Messages

> Who was the artist on that

I don't think all of the issues were credited ... I know Oliver Frey (?) did some, and Ian Kennedy, but I'll have to dig out the back issues and see ...

Cheers

Jim

> Watch out Anderson you'll be turning into Anne
> Widdocome next.

*shudder*

Cheers

Jim

> I think Wagner likes to plant things, it's then up to
> him if he wants to draw on them

Obviously, I haven't read this week's prog yet, but if Gill is in the same place as Edgar, then I definitely think there's trouble a-brewing ...

And, speaking of sleeping plotlines, I'm sure there's something major to come out of Dredd's hints that he might consider the Chief Judge's job next time it came up ... what with a younger, fitter Dredd already on the streets in the form of Rico ...

Cheers

Jim

> Sorry Jim, I was a bit over zealous in trying to
> start a topic of conversation other than my script
> is brilliant

No, nuff respec' and stuff for the intention, and I'll be happy to talk about the prog when I get the damn thing ...

Cheers

Jim

> Anyway on to what I really want to talk about.

Gahh! Isn't there a SPOILER policy on this board?

If not, can we have one?

Cheers

Jim

> TAKE OUT HALF THE WORDS.

Precisely my point. The point I have been _attempting_ to explain to the Scoj-meister in mind-numbing, brain-meltingly tedious detail over the course of about a million posts.

But hey, what do I know? What do you know? People have paid us for our words ...

Cheers

Jim

> What can you say about that!

See my reply in the main thread.

Cheers

Jim

> What is wrong with that line?

> Seems fine to me.

Please see the reply I've just posted in the original thread ... I'm not typing all that again!

Cheers

Jim

> 1: If Wagner was to write a novel, he ain't writing
> Dredd in the comic...

Precisely the reason he didn't write one the last time around, as I understand it.

Shame, really ...

Cheers

Jim

> Having read The Inspectre I wouldn't say so.

Oh, a crushing critique. I go now to hurl myself from the nearest bridge.

> Whatever happened to that....

FYI, we were in the process of plotting the second series when the Meg went over to Preacher reprints, so we shelved it.

> And you were so great at dialogue you have
> written for the meg ever since.

No, I went off do stuff for Games Workshop. Got comprehensively shafted by them and withdrew my projects in a huff.

FWIW, folks, I'd like to apologize to all the sane, reasonable people here, especially the folks at Rebellion since I seem to have started a fight in the virtual equivalent of their foyer.

So, I'm going to be man enough to stop. This tedious drivel is _not_ what I want people to see when they follow up curiosity about the Galaxy's Greatest Comic by visiting this site.

I apologize for rising to the bait of one the most intellectually stunted, untalented, immature, clueless trolls it has ever been my misfortune to encounter.

I'd like to think that, even so, I've managed to remain civil and reasonable in my posts here and caused the minimum amount of offence, but I am sorry for clogging up the board with interminable posts explaining the most dull, basic points of writing to someone who considers themselves a better writer than Alan Moore.

I content myself with the knowledge that Scojo's screenplays are either resident in the bins of whichever agents he chose to inflict them upon, or quite possibly doing the rounds at university screenwriting courses as an object lesson in how not to write.

Again, my apologies.

Cheers

Jim

> Jim, r u 4 real!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I am.

> This guy is arguing over it's and it is!

You misunderstand me.

I'm not arguing about anything. I'm telling you.

I spent ten years writing before Kev Walker and I landed the Inspectre for the Megazine (admittedly, we had sold several projects which then didn't make it to print for a variety of other reasons, but that's beside the point).

I have a stack of rejection letters _this_ high, dating back to when I was twelve.

And I read every single one. And every single one that wasn't a form letter, I read over and over again until I was sure I understood the reason for the rejection.

And then I sat down and tried to write something better.

At the same time, I wrote other fiction, reviews and articles. I started pursuing small press outlets for my writing because, although I wasn't getting paid, it was all practise.

I was worried that I wasn't reading widely enough, so I chose to do an English Literature degree - not because the qualification would be of any use to me (it never has been) but because I knew the course would _make_ me read stuff I'd never otherwise have read in a million years:

Beowulf (in Anglo-Saxon, thank you very much), through Piers Plowman to Pilgrim's Progress, Spenser's 'The Faeire ****ing Queen', Philip Sidney's 'Apologie for Poetry', Shakespeare, Marlow, Jonson, Donne, Milton, Marvell, Blake, Jane Austin, the Brontes, Gerard Manley Hopkins ...

