POPLIFE is a collection of excerpts from my work journal. There is no specific form or function the column serves other than to allow the reader to see what my experience in my first year as a comics-writer is like. Some weeks I get work done, so I talk about work. Some weeks I don't get any work done, so I ramble incoherently. POPLIFE's purpose is to provide a glimpse behind the process of my specific curtain.
|Always rip off those who are better than you.|
Showed the first two pieces to some friends over the weekend and talked about it. Which is a bit of a new experience for me, playing show and tell with the express purpose of incorporating their input and making changes to the work if I wanted to. One thing that has me concerned (more out of inexperience than anything else, I think) is that perceptions of the characters will change from segment to segment, so it's not really until the end that everyone's relationships make 100% sense. Motivations and actions take on different meanings over the course of the four chapters. And while deliberate, I'm not sure how it will play on the page.
|No, for real-- PLEASE UNDERSTAND ME.|
So, anyway-- it reads as one way alone, another way in context, but then (I hope) the context will be changed around after the subsequent chapter and makes an entirely new sense. Clever and good, ha ha ha. What concerns me, though, is the somewhat fragile nature of gender relationships anyway-- especially in light of comics as a whole, where female characters are usually boner fuel, eye candy, or damsels in distress needing rescuing-- and that, holy fuck, are people going to misread that, or miss-guess my intentions, and tune out after the second part?
|Scrunchy Man is to Writer as Water is to Not Writing.|
Now watch me try to justify what I'm doing and why I'm doing it.
|No, seriously-- what the hell is going on?|
With an OGN, act breaks and page counts don't really matter-- the story will find its structure, even if the exact page count doesn't fall into a 30-90-120 sort of breakdown, and it's all there in the reader's hands in one go. And now here I am finding out that there's something kind of cool about writing serially.
Most of all, hopping around in time frees me from horrible, horrible exposition that always seems to thud on the page. So instead of a character explaining why they're doing what they're doing, you show what they've done to lead them there, and la la la, aren't you clever. I think this is important for me because ANODYNE isn't high concept, there's no clean and clear two-line pitch that explains what it's about. If there is, it hasn't presented itself to me, but this may be a sort of wishful blindness on my part.
|I can't come back, Joey-- I'm dead.|
Anyway. I'm hoping to get the whole thing wrapped up by the weekend, do an overall polish, and be done with it. Which leads us nicely to BIG HAT.
The scenes I'm working on for BIG HAT are coming out of order. Parts of it need research and accuracy; others don't. So while I'm plowing through books and doing the research to get my dates and events right, I can write the fun stuff-- the action bits and character scenes that don't rely on historical accuracy. The whole experience is a little odd, as I've not written something in this fractured of a fashion before.
|In the Seventies, everyone could be an action hero-- even sexy Walter Matthau.|
So I just did a riff on the "Pick up the gun" bit that most folks know more from the Bill Hicks routine rather than the actual movie. Which, I don't know, I think that kind of thing is important. Especially as the western is such a pastiche genre anyway (at least for me, the young chump what writes)-- you GOTTA tip your hat to where you're coming from. I think that's my biggest problem with Tarantino's films, his sort-of unwillingness to make it clear and known that he's one of the biggest (and most loving) thieves around (as opposed to someone like Soderbergh or PT Anderson, who fess up gleefully to their references and try to one-up them). Almost all of Tarantino's best lines and best bits come straight from other places, other sources. "Pair of pliers and a blow-torch"? Why, that's from CHARLEY VARRICK. The needle-in-the-heart routine? AMERICAN BOY, the Scorcese documentary. Thieves named after colors? TAKING OF PELHAM ONE-TWO-THREE. Glowing box of mystery? KISS ME DEADLY. Hell, the opening of JACKIE BROWN is a straight lift from THE GRADUATE. Not that there's anything wrong with having seen and memorized every movie ever made ever (and referring to that fact in your own films-- if anything, I can dig Tarantino's movies because they're made by a guy who so obviously loves movies that he can't help but adapt their precise grammars), but… I dunno, there seems to be something disingenuous about NOT owning up to the fact that you're directly riffing (and Tarantino was so lionized as a writer that his tendency to appropriate as either a writer or a director went largely unmentioned, at least to my recollection).
|Actually, Rosebud was Hearst's nickname for-- oh, never mind.|
And don't complain to me about blowing the end of SHANE for you up in that previous paragraph-- the goddamn movie has been on tape, on TV, and in circulation for decades now, and if you've not seen it it's your own goddamn fault.
And Rosebud was a sled.