tonycliff
patreon
DD4 Inking, Book Recommendations, and a Character Generation Trick
🕑 Added 2022-02-04 14:01:04 +0000 UTC[ There are captions along with the images if you click through. ]
I'm happy with how those big, detailed wallpaper pages turned out. Thanks to a recent reminder from Chris Schweizer, I was careful not to put the outline on the line, but outside the line, since it's all surrounded by black.
I was watching the AppleTV+ series Dickinson the other day and noticed that they also have a shot of Emily Dickinson yelling at her mother through balusters—creating a sort of "I'm behind bars" type imagery, ooh, you thought you were so clever, Tony—and she's also yelling about the burdens of what will be expected of her as a young woman. Proof positive, this book is at least as clever as a digital-exclusive prestige-TV YA comedy-drama.
HEY TONY, HOW ARE EDITS COMING ALONG?
Hey remember in December when I said, "I will take a look at the pages with fresh eyes in January?"…with an eye toward cutting things (because George Saunders says to respect your reader). And I want to find something I can cut, because the chapter is relatively long.
Well, I have been doing that, and guys, I don't know what to say, I don't want to cut anything. My intuition (which George Saunders emphasizes, remember) is telling me to leave it all in. I might have to accept that if there's a Me that has the intuition to find some cuts, that Me lives in the future. Maybe a year or two away, maybe more.
HEY GUESS WHO READ SOME BOOKS.
I've "read" a good handful of books lately, because instead of reading them I have listened to them, which—when compared to reading text—is much easier to do while drawing (which I do a lot of).
Kazuo Ishiguro's THE BURIED GIANT — I wanted to read this because I like it when """literary""" authors do genre stuff. Maybe it's Isabelle Allende's ZORRO that sparked that idea for me. The local library only had this available immediately in *audio CD* format, so despite not having a great track record with audiobooks (I often find myself missing sections) I gave it a shot.
I really enjoyed it. It got its hooks in me. It's gloomy and mysterious and haunting, and tells a moving story of love and companionship and memory. I think it's a great companion to PIRANESI, actually. It was the perfect thing to fill the PIRANESI-shaped hole in my heart. They're very different in their shape and subject matter, but the mood and mystery feel similar.
Then I made the mistake of looking at online discussion about it. Apparently it's boring. I did not think so, but then I listened to the audiobook over the course of only two days, while I was inking. I thought it moved at exactly the right pace.
And apparently Ursula LeGuin and Ishiguro got into Internet Beef over some comments he made (link one, link two), and I don't agree with either of them (I can relate to Ishiguro's sentiment, but he phrased it poorly and I think LeGuin understandably mischaracterized it), and I would have hoped that both authors would know better than to be someone who argues on the internet.
Terry Pratchett's THE WEE FREE MEN, and A HAT FULL OF SKY, and currently THE COLOUR OF MAGIC — at this point, I figure everyone has sorted out for themselves whether they're a Pratchett reader or not. I still cannot tell whether I am one. For one thing, I really struggle against the cover art on most of his books. I do not judge a book by its cover, but I do think about what I want to look at on my bookshelf, or what I want to be seen reading. Sad but true.
I also grate against the silly names he chooses. And sometimes—every once in a while—the cleverness of his work crosses to the wrong side of a subtle line and I get a whiff of condescension. And his stories can feel a little disjointed, like he hasn't quite given the story the unity it deserves.
But on the other hand, I think he is a legitimately excellent writer. Every now and then I'll catch a line that is both economical and evocative, that is much more than the sum of its parts. And his clever jabs are both charming and incisive, when he's doing them right.
I don't remember what was the first Pratchett book I read, but I bounced off it, hard. Then, for some reason, I tried again, with EQUAL RITES, and I loved it.
I did not care for WEE FREE MEN, but I loved A HAT FULL OF SKY (both are part of the "Tiffany Aching" limb of the Discworld tree). The former felt like a bit of nothing. The latter was moving and thoughtful and occasionally very beautiful. Both it and THE BURIED GIANT are going on my "I must buy this because I borrowed it and liked it" list. And so far, THE COLOUR OF MAGIC (the first Discworld novel) is also really doing it for me. Go figure.
Next in my queue is Saunders' LINCOLN IN THE BARDO, because I figure if I'm going to keep yammering on about this jackass, I might as well have read one of his books. What if it's awful???
DO NOT MISS THIS ONE COOL TRICK FOR COMING UP WITH INTERESTING CHARACTERS.
I wandered into the kitchen the other day to find this sitting on the counter.
