Behind the Scenes

[Funt Solo]

Art and script droids get all the glory, but I was interested when reading The Mighty One (MacManus, 2016) to hear about the amount of editorial rewriting (especially on GFD's Rogue - which is perhaps the origin of the term "scrotnig" as a typo of "escorting"), uncredited design work and also the fact that Tom Frame coloured a lot of the centre pages. I was also discombobulated by the idea of MacManus rewriting chunks of Skizz (or rather adding dialogue where there wasn't any).

This got me curious about about lettering (where the better you are the more you're not noticed) and sound effects. Sometimes, it seems fairly obvious that the artist is the one that did the sound effect, like in this example from Frank Quitely's Shimura:




But do letterers ever do the sound effects? I'd always assumed they mostly had responsibility for that.

[Jim_Campbell]

But do letterers ever do the sound effects? I'd always assumed they mostly had responsibility for that.

"Do" as in actually put on the page, or "do" as in "decide what they are and whether to include them"...?

If the latter (and I think most letterers are broadly similar on this score), then I'll tweak SFX in the script. Many writers will put something like FTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM in the script because it looks big on the scripted page, but I'll certainly trim some 'O's out of that because I can run FTOOOM much larger on the page and I assume that 'large' is what the writer was trying to convey.

I personally prefer KRASH to CRASH and KRAK to CRACK because the hard angles of the K make the effect look more like the sound it's trying to convey — some editors and writers are OK with a letterer making that call and some aren't. You quickly learn which is which!

I'll never add a sound effect unless the editor has previously indicated this is something they're OK with, but I will often send notes with a first proof that say something like "Pg3, Panel 2 is begging for a BLAM".

Fairly often, I'll omit SFX because it's not clear what they're supposed to denote, but again, I'll send a note with the proof.

The most frequent reason for this is the off-panel sound effect — some effects (SLAM or BLAM, for example) are clearly associated with an action so the reader can infer the action from the SFX. Others, not so much — yesterday, I omitted a SKRRRRRK from a panel because it was supposed to indicate a chair being dragged backwards across a hard floor. There was literally no visual information in the panel to clue the reader in to what the effect was supposed to be, and SKRRRRRK doesn't have the immediate association with implied action, so it just looked like a random noise floating across the panel.

Sometimes, an artist will draw the SFX that are in the script, like the Quitely panel you show, but the writer will add extra ones at the proofreading stage, in which case I'll hand-draw the additional ones and try to match them to the artist's own — see Dan McDaid's run on BOOM's Firefly, or Vault's The Plot for books where I've attempted that!

[IndigoPrime]

And then you get those weird overlaid comic font SFX that stick out like a sore thumb, presumably introduced by editorial. Over never understood those. They never add anything and are often a distraction—not least the colour ones on B+W art.

[Jim_Campbell]

And then you get those weird overlaid comic font SFX that stick out like a sore thumb, presumably introduced by editorial.

Isn't that almost all modern SFX? Hardly anyone draws them by hand, and some of the people who do really shouldn't...

[AlexF]

In my day job we have to put all text, including sound effects, onto the text layer of the files - so that foreign translations can rewrite in their own preferred way. We sometimes have to erase SFX drawn in by artists, even when it looks super cool!

[TordelBack]

And then you get those weird overlaid comic font SFX that stick out like a sore thumb, presumably introduced by editorial. Over never understood those. They never add anything and are often a distraction—not least the colour ones on B+W art.

This is something I associate with the early Rebellion era of the prog, around the time the legendary Tom Frame switched to computer lettering and Chris Blythe had fallen in love with textures from the Ronseal catalogue. Suddenly yellow 'BLAM! BLAM!'s floated untethered above walnut-veneer tables in almost every strip. We'd fallen a long way from lovingly crafted 'PZOOOO!' and evocative purple washes.

It's actually amazing how much better integrated and... natural-looking the whole digital process has become in the intervening years. Testament if any was needed to how much skill and experience goes into lettering (and colouring).

[Funt Solo]

"Do" as in actually put on the page, or "do" as in "decide what they are and whether to include them"...?

Well, that query exposes why I asked in the first place - because I'm so ignorant of the process. I meant the former, but it's really interesting that it also includes the latter. It makes sense (now that you've explained it for me) that it's a much more fluid and collaborative process and not just a simple pipeline that always travels in the direction script --> art --> letters.

