why is $10/pg too much for you writers?

[mikekennedy]

What about peanut butter on the crumpets.

im more of a strawberry jam kinda guy

[naffslack]

Now that's just weird. Lol

[LadyDeath]

what irritates me the most is when a writer is asking for an artist to draw there script on a message board and they don't have any links to previous scripts of stories they have.

I hate it when writers want to 'tell their life story' and think that because they are sooo interesting an artist should just want to draw it and if not they're a horrible person.

Which btw dear writers if you are below the age of 50 you should not be writing about your life story, because you really haven't lived your life yet.

I like cherry preserves or orange marmalade with extra rind.
And tea is my beverage of choice (preferably iced with this summer heat).
Also I agree orange juice is the best way to start a day, especially orange mango juice - the king of juices, apple being the court jester, lemonade being the arm candy, limeade being the mysterious sorcerer, and pomegranate being the sedate mother in law.

[lizardfolk]

Dear lizard folk, pardon my french, but you're being a little pretentious brat. Hopefully you'll remove your nose long enough from the air to read what I'm posting.

Really? You're going to defend the idea that writing is disposable in comics and thus writers should be considered second tier to artists?

First for my credentials, which are no mystery as you proclaim writer's talents to be, I am BOTH a writer AND an artist. It's a magical concept I know. As for the writer side of me I've been published a copious amount in newspapers, magazines, and such - why just last year I won a 500$ playwrighting contest, and that play is now being produced by a local theatre. Oh did I mention I have two degrees one in creative writing and one in theatre. And the aRt well I've designed costumes and scenery for 6 shows so far, i've won art contests, and am working on several comic submissions myself.

Better than mine. But what's your background in fiction theory? I'm an academic purely and this would account for our differences (or me versus most creative people because let's face it most creative people aren't essay/analyze intellectuals)

I suppose what stumps me the most here is why these 'talented writers' don't just write themselves a book...magic is it? The point of a comic book is that it has art, that's what separates it from a novel so if you want to create a comic book and you can't draw then either pay for what you desire or write a book or play if you're such a bottle of talent juice.

Excuse me when did I say that writers should only stick to one medium? I write screenplays and I work as a theorist. I don't sit here at the computer only complaining about people not taking writers seriously. I do, express my own credentials in the written form.

How many followers do I have? 0. How many followers does an average deviantart artist have drawing average fan art? A lot more than me. Not saying I deserve a fanbase but I have peers in my line of work that I actually consider geniuses and no one bothers to even sit down and read their articles or stories.

Also I resent this notion that art takes 2 seconds to appreciate and yet a movie takes 2 hours (perhaps you're confusing 'appreciation' with 'time one takes to look at something' - since i imagine if you visited the lovre you'd take it on at a dead sprint.)

And yes I know the lovre is not exactly the kind of art you're talking about but you keep comparing high writing to low art, which isn't a fair fight. I think a lot of people here are pitting low writing and low art against each other for value in which i must agree that low art wins - because even though it's not the best it still takes longer and more work than low writing.

So that means writing is a disposable compared to art in comics? Way to take my argument out of context. I'm trying to point out that writing isn't easy and should be respected equally to art but Beau's attitude didn't reflect that.

You also talk about how some comics just look cool but have no real substance or writing - a valid point. But aren't there written pieces that behave the same way? (for this example i am referring to non-comic writing to make my point clearer) There are pieces of writing that use certain topics or ideas to draw attention or attempt to seem good but are ultimately relying on a gimmick rather than good writing - this happens in theatre a lot as well.

This happens everywhere. But it's more of the notion that the general audience tend to value visual gimmicks more than writing gimmicks. How many times do you hear "Story wasn't that good but it looked awesome". Certainly in video games, certainly in mainstream multiplex movies and comics. Novels and plays tend to have different problems due to the nature of their medium. (And this don't have this problem)

Something else I'll say in reference to comic art is that if the art is good but the story is ok (not the best) I can survive it, but if the art is wretched and the story is good it's impossible to make it through - why? because the art is the majority of how the 'good script' is conveyed - in fact i would say the art conveys 80% of the writer's script if not more on some occasions. (think of a conversation you have with someone in person vs. online - 1/3 of a conversation is the text itself which means that online you're missing out on 2/3s.)

That's true but that doesn't excuse the mindset that writing in comics should be considered second tier to art. That's the only notion I'm attacking.

You also make a valid point that a good artist can be assessed quicker than a good writer (time it takes to look at a picture vs. read a story sure). But honestly it really only takes me one paragraph into a person's story to know whether they have skill (or one page into a play). It may sound terrible but it's true, and I have been a part of far too many writing workshops that back up this point.

Well I disagree. Creative people, especially writers, are prone to inconsistency in their respective art. Perfect example. Joss Whedon. You have Buffy, Angel, Firefly/Serenity, Dollhouse and The Avengers. Basically Ok, Good, Gem, Very Bad, and Ok leaning on Good. See what I mean? What about Oliver Stone. If you judge him just based on Alexander alone you'd think he's one of the worst directors still working. But he's Oliver Stone. Francis Coppola's Youth without Youth is really trash compared to his Godfather script.

Again i've worked as a story editor for a production company. I don't stop reading a script until I'm done no matter how bad it is. It's true that higher up executive throw scripts in the trash if the first 20 pages aren't good. But that's done more for time reasons rather than artistic ones.

As a person who has had experienced with scripts as well. I learned that a story is not over until it's over. The first act might be junk but the third act might be pure gold. That means the script just needs work and doesn't need to be trashed. It also doesn't mean the writer is bad overall.

But the fact is people usually don't have the time or the patience to see it all get linked together. The movie Syrianna was rejected 10 times because executives throught the first act was poor. But it wasn't in how it fit together with he rest of the movie.

People prejudge stories because of economic reasons not artistic merit and those who think they can judge everything about a writer from just a paragraph is simplifying the process way too much.

You also mentioned that there are 'artists' who read comics books and yell violently at the ceiling fan 'IMA DO THAT' - and somehow it doesn't occur to you that there are lots of writers like this? (hell there are singers, actors, lawyers, doctors, politicians, etc. like that.)

See this is my point about taking what I wrote out of context. Of course there's plenty of self deluding writers out there. More than artists likely. But I'm pointing out to Beau that just because an artist can emulate an artstyle from someone doesn't automatically equate them to storytelling masters. This was directly to Beau and anyone who feels that writing high quality material is easy or an inherently easier artform than art

You asked do you want to create entertainment or create art? (as if they are mutually exclusive) the best artists and writers in this world do both.

