It's easier to learn how to write than to learn how to draw

It's easier to learn how to write than to learn how to draw.

Other urls found in this thread:

cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/chris-sanders-explained-problems-with-the-industry-in-1989-46614.html
members.tripod.com/fantom_dragonfan/namewh.html
avclub.com/article/john-kricfalusi-13702
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

- Andrew Hussie, creator of Homestuck

Well yeah. Duh. Writing a comic is way easier than drawing one.

That's why artists get paid more than writers. They do most of the work.

I'd imagine yes. especially in the context of comics which is essentially explain your vision to 5he artist the collaborate until you feel it succeeds. Stan Lee's method was rough outlines of a story and allow creative freedom of the artist.

yeah

Whatever you say, Neil sempai.

Eh, I'd disagree.

With drawing, you can (pretty easily) monitor your progress and get instant/obvious feedback from your own eyes and others'. The result is that most artists who practice for 1-2 years are demonstrably better than they were at the start. And if you, as an artist, actually put forth good effort into going outside your comfort zone, looking at new ways to draw, and

Writing is different, though. Sure, anyone can write something, but unless you've had practice, it's almost a guarantee that your writing will be crap in your first few stories. Even worse, though, is that it's difficult to get useful feedback -- 99% of the time, no one wants to read your stuff, and the difference in the 1% is that your readers/critics will have their own agendas. Self-feedback is just as difficult, as you're *much* more likely to either overrate or underrate your writing. So, once you reach a level where your writing isn't out-and-out awful, it'll be nigh impossible to get a good feel for how to get better -- and regardless of what people say about subjectivity/objectivity, you can always objectively advance your skill.

In a word, drawing is "easier" in that it's more of an effort-in-effort-out kind of deal: if you put the work in, push your limits, and try to improve, then you'll probably see results. The same is technically true for writing, but it's more difficult to self-reflect or get feedback in general.

Nigga you only think learning to read and write is easy because you (probably) learned all the rules and shit of English when you were barely old enough to remember. Drawing, on the other hand, isn't really taken seriously until high school, and at that point it seems super hard because you haven't spent your whole life so far already doing it, like you have with reading and writing.

Here's a question: If an adult who doesn't know how to draw or understand english is tasked with writing and drawing a professional level comic for english speaking audiences, which is easier to learn? Decent drawing or fluent writing? Why?

It's easier to jack offor at home than to go out seeking a stranger to bang

It's easier to get high when you smoke weed than getting high by finding extinct herbs

It's easier to get fat than get fit

no it isn't

source: I can draw

I'm an artist and writing is extremely difficult for me.

And how much time have you practised typing and writing stories? In context of how much you've practised anatomy and composition.

No. Most artists are shit writers for a reason. Even Disney artists struggle to write. With, art, you can doodle fucking anything and it's still appealing art. With writing, everything you do needs a purpose, everything you write could be revised, it's much harder to practice in general with writing. But with art, I can do a thousand drawings of cute cats and it's fine. They can even be doodle quality, no one is going to say, "Your doodle needs more structure", they'll probably just accept it as "muh style" and find it appealing. Like Simon's Cat.

In art, you can trace something to learn the structure and then do it freehand, there's not really an equivalent for writing. "Learning techniques" are much more limited for writing, whereas art, there are hundreds to thousands of ways to break something down and learn it.

And an experienced writer will almost ALWAYS need to revise their work. A revised artist can draw a pose really well first try pretty consistently because muscle memory allows for it. Writing doesn't have hand muscle memory, it's all mental. Your first draft is almost always crap, no matter how many years of experience. That isn't the same for drawing a running pose an artist has done a million times. Not saying artists don't revise their work, but it's easier to become consistent at drawing.

Only bad writers think writing is easy. IE: Andrew Hussie.

I know exactly what you mean.

I dabbled in writing since my teens and dabbled in drawing since childhood. I had a novel and a few other stories in the works for a few years of but I never managed to make something coherent out of it.

