A little demonstration of how comics work

The New Indian Express publishes comic strips done by Indians in its Saturday supplement ‘Zeitgeist’. A few of my one-page comics have also been published. In today’s edition (26 June, 2010), 5 strips have been published. On reading them, I realized that one could use these 5 to see how comics work. It just seemed to me to be an ideal bunch of examples to talk about. Of course, I too am a novice and many of my own comics can be critiqued in the same way that I am doing here. But then again, we are all learners here, and I think mutual criticism of each other’s works (something so lacking in India!) is a healthy practice for overall improvement. So anyway, here is the page as it appeared–>

In the first one, by Gokul, a 3 panel strip, we have the traditional ‘beginning-middle-end’ or ‘action-reaction-resolution’ structure. A theme is set up in the first panel. In the second is the elaboration of the theme, and in the third, a closure is brought about. This is a structure that one might call ‘classical’ in the sense that its formal triad refers to countless other comic strips of the past as well as the traditional narrative structure itself. Arun’s 3-panel strip is similar to Gokul’s in form. However, there is a crucial difference, and this is the point I want to talk about– in Arun’s strip, the text works independently of the drawings. If you read the strip without the drawings, it would still make perfect sense. In fact, he could have used the same image in all the 3 panels and still it wouldn’t have made any difference, like in Jaya’s strip, which is essentially made out of the same drawing repeated 4 times. Her strip could have been a 3 panel strip in the manner of Gokul’s had the angles or character been changed. For example, in the last panel, if we had a different angle or a different character speaking, the impact would have been greater. The middle 2 panels could be combined into 1 panel, and we have the classic 3 panel comic strip. Considering the relationship between text and drawing, here too the text works independently, as reading the dialogues alone without the drawings, it still makes sense. The expression on the character’s face varies so slightly that it adds little to the text, which has emotion embedded in it already (for example the ‘MORE, MORE, MORE…’ dialogue). Gautama’s strip is the best example of what I’m talking about. Here the drawing is not required at all! The drawings work as illustrations to a text narrative. In its 4 panel structure however, it follows another very classical model that is used prominently in Japanese ‘yon-koma’ (4-panel) manga. Japanese comic strips are traditionally in 4 panels arranged vertically. The narrative proceeds like this– 1:Theme-2:elaboration-3:change of scene- 4:conclusion, which is how Gautama’s strip works. But as I said, the drawings have no function other than illustrating the text. Kanchi’s strip is a one-page comic. However, colour lines are of no use in adding any narrative information. The comic would be exactly the same if printed in b&w (which is how it appears in the printed newspaper). Kanchi’s strip works better because the dialogue interacts with the drawing and calls attention to it. Without the drawing, we wouldn’t know how the character looked. Here is a good example of how drawing and text are dependent on each other to make a comic work. Gokul’s strip also work likewise– the dialogues call attention to the drawing. The character says ‘Hey Look! Rain Cloud!’ and the reader has to also look at the drawing of the cloud. Without the drawing, the text would make no sense.

In conclusion, Gokul’s and Kancha’s strips demonstrate how comic drawing works in comics. In the other 3 strips, the drawings work as backup illustrations to the text dialogues. In written language, text can work as ‘journalistic report’ as well as ‘literature’ or ‘poetry’. In the same way, drawings in comics can work as basic ‘illustration’ (which is how many comics work) but also as ‘literature’ or ‘poetry’ in the sense that they can carry ideas that the text on its own cannot convey. In comics, the dialogues themselves are in fact ‘visuals’ as they are the visual expression of the spoken word. In comics, lines must do the talking rather than only the text. This is what I think comics are all about. But this doesn’t mean that drawings working as illustrations are bad comics. Rather I simply want to make the point that there are ways to make comics drawing do more things than only illustration of text, and this is a very simple example showing the difference in two types of comics drawing– one which contains narrative functions on its own, and one which works as elaboration of the text. If comics claim status as literature (‘graphic novel’ and all that), then they have to prove themselves capable of it. Merely tackling complex ‘literary’ themes is not enough. They have to actually work as literature. Few comics can claim that, and we need many more…!

Below is the same comics page without the drawings. See for yourself which strips need drawings to work more than others.