No. That's not necessarily true. Sean Carruth doesn't do entertainment and he refuses to let any financier make his script have any less "realism" for the sake of marketing. They aren't mutually exclusive you're right but artistic motivations should outweigh commercial motivations at this stage.

You also said artists results are more easily appreciated and I disagree with that (especially with you taking 2 seconds to appreciate them - does that not prove anything to you?) Most people don't spend a lot of time looking at the art or the intricacies or appreciating it because it's page 11/23 and they want to finish the chapter to know what happens. (It's like lighting design in theatre, when it's good no one notices - when it's bad everyone notices)

The 2 seconds is only a satirical exaggeration. It's not meant to be a literal statement. Lighting, Editing, Writing: when it's good no one notices, when it's bad everyone notices. Art: when its good people notice, when it's bad everyone notices. That should tell you something about how easy it is to be wowed by great art especially to those who arent that exposed to loads of amazing art.

It's more easily accessible but not EASIER. I think you mistake me for saying art is easy when I said no such thing. Art is a lot more accessible than writing.

I think the silliest thing you keep saying is about this comparison to established writers/artists and the desire to be just like them (or people thinking they can be them). Any writer/artist who becomes one only to shoot for being like someone else or accomplishing what that person has is doomed for failure from the beginning. And perhaps that's the ultimate thing that separates a real writer/artist from a fake - a fake one wants to write/make art - a real one HAS to.

Nice innuendo really appreciated that btw. I don't strive to be exactly like anyone but I do have my role models and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. People who think they don't need someone to study or look up to are usually very arrogant people who refuse to learn from others.

There's a difference between saying "I want to write exactly like Aaron Sorkin". And "I want to be as good as Aaron Sorkin". I'm also a disciple of Bazin. Does that sound like a wannabie? It shouldn't he's a very wise man and his essays and theories have been of incalculable value to cinema and to my own writing.

My writing may seem like someone who follows Bazin. But it's not Bazin himself to the T. Big difference and I see nothing wrong with the former.

Lastly if we lived in a world where we didn't need money for rent, clothing, food, or general survival - I'd be happy to draw for free. But we don't and I need money.

I need money too. Yet I'm still willing to pay. Would be nice if artists don't throw an attitude at me if I pay a little less for X, Y, and Z reasons. After all, all of the net projects I've done were for free.

P.S. bad writers irritate me more than bad artists because bad writers are generally less receptive to criticism. Perhaps it's the difference between the art community vs. the literature community, having been in both there is a stark difference.

Then maybe you should have read at how I was directing my comments at Beau before responding. I never said writing is harder than art. I'm trying to make Beau see that writing is not such a disposable artform when it comes to comics and the artist shouldn't have more rights over the writer.

When an artist complains about not getting paid we all feel sorry for him/her. When a writer complains about not getting paid and getting treated pretty poorly we get "get a life you're not as good as you think you are". Funny world we live in.

[lizardfolk]

I hate it when writers want to 'tell their life story' and think that because they are sooo interesting an artist should just want to draw it and if not they're a horrible person.

Ordinary person's life story done poorly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8sPCWfUw

Ordinary person's life story done very well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLGW6sdHy0g

An "ordinary person's" life story done well in a video game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqkJuSV-23U

Terri and To the Moon are amazing btw. I actually blush when I read the script to Terri it's so good and TTM is incredibly touching reaching landmarks for video games that haven't been seen before.

A good story is much more about the how than the what.

Absolutely valuable lesson I learned screening out writers and their scripts. My stack of recommended scripts to my supervisor would be very different if I only followed a good premise without bothering to read it and digest it.

Got a story about a boy being bullied and have an imaginary friend come to life? Boring? Yeah sounds like it. But a sentence can't completely encompass everything about a 120 page script. It's a physical impossibility and, at the end of the day, a story is more about the journey and what that journey means than how it begins.

I like cherry preserves or orange marmalade with extra rind.
And tea is my beverage of choice (preferably iced with this summer heat).
Also I agree orange juice is the best way to start a day, especially orange mango juice - the king of juices, apple being the court jester, lemonade being the arm candy, limeade being the mysterious sorcerer, and pomegranate being the sedate mother in law.

Vegemite. The true spirit and grit of Australia. Always there to remind us that an ill-prepared path can easily lead to bitter and harsh consequences. But, through mannered steps, a satisfactory end that's worth more from the ordeal conquered than the ordeal shunned. Vegemite.

[LadyDeath]

"Really? You're going to defend the idea that writing is disposable in comics and thus writers should be considered second tier to artists?"

No...I just think you flaunting your education so brazenly makes you seem extremely pretentious because you assume you're more intelligent than everyone here and I rather doubt that.

"Better than mine. But what's your background in fiction theory? I'm an academic purely and this would account for our differences (or me versus most creative people because let's face it most creative people aren't essay/analyze intellectuals)"

Well let me explain, when you go to college there is no such thing as 'let's just sit around and be creative, let's not learn anything academic'. Academics are required in every major in fact they almost make up more of the class. I took more literature classes and theatre history and theory classes than you'd assume. I also graduated with a 3.9. And actually I would disagree with the 'most creative people aren't essay/analyze intellectuals' - truly creative people are because you have to be able to break things down in order to build them, you have to be able to see what works and what doesn't not only in other people's writing but your own especially - and fix it, edit it, that's how one get's published. Plus I maintain that it is harder to create rather than critique which isn't to say that it's not hard to critique. But think about the length of a play vs. a critique. Then think about the actors, the director, the costume designer, the scenic designer, the lighting designer, the sound designer, etc. I'm actually going through this right now with Antony and Cleopatra for which I am making every single costume by hand, are you going to tell me 35 costumes aren't nearly as hard as pointing at the stage and saying 'well I'm not sure charmian was that pale'.

"I write screenplays and I work as a theorist. I don't sit here at the computer only complaining about people not taking writers seriously. I do, express my own credentials in the written form. How many followers do I have? 0. How many followers does an average deviantart artist have drawing average fan art? A lot more than me. Not saying I deserve a fanbase but I have peers in my line of work that I actually consider geniuses and no one bothers to even sit down and read their articles or stories."

Excuse me when did I say that writers should only stick to one medium? I don't so I wouldn't expect anyone else to. Also I wasn't suggesting people stick to one medium either, I was suggesting an alternative to relying on someone else's art. Write a book, play, poem, short story, post-modern writing, a speech, - anything!

Also the deviant art thing isn't true...being a member of deviant art too (do you assess everything in 2 seconds?) You may have stumbled onto a very popular deviant artist who has lots and lots of followers but they aren't all like that. I've seen pages with 65 views in 8 years (yes, there are deviants who don't have followers, and bad artists are only followed by a couple of their friends not true followers) so this isn't an appropriate example. Also I should point out that you can upload writing onto deviant art and there are many people who do that who have followers...so do your research scholar boy.