I happened to take drawing seriously quite late, I could see the results of studying, I kept growing in skill and right now I can say what is it that I'm lacking, what I need to improve. I couldn't ever feel the same about writing, it's just hard and frustrating and it never worked for me. My stories always feel weak at some point or another.

a single sentence can make or break a paragraph. an entire chapter can be devoted towards building up that one, critical sentence that clinches everything.

a single line or brushstroke in art is only even half as critical in certain styles that revolve round using as few strokes as possible.

The technical aspects of writing are very accessible. It's the content that is so difficult to work out.

A lot of people aren't aware how shit they are at writing. Or don't realize it takes years to be passable at it. That said, having written a few hundred thousand words and edited even more over 5 years, I think other things can be a heavier load. I struggle more learning art now than I ever did while learning to write. And as a graphics programmer/game programmer, that by far exceeds both writing and art as being difficult and mentally draining.

When I stare at writing and art with knowledge of what goes into the mental process of creating "good" art or writing, it's too much of comparing apples and oranges. Art requires ridiculous muscle memory and visualization skills, writing requires a rather nebulous "sense of story telling", wit, and a mastery of language.

Interestingly, I'm an artist who has tested my writing out for a couple of potential comic scripts and got feedback from bother writers and artists. Generally, my stories were liked, I changed them based on the feedback I got (though to get some feedback I had to wait weeks because ain't no one gots time to read shit). One of my writer friends said I actually seem to be able to define characters well with little information, and am good at making sure characters don't just act as props. Taking the feedback I got, I did some more drafts and reception to the stories improved by a lot. Most of my issues were things like spelling and grammar mistakes, and not being economic with the number of panels per page, and how many pages I made it, which were rectified with a bit more good feedback.

Writing isn't really my interest though. The praise I got was nice, and a couple told me that I could probably be great if I practiced, but I don't really have the desire to do so. I didn't find it as gratifying as drawing and think I work better as an artist in collaboration with another who does the actual authoring while we both put ourselves and our minds to the story.

Without writers, artists wouldn't be worth shit.

Writing is a real artform, artists are just a bunch of self-important, flaky, dramawhore tools that real people have to tolerate and indulge if you want to make visual adaption of the story.

>In art, you can trace something to learn the structure and then do it freehand, there's not really an equivalent for writing.

Using the The Hero's Journey as a template for all your scripts comes to mind.

>Writing is a real artform, artists are just a bunch of self-important, flaky, dramawhore tools

Did you miss the pic of Neil Gaiman in OP? Doesn't come more arrogant and self-important than him and he's a writer.

Surely it just depends on what kind of person you are.

I know people who are really good artists but can't write for shit, because they're obviously more geared to think visually.

I'm apparently a good writer (though I don't see it myself, that's what people tell me) but I can't draw at all.

>ITT shit amateur writers desperate to justify their place in a visual medium where writing is the least important part of the process

Are you saying that art can't be good outside of writing?

Have you ever been to an art gallery, user?

Okay Hussie

please go fuck your SJW wife elsewhere

Hey now, Neil seems like a cool guy by all accounts

Couldn't come up with something more devastating and clever, Mr. Writer?

why do you think we often have those marvel hate threads you dummy

because of all the pisspoor writing

I'd post that one page of Whor with Titania but I don't have it on me atm

I mean if you think we don't need good writing in comics and other mediums, I can't really understand what kind of media you actually would enjoy

Writers are essentially deadweight in most visual arts projects, like comics and cartoons. Ask any artist and they'll tell you just how awful and worthless they are.

Chris Sanders did a whole story book for internal circulation among Disney artists in the 80s, all about how frustrating it was to try an deal with writers during the art process because they just get in the way:

cartoonbrew.com/ideas-commentary/chris-sanders-explained-problems-with-the-industry-in-1989-46614.html

And both are easier to learn than playing a musical instrument.

