Broken Frontier

In the penultimate part of their discussion on the creative process behind the printed page, Indie creators David Moran, Alex Sheikman (Robotika: For A Few Rubles More) and mpMann (Some New Kind of Slaughter, The Grave Doug Freshley) focus on the identity of the artist in the comics industry...

Click here for Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8.

David Moran: What about "reputation," is that something that either of you pay much mind to? I mean, when a comic artist works long enough, or well enough, in the medium, most tend to acquire a reputation as a certain kind of artist, i.e. Mike Mingola "draws monsters well," Kirby was the master of the cosmic comic (well, at least until Jim Starlin came along), Frank Miller’s always going to be thought of as a Batman artist, Steranko as an innovator, and Will Eisner as the man who brought certain visual tropes and storytelling techniques into the medium. Do either of you ever give any thought to the type of reputation you’d like to be known for? Do you ever worry about being "stereotyped" as an artist that is only good at drawing certain kinds of things, like, just as an example, samurais or the ancient past?

mpMann: Since I generate my own projects and am not hired like an actor for certain roles, I don't think stereotyping is quite the issue here. But being associated with a certain title or character is one of the keys to an identity in this business, certainly, and it’s something I'm missing right now. Alex has that with Robotika, he's the Robotika-guy. Dave Petersen is the Mouse Guard-guy. Carla Speed McNeil is the Finder-guy... err, gal. Eisner is the Spirit-guy. I don't think I'm the Moses-guy. Maybe, if it’s successful, I'll be the Doug Freshley-guy... or one of them. I don't do historical accuracy enough to be "the history guy" - Russ Heath or Joe Kubert have a better claim there. The Age of Bronze is much more accurate then Inanna's Tears. Anyway, my historical stuff is more quasi-history. Maybe I'll be "the religion guy", although I'm not at all religious. No, truly, to have a lasting reputation in this business, I need to have a signature character or title.

That aside, I may be better suited to writing discrete stories, rather then building stories around a character. In that regard, I'd rather be known as an artist who writes really good stories with persuasive characters and thoughtful ideas.

Alex Sheikman: Marv's answer is so grounded and inspirational I am not even sure I can add anything to that. I am just starting out and I am still trying to define my drawing style and my approach to storytelling. Until I get to the point where I feel I have developed something that is my own and something that I can do consistently, I am not sure I am even ready to think about what my reputation might be.

I think, so far, the only thing that can be said about me is that I have been able to keep to a bi-monthly schedule (even though there was about a year between the two Robotika mini-series).

David Moran: The way you both approach your page layouts is obviously very different. Marv, you seem to adhere to a more rigid, formal (which isn’t to say "bad" or "stiff") approach of establishing shot fairly quickly on the page, shot, reaction shot, maybe a two-shot, etc. For most of your pages the "camera" seems to almost follow a prescribed set of parameters…which also raises a fairly interesting question about how you go about laying out or "blocking" your sequences?

mpMann: I used to play with irregular panel shapes as a result of Neal Adams' use of them. I'm using some of that right now in Doug, although I've generally gotten away from it. Howard Chaykin's layouts were another influence. Later, looking at how Jack Kirby or Alex Toth could tell a story with a simple six-panel grid was quite revealing to me. It focused attention on what was inside the panels and how it could visually and chronologically carry a story forward. Most of my storytelling is driven by what the writer has given me to work with. I do make changes, mostly just to tighten the visual presentation when a writer has gotten too caught up in describing a series of small movements over several panels. Often, there will be panels that are just bits of geographical business. If you show a character on one side of a door, and then on the other side of the door, it’s not usually necessary to show him going through the door. The reader will figure that out for themselves.

Usually, I am most interested in the character interplay of a scene, and the old standbys of close-ups, two-shots, worms-eye view, gods-eye view, etc., remain, to me, elegant solutions to these concerns. I feel no need to reinvent the wheel. I do take advantage of varied panel size and shape, though. These are inherent in comics and something that cinema can only approximate, just as comics can only approximate certain timing effects, like the double-take.

David Moran: And Alex…most of the time, your "camera" seems to be all over the place (which isn’t to say that that’s a "wrong" approach either). I’m constantly struck by the fact that you seem to approach each and every page uniquely…and differently (which also raises a fairly interesting question about your approach to layouts as well). As an example, I’ll use Page 9 (right) of the first issue of Robotika: For A Few Rubles More. The top three panels are essentially one panel, which serves as the scene’s establishing shot, cut into three separate panels…and Bronski, whose the one speaking in the panel, isn’t even entirely "on camera." Then, rather then have a "standard" reaction shot of CG responding to Bronski from his vantage, you jumped to a neutral angle, then zoom in close-up on CG’s ear (a cut-away), but at another angle, then come back out to catch CG from yet another angle. Then you shift the focus to Bronski (who again is not fully visible) and Niko from still another angle. Then you have an over-the-shoulder of CG from Bronski’s vantage (and, again, his face is obscured). Maaaaaan, I would not want to be a cameraman on any project you ever directed. There’s (if you count the first three panels as one) six panels on Page 9—and 6 wildly different camera angles!

Alex Sheikman: During the layout stage of every page and every panel, my primary concern is for the reader. How do I design the panels so that the reader doesn’t get confused. Not only does the design of each individual panel have to be "readable," but also the flow of panels across the page has to be such that the reader's eye is directed (in a covert way) from panel to panel.

My second concern is how "pretty" each individual panel is. In my perfect world, every panel can be a nice stand-alone illustration. This might be somewhat different than the accepted "rule of thumb" that panels just have to be there to move the reader along and not to slow them down by looking over details...but I think nice graphic design and an interesting level of detail enriches comics.

Come back on Wednesday for our final visit to the Artists' Alley...