And as for you and your 'genius' cohorts how do you expect anyone to read them when you don't make them available to anyone. Is it my fault because I didn't hunt you down to try and read your stuff? There are PLENTY of ways to make what you've written available to other people DO YOUR RESEARCH, there is a website for everything now a days. I'm sure you can find a website where you can post academic essays, get validation from strangers online, and add to that overwhelmingly huge ego of yours.

"So that means writing is a disposable compared to art in comics? Way to take my argument out of context. I'm trying to point out that writing isn't easy and should be respected equally to art but Beau's attitude didn't reflect that."

If your argument is just that writing is valuable say that and leave it at that (which you have said it but you do not leave it at that). You've said some pretty belittling thing about artists and art (do you not recall any of this? It takes 2 seconds to appreciate art? really? Thanks that makes all the time I spent on it worth it...) ALSO I'm not saying writing is disposable you're reading into what I'm saying and - remember that I'm a writer - I don't think that. What I'm saying is that good writing is needed but good art is too especially because if the writer wants his good writing to be conveyed a large part of that good script is conveyed in the good art - as it isn't just text on a page - right? Is this clear enough for you?

"This happens everywhere. But it's more of the notion that the general audience tend to value visual gimmicks more than writing gimmicks. How many times do you hear "Story wasn't that good but it looked awesome". Certainly in video games, certainly in mainstream multiplex movies and comics. Novels and plays tend to have different problems due to the nature of their medium. (And this don't have this problem)"

I often say the opposite. I hated the movie Avatar - why? The graphics were nice and everything but it wasn't worth the poor story and I'll never see that again. How many people do I know that agree? A lot. You really need to get out more and hear more peoples opinions. Also in the video game world believe me no matter how great the graphics are if the game doesn't have a good story (and especially good replay value) nobody likes it. Keep in mind that some of the best gamers favorite games have terrible graphics because they're older - like Final Fantasy 7, have you seen it? The graphics are terrible but it's a great game.

And really gimmicks don't sell writing? Twilight! Holy crap how did this book ever get so popular (because there are hot vampires in it and hot werewolves and a girl who is a hole of a person so that other girls can think 'well i'm more interesting than bella i'm sure edward would like me more') and this book was extremely popular as a book (LONG before it was a movie). And this is not the only book like this. Do not even get me started on literary trash.

AND a play by a friend of mine this past semester was absolute shit. He wrote a post-modern piece (which was basically just maturbatory - he wanted everyone to tell him how great it was) and it was written poorly and there was no ending to it (and i don't mean conclusion I just mean no ending) but they used an LED curtain, lots of special lighting effects, music, elaborate costumes - it was spectacle without substance - and yes this happens a lot in theatre. Hell there are whole periods of time in theatre history where theatre was spectacle and no substance (the 18th century) - but I'm sure you knew that scholar boy.

"Well I disagree. Creative people, especially writers, are prone to inconsistency in their respective art. Perfect example. Joss Whedon. You have Buffy, Angel, Firefly/Serenity, Dollhouse and The Avengers. Basically Ok, Good, Gem, Very Bad, and Ok leaning on Good. See what I mean? What about Oliver Stone. If you judge him just based on Alexander alone you'd think he's one of the worst directors still working. But he's Oliver Stone. Francis Coppola's Youth without Youth is really trash compared to his Godfather script.

Again i've worked as a story editor for a production company. I don't stop reading a script until I'm done no matter how bad it is. It's true that higher up executive throw scripts in the trash if the first 20 pages aren't good. But that's done more for time reasons rather than artistic ones.

As a person who has had experienced with scripts as well. I learned that a story is not over until it's over. The first act might be junk but the third act might be pure gold. That means the script just needs work and doesn't need to be trashed. It also doesn't mean the writer is bad overall.

But the fact is people usually don't have the time or the patience to see it all get linked together. The movie Syrianna was rejected 10 times because executives throught the first act was poor. But it wasn't in how it fit together with he rest of the movie.

People prejudge stories because of economic reasons not artistic merit and those who think they can judge everything about a writer from just a paragraph is simplifying the process way too much."

If you think only Joss Whedon had a hand on those scripts you are sadly mistaken. In the movie/television industry they are more concerned with making money than producing something good (which is why indie movie makers exist so that they can do something good). In movie/television it's rare to nonexistent that one writer writes a show and it goes straight to air - everyone has a hand in it and Alexander for example you also have big name actors who think they should have a say. Cloony has messed up a lot of scripts because he thinks that he's a good actor so he must be able to do anything.

Also I don't like to compare writer's work to it's own. That may sound weird and many people may disagree but when you watch or read something you should judge it against itself and what it's trying to do because when you judge it based on the person's other work it's not a fair comparison - especially if they're both trying to do something different or tell very different stories. And I've certainly made this mistake I thought corpse bride was going to be everything the nightmare before christmas was and it wasn't (yes judge me it's a great movie and I don't care what you think.) Each work needs to stand alone and be judged that way, not in a line up.

I'm not simplifying the process. I'm referring to the fact that lots of people have no command of language - they can barely write a sentence. The shit play I told you about earlier - you should've seen the writing! He called it 'poetry' but if he read it to the poetry majors they would've stoned him to death. He did lots of obvious rhymes and poorly used repetition. (I don't think theres one way to write poetry but the way he did - if you can call it poetry - was pure shit). The other part of it is the sound of what you're reading. I read several years ago that if a reader likes what you're writing it means they like you and your voice - because in your writing there is a voice, you may not be aware of it but it's there. In one class of mine I couldn't stand the epic poem a boy wrote and it was purely because of the voice - it was arrogant, condescending, irritating - on top of being poorly executed. Now I read everything of his because I had to but believe me I didn't want to.

You keep thinking in terms of the story but that's only one element of writing. The writing itself and the voice - if those aren't good it discourages me from reading because it keeps pulling you out of the story, you're aware you're reading (and that's BAD writing).

Also being a person who watches lots of random movies both good and bad - you notice that It's rather rare for a movie, play, book, comic, to be shit shit shit then GOLD at the end. And you mentioned that maybe someone just needs a little editing - thats not a LITTLE editing that's an overhaul. I don't care if the ending is GOLD I don't trust the writer to have known what they were doing if the rest is shit and they think it's a final draft. People accidentally stumble on things all the time, I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing and can do it again rather than someone who wanders around hoping to stumble on a gold mine.

I never said writing was easy, I'm saying it's hard to do correctly.