>implying that the most important part of a comic isn't entirely subjective

Some comics have mediocre art but a great story to pull them through

In fact, I'd say that more people are more likely to appreciate a comic with good writing and forgettable art than mind-blowing art and an OK story

>Okay (person)
>SJW wife

You know, for an alleged writer you're not very clever on the put-downs.

good bait

>okay person

nigga just leave

Don't you trash on my husbandu

I'm gonna post Erik Larsen's open letter to all "comic book writers" that he sent to Comic Buyer's Guide in the 90s.

members.tripod.com/fantom_dragonfan/namewh.html

Is it really so hard to accept we need both good writing and art to make a quality comic or cartoon?
Really dummies?

Easier?

No.

Less time consuming?

Yes.

I'm a comics writer and my artist will tell you that writing is hard. I don't think it's hard myself because I have a natural gift for the pen but that's just me. I can write an entire first draft of an issue of our comic in the time it takes him to draw one page. Same amount of effort per minute spent between the both of us, he just spends more minutes doing his end of the work.

People will probably greentext me because they are mental midgets who cannot possibly comprehend the nuance and pageantry of writing, but again, mental midgets. Their opinions are worthless.

In every visualart involving product Neil Gaiman has been involved in, he has been the important player.
Of all the comics and etc. he has done, everyone remembers his name, no one remembers any of the random schmucks that did the pictures. They are all interchangeable, irrelevant.

Neil is what made the material worthwhile and is what made the material sell.
That's the power of writing.

A good story without pictures will sell. (It's called a book)
A comic with good art but no story won't. It'll be complete and utter shit.

Writing is where the true power is, the true art.

Mike, you ignorant slut.

Well, there he goes again. Mike W. Barr wrote a similar letter in DC Comics Shop Talk and l still disagree with it. At DC, until pretty recently, the writer *did* get the same royalty as the penciller and that is grossly unfair.

Consider that most writers write considerably more than a comic book a month, and many do so while holding down a full-time job as an editor. Most artists can barely do a comic book a month. Many aren't *that* fast, and if they inked their own work as well -- there wouldn't be many monthly comics, that's for sure.

The inequality in pay that Mike mentions is a joke when the time it takes to produce said work, is considered. If l drew a comic book in the time it takes a "real" writer like Mike Barr to write it, it'd be a pretty sorry-looking comic book to look at. The fact that most artists spend 10 to 12 hours a day plus most weekends every single month to produce what a writer who labors over his work can produce in a week shows where the real inequality lies.

(continued)

>He didn't read past Act 5
Oh you sweet Summer child

As for the writer being the only one who begins with a blank page, that's most often not the case. A look at any of the many comics out there will show you where the writer's looking: at other comics! As much as artists get belittled for swiping, it's wonder more writers don't get the same grief. Most of the stories are recycled from previous issues and recent movies. It's been years since l read any real stories that require the writer to do any real research other than thumbing through his collection to find out what The Scorpion did last time so he can simply rewrite the same tired plot again and again. Batman hasn't been a detective in decades; a good punch to the nose has replaced any real investigative work on his part. Is it any wonder that artists are waking up and deciding to do it themselves? Our point is a simple one: We're saying to the Mike Barrs of the world that *we don't need you* and, more than that, *we don't want you*.

I overheard an inker moaning because the artist whose work he'd been inking for years suddenly decided to start inking himself. He didn't see thatthe penciller may be looking for more creative control or that he's gotten bored just pencilling and needed a creative change to give his work more vitality. The inker may even feel smubbed that maybe the penciller might not be that fond of his inking or at least have grown tired of it. He saw it another way: He wants all the money, is how he saw it.

(continued)

>nuanc and pageantry of writing
lmao, not in comics.
Even the best comic authors are incredibly mediocre prose authors. OP pic related.