Once I finished rolling my eyes, I took a look through the deck and realized "hey, this could be useful." One thing I know about myself is that I'm bad at differentiating my characters before I start a story. I'm also bad at putting words to character traits. It's hard for me. So I saw this deck of cards and thought, "oh dang, this solves a problem."
Each card has a different "value," with little accompanying descriptors.
Let's assume that it's a good thing to have well-differentiated characters in a story. That way, they each offer greater chances to explore a theme from different angles. If all your characters are Charlie Brown, you're going to end up with one mopey book (the way it seems like a lot of people regard THE BURIED GIANT). Plus, character traits shine brightest when they can be contrasted against their complementary qualities (ahhh, "contrast," my favourite of the ideas from "15 Rules for Rebuilding The World").
I figured, I don't know (or I don't think I know) the characters from that El Camino project very well yet. Let's play a game with these cards and see what happens.
I shuffled the cards, then decided I would create four columns: one for each of the main characters (Eyman, Faris, Susa, and the deceased Ranulf). I would draw four random cards at once, and I would have to place one of those cards in each character's column. Here's what the first one looked like. Left-to-right, Eyman (the new driver), Faris (his older brother), Susa (the tall one), and Ranulf (the dead father figure).
This is partly random character generation, because I am forcing myself to consider an aspect of the characters that I might not have considered. Like, "civic engagement." Are you kidding me? Who would come up with "civic engagement?" And yet, now it seems that Eyman values Civic Engagement.
(I ran it a second time, for fun…)
There's that "civic engagement" nonsense again. Whatever, Eyman is very civically engaged, I guess.
So, it's a little bit random, but I was surprised to find that it's much less random than I thought/hoped it would be. When I was choosing which character to give a certain trait, was I asking, "who does this seem like it fits?" Or was I saying, "I want this character to be this way?" Both, I think. I was also surprised that for most of my draws, this task was much easier than I thought it would be. Only one or two draws had me scratching my head. Which suggests that I might have had in mind a more solid conception of my characters than I initially guessed.
( I ran it a third time, because why not…)
A thing I like about this is that by saying "you get this card, and you get this card," you are also deciding "you DON'T get this card," which gives us that differentiation I mentioned at the start. For example, I imagine all four men would have "Courage" as a value, but this process encourages me to think: who is notably courageous? What does that suggest? And my other, less-courageous characters—how does that come in to play?
Just like the "Scene-Sequel" approach, it's easy to see shortcomings in this little game. For example, in that last bottom row, I gave Eyman "Wisdom" and Susa "Self-Discipline," and I really would have liked for Susa to get "Wisdom," too. But that's okay. It's just a little exercise to try and think about things differently. For example, this has got me considering a Susa who is the calm, careful stoic who isn't actually all that insightful—he comes across as "the wise man," but might not have the goods to back it up. And though Eyman seems indecisive and unsure, perhaps deep down his judgment is rock-solid.
Unfortunately, apparently the Andreea Niculescu who co-wrote the deck titles herself a "brand strategist"—barf—so I can't whole-heartedly recommend a purchase, but here's the link anyway.
I would like a companion deck of "Weaknesses"—like "Bad with Money," "Liar," "Lazy," etc—but that might have to be a DIY project, because I can't imagine any brand strategists thinking that would be very profitable.
GIMME A DD4 UPDATE, HANDSOME!
Those wallpaper pages really slowed me down. Can we make it to 66% by the end of February? That's my goal.
Happy February, Dear Readers!
TC
Comments
Camila Espinosa
Your inks are beautiful as always Tony! I'm reading PIRANESI now and it is incredible! The only book that's ever felt like it is OCEAN SEA by Alessandro Baricco, you might like it too :) Oh! and the character ideation using cards looks really fun! A tarot deck might work!
Tealin
Ah OK, I'm glad you've found some you like now – for a few years it seemed like "I feel like I should like this Pratchett guy but I'm just not getting it." As for unkindness, I think I can speak for a great many of his readers in that Terry Pratchett provided both an unfamiliar validation in feeling seen, and a way to approach a hostile and baffling world with some degree of compassion and humanity. His 'cleverer than thou' characters all have to learn how not to be jerks. It's hard to fit that into a radio play, with its limited runtime and lack of internal monologue, even if the radio productions allowed time for the actors to read the book (they didn't, just the script) or have any rehearsal time with the director (who might also have read only the script). Robin Brooks always did a fantastic job of condensing the story, but nuances inevitably had to be cut. Re: David Mitchell, I was thinking more about his sketch writing than his panel appearances – where he's in control of the narrative and the perspective, rather than playing off others. (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN1WN0YMWZU; though he's meaner in this version than the radio.) I feel like he comes from a similar place of 'clever person at odds with a world full of baffling dullards' when he's writing; when he's improvising, the persona puts him more on the back foot and so balances out. Incidentally, I just realised I have a Pratchett post going up this Saturday – not a swipe at you, rather prompted by finding some forgotten, unreleased drawings at the back of a cyberdrawer!