Also I don't think that the term 'entertainment' used in reference to how something is written means it is purely commercial. I think of entertainment as well - entertainment, something being entertaining - enjoyable to watch. Little miss sunshine had entertainment value even though it was written for more artistic reasons - does my use of the word make sense to you?

"The 2 seconds is only a satirical exaggeration. It's not meant to be a literal statement. Lighting, Editing, Writing: when it's good no one notices, when it's bad everyone notices. Art: when its good people notice, when it's bad everyone notices. That should tell you something about how easy it is to be wowed by great art especially to those who arent that exposed to loads of amazing art. "

I'm not sure where you're getting these statistics or ideas. I notice good writing, I know lots of people who do. And it's the same people who can notice good and bad in art that can do it in writing typically because they're educated and into that. The worlds mingle all the time.

"It's more easily accessible but not EASIER. I think you mistake me for saying art is easy when I said no such thing. Art is a lot more accessible than writing."

Holy crap take it back, take it back right now before the Gods of art hear you. Are you joking? Art is EXTREMELY hard for most people to understand - why? Because it's not meant to be explained in words the way most other things are. Art is extremely complicated in what it does, what effect it has on people, what purpose it serves in our culture, and I doubt any laymen can explain it even though they might feel the effects (which is true of writing as well). If you mean 'lower' art like comics are more accessible (which is rather built into the genre) ...ok, but so is low writing! But you saying all Art is ridiculous. And in this moment I would like you to explain to me what Art is, what makes art - art. Why is it important to our culture? It's not accessible neither in the literal sense (physically getting to art) or mentally (people understanding it).

"Nice innuendo really appreciated that btw. I don't strive to be exactly like anyone but I do have my role models and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. People who think they don't need someone to study or look up to are usually very arrogant people who refuse to learn from others.

There's a difference between saying "I want to write exactly like Aaron Sorkin". And "I want to be as good as Aaron Sorkin". I'm also a disciple of Bazin. Does that sound like a wannabie? It shouldn't he's a very wise man and his essays and theories have been of incalculable value to cinema and to my own writing.

My writing may seem like someone who follows Bazin. But it's not Bazin himself to the T. Big difference and I see nothing wrong with the former."

It's fine to learn from them but it's wrong to align yourself behind them, then you'll never get out of their shadow - this is even true of well known students and teachers, at some point they had to stop following and be something themselves. There are lots of writers and artists whom I love - If it were possible to raise Edward Gorey from the dead I would have done so by now, and I feel the same way about Erte and Oscar Wilde. Also I do not want to be as good as Edward Gorey, I want to be as good as I can be.

If I'm working I don't have an attitude, and if I appear to have one now it's because it's text and you can put any emotion onto it that you perceive. I'm just trying to show you how balanced the world really is on all sides - there isn't this enormous disproportion that you perceive there to be. Also you Mr. Arrogant seem to have more than I could ever have.

"When an artist complains about not getting paid we all feel sorry for him/her. When a writer complains about not getting paid and getting treated pretty poorly we get "get a life you're not as good as you think you are". Funny world we live in."

I think this is because of what a comic is. It's art essentially. Art in the comic world is a more valuable commodity. Also for every 1 Artist there are 10 writers (who also seem unable to prove that they're good, they can link to a story or something. I'd feel more comfortable working with a writer if they could prove their worth). And essentially in the world of comics the art is harder and takes longer than comic writing (specifically comic writing). Having done both I can tell you that it takes me all of 3 minutes to write the script to a single page and included in that time is sketching a thumbnail layout. However it takes me hours to draw, ink, and color it. - does that maybe clarify for you why nobody cares about the writer getting paid? I have to say I think that when I see a writer complain about not getting paid because honestly for comic writing it doesn't take long - even when it's good because 80% of the story is art. 3 hours vs. 3 minutes - yeah I would say the Artists have the most work and more that they're giving up. Plus depending on what tools an artists use theres money right there.

but I will say in the instance that an artist is looking for a writer then yes they probably should pay too, however not the same that an artist gets paid (you have to think about how much product both are making). Whatever you don't have you must buy!

Again if anyone is telling their life story before their 50 I cringe because they haven't lived yet. And yes some people's life stories are interesting enough for a movie/book/etc but it's rare. Most people aren't that interesting - and yet most people think they are.

I've tried Vegemite, i'm not...fond of it...

[Bocasean]

The Dead Horse thread is still being beaten.

[J J ROBINSON]

.....while its drum is inexorably pulled... "a right rum turn of events an no mistake !!"

[lizardfolk]

No...I just think you flaunting your education so brazenly makes you seem extremely pretentious because you assume you're more intelligent than everyone here and I rather doubt that.

Of course I'm flaunting my education. It's a direct response to BeauWright's "you're not as good as you think you are but I'm exactly as good as I think I am. And most of you are probably just starting your dreams of writing".

That angered me so naturally I beat my chest... just like you beat your own chest when you thought I was being pretentious when I thought Beau was being too pretentious. (funny how context is needed in things like this eh?)

Well let me explain, when you go to college there is no such thing as 'let's just sit around and be creative, let's not learn anything academic'. Academics are required in every major in fact they almost make up more of the class. I took more literature classes and theatre history and theory classes than you'd assume. I also graduated with a 3.9. And actually I would disagree with the 'most creative people aren't essay/analyze intellectuals' - truly creative people are because you have to be able to break things down in order to build them, you have to be able to see what works and what doesn't not only in other people's writing but your own especially - and fix it, edit it, that's how one get's published. Plus I maintain that it is harder to create rather than critique which isn't to say that it's not hard to critique. But think about the length of a play vs. a critique. Then think about the actors, the director, the costume designer, the scenic designer, the lighting designer, the sound designer, etc. I'm actually going through this right now with Antony and Cleopatra for which I am making every single costume by hand, are you going to tell me 35 costumes aren't nearly as hard as pointing at the stage and saying 'well I'm not sure charmian was that pale'.

Well I'd love to work with your creative people because a lot of people in my film school are just "just point the camera and shoot". It's a stereotype that creative people are "free spirits" who don't think beyond just doing and it's certainly a stereotype that many people (including myself) break. I'm sure you know many people who break this stereotype too but, based on my experience, there's some truth to this stereotype.

"I write screenplays and I work as a theorist. I don't sit here at the computer only complaining about people not taking writers seriously. I do, express my own credentials in the written form. How many followers do I have? 0. How many followers does an average deviantart artist have drawing average fan art? A lot more than me. Not saying I deserve a fanbase but I have peers in my line of work that I actually consider geniuses and no one bothers to even sit down and read their articles or stories."

