman, and hitting harder, but the actual fight scene is not paced much differently from Clark Kent talking over the water cooler at the Daily Planet. A Superman-fight is all about power, strength, and confidence. He's Superman, and he always wins in the end. Fighting a Supervillian is no harder for him than it is for us to turn on a dishwasher. His block dialogue reflects this and indulges in soap opera theatrics because Superman is so powerful. It's not a "I'm barely hanging in there" fight Spiderman would have against the Green Goblin. It's Superman being Superman.
However, unless the dialogue serves a thematic purpose, it can hurt a fight scene. Considering the readers who would be interested in this topic, I sure any of them can easily recall a terrible fight. My personal pet peeve is when everyone's talking and word balloons just clutter up the artwork. Then it's more like the characters are fighting against suffocation by omnipresent white cloud, like Number 6 in an failed escape scene from The Prisoner.
In the end, rules of some sort are a good place to start, but, like anything, the best results come when artists understand when it's time to break the rules.
Wow. That's was longer than I thought it'd be. Anyway, that's my take on dialogue in a fight (at least a superhero one).
For example, Batman in his core books is a crime fighter. He fights mobsters, deals with the freaks, ans his tales involve all manor of horrible things that happen to people for no reason. In short, it's as close as a DC book gets to being in the real world setting without being a Vertigo book. Granted, the real world doesn't have the Joker, but it does have murder and child abuse, issues discussed in Batman books (or at least used as tropes). But Batman also fights with the JLA. He can go to the 5th dimension or go one-on-one with Darkside. Batman, in short, can do anything the writer needs him to do. "I'm Batman, and I can breathe in space."
Only... the Batman that single-handily takes out a Martian invasion with a book of matches isn't exactly the same Batman that were shown busting coke dealers. Detective Comics' Batman might deal with Zantana and Green Lantern, but his book's internal rules say he is a detective dealing with Gotham crime first and foremost. Alan Scott may operate in Gotham City, but in the "gritty realism" of Detective Comics they don't often reference or bring to bear the more superheroic aspects of Batman's existence.
To use a gamer analogy, it's like in an old SNES role-playing game. We see the sprites on the screen but, "in reality", the sprite are just representations to aid in conveying the game's world to us. The hero doesn't live in a world or pixelated colors and speak in blue dialogue boxes filled with off-white font. Their "real world" is what we build in our heads.
Basically, the soap opera nature of the superhero comic means that we accept certain unrealistic aspects (stylized dialogue, spandex, always saving that one helpless kid from beneath the falling helicopter) in order to enjoy a good yarn. Because of the way words play off the artwork, the way dialogue is written changes the tone and pace of a fight. The decision is up to the writer (and artist, to a varying degree).
For instance, take the Ultimate Spiderman book. Bendis is a fiend for dialogue, and through this book we see a Bendis-style Spiderman-fight (basically, all Spiderman fights must involve witty banter or bad puns, unless this time IT'S PERSONAL). A common tool of Bendis is to write US with multiple panels cutting back and forth between Spiderman and whoever he's fighting/bantering with. We get the sense that Spiderman is talking at the same speed he's fighting; fast, rapid bursts. This style tells us that 1) teenage Spiderman is a wise ass motor mouth and 2) he's a very quick, agile fighter. Such a fight scene doesn't seem to take long to to me, the reader, since the impression of quickness is drilled into me by the method of dialogue pacing. For me, that enhances the story.
Compared to a standard Superman fight, Spiderman is an ADHD kid on crack. Superman talks in long, often earnest slabs of dialogue while he's slapping Brainiac around at supersonic speed. He's moving many times faster than Spiderman, and hitting harder, but the actual fight scene is not paced much differently from Clark Kent talking over the water cooler at the Daily Planet. A Superman-fight is all about power, strength, and confidence. He's Superman, and he always wins in the end. Fighting a Supervillian is no harder for him than it is for us to turn on a dishwasher. His block dialogue reflects this and indulges in soap opera theatrics because Superman is so powerful. It's not a "I'm barely hanging in there" fight Spiderman would have against the Green Goblin. It's Superman being Superman.
However, unless the dialogue serves a thematic purpose, it can hurt a fight scene. Considering the readers who would be interested in this topic, I sure any of them can easily recall a terrible fight. My personal pet peeve is when everyone's talking and word balloons just clutter up the artwork. Then it's more like the characters are fighting against suffocation by omnipresent white cloud, like Number 6 in an failed escape scene from The Prisoner.
In the end, rules of some sort are a good place to start, but, like anything, the best results come when artists understand when it's time to break the rules.
Wow. That's was longer than I thought it'd be. Anyway, that's my take on dialogue in a fight (at least a superhero one).
It also seems to me like those examples challenge the reader to puzzle out the exact sequence of events
I don't think it's that much of a puzzle in either case. In "Wandering Ones", the shot seems a clear attention-getter by the shooter; it would come before the speech. In "Newshounds" the action with the paper corresponds clearly with "Boom!" I don't think it's asking too much of the readers.
