A Pop Rant by Laura DePuy.
redundant; 1. Exceeding what is natural or necessary; superabundant; exuberant. 2. Using more words or images than are necessary or useful; pleonastic. [Syn: superfluous; superabundant; excessive; exuberant; overflowing; plentiful; copious.]
Dear Verbose Writer:
You don't know when to shut up, do you?
Allow me to preface that direct statement with a bit of background. As a comics professional, I know there are many different approaches to comics scriptwriting. One common method is to write a plot, which then goes to the artist. While the art is being drawn, the dialogue is scripted and the art boards lettered. Another common way is to present the artist with a complete script, dialogue intact.
Should your method of writing be the former, then I can somewhat understand how my pet peeve occurs. I do not condone it, but I understand it. Should your method be the latter, then you have no excuse.
My pet peeve is this: unnecessary dialogue or exposition in a panel, where the dialogue describes exactly what's already been drawn in the panel.
For instance, Batman and Robin walk into a room and see The Joker aiming a gun at them. Batman turns to Robin, who is obviously reacting to the scene in front of him, and says, "Look out, Robin, he's got a gun."
Well, duh.
Zippy the Wonder Slug walks up to his front door and sees a note stuck there with a knife. He ponders to himself, "I wonder who stuck this note to my door with a knife?"
Not, "What's this?" or "Where'd this come from?" Or even the snarky "Nice knife!" Oh no. You just had to tell us all that the note was stuck to the door with a knife. Like suddenly our eyes couldn't focus on anything but the word balloons.
This happens time and time again, with different levels of intensity, emotion, and prose, but the result is all the same: The action, which already speaks for itself, is being described in all its pointless clarity by the corresponding dialogue.
Why is this, Writer? Have you forgotten that comics are a visual medium? Need I remind you that comics are not novels; there are pictures to assist you in your storytelling? Lots of them. Do you not trust your artist's ability to follow the plot, or do you simply not know what your artist is doing? Do you get so caught up in your own imagined wittiness that you can't let a scene stand on its own? Or, worst of all: do you really think your readers are so stupid that they can't figure the plot out for themselves?
This is exactly why I'm a big proponent of the writer who completes the full script before it ever goes to the penciller. Besides a whole slew of other advantages, the biggest advantage to this is that the penciller will be able to interpret what needs to be shown and what doesn't. (Not to mention that he can also have the right characters with their mouths open or perhaps gesticulating like real humans, and the silent characters with their mouths shut...you get the idea.)
This, of course, goes beyond just you and the artist. The letterer is involved too, for he or she has to figure out some way to get 50 words, balloon, and directional tail into a 2 inch by 2 inch panel that already shows what's going on. So, in effect, your wordiness has now created a bubble of wasted time and energy. And I haven't even touched on the reader, who has the unfortunate task of wading through your waist-deep dialogue. But at least he or she won't miss the plot when it's been spelled out twice.
Please, do us all a favor and ask yourself the following questions every time you are grasped by the desire to over-write a scene:
1. If I was in this same position as this character,
would I really be shooting the breeze this much?
2. Is this scene so weak to begin with that I have to spell out
the action, both in plot and script?
3. Will I be able to hear the letterer's cursing from all the way
over here?
If you answered yes to any of these questions, then perhaps you should reconsider your story. Pare down the dialogue, keep it simple and exact, give the artist enough direction so he can work with you. Get your hands on some of Warren Ellis' scripts. Or Alan Moore's. Study up on the masters and see just how much they leave up to their artists and readers.
If you answered yes to all of those questions, then you've missed your calling as a speech writer for politicians.
Silence can indeed be golden, Writer. It can be more powerful and poignant than words sometimes, and it just might save your book from redundancy.
Thank you.
Laura J. DePuy
September 1999
 |
 |
 |
|
Pop Preview - Grendel: Past Prime Talkback:
|
||
 |
|
 |