Also the deviant art thing isn't true...being a member of deviant art too (do you assess everything in 2 seconds?) You may have stumbled onto a very popular deviant artist who has lots and lots of followers but they aren't all like that. I've seen pages with 65 views in 8 years (yes, there are deviants who don't have followers, and bad artists are only followed by a couple of their friends not true followers) so this isn't an appropriate example. Also I should point out that you can upload writing onto deviant art and there are many people who do that who have followers...so do your research scholar boy.

And as for you and your 'genius' cohorts how do you expect anyone to read them when you don't make them available to anyone. Is it my fault because I didn't hunt you down to try and read your stuff? There are PLENTY of ways to make what you've written available to other people DO YOUR RESEARCH, there is a website for everything now a days. I'm sure you can find a website where you can post academic essays, get validation from strangers online, and add to that overwhelmingly huge ego of yours.

Ok.

#1: Where did I say I deserve recognition or I deserve a following? I know people in my field who do. I didnt say I was or wasn't one of them

#2: The are widely available. It's called academic journals. And yes, it's your fault if you dont read fiction theory as a creative person. It's a field often ignored and that constantly bothers me.

If your argument is just that writing is valuable say that and leave it at that (which you have said it but you do not leave it at that). You've said some pretty belittling thing about artists and art (do you not recall any of this? It takes 2 seconds to appreciate art? really? Thanks that makes all the time I spent on it worth it...) ALSO I'm not saying writing is disposable you're reading into what I'm saying and - remember that I'm a writer - I don't think that. What I'm saying is that good writing is needed but good art is too especially because if the writer wants his good writing to be conveyed a large part of that good script is conveyed in the good art - as it isn't just text on a page - right? Is this clear enough for you?

And Beau didn't say things that's belittling to writers? Context. But if that's the case then we don't have a disagreement.

I often say the opposite. I hated the movie Avatar - why? The graphics were nice and everything but it wasn't worth the poor story and I'll never see that again. How many people do I know that agree? A lot. You really need to get out more and hear more peoples opinions. Also in the video game world believe me no matter how great the graphics are if the game doesn't have a good story (and especially good replay value) nobody likes it. Keep in mind that some of the best gamers favorite games have terrible graphics because they're older - like Final Fantasy 7, have you seen it? The graphics are terrible but it's a great game.

Everyone I know disliked Avatar. Doesn't change the fact that we are in a super small percentage (even if it seems that the world hates Avatar to us). Especially factoring in "Avatar blues" where people were depressed they didn't live on Pandora. There's millions and millions of people who loved that movie. We just so happen to be embedded in a group that would dislike the movie.

Final Fantasy 7? You consider Final Fantasy 7 good writing?.... ok....

And really gimmicks don't sell writing? Twilight! Holy crap how did this book ever get so popular (because there are hot vampires in it and hot werewolves and a girl who is a hole of a person so that other girls can think 'well i'm more interesting than bella i'm sure edward would like me more') and this book was extremely popular as a book (LONG before it was a movie). And this is not the only book like this. Do not even get me started on literary trash.

#1: I never said that. You assumed that's what I was saying. Film, comicbooks, video games usually rely on visual gimmicks more than other mediums. That's all

#2: Twilight's popularity was based on gimmicks sure. "Vampires in love with a human awwww cool". Sure, Stephanie Mayer didn't write Twilight out of some notion to create something gimmicky. If you take a look at how the story's structured, the lot of it is a pretty sincere attempt at creating a Romeo and Juliet story. People think that the pastiche of fictional elements that are popular automatically make the storyteller's intention more about the audience but that isn't true. The way Mayer's Twilight is structured was a pretty sincere attempt at drama when she could have gone through the motion of "character development" and made the story fairly procedural. That's usually (not always as... of course fiction theory is never an absolute formula) a way to see if the writing was pretty sincere. Stephanie Mayer believed in her own fantasy and she believed in her own story. I honestly think Twilight's poor execution is due to a lack of structural discipline on the part of the writer. So I don't agree with you.

AND a play by a friend of mine this past semester was absolute shit. He wrote a post-modern piece (which was basically just maturbatory - he wanted everyone to tell him how great it was) and it was written poorly and there was no ending to it (and i don't mean conclusion I just mean no ending) but they used an LED curtain, lots of special lighting effects, music, elaborate costumes - it was spectacle without substance - and yes this happens a lot in theatre. Hell there are whole periods of time in theatre history where theatre was spectacle and no substance (the 18th century) - but I'm sure you knew that scholar boy.

There's nothing special about what I do or what my knowledge is. Really the knowledge is out there you just need to study. But most people dont and chose to ignore theory because "ewww essay papers and theoretical discussions". Not to mention that it's hard to respect a theorist when their opinions are so different, if not opposite, to yours (Bazin was like that to me and to most of my film peers).

It's important to know what Modernism is, Post-modernism, Parody, Pastiche, Neo-Realism, and all that good stuff (these changes between mediums btw) is even if it just seems like a stuffy professor talking to hear himself talk (some professors are like that but the material itself is very valuable). Yet, people chose to ignore it except those who work as a theorist (me).

If you think only Joss Whedon had a hand on those scripts you are sadly mistaken. In the movie/television industry they are more concerned with making money than producing something good (which is why indie movie makers exist so that they can do something good). In movie/television it's rare to nonexistent that one writer writes a show and it goes straight to air - everyone has a hand in it and Alexander for example you also have big name actors who think they should have a say. Cloony has messed up a lot of scripts because he thinks that he's a good actor so he must be able to do anything.

Ironically the show that's been messed the most with is Firefly and the show that's been messed the least with is Dollhouse. Joss Whedon was the show runner for Dollhouse he had absolute creative control over the series.

TV Series tend to be like that anyway with the writer basically having control to even being able to fire actors or directors on a whim. Joss Whedon might not have written every episode in Dollhouse, but he certainly had say in what the writers were writing. He's a show runner. There isn't a show runner without that kind of power.

In films it's a totally different story where even directors who might have no experience in creative writing would rewrite a script on a whim.

Also I don't like to compare writer's work to it's own. That may sound weird and many people may disagree but when you watch or read something you should judge it against itself and what it's trying to do because when you judge it based on the person's other work it's not a fair comparison - especially if they're both trying to do something different or tell very different stories. And I've certainly made this mistake I thought corpse bride was going to be everything the nightmare before christmas was and it wasn't (yes judge me it's a great movie and I don't care what you think.) Each work needs to stand alone and be judged that way, not in a line up.

There's value in both. In my line of work I do both (write a 20 page thesis paper on Brave and what it mean to Pixar as well as the animation industry). I only brought up "line up" comparisons because you said it's easy to judge a writer within a paragraph or 10 pages of a script.

Based on my experience, no absolutely not true.

