|
Thursday, September 2, 2010
One Bad Element
Kevin Melrose on his comics work, Scryptic Studios, and the comics blogosphere
The name “Kevin Melrose” probably doesn’t set off the same bells of recognition in comic fans minds the way “Brian Michael Bendis” does. Melrose, however, does more than just write comics well – he writes about comics and comics scriptwriting with similar skill. When not working on projects like the “Bad Elements” stories in Digital Webbing Presents, Melrose is busy with two websites: Scryptic Studios, a resource for aspiring comic book writers; and Thought Balloons, a daily blog covering comics news from comic book websites and the mainstream press. Melrose took the time to answer a few questions for Comic World News on Scryptic Studios, his comics work, and his comics blog.
 Ed Cunard: How did the founding members of SCRYPTIC STUDIOS come together? Was it originally one person's idea, or was it a communal decision?
Kevin Melrose: Ryan Ottney spearheaded Scryptic, then brought the other members on board. I was a late addition, invited to join about a month before the site launched, when one of the original members -- let's call him Pete Best -- had to drop out. That makes me ... Ringo Starr? Anyway, Ryan was interested in bringing together a group of writers who could gather resources for other writers. It's not a studio in the typical sense; it's not a portfolio site of our work in hopes that someone will hire us (though that would be nice). It's a community and resource library for aspiring and established writers. That idea of bringing together resources -- research links, professional scripts, etc. -- is what drew me to Scryptic.
Cunard: Another site for aspiring comics creators, Digital Webbing, has a much broader focus that covers many aspects of creating comics, while your site has a concentrated focus on the writing for comics. How do your methods differ in getting information across?
Melrose: As you said, Digital Webbing has a much broader focus. It's "The Talent Engine," where writers, artists, letterers and colorists can find jobs, meet other creators, refine their work, etc. It's great for that; I've met several collaborators there myself. Scryptic's focus is much narrower: Although everyone is welcome to participate, we're writer-oriented. Our reference library is collected by writers for writers. Our critique forums are exclusively for writing. Essentially, we've stripped away the art areas that sites like Digital Webbing and Shane Glines' Drawing Board do so well, and just put the spotlight on the writers.
 Cunard: In your column for the site, "Research and Destroy," the focus is (obviously) on research. You are an admitted "research junkie." When and how did this addiction start?
Melrose: I have a serious research jones, and a stack of book-club bills to prove it. I'm not sure when exactly it started, but I can remember lying on the floor as a kid, reading an enormous, tattered encyclopedia from the 1940s. I think it had been my grandmother's. The Folklore & Mythology section, in particular, drew me in for hours at a time. I have no idea why, but I would copy the Greek gods entries verbatim onto notebook paper. You'd think I'd have just dog-eared the pages, but I guess I wasn't the swiftest kid on the block. I still have the encyclopedia.
Beyond those geeky beginnings, I've always been a history buff -- ancient history in particular -- which requires a fondness for research and dusty books.
Cunard: Have you ever read something that pulled you out of the experience because of a factual error that could have been corrected with a little research?
Melrose: Oh, definitely -- in nonfiction as well as fiction, and comics as well as prose. Just a couple of months ago I bought a nonfiction book on the Black Death, and was looking forward to reading it as background for a story idea I had. On the third page, the author gave the incorrect origin for the rhyme "Ring Around the Rosey," so I closed the book and put it on a high shelf. I haven't looked at it since.
Comics are a little more forgiving of factual errors, as long as they're not continuity errors, of course. If we're talking about superhero comics or fantasy comics, the facts can be fudged beyond recognition. In a fictional world where costumed heroes fought the Nazis, how convincingly can you argue about "incorrect" dates or anachronistic weaponry?
But if we're talking about other, less popular comics genres, such as Westerns or Victorian mysteries, the factual errors can be jarring. The current return of Western comics should be interesting, if only because our image of the Old West has been largely shaped by early Hollywood, which got a lot of it wrong.
Cunard: What are some of the mistakes people make when researching projects?
