I did that! I did that! That was my fault!
Well, what can I say? Mistakes were made… by me.
I should have named the posting something less confusing. I shouldn’t have been so vague about what might have been different about the strip in question. Most egregiously, I shouldn’t have assumed that just because my web browser displayed links with an underscore that other browsers did so as well.
The strip in question was "How to Counter the Old "There's Something On Your Shirt". The thing that was different was not that I repeated art work. I do that all the time. It was not that the jacket was buttoned. I wouldn’t have wasted your time with something like that. It also was not that some of the art extends beyond the panel borders.
The difference was in the text.
I haven’t posted about syndication in awhile, but that doesn’t mean nothing has been going on. I’ve been in contact with a representative from a syndicate, a very nice woman with impeccable credentials. She suggested a means of editing my text that greatly reduced my wordiness, and when I tried it, I found that the strip still worked. She showed it to her colleagues, and they agreed that it worked. The last step, in my opinion, was to see what you all thought.
I posted an edited version of a new strip to my site unannounced, and nobody mentioned the change. I took that as a good sign, but I that didn’t mean nobody noticed the change, just that they hadn’t said anything. So, that’s the “anything unusual” I was referring to. I wanted to see if anyone noticed the change. That’s all.
Many people have expressed the concern that I might turn my strip into something that sucks in exchange for a chance at “the big time.” I do not want to be responsible for making crap, and this fiasco was part of my effort to prevent it from happening.
For the record, this editing method working does not mean that I’ll get syndicated. It just means that I may have found a way to make the strip slightly more accessible. On Sunday I’ll post the original version of the strip.
Thanks for your time.
posted by Scott Meyer at Friday, November 23, 2007
61 Comments:
You know, I just didn't bother re-reading the text when you mentioned that strip, because I assumed that I'd read it already and that it was the same as last time. The only thing I could see was that you re-used the images.
But you know, I think that by making it so concise (especially in the first couple panels), you're losing the "typical conversation" quality that makes so appealing. It's beginning to sound like engineer-talk.
And most of the humour in your strip, at least to me, comes more from the conversations than from the actual joke. Simply putting mustard on someone's shirt isn't funny; it's how you present it that's funny.
The same quality separated Chaplin's films from the early Keystone Cops comedies; Chaplin's big discovery was that people laughed more if someone deserved to be kicked, that the mere act of kicking itself was not that funny if there was no story and motivation behind it.
I'll be honest here: the "shirt" comic never really made me laugh in the first place (unlike most others). However, I've seen the difference between the concise "How to Apply Physics to Relationship" comics that you did for Scott Adams in the 2/3 panel format, and the wordier version of the same comic that you released not long ago.
The wordier version is much, much funnier to me, whereas the concise versions aren't very funny at all; they have most of the stuff that matters stripped from them, and feel sterile as a result.
Anyway... just whatever you change, please keep your characters human. Don't make them start talking like robots for the sake of saving space.
Thanks for explaining! I look forward to seeing the original version.
I did read the shortened version, and didn't notice anything.
But reading them side by side, I definitely like the longer one better. The shorter is still good though.
The more concise text is better, IMHO. Feels more...natural, if that makes sense.
I like both versions well enough, but I agree that the concise version is a bit better.
Both are funny. But the concise one gets my vote.
I like the concise version (at least in this case) because for me usually the text at the top is just the scene-setter for the dialogue between the characters, which is the funny part. I'm champing to read the dialogue, so I like the less wordy intro to each panel.
Being brief is hard, but very effective when you get it right.
Hmm... I like panel 1 of the concise one better, and panels 3 and 4 of the longer one. Panel 2 is about the same.
(cont.)
Usually the text at the top, for me, can be a part of the joke, and isn't just a "scene-setter". Panels 3 and 4 of the concise version are less funny to me for this reason, because some of the humour is removed.
In this case I liked the concise version of the panel intros better. But I didn't find either very funny.
