Those of you who have been reading Pinkerton since the beginning (or have followed my rants on other people’s sites) are well aware of my discomfort with the instant gratification of the internet. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I love hearing from you guys. I don’t mind the criticism either. However, I sometimes feel that TOO MUCH interaction can derail a plot or undermine a joke. I know I sound like some sort’ve artist here. I’m really not. I’m just a control freak.
So I ran across a new strip on GoComics called “In The Sticks.” It’s a very funny strip when you finally get to the punch line. However, from what I can see, the artist, Mr. Nathan Cooper, is giving you a glimpse of the comic as it develops. He shows you the rough sketches and liner notes as well as developmental items that finally lead to a finished comic strip. What is more eye-opening to the reader is the level of input Cooper’s editor has in the development of each strip. Could this be another selling point for artists to pursue the sole-proprietary nature of webcomics?
I’m not sure how I feel about it. Like I said, In The Sticks is funny! It’s well written and obviously Cooper is taking his time to develop his gags. And it is a neat approach. I just wonder if this sort of approach is taking the magic out of the process for the reader. What do you think?
Readers love inside information and behind the scenes material. Just look at your average DVD for a movie. Learning the secrets of special effects doesn’t take away the magic, it increases the viewer’s appreciation of how much thought and detail is involved. The same is true for comics.
As for editorial input, most web cartoonists, myself included, enjoy the freedom of not having an editor but probably could use an extra pair of eyes in the creative process. Reader commenting and interaction is, in my opinion, one of the best parts of doing an online comic.
I like seeing how the strip comes about and what type of changes the editor may suggest or make. However, I like seeing both the rough sketch & finished version at the same time to see the differences. But then again, a friend of mine is a gag writer for a few syndicated strips and I know there is a long process involved with a comic strip.
I agree that reader interaction is great. I agree that having an editor is an invaluable resource. The issue I wrestle with is putting it in front of the world.
I just sometimes feel I have to avoid the comments mid-story so I don’t get swayed by the desires of the readers…if that makes any sense at all.
JP and Sandy: BTW thank you. Very good comments! Thanks for the input.
When I first read about it, I thought it was an interesting concept. I enjoy seeing how the development process works. I don’t really think it takes away from the magic.
Although, I’m going to take this in a different direction: I don’t like the choice of “In the Sticks.” for a behind the scenes look.
Even though it is funny, it’s a “safe” comic. His writing doesn’t require too much tweaking to fit into newspapers. I’d prefer to see this process with edgier strips like “Pearls,” or “Lio,” or hell, even “Doonesbury.” Maybe even dip into the archives and look at old “Bloom County” strips or “Calvin.” My guess is that those strips have probably had a lot of editorial assistance.
Plus he stole your character name.
I’d say that pretty much every big time syndicated cartoonist I’ve talked to has had nothing but praise for their editors. Seems to me that the syndicate editors are very aware that the strip is the unique voice of the creator, and that their job is to gently guide them down the road when necessary, but for the most part, it’s a very collaborative and mostly hands-off process. I think that a lot of webcomics could use an editors touch…I do think that after a while, most webcartoonists get a core of supporters and fellow artists that they listen to more seriously than others, which is a good thing. The community of artists I’ve met online has been very supportive and honest with their critiques, and when you find a couple who you trust, it can be a good editing system.
As far as putting it out there for the public, that always is problematic…if you’re going to do it, you have to be ready for the barrage of people putting in their 2 cents…I suppose you could put stuff up for people to see, but disable the comments section to avoid the madness.
Personally as an artist, I’m hard pressed to let even my wife see my sketch book, so I’m not sure I’d want to put the rough process out there for the world to see. It’s sort of like inviting people in to watch you give birth, and then letting them tell you you’re doing it wrong, or that they’d do it another way. 
As always, I generally follow the rule of what you as the creator thinks is always paramount…the opinions of a professional editor or artist should be weighed seriously…the opinions of educated and open-minded fans/friends should be considered, and everyone else can say what they like ’cause I won’t be listening. 
Speaking to this particular strip first (actually just stumbled onto it this morning) I think the editor has some good points. Everyone tends to “over-write” the joke on the first draft. So in that case the editor can be truly helpful.
That said, it really comes down to the experience and confidence of the cartoonist. If you just go with everything an editor says, you can end up with drivel. It comes done to having (or working to form) a solid vision of what you want your strip to be. Again, a lot of that comes from experience.