>artists buttmad that their perfect flawless creative vision that was totally 100% perfect because they're geniuses was destroyed by someone who actually understands story structure

Mike may be feeling the same way -- as may others. They're becoming obsolete. What bothers me more, though, is that Mike dosen't consider that maybe the artist-writer has something to say. Maybe he can't create working with a writer who's happy to rehash old stories and bring back that old villain for his 30th bout with the hero. Who knows how many Silver Surfers, Demons, New Gods, Deathloks, Ambush Bugs, Cables, Shatterstars, Ferals, Elektras, Mr, As, Ronins, Shrapnels, Termanuses, Alpha Flights, and many others aren't being created, because artists are being overshadowed by lazy writers?

l know that when l'm illustrating a story by most writers l'll get the same thing that writer's been churning out for the last 15 years -- no suprises -- the *same* thing. Meanwhile, l'm getting better, introducing new characters and concepts and coming up with stuff guys like him can and will rehash for years come while all the while complaining about guys like me.

Mike mentions that he feels he should get some art back (even though he never actually *had* the physical piece of art in the first place). In the letter in DC's Shop Talk Mike says it's unfair that the artist gets back pages to sell and that all the writer gets to keep is his scripts, and there's no market for them. Well, why not? Why can't a writer sell his plots and scripts that were the beginning of the story in the first place? Certainly the mountain of fans wanting to break into the business could use them as a guide on how to do it.

(continued)

Most writers work on computers and could print out countless copies. Sure, they probably won't sell for the price of some original art (although much art, it should be pointed out, dosen't sell even from top guys in the field, and the bulk of art out there is fairly undesirable and dirt cheap) -- they do have the advantage of being able to run off as many copies as they can move.

There's something else Mike may not consider: Artists are getting so tired of so little original thought in writing that they *won't* work with many of them any more. Those artists would rather do any other comic book where they can write and draw the work than work with another "real" writer any more.

Editors know this and they also know that a well-drawn comic book with so-so writing will always sell better than a well-written comic book with so-so art, simply because the reader dosen't read it before buying it; he can only look at it. How would Mike possibly control this? If it's a choice between keeping a bad (or simply uninspired) writer and not having a decent artist stick around or giving the comic book to that same artist and having him stay around and try to pump life into the series?

(continued)

>ArtistDoesTheWriting.jpg
Dear lord...

A writer who's good, whom artists and fans support will always find good, talented guys to work with because they'll seek him or her out. There are still many artists who have no desire to write and many who do but would still be more than willing to draw somebody else's stories if they liked their writing.

More artists writing won't spell the end of good comics, just as it didn't when Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko started doing all their own scripting. What it may mean is that fewer mediocre writers will find themselves with work or decent artists to work with -- but then the repetitous, rehashed, reworked hackwork of these tired writers is likely to drag this industry down, anyway.

(continued)

Stop the console wars you fags

It's really kind of an eye-opener to walk around the offices at Marvel and DC. Editors are forever griping about how badly other editors write, yet are continuing to give that person plenty of work. Writer-artists are getting talked down and up from either side of editors' mouths, and old-time writers are making unreasonable demands and ultimatums on silly things that nobody cares about.

It's sure nice to see more editors who are really trying to work with people to produce a better product and fewer trying to do favors for each other so that they can get more work for themselves in the process.

When a kid comes up to me at a show and wants a break as a writer, l always give them the same advice" "Learn to draw -- or get a job as an editor."

END.

>More artists writing won't spell the end of good comics
Empirical evidence (Skottie Young et. al.) disagrees.

It's the same thing that *often happens when Actors think they can write a script: you're left with something that might look good but if you actually read/listen to it, it's a pile of shit.

>A comic with good art but no story won't. It'll be complete and utter shit.
Good comic book artists uses different techniques to create emotion, movement, sense of time, which will create a story on its own. A story doesn't have to be written in letters to be told.

Pic related. Gon. A comic that's completely wordless.

And if comic art won't tell a story it's bad comic art.

You don't really need art, books have been around for centuries.

A fair point

>Gaiman
>Arrogant

What?

>avclub.com/article/john-kricfalusi-13702

>You should put quotes around "writers," because they're not real writers. People who write cartoons are not real writers. They'd all rather be writing movies or sitcoms, or something like that, but they're not good enough. These are people who can't construct a sentence, let alone a plot.

He's not wrong.

>What?