To be honest, I think the K11 rule would ruin these two examples. They strike me as having good snappy timing that would be lost entirely by inserting extra panels, leaving them bloated and limp. It would be sacrificing dramatic energy for a smidgin of extra literal "realism" I don't think is even needed there.
I don't think it's that much of a puzzle in either case. In "Wandering Ones", the shot seems a clear attention-getter by the shooter; it would come before the speech. In "Newshounds" the action with the paper corresponds clearly with "Boom!" I don't think it's asking too much of the readers.
To be honest, I think the K11 rule would ruin these two examples. They strike me as having good snappy timing that would be lost entirely by inserting extra panels, leaving them bloated and limp. It would be sacrificing dramatic energy for a smidgin of extra literal "realism" I don't think is even needed there.
In retrospect, using The Princess Bride does have certain problems in a dicussion of "realism", but it had the virtue of being a fight scene I could recollect in fairly minute detail without having to rewatch it.
I'm going to try to extract the points I was trying to make using that example. I used it to illustrate two ways in which actions and words can occur simultaneously that would not be easily depicted in T's rules.
The first is that dialogue can occur during a brief break in the action. Under T's rule, this would require a separate panel, in the middle of a fight, in which no action was being visually depicted. I suggested that the effect this has in a comic is a far greater interruption to momentum than in a film, stopping the action dead. (Though sometimes that can be used deliberately for a specific effect.)
The second is that dialogue can occur during a lengthy sequence of largely repetitive and individually insignficant actions which each take very little time. Under T's rule, this would require a lengthy sequence of nigh-identical panels.
Nicolas
I'm going to try to extract the points I was trying to make using that example. I used it to illustrate two ways in which actions and words can occur simultaneously that would not be easily depicted in T's rules.
The first is that dialogue can occur during a brief break in the action. Under T's rule, this would require a separate panel, in the middle of a fight, in which no action was being visually depicted. I suggested that the effect this has in a comic is a far greater interruption to momentum than in a film, stopping the action dead. (Though sometimes that can be used deliberately for a specific effect.)
The second is that dialogue can occur during a lengthy sequence of largely repetitive and individually insignficant actions which each take very little time. Under T's rule, this would require a lengthy sequence of nigh-identical panels.
Nicolas
With respect to Maritza Campos' comment, I specifically addressed the point that sometimes (often) dialogue would be unrealistic given the action depicted. However, T's rule was not "People don't tend to speak during combat." His original premise was "In an 'action panel,' the time taken by dialogue does not exceed the time taken by an action." This rule is both more permissive and more strict with regard to allowing dialogue to occur amidst action.
As I pointed out, this rule actually *allows* for characters to deliver dialgoue during ludicrously inappropriate moments, so long as there are sufficient panels to provide "time" (as T interprets time in comics books) for that dialogue to be delivered.
On the other hand, as Tim Tylor noted, there are circumstances where it is absolutely realistic for characters to speak but during which a very brief action (eg pulling out a paper) occurs. Under T's rule, this shrinks the "time" of the panel containing the action to the point where it shouldn't contain dialogue.
Nicolas
As I pointed out, this rule actually *allows* for characters to deliver dialgoue during ludicrously inappropriate moments, so long as there are sufficient panels to provide "time" (as T interprets time in comics books) for that dialogue to be delivered.
On the other hand, as Tim Tylor noted, there are circumstances where it is absolutely realistic for characters to speak but during which a very brief action (eg pulling out a paper) occurs. Under T's rule, this shrinks the "time" of the panel containing the action to the point where it shouldn't contain dialogue.
Nicolas
Yes, but those rules are specific to obfuscatory dialogue, expository dialogue, and telegraphing your moves.
There is no rule in Klurkor 11 that would prohibit two people in the middle of a brutal knife fight from discussing the nature of human existence in a godless universe, provided that the creators drew a LOT of panels and spread the dialogue out so no panel had more than a few words.
On the other hand, the characters *are* clearly barred from stating their own names or announcing "jab at the ribcage!"
If you want to make a rule saying that characters shouldn't deliver dialogue if the situation renders it ludicrous, do so. it's your list of rules. But you simply have not done so.
Nicolas
There is no rule in Klurkor 11 that would prohibit two people in the middle of a brutal knife fight from discussing the nature of human existence in a godless universe, provided that the creators drew a LOT of panels and spread the dialogue out so no panel had more than a few words.
On the other hand, the characters *are* clearly barred from stating their own names or announcing "jab at the ribcage!"
If you want to make a rule saying that characters shouldn't deliver dialogue if the situation renders it ludicrous, do so. it's your list of rules. But you simply have not done so.
Nicolas
I agree with Tim. The action depicted in a non-silent panel can't be anything but a small portion of the time taken up by dialogue of any significant length. It's obvious that the dialogue in that Wandering Ones panel follows the arrow strike. It does not seem unnatural at all. As long as the apparent sequence of events is coherent, it's fine.
Update: After this discussion, I went back and changed Klurkor 11 rules 2 and 3 in line with some of Nic's comments, and updated this post in response to others.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Archives
January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006
