scarygoround
patreon
Q&A 16: monsters
🕑 Added 2022-11-23 18:05:51 +0000 UTCJoanna Castellon writes:
"You dabble a lot in the quasi-paranormal across all your comics over the years where characters just kind of acknowledge it as a thing. On that point:
1) Have you decided that a monster of the volume was just too much paranormal for your comics and
2) How do you come up with your ideas for what the monsters will be/do, so essentially how are you influenced on them?"
"Monster of the volume" was my plan for Bad Machinery, and I think volumes 1, 2, 3, arguably 4 & 5, 6 and 10 ended up following the original blueprint. In each case, the monster (perhaps "creature" is a more accurate word) is a manifestation of some social issue that the volume deals with.
Introducing these elements (to make the change from Bobbins to Scary Go Round) was a way to drive story when I was an inexperienced writer with five pages to draw a week. It has never felt particularly natural to me. My creatures were never more than a way to make something, anything happen. In Scary Go Round, they were introduced without much planning. As Bad Machinery progressed, I became more careful. The first two stories are a transition to a more thought-out process.
In Steeple, I have pushed myself to work harder at the paranormal side of things, thinking stories through carefully and designing supernatural elements with care, but I still find myself drawn more towards the more human side of storytelling.
I'm not grounded in monster fiction, or horror, or RPGs, beyond a surface interest in them when I was in my early teens that was soon replaced by other things. Deciding to work in the supernatural area was not a carefully made decision. And I think the fact that Giant Days, a series with no supernatural elements, is my most successful, says it all.
But I did dabble a lot in the quasi-paranormal and though I never felt able to draw it as well as I wanted to, I tried to think through the reasons for each creature. If I wasn't able to deliver the ultimate creatures visually, I tried to compensate with stories that had some emotional weight, that asked some questions beyond "what is scary/cool looking". I think my shortcomings as an artist have always forced me to work harder at my character writing.
I tried very hard, within the limits of my ability, particularly with Bad Machinery 6. A supernatural element is working against my cheerful, cartoony style - this is one instance where I feel like the two things work together.
In Steeple, the best monster I've come up with is the tully monster, based on a real prehistoric creature. After I'd drawn this story, I found out that the real tully monster was tiny.
I'm still proud of this creature - it's is some of my best ever art, because I had a lot of time to concentrate on drawing things well during the pandemic. It's very possible that I won't hit these heights again. I've definitely deteriorated since. But If it takes another pandemic lockdown to get me this good, I don't want to draw this well ever again.
I'm not sure I've answered the questions very well. Quick answers:
1) Basically yes.
2) First thought, best thought.
Comments
I struggle to express my understanding of my limitations without sounding like a sad sack asking for affirmation. Archie the wendigo and a few other things from that era stem from a time where I was regularly drawing with friends in social settings, which would open up new ideas and influences, different methods of attack. They're fun designs that reflect that time. Since 2014 I've not really had that.
William Cole
While you chalk it up to your (supposed) artistic limitations, I've always deeply appreciated how you marry the paranormal elements of your comics to story and character development. I can imagine more visually stunning designs for, say, Archie the Wendigo or the Bridge Troll, but I doubt those designs would make them more lovable or more effective in their story roles.
Katherine Wharton
There might have been a real tully monster that was big too 😊