Charging a public library $40,000 just to make a personal appearance seems pretty arrogant.

He can't just go to every library that wants him to visit, he's a busy man.

>John K
Oh yes he is

>We're saying to the Mike Barrs of the world that *we don't need you* and, more than that, *we don't want you*.
Well this kind of thinking really worked out great for places like, oh, RUSSIA.
Working class once again going around killing the brains.

This is the same guy who hates pretty much every cartoon that isn't his so, I take these words with a grain of salt.

>Well this kind of thinking really worked out great for places like, oh, RUSSIA.
>Working class once again going around killing the brains.

Larsen wrote that letter before or during the Image split, I think. He had his name withheld at the time for professional reasons but it was eventually revealed to be him.

To Larsen's credit, though, he never stopped writing and drawing Savage Dragon and it's still being published and selling copies 20-something years later.

So he walks the walk.

Writing comics and writing prose is completely different. Comics require more storytelling skills than writing.

>Comics require more storytelling skills than writing.

Oh the storytelling skills comic book writers must master!

>PAGE 1-13

>Characters FIGHT!
>Note to artist: Make it BIG and EPIC!

Clearly, the writer is the backbone of the storytelling aspect of comics. What would the artists do without them?

Yet they are still better than any "cartoonist".
Really makes you think.

He could still charge less. Maybe even do it for free?

Most modern artists don't even do the layout. People who think artists are important are still stuck in Ditko and Kirby era.

you are very sheltered
this is certain

Savage Dragon is garbage, though, Erik.

>Gaiman
>Writing

Neil Gaiman is a shitty writer.

>Neil Gaiman is a shitty writer.

If he wasn't British, everyone would agree with you and he'd be a nobody.

Unfortunately, the British accent and ancestry is seen as being "sophisticated" and "cultured", particularly by American women. So a British person can write the most idiotic drivel and Americans will eat it up as being "brilliant".

Here's a thought, maybe art and writing are equally important?

Maybe it doesn't have to be a matter of one is better/harder/more important than the other because it's better when writer and artist work together as a team than thinking they're too good for whatever work they're doing.

But that won't satisfy a lot of people's insecurities and egomania, I realize.

As Sanders at least clarifies, his gripe isn't with writers altogether, but with how writers work with artists. That is more or less the same gripe that Larsen had.

There's no one to blame but the upper management, in those cases. The writers are doing their job, getting well-liked by their superiors, moving into better positions, etc. It's not the writers' fault that all this happens to step on the artists' toes (nor, in the more oblivious cases, is it the writers' fault that the producers pick them to write, regardless of if they mesh well with the art team).

Surely, though, there are enough examples in each of Sanders' and Larsen's careers where good writers were needed. Period.

>Here's a thought, maybe art and writing are equally important?

That is empirically, demonstratably wrong, though.

It takes a writer, at most, an hour to script a page. And that's being insanely generous to their "process".

Meanwhile, it can take an artist anywhere from 3 to 6 hours to draw that page.

Artists work exponentially harder than writers. That's just a fact.

>It takes a writer, at most, an hour to script a page.
Yeah, but what if wants to make it, you know, good?

kill yourself, faggot

I know it's not uncommon for modern writers who often got started as artists for at least one title or otherwise have some art credit under their belt, but would it be presumptuous for a writer who isn't also experienced as an artist to do layouts?

The problem is that no matter what a writer does, the artist will insist that they're interfering in the process.

If a writer gets too detailed with his script and provides layouts and poses, the artist will complain that the writer is stepping over his boundaries and robbing the artist of his input and contributions.

If a writer provides a vague script that gives the artist more freedom to lay the page out as he pleases or pose the characters in whatever way he wants, the artist will complain that the writer isn't doing his fair share of the work and that he's doing all the real storytelling.

Artists are impossible.

>It takes a writer, at most, an hour to script a page. And that's being insanely generous to their "process".
You are an idiot if you actually think this.

>You are an idiot if you actually think this.

You're right. It probably only takes them 30 minutes at most, and that's including a Starbucks break.