So many movies are crap because they don’t have a director with a singular vision and end up being created by committee. Whether you have an editor or not, the cartoonist must be aware of what they are working towards with their comic. Outside input is always good so long as you can make the judgment whether or not to listen to it.
Brian: Thank you, Brian. That is kinda where I was coming from.
Tom: Right on! Trust is a huge deal when considering feedback.
Lucas: I would tend to agree with you. I’m guessing that 99% of the successful strips out there have been “handled” at one point or another. Even if it’s from a perspective of directing it into a theme that doesn’t offend people.
I
I’m curious about something…maybe one of you could answer. Is “In The Sticks” in development for syndication?
Speaking from my own experience with syndicate editors, I can say they are never at a loss for suggestions on how to change/improve a strip. These are always suggestions, however. The creator has the last say.
I see a lot of animosity toward syndicates based on the idea that “they’ll change all your ideas” or “ruin your dream by watering down the jokes”. They are simply making suggestions based in knowing what sells and how the reader approaches a newspaper comic strip. If you’re not interested in, or are too proud to hear constructive criticism, then writing jokes may not be for you. Even the greatest cartoonist/comedy writers have editors.
Brian’s comment is along the same lines of my point. The cartoonist/editor relationship is a partnership. You both may have a different sense of humor and a diff idea of what makes a good joke, but it is ultimately up to the creator to stand up for his writing, at the same time listening to what the syndicate editor’s reasoning is behind his edits.
This is why the challenge and success in newspaper comics is so difficult. There’s real work and real frustration, making the final product that much more satisfying.
It’s the ‘hard’ that makes it great.
Mike- I believe it is, yes.
I love seeing behind-the-scenes stuff like this, and I don’t think it takes anything away from the “magic” of the comic. I watched the three-or-so hours of “making of” the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and even knowing all the tricks and secrets, nothing is ruined for me when I watch the movies again. I think comics work the same way.
I do a few “behind the scenes” sketches, and I’ve done a couple “alternate punchlines” I considered for different strips. I think people like seeing it, and I do keep it limited, so as not to expose the bones of every single strip. When I put a book together I’ll probably have a section dedicated to it, a few pages long.
I think editors can make *and* break a comic. They can let you know when your punchline isn’t as clear as you think it is, or when your dialogue drags on more than you think it does. However, I think, in most cases, an editor breaks it. He makes it “safe” for general audiences, and can alter the voice of the author to an extent that the comic loses that “X factor” that comes out of the author’s brain.
All that said, I would hate to submit each comic and adjust based on editor’s comments. I would “take the comments under advisement,” but I wouldn’t make a character smile because the editor said to make him smile.
Corey said:
“Speaking from my own experience with syndicate editors, I can say they are never at a loss for suggestions on how to change/improve a strip. These are always suggestions, however. The creator has the last say.”
That’s the way it should be. Having limited experience with editors, I’m not sure how a majority of them work. As long as they’re just suggestions, that’s great.
D.Long: I think it goes back to what Corey and Brian said…it has to be a partnership. A balance. I think the creator has to have the common sense to know what works for his creation and be able to argue those points should their editor swing his/her stick.
Corey had another really great point too: I see a lot of animosity toward syndicates based on the idea that
D. Long – They are just suggestions, yes, but keep in mind, you as the creator, need to decide what your ultimate goal is. If it’s mainstream syndication, then chances are you’re going to have to make changes based on those suggestions more than you may want to.
I guess you could say the syndicate editors suggestions, while still only that, are based on the ultimate goal of newspaper syndication.
Instead of thinking of syndicate editors as often ‘breaking’ a feature, one should approach them as being there for the sole purpose of getting you into as many papers as possible. And as I said before, that is not an easy task and one that requires really hard decisions.
I think it’s too much. Of course, if you want to include a little ‘extra’ in your book and want to show sketches, how the comic is put together…etc., then I think it’s fine.
One of my biggest pet peeves with webcomics is when the creator feels he has to use the blog space to over explain the joke. Let the joke stand on it’s own and don’t insult the readers’ intelligence! There are always some exceptions where you might need a little set up or want to make sure people have read certain strips before this one, but if I can’t get the joke from the strip itself, then it’s probably not a good one.
I’m very weird in that I don’t have a lot of rough sketches and plot stuff like In the Sticks. I kind of just go “oh this is what I want to do” and draw out the characters and then dialogue it. I do a lot of editing in my head, so it is interesting to see how other people create. I think those are best left for tutorials, though.