Tony Cliff
(That’s my best attempt to think through my thoughts. They may or may not be correct. I feel like I have, at best, only partial access to that filing system (by which I mean the pile of post its that is “Thoughts.”))
Tony Cliff
Ha ha, you can call me out all you want, that’s fine by me. I do want to say, I DO like Pratchett, quite a lot. I have library holds for so many things, but it’s the Pratchett I am really looking forward to. The snark I mention just because… I was listening maybe to WEE FREE MEN or maybe a BBC radio adaptation, and there was a line that just felt *unkind.* I am assuming we agree that there is an element to Pratchett where he distinguishes clever people (himself, the readers, some characters) from broader society/dullards. Or at least he does sometimes. Often those are fun insights. But I caught one line that just hit me the wrong way, it felt mean. And I thought back, wondering “could more of his cutting insights be seen that way?” Again, I can’t emphasize enough, I loved EQUAL RITES and now A HAT FULL OF SKY, as well as COLOUR OF MAGIC. And I remember the BBC adaptation of MORT very fondly. With, say, David Mitchell, his snark is most often complemented by less-snarky co-presenters (lee Mack/rob brydon on WILTY, the panelists on UNBELIEVABLE TRUTH). He can also be self-effacing. I wish I could quote the line from Pratchett that soured me a little. If I find another, I’ll mention it. Or I’ll realize I was being over sensitive and correct myself.
Tealin
I've been thinking a lot lately about neuro-compatibility with authors – do we jive with authors who write like we think? Regardless of the actual content or aesthetic; rather a communication style that resembles our internal monologues. I've struggled with books enthused about by people whose taste I trust, whereas some authors (Pratchett included) feel not so much like reading but like there's a telepathic link between our imaginations. The fact accessibility is so subjective must be indicative of something beyond mere writing 'skill' or tradecraft like pacing, dialogue, etc. It's intriguing to me that you like David Mitchell and John Finnemore but not Terry Pratchett, as to me they're cut from the same cloth – what do you find offputting about Pratchett's snarkiness that you don't find in Mitchell? (I'm not challenging you, here, I genuinely want to find out where the distinctions are that I can't see myself.)
Morgan Murray
Man, that’s borderline reckless.
Tony Cliff
EXACTLY, the balusters are an important story element, telling us about the laissez-faire attitude of uncle Nico toward the health and well-being of his young niece! How’s that for your “fun uncle.” Just part of my efforts to make this work darker and grittier.
Morgan Murray
Tony! Those balusters are not to code! They must be spaced so that a ball with a diameter of four-inches may not pass through at any point. That four-inch ball, of course, is Bob the Builder’s polite way of saying “a baby’s head”. Definitely not the head of a full-grown protagonist. Unless you want your Goodreads flooded with angry building inspectors, I suggest you redraw the whole book.
Tony Cliff
Ah! That’s a kind comparison - I like gurney’s stuff a lot. And in my experience, good creative tips are much more transferable than they seem on the surface. I’m sure there are Gurney ideas you could apply to music composition.
Tony Cliff
Oh man, Pratchett has 95% of the time had those “blobby” cover illustrations. I’ve found some alternatives, but none are especially endearing.
mkreed
Those covers are a travesty. If you search used books you can sometimes find really charming art on older editions, but the current ones make me think he got into some kind of beef with the cover designer and they went with the worst designs out of spite. Bardo is excellent though, very well read as an audio book too.
Chris Schweizer
I took forever to read any Pratchett for the reasons that keep you on the fence - there's a smug snarkiness that creeps in that, as a rule, is very off-putting to me, and the snippets usually shared publicly tend to be the snarkiest bits. I feel like the Tiffany Aching books do a mostly good job of not doing that, and it seems more prevalent in earlier stuff (I've read the first couple Aching books, and the first couple of Watch books, and it's much more pronounced in the Watch books). BUT it's not as much of a hindrance as I reckoned it was gonna be, coupled with the character and plot and overall sense of things, which I generally like a lot.
Kae M
I just really enjoy your process posts. They remind me of James Gurney’s in the best way — that even though I may not work in the same style or media, I *learn* from them. And!! Someone else who is repulsed by the work of the Pratchett cover artists! Both of them! I like Pratchett, mostly, and appreciate the political themes of his work, but it took me decades to read them. As a child and teenager even touching that cover art made me feel slightly nauseated for some reason. Love reading Pratchett in ebook form now.