Like I said, massive idiot, no surprises here

Christ user, who pissed in your cereal?
Stephen King?

I'll say it again:

Anybody can write. Not everybody can draw.

However, everybody can improve their art, improve the speed at which they draw, and other things with enough experience. Even with massive amounts of experience, it is difficult as hell for a writer to know where to improve and how to do it because anyone who gives them feedback has their own biases ---management/producers/editors want writing to be a certain way, even if artists hate it; artists just want to work well with writers in their visual medium, even if plot, characterization, and other writing quibbles suffer; general audiences don't even necessarily care about what's "good" but might just want something to pass the time; etc.

Even if a writer listens to all the above people, their writing may not (and probably won't) improve in any demonstrable way. It may just satisfy some more than others, or satisfy broadly rather than deeply.

So, to finish the first line:
* Anybody can write. Not everybody can draw. Yet, it's more achievable to become "good" at drawing than it is to become "good" at writing.

It's the art that sells a book. When someone considers buying a comic, they aren't allowed to read it first. All they can do is say to themselves "Is this visually appealing?"

Writing is not a factor in selling a book. It's all in the art.

This is a moot point because *cover art* -- which is what you're referring to -- generally differs from interior art, which readers are also not allowed to look at. Cover art has generally been different from interior art for the past 40+ years, too.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA....
Alright, let's examine something which says the absolute opposite. Originally, Civil War II was one of the highest selling comics this year. Objectively, the art is fantastic which is crying shame because the story is absolute shit. However, now Civil War II has had a massive drop out rate and is selling at an increasingly low rate.

Hell, there is a reason that names like Bendis, Moore and Gaiman are slapped on to comics, the moment that they are sold. Because, ultimately, whether you like their style of writing or not, the simple fact is that these writers are well known and are popular among the comic community.

>Originally, Civil War II was one of the highest selling comics this year. Objectively, the art is fantastic which is crying shame because the story is absolute shit. However, now Civil War II has had a massive drop out rate and is selling at an increasingly low rate.

You seem to have little to no understanding of how comics are bought and sold.

There is ALWAYS a decline after a first issue and further as the series progresses. The first issue is printed in higher quantities to suite collectors who are only interested in the first issue.

How could you not know that? Are you even 18?

You do realize that the drop off rate is massive? As in the projected drop off rate was so off, that comic shops are literally overstocked with Civil War II?

you dummy

sure, if you're a shitty writer, or a phenomenal one. but all good writers will go through drafts.

As someone who used to have an intense passion for drawing, but was never any good, yes I can attest to the fact that writing is indefinately easier. That being said, I think you still need to have idea of plot structure, vivid visualization, and a deep appreciation for people & their interactions (even if you might hate the vast majority of them)

Everybody can write, just as everybody can draw, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily should

Almost everyone writes on a regular basic (proof in this very thread). A very limited part of the population draws.
So catastrophic writers are rare, because most people have at least a bit of training(aslo, editors correcting the mistakes). THe learning curve for both skills ins't really different.

I'll take pic related over the any current marvel series, and it won't be because of the art.
Besides, a lot of writers also do the storyboard, which is a very important part of the visual aspect of the comic.

I'd argue that people remember old comics with a great story and poor drawings more than of gorgeous art on a dumb nonsensical plot. But in the end, it's a team effort, and the final result is shared.

If a writer can bang out 30 pages in the same time it takes for an artist to finish ONE page, then writers SHOULD be paid more than the artist. He deserves it. More over the artist should be paid less, because they are going to need to use that money to hire more artists to match the output of the writer.

It's not the writers fault if he is a hard worker and it is definitely not the writer's fault if the artists aren't up to snuff.

>I'd argue that people remember old comics with a great story and poor drawings more than of gorgeous art on a dumb nonsensical plot.

Alex Ross is the one who sells trades of Kingdom Come and Marvels, not whoever wrote those stories.

>I don't think it's hard myself because I have a natural gift for the pen
You sure about that?