Messages

> 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

> I have absoluteley no idea what you are saying.

Why, don't you speak English? Tell me what you're having trouble understanding and I will explain it _again_ ...

I'm saying that any writer worth their salt chooses each and every word with precision, not only to convey information necessary to advance the plot, but also to convey to the reader mood, atmosphere and character.

If you are honestly saying to me that you cannot see _any_ difference between the two hypothetical lines of dialogue I offered as illustration of this point then you're no more a writer than are the contents of my cats' litter tray.

> scojo who writes words, not analyses them....

Yes, a writer writes words. And then a _good_ writer analyses them, changes them, shows them to someone else for more analysis and then changes them some more.

I'm actually offering you some constructive criticism here. I've sold comic scripts to actual, real publishers and one of things editors seemed to have liked is my dialogue - notwithstanding a propensity to write too much of it. But, hey, that's what editors are for ... ;-)

Cheers

Jim

Precisely my point, Scojjers ...

It's the "It is true ..." bit that throws the whole line off.

No-one ... let me spell that out for you N-O-O-N-E ... who speaks English as their first language would use those words in that arrangement.

As I _keep_ telling you: read your line aloud and then read Wagner's, if you can't see the difference then you have absolutely no business claiming to know the _first thing_ about writing dialogue.

(Sighs)

Cheers

Jim

> Shame Wagner's Dredd said something similar.

Similar. Not the same. I took maybe three words out of your original line to make it sound like a line Dredd might actually deliver.

If you spent even 30 seconds studying the way in which Wagner constructs Dredd's dialogue, you'd see the difference.

All right. So you don't think I'm attacking your work, here's two completely hypothetical examples:

1 - "I will have to teach this criminal a lesson!"

2 - "Creep's asking for a beating!"

Can you not see how both lines contain the same basic meaning but example 2 is a) shorter (golden rule in comics scripting!) and b) actually _sounds_ like Dredd?

This ain't rocket science, Scojo - this is nuts 'n' bolts writing. So ... either you don't understand this most basic of principals or you're being deliberately obtuse in order to have an argument.

Which is it?

Cheers

Jim

> Oh yeah I get it now says Jim!

I got it the first time, Scojo. Which is why my alternative line has the exact same _meaning_ as your original ... what I was attempting to show you was how your choice of specific _words_ can be used to convey character and, as a general rule, ought to resemble speech patterns that people might actually _use_.

I would have thought a screenwriter, whose words are actually going to have to be read _aloud_ might have some grasp of this ...

> As for the only good one remark, John Wagner
> used that in a Meg strip. The New Labour satire
> story.
> Last panel.
> The politician is dead. Says something similar.

I was pointing out that 'It is true what they say' ... those _exact_ words ... are not a realistic representation of speech patterns and particularly don't sound anything like Dredd's speech patterns.

Dredd's a taciturn bugger not prone to over-wordage and would consequently say:

"True what they say - only good Simp's a dead one."

Jesus! What? Am I conducting Dialogue Writing 101 here ...?

Cheers

Jim

> On the subject of dialogue, reread my stooges.
> There was dialogue in that.

Yes, there was. And it sucked.

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

Surely:

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

See the difference? It's shorter and it actually _sounds_ like Dredd ...

Or:

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

"It is true what they say"? Come _on_, Scojo ...! Where in God's name do you live if people actually talk like that? I refer you to my previous advice - read every line aloud. If it doesn't sound right, it won't look right on paper. That simple.

A screenwriter should know that ...

Cheers

Jim

> I read it yesterday. Prog 251.
> Two pages in length. Called "All of them were
> empty"

> It was terrible. Far worse than mine.
> Go read it.

Well, since my progs are twenty miles away and in a box, that will have to wait.

Moore does, however, have a nice ear for prose and I'm prepared to bet money, sight unseen, that his #251 effort contains at least two lines which piss all over anything in either of yours ...

Also, did you miss the part where I said 'Worse stories have been published' is not a defence of a substandard piece of work ...?

Cheers

Jim