Melrose: Google is an invaluable tool, but too many people rely on it for the lion's share of their research. Virtually anyone can create a website filled with information about, say, Byzantium. But that doesn't mean any of it is true. Yet a lot of people will run a search and happily take the word of any number of sites that pop up. You need to consider the source, and evaluate the information accordingly. If that site about Byzantium is authored by a published professor of Byzantine History, the information probably comes on good authority. If it's by Constanteen182, probably not so much.
Because of the Internet, a lot of people have abandoned libraries -- real, dusty, mothball-smelling libraries. That's a mistake. There are books and journals there that you'll never find online, not to mention the "happy accidents," where you stumble upon texts you didn't think you needed but that end up being crucial to your story.
The other big mistake is that we tend to overlook one of the most important research tool: people. The other day at Scryptic, someone was looking for a resource to help him "get inside the head" of a paramedic. I suggested that he interview a paramedic. Out of the blue, an actual paramedic pops up and offers his email address. It was perfect! We get so wrapped up in combing through websites and reading books that we forget one of the best ways to learn about a job is to talk to someone who actually does it. I have a bookshelf devoted to forensics and autopsies. I can rattle off post-mortem procedures and tell you how to calculate how long a body has been floating in water. But I can't tell you what it feels like -- or what it smells like -- when you dissect a corpse. But a coroner or medical student can.
 Cunard: There's a comments and critiques section to the SCRYPTIC site. Do you read the scripts that people post? If so, what are common mistakes or weaknesses made by comics hopefuls?
Melrose: I read a lot of the scripts but, unfortunately, haven't had the time to devote to critiques. I'll be clearing time in my schedule for that soon, though. That said, I'm impressed by the quality of the scripts I've read on the site. Although most of the folks aren't published writers, they're serious writers who are genuinely interested in honing their craft. The general weaknesses are pretty much the same as you'll see most anywhere: a tendency to be too restrictive in the panel descriptions or, conversely, too little information for the artist; occasional stilted dialogue; punctuation problems. There's nothing that really makes me yank at my hair and yell, "Not another one!" They're mostly the things we all stumble on from time to time.
I do wish, though, that writers would stop using all caps. I know traditionally comics dialogue is set off in caps, but, man, too much of that makes me go cross-eyed.
Cunard: You've worked as a journalist and a free-lance writer. How much of that experience is translatable to comics writing?
Melrose: Quite a bit of it, actually. Several years of copy-editing has made me a terrific speller, so I never use spell-check (I'm sure that will come back to bite me). But that doesn't just translate to comics. What does, though, is an economy of words, and a knack for self-editing. After working under strict daily deadlines, I've learned to edit as I write. For good or bad, my scripts don't have "drafts"; there's one version that I tweak as I go, then read over before sending to the artist or publisher. I think years of interviewing people also has improved my ability to write dialogue that sounds natural.
 Cunard: As a fan, what do you look for in a comic? What are some gems you've discovered, either in the mainstream or small press?
Melrose: My tastes have changed a lot. I've taken several breaks from comics, missing most of the '90s -- well, I wouldn't say "missing" -- and only picking back up about three years ago. Heck, my tastes have even changed in the past six months. But I really just look for something that entertains me and, on occasion, challenges me. Sometimes I find that in a horror story. Other times it's in a shojo manga. Still others, it's in a "traditional" superhero comic.
I tend to have a new favorite every month or so, but some of the more recent "gems" are Scott Pilgrim's Precious Little Life Vol. 1, How Loathsome, Love Fights, any of the Courtney Crumrin series, Planetes, Gotham Central, Demo and xxxHolic. That could change by the time I get my August shipment.
Cunard: You're also a comics creator yourself. Your "Bad Elements" stories are currently being published in serial form (DIGITAL WEBBING PRESENTS #11, and the upcoming DWP #17 and #19). Are there any plans to collect them?
Melrose: I have plans for a Bad Elements miniseries, so perhaps the three shorts could be included in that. Maybe as back-up stories? But the events for the miniseries are so "big" that I'd have to track down the "perfect" artist for it, so I'm not sure when that will come about. I'll shoot for 2006.
Cunard: If someone hasn't heard of "Bad Elements," how would you try to sell them on the concept?