I suppose we could compare it to movies where a punter might assume that lighting a scene is purely the purview of an isolated department, but then something like The Third Man exposes that as far too simplistic a view.

I personally prefer KRASH to CRASH and KRAK to CRACK because the hard angles of the K make the effect look more like the sound it's trying to convey — some editors and writers are OK with a letterer making that call and some aren't. You quickly learn which is which!

Oh, that's a cool insight. Like a visual onomatopoeia.

[Pete Wells]

I can see the Daily Star headline now:

"JIM CAMPBELL KRACKED MY CRACK!"

Shameful behaviour!

[JayzusB.Christ]

I personally prefer KRASH to CRASH and KRAK to CRACK because the hard angles of the K make the effect look more like the sound it's trying to convey — some editors and writers are OK with a letterer making that call and some aren't. You quickly learn which is which!

Well, I never.
I always wondered why 'KRAK' and 'KLAP' were used - makes perfect sense now.. Ks are angular and spiky, Cs are soft and curved.  On a sidenote, I've just been reading an old prog where a reader's letter questions John Wagner's regular use of the effect 'WHAAANK' - Tharg seems just as bemused / amused by it as the Earthlet.

[Funt Solo]

I expect some are rarer than others...

[Colin YNWA]

The most frequent reason for this is the off-panel sound effect — some effects (SLAM or BLAM, for example) are clearly associated with an action so the reader can infer the action from the SFX. Others, not so much — yesterday, I omitted a SKRRRRRK from a panel because it was supposed to indicate a chair being dragged backwards across a hard floor. There was literally no visual information in the panel to clue the reader in to what the effect was supposed to be, and SKRRRRRK doesn't have the immediate association with implied action, so it just looked like a random noise floating across the panel.

I find this fascinating. I know nowt about who wrote it or what their thought process was, but it strikes me it could be a great example of something I struggle with, and have to work on even with the mundane writing I do at work (and here). You get too close to something and you loose sight of what you need to communicate to someone coming in fresh... it could of course be a slip between script and art that left a difficult storytelling problem.

Out of interest did the ommission of reader knowing the chair was dragged across the floor impact on the story at all, or was it an atmospheric detail that didn't directly impact on the story?

[Colin YNWA]

I expect some are rarer than others...

You don't read The Phoenix, or Viz come to that do you!

[Jim_Campbell]

Out of interest did the ommission of reader knowing the chair was dragged across the floor impact on the story at all, or was it an atmospheric detail that didn't directly impact on the story?

Absolutely no relevance. TBH, it's something I see a lot in inexperienced writers or writers from another medium — they're used to the idea of sound, so they tend to imagine a scene in terms of film or TV and where they'd imagine sound in one of those media, they'll script it in comics without realising that the reader can infer sound.

I see a lot of scripts that basically try to add an audio track when it's not necessary to add a SCRRRNCH sound effect to a car pulling up on a gravel drive, or TAK TAK TAK effects to a panel of high-heeled feet walking down a corridor. If you SFX everything, then you lose the impact where you want them to have impact.*

The best way I can describe it is the way that you never hear characters breathing in film/TV until it's important. Same thing in comics — the reader knows the character is breathing without adding SFX — you only deploy a HUFF HFF HUFF when they're fleeing for their lives.

*Although it can be very effective to SFX everything if you're leading up to a dramatically important silence, or coming out of a dramatically important silence.

[JayzusB.Christ]

This truly is a fascinating insight.  I never knew letterers had so much control over the story. 

I'm reminded of the first Bad Company - IIRC, everyone's pissed out of their head on alcoholic mud except Kano, on whom it has no impact.  As he walks away, his stony, disgruntled silence is only emphasised by the 'CLUMP CLUMP CLUMP' of his footsteps. 

[Jim_Campbell]

This truly is a fascinating insight.  I never knew letterers had so much control over the story. 

Heh. Honestly, we don't. Any decision like that, I highlight in a note that accompanies the proof, and if the instruction comes back to do it as scripted, that's what happens.

Which is fine — I have an opinion about such things, but no one is buying a book because my name's on the front. If the writer or artist (or editor) disagree, I'll defer to their judgement because, fundamentally, it's their book, and they're entitled to see it done how they want.