My understanding is that “In the Sticks” is about to be released in syndication and the peeks into the creative process are just teaser material until the formal launch.
On your first question, I think what you’re concerned with is an editor over-editing and the end result not being what the creator had intended and losing their voice, or worse, some power-mad editor making someone else’s creation their own. As most creators are control freaks, this may even stop some folks from pursuing the dream. As for “In the Sticks”, I think it was offered one of those “development deals”, and the editors definitely steer unfinished projects that have promise in this way. Looking at the example strip, 2 of the 3 notes are “ataboys” and the other is, as Brian said, a case of correcting over-writing, which many amateurs reportedly do.
If syndication continues to be a viable option, perhaps the best use of the internet is to put everything out there and use reader feedback to further develop one’s comic voice before attempting syndication. I know I listen to my 2 readers.
wit and Corey:
Very true- An editor making it ’safe’ might not break the comic if it makes it more marketable to newspapers, if that’s your goal. Like many others, I do have gripes about how ’safe’ a lot of comics in the papers are today. Stephan Pastis put it well once, saying that the newspaper comics page is stuck in the ’50s while the rest of the pages are up with the times.
My only consistent interaction with editors has been for MAD Magazine, so I haven’t had experience in the ‘make it safer’ department
John K, good point, if anything would ruin a comic for me, it’s not behind-the-scenes, but an accompanying blog post to explain what the strip was about. Definitely a no-no, in my opinion.
I’m for the behind the scenes looks regarding everything. I even like ‘Hard Knocks’ and I’m not really into football.
Of course, I’m a creator, that’s why I like inside looks into creative things. As far as losing the magic for the readers – I bet some like it and some hate it. Readers are a fickle bunch.
I’m for editors and for feedback for cartoonists. I think the biggest thing holding a lot of webcartoonists back is the lack of an editor or an unwillingness to get objective criticism about their work. (Some couldn’t take it if they got it of course, but that’s another issue) The best creative work rarely springs fully formed from the creator’s brain. It starts with an idea that then needs to be refined, polished, and tweaked.
Good points, all. Especially those regarding an editor of some kind.
There is one thing I’d like to add regarding seeing the developmental stages. I DO like the idea of showing a “Behind The Scenes” look, just 1) don’t do it in the same place as your regular feature. And 2), don’t do it ALL the time.
By definition (as agreed on above), this is akin to a DVD extra
John: Thanks! I think that’s my initial problem with viewing In The Sticks: Showing the development notes side-by-side with the final is distracting. I guess it is a cool idea as a side page or a special feature set apart from the strip.
maybe if the noted up version was placed as a thumbnail with a pop-up in the blog below the original strip? That way, not only is it a special feature, but it’s a special feature that readers could easily ignore if they didn’t want to see it.
That’s exactly what I’ve done, the few times I’ve shown any behind-the-scenes bits. “Cilck here to see the pencils”- things like that, in the blog.
I need to gather my thoughts on this as I do not want to come across as Superman juiced up on the RED KRYPTONITE. Byr the way, Corey is probably the most attractive avatar on here, just above’s Jim’s Monkey…
What did you say about Jim’s monkey?
Okay, stabilized.
I agree, as always with Jim. I love behind the scenes stuff, works in progress, and everybody knows I am the king of teasers. I don’t think there is an issue with said MAGIC being lost, because we are older than six. We know there is a process, the readers know there is a process. One of the biggest things that has helped me grow as a cartoon strip artist is feedback. The Panel Mammals’ foundation was built on feedback. NOW, let me be the first to say that in the past, I have let feedback change my direction right down to the way characters looked. I allowed for feedback, and got it. I was not strong enough in my comic conviction to hold true to what I knew was special and right. However, I also found it VERY helpful to listen to my peers. They were not always right…Brock…but they were helpful.
I honestly do not know if I could ever be successfully syndicated as I do not think I have that level of A) trust and B) compromise in me. Unless Jim was my editor, I think I would be the first Syndicated Cartoonist to pull a Kurt Cobain…
My problem is, and I don’t think it is a problem actually, is that I grew up on not just Calvin & Hobbes, but Bill Watterson. I love them equally, his comic and his integrity…so at a very deep seeded level, ya, I think the Editor should back off and into traffic.
The best situation and solution is to make millions on the web, creating what you want. Easy. Oh bye the way, folks, I am trying to get 1,000,000 comments on my Some Day Hero website on December 20th. I plan to donate 10 percent of those comments to less fortunate webcomics.