Melrose: Bad Elements mixes the gangster/crime genre with a bit of magic. I was trying to think of a good Hollywood high-concept pitch, but I can't come up with a good movie about magic that fits with "It's Goodfellas meets __" or "It's Snatch meets __." So, it's those two combined with a magic-themed film that hasn't been made yet. These are mobsters -- members of four crime families -- who wield magic instead of guns. Why shoot an enemy when you can just have the ground open up and swallow him whole? No muss, no fuss.
Cunard: "Bad Elements" makes use of one of my favorite literary traditions – magic realism. How does the medium (which seems to be ideal for these types of stories) affect the tradition in this case?
Melrose: For Bad Elements to work as a crime/gangster story, it's important for it to be grounded in this world, or at least a close facsimile. I want it to be about criminals who just happen to employ these "gritty" supernatural powers -- what I call "street magic." This isn't flashy, Dr. Strange-style high magic; this is a utilitarian, cause-and-effect craft. As one of the characters says in the first Bad Elements story: "Nothin' fancy." It gets the job done, just as a gun, knife or bomb might for a "traditional" gangster. Plus, it gives this great paradoxical image of these blue-collar criminals using and discussing magic very matter-of-factly. There's a fun juxtaposition of the mundane and the unreal (or surreal).
Magical realism works so well in comics because we have words and pictures at our disposal. Sequential storytelling allows us to control time -- the elapsed time between panels can be a second, a day, a year -- while narration can be made incongruous with the art, increasing the gap between the everyday and the unreal. Comics are ideal for the genre.
Cunard: Aside from "Bad Elements," you have some other work coming out in the near future. What are these projects, and where can people find them?
Melrose: In the March issue of Digital Webbing Presents, there will be an eight-page supernatural piece set in Regency-era England called "Sack-'em-Up Gentlmen." It combines the historical facts of body-snatching medical students with a little British folklore. I may do another short story after that, but my focus is on Darkling Gloom, an all-ages series in the vein of Artemis Fowl, The Dark Is Rising and The Spiderwick Chronicles. I've received the initial green light, so now I'm writing and beginning the artist search. Expect that in late summer/early fall of 2005.
Cunard: As if you weren't busy enough with SCRYPTIC and your own comics projects, you've got a rather successful blog going. Why did you start THOUGHT BALLOONS in the first place?
Melrose: I began Thought Balloons late last October as a way to force myself to write something every day. I'm not very prolific, largely because I spend so much time researching -- perhaps over-researching -- everything. So, I figured if I could write a little bit on a daily basis, I could whip myself into shape. Instead, the blog kind of took on a life of its own, and ends up taking far too much time. When I started Thought Balloons, it was more commentary-oriented -- mostly along the lines of "Huh, isn't that silly" -- but when Dirk Deppey's wonderful Journalista! [the now-defunct newsblog of The Comics Journal] went on hiatus, I ended up shifting into link-blogging to fill some of the void left by his absence.
Cunard: What separates THOUGHT BALLOONS from other blogs?
Melrose: With the exception of a few snarky remarks or "headlines," Thought Balloons is, by and large, commentary-free. A lot of other bloggers do comics criticism and analysis better than I ever could, so I typically stick to the links to mainstream media coverage of comics, and to the comics news sites.
I very occasionally write reviews, but end up agonizing over them. So, I usually leave those to the others, too.
Cunard: Where would you point those who haven't checked out the comics blogosphere? What makes those blogs interesting?
Melrose: It's amazing how many comics blogs have sprung up just in the 10 months or so since I started Thought Balloons. It seems new ones appear every day, which makes the Comic Weblog Updates page invaluable. That's as good as any place to begin, because you can easily follow who's updating and when.
There are so many good blogs that I'd hate to just name a few. How's that for being diplomatic?
Cunard: Finally, why comics? What is it about them that makes you invest your time in creating them, writing about them, and helping aspiring creators along the way?
Melrose: There's an energy to good comics that other mediums can't replicate. It's that intangible something that engaged so many of us as children, and lures us back every time we wander away. Wow. That sounds really geeky.
|
April 22, 2008:
February 4, 2008:
November 20, 2006:
A Comic-Con without the Captain
