Always The Writer, Never The Reader.

Always the writer, never the reader.

Something something twitter trend something something I need to watch Perfect Blue

Life imitates art -

or maybe art imitates life, but in doing that, it became much more beautiful that the original. What are the implications of that? Of course, life isn't bad. It's not always ugly - the world is beautiful, and the things that can happen when human souls meet are truly magical. But life is also raw, unstructured, unpolished. Which you can only say by comparing it to art.

Isn't that crazy? Art can only imitate life, imitate the human mind and the things we can imagine. But in doing that, it has found all the best versions of every moment, and now it can show us how things could be. Every piece of art is perfect, in the sense that it's more perfect than the world it came from - idealized, purified.

Connections between humans can be beautiful - this is only an example. Every kind interaction is pure in its own way. But do we still look at them the same after seeing how they can, literally, become art? All the hidden mechanisms between individuals have been analyzed and pondered for millennia, people have thought and felt, and then they took only the beatiful parts and put them together. Coincidental meetings turn into arcs. Awkward muttered words turn into thought-out phrases. This is how things could be. Is this how things should be?

We have admired perfection for so long that maybe, just maybe, we have forgotten that humans are clumsy, and so is fate.

I need to stream my writing on twitch or some shit. Nobody would watch but it'd make sure that I don't get too distracted

Being a writer is trying to google things as inconspicuously as possible so you don’t end up on a watch list.

Anyway does anyone know how many pounds of force would be required to break a windshield with someone’s head?

My self-appointed rules for drawing comics:

No pages with only talking. If all the characters are doing is talk, they should be doing something while having this conversation. If that is not possible, there should be something happening in the background - even if it's just a faceless background character spilling a glass of water and cleaning it up.

The illustrations should be clear enough that even a person who can't read the text would have some kind of a grasp of what's going on, and how the characters feel about it.

Every character who is speaking in this panel should be in this panel, unless it's explicitly funny that they are not.

Each character's design must be distinct enough from each other that they can't be confused with any other one from any angle or distance.

Make the characters' body language clear enough that a reader could tell how they are feeling even if their face isn't visible.

Fit the characters around the dialogue, never the other way around. They should be positioned in order of who speaks first, no matter how strange of an angle that must take. A character whose speech bubble is on the left should be on the left of a character who says something on the right.

In both setting and characters, quality is measured by consistency, distinction and clarity. As long as a reader can tell who the characters are, where they are and what they are doing, it's a good panel. A comic consisting of extremely well-drawn individual panels, but where locations and characters aren't recognisable on sight, or are hard to tell apart from each other, is worse than one drawn with stick figures.

In the end, it mostly boils down to consistency, clarity, motion and emotion. As long as each individual panel meets those standards, it's good enough. Anything above and beyond that is a bonus, not a requirement.