I'm not simplifying the process. I'm referring to the fact that lots of people have no command of language - they can barely write a sentence. The shit play I told you about earlier - you should've seen the writing! He called it 'poetry' but if he read it to the poetry majors they would've stoned him to death. He did lots of obvious rhymes and poorly used repetition. (I don't think theres one way to write poetry but the way he did - if you can call it poetry - was pure shit). The other part of it is the sound of what you're reading. I read several years ago that if a reader likes what you're writing it means they like you and your voice - because in your writing there is a voice, you may not be aware of it but it's there. In one class of mine I couldn't stand the epic poem a boy wrote and it was purely because of the voice - it was arrogant, condescending, irritating - on top of being poorly executed. Now I read everything of his because I had to but believe me I didn't want to.

Well. This may sound weird. But I don't judge a person's creative talent just purely by language alone. I know writing means you need to be atleast competent in English.

Have you read Zhang Yimou's translated script? It's horrible primarily because the english translation into descriptions are so poor. But it doesn't make it any less of an amazing story.

Sure, if you get some internet 13 year old and he barely understands words let alone grammar, chances are he wouldn't be a very good storyteller. But how well you can put together a story and how eloquent you are in english are two different skill sets. I've met people who have one over the other.

You keep thinking in terms of the story but that's only one element of writing. The writing itself and the voice - if those aren't good it discourages me from reading because it keeps pulling you out of the story, you're aware you're reading (and that's BAD writing).

Roman Jakobson would argue that stylized writing, by it's very nature, is revered because it brings attention to itself But that's besides the point. When I say "story" i apply it very liberally. Dialogue, description (prose in novels), themes, character development, plot, etc. That's all "story" to me when I use that term.

Also being a person who watches lots of random movies both good and bad - you notice that It's rather rare for a movie, play, book, comic, to be shit shit shit then GOLD at the end. And you mentioned that maybe someone just needs a little editing - thats not a LITTLE editing that's an overhaul. I don't care if the ending is GOLD I don't trust the writer to have known what they were doing if the rest is shit and they think it's a final draft. People accidentally stumble on things all the time, I'd rather have someone who knows what they're doing and can do it again rather than someone who wanders around hoping to stumble on a gold mine.

See, that's too much of an absolute and a mindset that I was trained out of through my line of work. I read 4 scripts a day, and write coverage for them I sift through a lot, and the unpolished writer rarely executes a gripping first act.

But an unpolished writer isn't an untalented writer. The key isn't to spot Aaron Sorkin, at this entry-level the key is to spot someone who understands drama but maybe might not be able to perfectly execute all their ideas.

I've seen movies where it's been horribly boring only for it to come together at the end:
Syrianna.

I've also seen a movie that's a god awful movie to sit through because it tries to follow "film realism" as closely as possible and thus makes it undramatic (essentially being a film that Bazin would love). Yet, when the movie ends, you see hints in the writing and dialogue that the films are supposed to be this way and it proves a fiction point:
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Primer.

I hated both movies going into it and, if I didn't have the patience, I would have walked out. I didn't and I suffered through it. Yet, when I reflected on it, that reflection was more rewarding than sitting through many shallow but enjoyable films.

I love these two movies but you'd be hard pressed to find that opinion in me when I'm watching the movie.

I never said writing was easy, I'm saying it's hard to do correctly.

That's what i've been saying to BeauWright.

I'm not sure where you're getting these statistics or ideas. I notice good writing, I know lots of people who do. And it's the same people who can notice good and bad in art that can do it in writing typically because they're educated and into that. The worlds mingle all the time.

Well based on my experience you're an exception. I've never met any casual moviegoer who would comment extensively on the story but they would comment extensively on the action, visuals, and s#x appeal.

Holy crap take it back, take it back right now before the Gods of art hear you. Are you joking? Art is EXTREMELY hard for most people to understand - why? Because it's not meant to be explained in words the way most other things are. Art is extremely complicated in what it does, what effect it has on people, what purpose it serves in our culture, and I doubt any laymen can explain it even though they might feel the effects (which is true of writing as well). If you mean 'lower' art like comics are more accessible (which is rather built into the genre) ...ok, but so is low writing! But you saying all Art is ridiculous. And in this moment I would like you to explain to me what Art is, what makes art - art. Why is it important to our culture? It's not accessible neither in the literal sense (physically getting to art) or mentally (people understanding it).

That's not what "easily accessible" means. It doesn't mean it's easier to understand than writing. Why is that such a dirty phrase with you "easily accessible". It's common to psychology (which theorists have explored such as Kuleshov, Bazin, or Pavel) that we tend to relate more to visuals than our own written language.

Again, "easily accessible" doesn't mean "easily appreciated" (which would make the artform "easy"). It just means it has a wider potential to appeal.

It's fine to learn from them but it's wrong to align yourself behind them, then you'll never get out of their shadow - this is even true of well known students and teachers, at some point they had to stop following and be something themselves. There are lots of writers and artists whom I love - If it were possible to raise Edward Gorey from the dead I would have done so by now, and I feel the same way about Erte and Oscar Wilde. Also I do not want to be as good as Edward Gorey, I want to be as good as I can be.

No, I disagree. People who try their best to "be different" actually tend to be "fakers" based on my experience. No one forced me to follow Bazin theoretically. I just love the man's essays (even if he has pretentious in them.) I don't want to be like Bazin, but I respect him to the point where it has influenced my own writing and theoretical mind and it seems positive to me.

If he says something that I seriously disagree with (which happens actually), I might give him more of a benefit of the doubt rather than someone like... lets say Sergei Eisenstein (who's the exact opposite of Bazin) but I do read and consider every major theorists opinions.

I don't see how or why that's detrimental. My writing style has been similar to Aaron Sorkin before I realized what Aaron Sorkin was. Watching him, I found out that he does it better than I do so I'm "learning" from him. This does mean I go "what would Aaron Sorkin do..." when I write but I see absolutely no problem aligning yourself to a movement of writing or a few key writers who are masters at what they do.

I see the dangers of being a fanboy and losing your own identity. But being a dedicated follower isn't an absolute map to that path.

If I'm working I don't have an attitude, and if I appear to have one now it's because it's text and you can put any emotion onto it that you perceive. I'm just trying to show you how balanced the world really is on all sides - there isn't this enormous disproportion that you perceive there to be. Also you Mr. Arrogant seem to have more than I could ever have.

Oh yes, thrash me when I'm responding to, what I perceived as, an arrogant post by Mr. BeauWright. I keep bringing him up because everything I said was directed at him. You also seem to like putting words in my mouth. The entire point of my harsh response was to prove that

#1: writers on here aren't necessarily 13 year old hacks just trying to be cool or people who have no creative background just "starting their dreams of writing a comic book

and

#2: writing isn't easier, as well as not as accessible, to art so the attitude that art is better than writing in comics is detrimental.