Even the stuff I hated help inform my understanding of the language. I _worked_ at it and I learned. And I studied comics: the real, skilled craftsmen like Wagner, Grant, Mills and more, umm, extravagant types like Grant 'steal everything' Morrison.

And I _still_ knew that I would only ever be an 'OK' writer, but that didn't stop me from trying. And if there's one thing I do _know_ I'm good at, it's dialogue and characters.

People have paid for writing them, and _told_ me I'm good at it.

So ... when I _tell_ you that no person speaking English as a first language would phrase a line of dialogue the way that you have it phrased, especially an existing character whose speech patterns have been a staple part of my reading almost every week for the last 20 years, then not only do I bloody well mean it, I _know_ what I'm talking about.

Jim

> My point was that my line was similar to John's.
> Which it is.
> So if Jim attacks my line he must surely attack
> John's.

Similar. As I keep saying to you. Not the same.

?They say the only good politician is a good politician.?  (I'm assuming that second 'good' should read 'dead' ...)
?In this case, that might be true.?

This reads like a line of dialogue spoken by a human being, yours did not.

This is dialogue, especially in space-conscious medium like comics, where words should be used with precision - the devil is in the detail and one misplaced word can make the difference between a great line and a deeply awful one.

_Still_ don't believe me? How about:

"Gaze into the glove of Dredd!"

As factually accurate as the original line, but nonetheless bloody awful. I can't tell you the amount of time I've spent poring over the thesaurus because I _know_ that _one_ bloody word in a line is wrong, and I _know_ that there's a better one but just can't think of it.

Or the two weeks we wasted arguing with one editor because he wanted a word changing because 'the kids wouldn't understand it' ...

He didn't seem to grasp that we'd picked the word because it absolutely, concisely and specifically meant what we _wanted_ it to mean ...

(The kids can bloody look it up, was my - admittedly undiplomatic - response.)

If you're that cavalier in your attitude to using language, why are you writing at all? The words are _everything_!

Cheers

Jim

> What line is your problem?

OK - if you _are_ actually interested, here we go ...

Your line:
????????
> Dredd to himself:I think we can determine they
> are Simps!

Yes, I understand that this line conveys the _fact_ that the Simps' stupidity has been made obvious to Dredd, but as a line of _dialogue_ it simply doesn't work.

As I pointed out originally, it's too wordy for Dredd and - even if we aren't considering Dredd's established speech patterns - people don't use "they are", they use a contraction like "they're".

Plus, in any comic strip fewer words = happier editors. The trick is to start with something like your original line and (whilst never, ever forgetting the 'read it aloud' rule) pare it down to the absolute minumum.

Which is how I ended up with:

Dredd (thinks): They're Simps all right!

Giving us the same meaning in a snappier line, one which uses more conventional patterns for spoken English.

Or, to take the other example:

>It is true what they say. The only good simp is a
> dead one.

Here, my problem is with "It is true" - a real person would say "it's true". Dredd, however, tends to use the bare minimum and you can actually prune Dredd's dialogue down further than you might, say, Anderson's dialogue.

Anderson would be more flippant - she'd clap her hand to her forehead and say something like:

"Grud on a greenie! These creeps were too stupid to live!"

Dredd, however, would prod one of the bodies with his foot and growl the tersest of one-liners, which is how I arrived at:

"True what they say - only good simp is a dead one."

Or:

"It's true - only good simp is a dead one."

... Which is even shorter!

As realistic as possible, but as _concise_ as you can humanly get it ...

Cheers

Jim

> What line is the problem?

Read my messages again. I've told you. I've explained it to you. I've done everything except draw you a picture.

I've quoted the line. I've then amended the line - which I assure you _any_ editor would have done - and explained the changed that I've made.

Are you actually _reading_ any of this stuff?

Cheers

Jim

> Can't remember grud being in regular parlance
> down my pub....

Sigh ... no, that's a common SF convention, widely used in novels and all sorts. Swap an existing term for a 'futuristic' one ...

Besides, 2000AD started out very firmly as a kiddies' comic and ''Drokk' , 'Grud' and 'Stomm' were an easy way to make it look like the characters were swearing without getting the comic banned.

You really are squirming to avoid dealing with the point ...

Cheers

Jim