But if I look at two of my favourites, How To Write a Haiku and How To Open Snack Quietly, the wordiness of the intros adds to making the strip funny.
I like that BI is wordy, it's one of the things that makes me laugh.
Don't listen to the people saying that the concise version is better. The longer version isn't that much more wordy looking at first glance and benefits from the use of words like magnanimous. The third panel loses the most in this process, where you talk about making the failed joke as uncomfortable for them as possible was one of the funniest parts of the whole comic and it's completely gone in the short version. The things your characters say are funny, but your explanations for their true motivations make it a lot more funny. At least in this example, a lot of that humor is lost.
My advice: Don't ever tell people you edit or show them the original. Of course it's better, that's why you edit. But most readers don't understand this.
I liked the original better than the concise one.
I don't mind the wordiness, it's part of why I like this comic.
Of course it's subjective, everybody will have different opinions about things like this. One might argue for example that it might also work just removing the intro text altogether.
I liked the original more...
I think the concise version is definitely better. The humour is in the conversations, usually. Actually, the narration can be wordy enough sometimes that I skim it, eager for the dialogue.
I agree with most that your edited first panel was better, but in general, I liked the wordier original more.
This is, of course, after looking at them side-by-side. I hadn't noticed a difference when I first read it.
Good luck with syndication. Your comic is great.
Comparing the two, I really only miss the longer narration in the final frame. It seems like verbosity could be justified there because it's the set up for the punchline. The shorter narration in the preceding frames did seem to help; I wasn't as "fatigued" by the time I got to the punchline.
I'd be curious if you could make a hybrid approach work. Shorten the narration for the weaker jokes and let it grow to allow the reader to anticipate the stronger jokes.
As Dr. Seuss once said, "Shorth is better than length."
(Except when it isn't.)
After following the syndication saga for some time and weighing to myself the various formats and wordiness questions I can say that (to my tastes, and I am never wrong!) 1. Square 4-panel is better, 2. Wordier is better than edited. Strip format does work, edited down text does work but neither are as good as 4-panel wordy. OK conventional wisdom says I am wrong on both counts. My gut says a more loyal audience if you do not follow the crowd.
I'm usually a fan of wordy humor. In this case, however, I think the concise version is more in keeping with the strip's name. The narration reads more like a set of instructions. But yes, keep the character dialog human.
I'm a fan of the original.
In this case, I actually like the concise one sightly better because your dialogue between the characters was wordier. It seemed to help set up the joke without distracting as much. The last panel especially sings in the more concise version. I loved the use of the word diabolical!
That said, I usually love the verbose narration. That is part of why I don't like the three panel strips as much as the big four-panels. Please don't lose that. What would Berke Breathed have accomplished if he simplified to witty little one-liners?
I really hope you get syndicated. Basic Instructions is my absolute favorite comic (followed closely by Beaver and Steve - which is also verbose). You have something special.
The wordier version flows better and is funnier.
To me.
Isn't that what we're aiming for here?
~ wendybird
The wordier version is absolutely better. When I first saw this strip, I thought something seemed lacking. I distinctly recall noticing the caption over the last panel was really not helpful. Usually, those captions provide insight into the motivation of the characters. The short version completely loses the reason for looking down.
Please, please, please don't do short versions. It's so much better when it's long.
Didn't notice the difference! :D
Sorry, but for me the unedited, wordier version is also funnier. It has this 'instruction manual' feeling that helps your comics be funny.
I preferred the extra detail on the wordy one, but when I read the unedited one I didn't notice that it was less wordy or anything. I just think the extra wordyness is good - it makes your contempt for your victim clearer and more amusing.
I enjoyed both versions; however, the concise version had pretty much all of the relevant content. The one thing I really missed was "magnanimous" in the fourth panel. Other than that, the concise version was *almost* as good!
I don't know what advice you got, but I can guess.
You should know that extra adjectives and specifications can often serve to make things funnier. (If you didn't know that explicitly already - you obviously have a wonderful grasp of the concept in practice, so you probably do.)