I think this is because of what a comic is. It's art essentially. Art in the comic world is a more valuable commodity. Also for every 1 Artist there are 10 writers (who also seem unable to prove that they're good, they can link to a story or something. I'd feel more comfortable working with a writer if they could prove their worth). And essentially in the world of comics the art is harder and takes longer than comic writing (specifically comic writing). Having done both I can tell you that it takes me all of 3 minutes to write the script to a single page and included in that time is sketching a thumbnail layout. However it takes me hours to draw, ink, and color it. - does that maybe clarify for you why nobody cares about the writer getting paid? I have to say I think that when I see a writer complain about not getting paid because honestly for comic writing it doesn't take long - even when it's good because 80% of the story is art. 3 hours vs. 3 minutes - yeah I would say the Artists have the most work and more that they're giving up. Plus depending on what tools an artists use theres money right there.

but I will say in the instance that an artist is looking for a writer then yes they probably should pay too, however not the same that an artist gets paid (you have to think about how much product both are making). Whatever you don't have you must buy!

For me it actually takes longer than 3 minutes. I wouldn't say that drawing is quicker than writing, definitely not. But thinking of a story, then outlining it, then applying Roland Barthe's critical tools (yes i'm a structuralist... shoot me), working out dialogue, then writing it. If I were to estimate, probably 1 hour of pure theoretical work and 30 minutes of writing it down which makes it a lot more work than 3 minutes.

But is it so hard to believe that artists can be arrogant people too? Are artists always creative saints that always have justification to act however they please?

Again if anyone is telling their life story before their 50 I cringe because they haven't lived yet. And yes some people's life stories are interesting enough for a movie/book/etc but it's rare. Most people aren't that interesting - and yet most people think they are.

This is true but to me, it's not a matter of whether they are interesting or not. It's more of a matter of whether there's something to be learned from a life story.

Mr. Nice is a very interesting story about a "friendly" drug dealer who started dealing in Oxford. It was an interesting story but it was pretty procedural and, by the end of the movie, I wasn't sure what I was supposed to learn from the story and thus, it was forgettable.

Same with 3, The Dale Earnhardt story. Interesting process, not sure what the point of telling me the process was.

Likewise, Terri's life isn't interesting. It's a kid who's suffers from the typical "apathy" syndrome that most kids suffer. Yet, when the story wraps everything up, you learn so much more about the situation and psychological mindset behind all this.

That said, I'm not entirely sure where this comes from anyway. I haven't really met anyone who is trying to push their life story to become a comic and most comic ideas are too high concept for "life stories" anyway (unless they are writing themselves as a hero or something...)

I've tried Vegemite, i'm not...fond of it...

You have to eat it right. Key is to not put too much or else it'll be too strong it needs to be a very light spread

[imaginarypeople]

i don't know why there is so much argument over this.
comic books are a visual medium making the art the most important thing in a comic. having a a comic with good writing is a plus but it always comes second to the art.
comics is a purely visual medium

[Bocasean]

i don't know why there is so much argument over this.
comic books are a visual medium making the art the most important thing in a comic. having a a comic with good writing is a plus but it always comes second to the art.
comics is a purely visual medium

Ahh, well yes, but in this case your point is overly simplistic. You are focused on the "dialog" as the "writing." All dialog is writing, but not all writing is dialog.

What I mean is that many writers take on the job of art director. As in THEY lay out the sequencing and the angles and the visual vibe, in addition to writing the dialog. The artist then draws what the writer has laid out, either by sketch or by words. I find sketches to be easiest until I've been working with an artist long enough to where they know exactly what I mean in my panel layouts.

Granted, this isn't always the case, but in MY writing, all of the visual setups are mine; in essence, I'm the director and the artist is the cinematographer. The artist makes the panels detailed and worth reading because, I assure you, nobody wants to read my crappy doodles. But the writer CAN do much more than just write dialog blurbs.

[Rob Lefebvre]

i don't know why there is so much argument over this.
comic books are a visual medium making the art the most important thing in a comic. having a a comic with good writing is a plus but it always comes second to the art.
comics is a purely visual medium

One could make the same arguement for a movie, but writing is very important there.

I am surprised no one brings up people like Frank Miller and his "Batman year one" or "The Sand man" I am pretty sure it is the writing that made both of those comics good, not just the art. Fact is comics are a team effort. I don't why so many people are dead set on saying art is more important. Like was said earlier, art is more eailsy accessible, not more important.

It takes a lot of time and work to set up a good story, whrite good characters make the plot flow and fill in all the holes. No idea why every one feels the need to leave out all those parts of writing and simply look at everything as how long it takes. If it takes you 30 seconds to write everypage I am gonna say you are probably not writing a good story. When i write some pages take 30 seconds, some take an hour.

I would like to point out how this thread started out why writers can't pay $10 hour. I personally have adressed that issue at least twice in this thread, yet it has somehow devolved on an attack on writers, and how it is not important to comics. I feel this is pretty telling about hte mind set of the comic creator community. That is a detrimental mindset.

Both writers and artsits are very important to comics, that is a fact. The arguement over which is more important is useless.

[Bocasean]

Fully agreed. Writers should expect to pay artists upfront, with possible front/back discounts available at the artist's discretion. The amount is something between the 2 parties involved and no one else. The end.

[naffslack]

Amen anyone for an English muffin?

[LadyDeath]

1. I didn't say I think final fantasy 7 is good writing, I said serious gamers do and my point was that it's clearly not for the graphics.

2. Don't defend twilight. First of all Romeo and Juliet isn't what most people interpret it as - it's not a love story mr. theorist. Shakespeare really wasn't much of a romantic, which you'd know if you studied him. If you'll notice at the beginning of the play it says 'two houses' but actually there are three! and everywhere where you think theres two there are actually three - especially the death scene at the end - how many bodies on stage? Three! Romeo, Juliet, and Paris - Romeo goes to the tomb to see Juliet dead and Paris is there mourning. Paris tells Romeo to leave and Romeo threatens him that if he doesn't leave he will kill him and does so (in a very unheroic act as Paris is only 14 years of age). At the end of Romeo and Juliet there is only one of the younger generation left alive - Benvolio (and in some versions there are no children left alive). The story goes from the younger generations playing in the street to the older generations mourning the loss of all the children due to conflict.