So, for example, the line "I met my aunt" is concise, focused and easy-to-syndicate, but has less comedy potential than, say, "Late last night I unexpectedly bumped in to my gin-raddled old hag of an aunt in a fetish club, dressed only in a PVC catsuit".
I reckon you will get more mass-market appeal with the slimmed-down version, since you'll be making fewer demands on your readers. (Who would also then include smart people who don't have the time to get the full thing.)
Less isn't more, it's just more widely disseminable. Your cartoon, your choice. Crucially, I think the strip still works like this, though, in a way it didn't in the Scott Adams-approved style.
I have to admit that I did not notice the difference until it was pointed out. The edited one was funny, but, in direct comparison, the original was funnier. The humor here is in the details, and the original delivers.
I agree that the concise version is more consistent with the "basic instructions" theme, but the original content in panels 3 and 4 was funny in its own right, and some of that is lost in the editing. I mean, magnanimous is just a funny word; personally, I would never walk away from an opportunity to use it.
Just to add another sample point, I too didn't notice anything special about the edited version - but I prefer the long one (particularly the reasoning behind why you'd look down, in the last panel). But then I always write too verbosely myself, and I don't buy *any* newspaper, let alone one which might run your strip - so if the aim is to sell the strip then I'm possibly not your target audience.
I do like the wordiness of the unrevised strip. The revised one isn't as funny, in my opinion. O course, I'm definately not part of the mainstream.
FYI, instructions for house rules is best strip yet.
I like the less wordy version. Just as funny in my opinion. Love your strip!
The longer narration is definitely better. The shorter is still funny, but just doesn't have the same feel. It lacks your style of "instructing" that has made me like your comic.
This is my first post here. Let me just say, I've loved your comic for at least a year now and check back almost every day to see if there's a new one. I'm totally jealous of how great it is.
I preferred the wordy version, too. The wordy version is a playful parody of an instruction manual. The concise version is nothing more than a setup for jokes in the dialogue - it might work better for those who don't appreciate the parody element, but there's no chance of it ever being funny in its own right.
I've been trying to figure out why I don't like the way your strip changes when you get feedback from professionals. I'm worried that I might just be a reactionary. But, after some reflection, I don't *think* I am.
Part of the reason might be that your instructive narrative is really very whimsical, whereas the dialogue is like most professionalised comedy in that it is more aggressive and negative. This would explain why it's hard for people to give you good feedback - they may not even recognise that the whimsical elements exist!
Problem is, it's the whimsical elements (and unusual layout) that make you stand out.
Anyhoo, keep up the good work, man. I totally respect the way you solicit feedback from your fans. It's a bit different, but very interesting to read and contribute to the discussion.
In my local newspaper ("De Morgen", from Belgium),they have on their comics page (all translated in Dutch):
1) Casper & Hobbes (= translated Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson)
No comment needed.
2) Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller
I hate this commic. It is mindnumbingly boring. It is so desperately un-funny. It is depressing. And to make a final point: the text is so small it is almost unreadable. And this stuff gets published???
3) Sigmund by Peter De Wit
Dutch cartoonist. Elementary drawings but funny.
4) Lio by Mark Tatulli
Love this one for it's originality.
5) Flying Mccoys by Glenn and Gary McCoy
9 out of 10 the joke is rather lame. Very lame. (At least the ones that get published in my paper.) This comic however takes up as much space as two of the above. If this crap comic can get so much space, so can Basic Instructions.
At least, that's how I see it. :)
Ask Scott Adams to give you the funny version of "Last night I snapped myself with my pajamas. It hurt."
There seems to be alot of disagreement, which basically says that, when in doubt, YOU are always right =P.
For what it's worth, I much prefer the concise version. It directs more focus to MY favorite part of the strip, which is the characters' dialogue.
"Diabolical" is an hilarious word.
I'm a big fan of your strip in general.
I definitely like the original, wordy, version better. To me, this strip is about the dialogue and the narration (after all, isn't the witty commentary the reason you can get away with reusing the artwork?), and taking that away leaves something lacking. The narration sets up the dialogue in your strips, and losing the clevernes there leaves the rest a bit flat.