Also Twilight bothers me because of the female lead who is a hole. She has no personality or abilities and only exists to be with the man she is in love with. In fact Edward and Bella's relationship fit the criteria of being an abusive relationship. It's a poor role model for women and yet everyone loves it. As a woman I'm sick of these female 'role models' who have no abilities, nothing going for them, and solely exist to be with a guy.

Just because someone references or creates a pastiche of something older does not make it good. Someone could write a movie based on Dante's inferno and just because Dante's inferno is good doesn't guarantee the movie will be and the attempt doesn't make it noble.

3. I should think most people know the difference between modernism, post-modernism, parody, pastiche, etc. are or at least have an idea. Especially in theatre because you have to establish what kind of play it is in order to do it.

4. Oy don't get me started on Brave. I appreciate the new type of relationship it introduced and the fact that she didn't end up with a guy but the story itself was still rather mediocre. Disney has a too well-established formula they don't want to give up. (For non-formula children's movie companies see Studio Ghibli, somehow they've made lots of movies and yet they don't all resemble each other...hmm)

5. Also as a creative writer I don't like it when people compare one thing I've written to other things I've written especially since i write some very drastically different things. I imagine that other writers do this too so I am considerate and evaluate each story on its own.

I know you as an essay writer compare things but I really only find that valuable if there is a real thread there (like this was writen in reference to moby dick so you can read and compare both) but otherwise it's reading into something that's not there. You want to compare hop on pop to the picture of dorian gray...um alright. I know that's an extreme example but a lot of essays can be like that. Even things that seem like they're there aren't necessarily. Do you really think you're an authority to tell me how to read something correctly? I find anything prescriptive rather than descriptive ridiculous.

87. I do not judge a person's creative talent just purely based on language alone either. But when reading something that someone has written - if they have no mastery of language it makes it really hard to read. And excuse me but I don't have the time to teach someone how to write and maybe you're happy to take that time out of your schedule but I'm not.

Is it wrong of me to prefer someone who has both creativity and can write well to someone who has uncontrolled creativity and can't write? Maybe the latter needs more time in the oven. Not to mention we're playing fast and loose with the term creative, it's way over-used today.

Also do not use a translation as an example. Of course things get lost in translation that's obvious. I'm talking about native english speakers who can't write.

93. Roman Jakobson? I'm not talking about stylized writing i'm talking about BAD writing and yes there's a difference - it's magical I know, but it exists.

I didn't say writing and voice alone made story, there are elements of the writing and if done poorly can pull you out of the story. And yes duh Dialogue, description, themes, character, plot - yes that's all story. Did I ever say it wasn't? Do you really think i don't know this stuff?

142. It is not an absolute at all and I never said it was. My point is that most people don't fully know how to use their gifts if they have them, or even what their gifts are. I feel more confident working with people who have some clue than those that have none.

I find it hard to impossible to believe that the place where you work is willing to work with an unpolished writer when every publisher, film company, comic publisher - etc. I look up does not want unpolished stuff - and I can't blame them because most people think they're awesome and that they can do the next great thing. I suppose your company is magical.

233. I do not like the term "easily accessible" it has bad connotations. Perhaps in the world of psychology that's what it means but when laymen use it - it means the other thing.

456. I never said TRY to be DIFFERENT. And I agree i dislike people who try to be different because they live lies. I'm not saying try to be different i'm say try to be the best version of you, whatever that happens to be. - even if you turn out to be Sorkin's clone.

For me it actually takes longer than 3 minutes. I wouldn't say that drawing is quicker than writing, definitely not. But thinking of a story, then outlining it, then applying Roland Barthe's critical tools (yes i'm a structuralist... shoot me), working out dialogue, then writing it. If I were to estimate, probably 1 hour of pure theoretical work and 30 minutes of writing it down which makes it a lot more work than 3 minutes.

Oh god you're one of those. I hope at least you know them by heart so you aren't just sitting looking at a book every time you write.

And nope artists aren't creative saints that have justification to act however they please. I never said artist's couldn't be arrogant, anyone can. Arrogance, Narcissism, and stupidity do not discriminate they take anybody.

[imaginarypeople]

this sums up how i feel about this - http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page ... e&id=32832

[mikekennedy]

where the guy that started this mess?

[naffslack]

Yeah he might want a English muffin too.

[LRB]

You live in Western countries so you can afford to pay the artist and you can't tell me otherwise. if you've been saving money for the past six months you'd now easily have enough to hire a pro for a five page submission. If you've been saving money since this thread was open you'd have money for one page. Good luck.

[J J ROBINSON]

"You live in Western countries so you can afford to pay the artist and you can't tell me otherwise. if you've been saving money for the past six months you'd now easily have enough to hire a pro for a five page submission. If you've been saving money since this thread was open you'd have money for one page. Good luck. "

the world is in recession,and I take it you don't live in a western country so have made to this arbitrary statement...

let me tell you brother that's a huge canvas with a massive brush your painting with there...

still thanks for the bit about "saving money" once I remembered what saving actually was it had me rolling around the floor in fits of laughter ...but it's nice to know that generalisations are made around the world regardless of race creed or colour.

now I'm just off to do a spot of saving... I think I may save the money those security guards keep depositing in my local bank...

gods bless this big old beautiful world we all live in

[LRB]

That was rude but it was expected from writer that's regular poster on zwol. What was the point of that post anyway? To make fun of someone who gave s good advice? Sorry to say this but being a low life on forums is not why you registered here, is it?

"The world is in recession,and I take it you don't live in a western country so have made to this arbitrary statement" Don't you just hate when you want to sound like a smart badass but end up sounding stupid.

I am sorry you are not able to invest $500 in you dream, those must be some terrible financial difficulties you're going through and I hope you get out if soon.

Take care and please don't write back I am not interested in arguing with strangers it's retarded and only retards do it.

[mikekennedy]

"Take care and please don't write back I am not interested in arguing with strangers it's retarded and only retards do it."

theres one for political correctness.

never mind guys i think the moral of the story is that any deal done should be between the two parties and if either fails to mention finances and expect to be paid or have work done for free then shame on them.especially if they start doing concept work or whatever without a publishing plan outlined and agreed on then theres a serious problem in how they do business.

if people start bitching and moaning about how much they should be paid then they should maybe reflect on their work and how they could make more money through prints or whatever else you can do nowadays as opposed to expecting all your income to come from pencilled pages.

small fish.big ponds.whatever.

[J J ROBINSON]

"yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn........."

have a great day brother.....

[dbppres]

folks, the problem that i have with prose books, is the lack of descriptive details, which is why i don't read books hardly anymore. to the writers, aas i mentioned to someone else on another thread, go to your local H.S.'s, and colleges, and POST FLIERS, offering $10/pg, and i am very sure that you will acquire some basically decently-skilled artists.