Poll says:
People like the original wordy one better.
I agree.
Up here in Seattle you get one more vote for the wordy version.
I agree with that your text is sometimes overlong, but better overlong and funny than overshort and dull.
Hmmm... how about: "How to insult someone when they use a made-up word like overshort."
Hey, I love your strip! Keep the advice coming!
-TL
When I read the first strip, I really didn't notice anything out of the ordinary; however, after reading the unedited version the difference really stands out. The edited strip lacks personality. Anyone could write a joke like that. It's the way *you* tell it that keeps us coming back. Will the longer one help you win over a larger audience? Maybe not. But it's what us quirky fans have come to expect and love.
To me, your wordier comics have always been much, much funnier. I did not enjoy your the more "normal" strips you did for Scott Adams; your original format and style is more humourous than those constrained versions.
Keep doing what you do best!
I don't think some people know what the word "concise" meant, and are pointing to the wrong version as their favorite. But based on the descriptions of their comments, I'm sure you're bright enough to figure that out.
I like the longer version better. As many have said, part of the joke is in the intro text, and that is all lost. In some cases, this may work, but mostly you're just making the strip less funny.
Concise one?
Much funnier.
Stick with the long narration. It's the instruction manual. It's what makes your comic work. The short version has much less character and seems closer to simple slap-stick humor.
I don't think I would have kept coming back to the site if the first few instructions I read were like the edited version. It just feels more like something anyone could do.
I like the shorter version better - it is punchier.
Also, note that well written instruction manuals are also ruthlessly edited down - so in spite of what the prior (as I write this) poster said, the concise version is more like an instruction manual.
p.s. I was just about to suggest a link from http://www.basicinstructions.net/ to http://www.hellomeyer.com/ etc - but I see they are already there. I was actively looking for them, and I still didn't see them - a clear case of "banner Blindness" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banner_blindness ). So instead, I suggest redesigning the links so they don't look at all like advertisements.
Hope this helps!
Wordy or Not what made this one really funny was the last panel - so we had *three* funnies - the narration, the dialogue and the twist at the end - well done!
Now - can we hear more Disney stories?
"The third panel loses the most in this process, where you talk about making the failed joke as uncomfortable for them as possible was one of the funniest parts of the whole comic and it's completely gone in the short version."
I totally agree, along with the fourth panel's narration being totally flat and unfunny in the short version, but very amusing to me in the longer version.
Half the comic to me is about the narration, the other half being the commentry, and the two halves work together really well in the longer version imo. Your wordiness makes your strip my joint favourite comic (anywhere) along with XKCD. I also agree with the people who have said any alterations you've made from professional feedback have had a negative effect... imo, there isn't anyone out there who can give you advice about how to make comics! :o)
Wordier PLEASE! I agree with all of the great Pro-Wordier comments! If I wanted dumbed down "cartoons" well... you know where to find those. Please stay with 4 panel too! Sorry if I double posted - I'm typing with only one contact in.
John P
It's okay; the table broke the fall.
I too find the wordier version much more humorous. Cut and dried "instructions" aren't nearly as useful as when you "describe" the steps more thoroughly! ;)
Definitely in favor of the original. The concise one masks a lot of the tongue-in-cheek humor.
Short is usually better. But, if something needs a long introduction, go for it.
It will all depend on the joke that you are trying to set up. If the situation is very common to most people, a short explination works. If it is something a bit unusual, more words may be needed.
For what it's worth, I prefer the "wordy" style of writing. For me, the longer narration adds to the humor, possibly because it makes it seem more like a real-life instruction video, which adds to the ridiculousness of it (in a good way)
I find the edited version barren and frankly, not funny. I always found the humour in your strip to be that the style of language was rather advanced, using words like magnanimous, while explaining the mundane.
Please don't do this to any more strips.
The original was MUCH better!
Post a Comment
<< Home