DD4 Inking, Book Recommendations, and a Character Generation Trick

[ There are captions along with the images if you click through. ]

I'm happy with how those big, detailed wallpaper pages turned out. Thanks to a recent reminder from Chris Schweizer, I was careful not to put the outline on the line, but outside the line, since it's all surrounded by black.

I was watching the AppleTV+ series Dickinson the other day and noticed that they also have a shot of Emily Dickinson yelling at her mother through balusters—creating a sort of "I'm behind bars" type imagery, ooh, you thought you were so clever, Tony—and she's also yelling about the burdens of what will be expected of her as a young woman. Proof positive, this book is at least as clever as a digital-exclusive prestige-TV YA comedy-drama.

HEY TONY, HOW ARE EDITS COMING ALONG?

Hey remember in December when I said, "I will take a look at the pages with fresh eyes in January?"…with an eye toward cutting things (because George Saunders says to respect your reader). And I want to find something I can cut, because the chapter is relatively long.

Well, I have been doing that, and guys, I don't know what to say, I don't want to cut anything. My intuition (which George Saunders emphasizes, remember) is telling me to leave it all in. I might have to accept that if there's a Me that has the intuition to find some cuts, that Me lives in the future. Maybe a year or two away, maybe more.

HEY GUESS WHO READ SOME BOOKS.

I've "read" a good handful of books lately, because instead of reading them I have listened to them, which—when compared to reading text—is much easier to do while drawing (which I do a lot of).

Kazuo Ishiguro's THE BURIED GIANT — I wanted to read this because I like it when """literary""" authors do genre stuff. Maybe it's Isabelle Allende's ZORRO that sparked that idea for me. The local library only had this available immediately in *audio CD* format, so despite not having a great track record with audiobooks (I often find myself missing sections) I gave it a shot.

I really enjoyed it. It got its hooks in me. It's gloomy and mysterious and haunting, and tells a moving story of love and companionship and memory. I think it's a great companion to PIRANESI, actually. It was the perfect thing to fill the PIRANESI-shaped hole in my heart. They're very different in their shape and subject matter, but the mood and mystery feel similar.

Then I made the mistake of looking at online discussion about it. Apparently it's boring. I did not think so, but then I listened to the audiobook over the course of only two days, while I was inking. I thought it moved at exactly the right pace.

And apparently Ursula LeGuin and Ishiguro got into Internet Beef over some comments he made (link one, link two), and I don't agree with either of them (I can relate to Ishiguro's sentiment, but he phrased it poorly and I think LeGuin understandably mischaracterized it), and I would have hoped that both authors would know better than to be someone who argues on the internet.

Terry Pratchett's THE WEE FREE MEN, and A HAT FULL OF SKY, and currently THE COLOUR OF MAGIC — at this point, I figure everyone has sorted out for themselves whether they're a Pratchett reader or not. I still cannot tell whether I am one. For one thing, I really struggle against the cover art on most of his books. I do not judge a book by its cover, but I do think about what I want to look at on my bookshelf, or what I want to be seen reading. Sad but true.

I also grate against the silly names he chooses. And sometimes—every once in a while—the cleverness of his work crosses to the wrong side of a subtle line and I get a whiff of condescension. And his stories can feel a little disjointed, like he hasn't quite given the story the unity it deserves.

But on the other hand, I think he is a legitimately excellent writer. Every now and then I'll catch a line that is both economical and evocative, that is much more than the sum of its parts. And his clever jabs are both charming and incisive, when he's doing them right.

I don't remember what was the first Pratchett book I read, but I bounced off it, hard. Then, for some reason, I tried again, with EQUAL RITES, and I loved it.

I did not care for WEE FREE MEN, but I loved A HAT FULL OF SKY (both are part of the "Tiffany Aching" limb of the Discworld tree). The former felt like a bit of nothing. The latter was moving and thoughtful and occasionally very beautiful. Both it and THE BURIED GIANT are going on my "I must buy this because I borrowed it and liked it" list. And so far, THE COLOUR OF MAGIC (the first Discworld novel) is also really doing it for me. Go figure.

Next in my queue is Saunders' LINCOLN IN THE BARDO, because I figure if I'm going to keep yammering on about this jackass, I might as well have read one of his books. What if it's awful???

DO NOT MISS THIS ONE COOL TRICK FOR COMING UP WITH INTERESTING CHARACTERS.

I wandered into the kitchen the other day to find this sitting on the counter. 

Once I finished rolling my eyes, I took a look through the deck and realized "hey, this could be useful." One thing I know about myself is that I'm bad at differentiating my characters before I start a story. I'm also bad at putting words to character traits. It's hard for me. So I saw this deck of cards and thought, "oh dang, this solves a problem."

Each card has a different "value," with little accompanying descriptors. 

Let's assume that it's a good thing to have well-differentiated characters in a story. That way, they each offer greater chances to explore a theme from different angles. If all your characters are Charlie Brown, you're going to end up with one mopey book (the way it seems like a lot of people regard THE BURIED GIANT). Plus, character traits shine brightest when they can be contrasted against their complementary qualities (ahhh, "contrast," my favourite of the ideas from "15 Rules for Rebuilding The World").

I figured, I don't know (or I don't think I know) the characters from that El Camino project very well yet. Let's play a game with these cards and see what happens.

I shuffled the cards, then decided I would create four columns: one for each of the main characters (Eyman, Faris, Susa, and the deceased Ranulf). I would draw four random cards at once, and I would have to place one of those cards in each character's column. Here's what the first one looked like. Left-to-right, Eyman (the new driver), Faris (his older brother), Susa (the tall one), and Ranulf (the dead father figure).

This is partly random character generation, because I am forcing myself to consider an aspect of the characters that I might not have considered. Like, "civic engagement." Are you kidding me? Who would come up with "civic engagement?" And yet, now it seems that Eyman values Civic Engagement.

(I ran it a second time, for fun…)

There's that "civic engagement" nonsense again. Whatever, Eyman is very civically engaged, I guess.

So, it's a little bit random, but I was surprised to find that it's much less random than I thought/hoped it would be. When I was choosing which character to give a certain trait, was I asking, "who does this seem like it fits?" Or was I saying, "I want this character to be this way?" Both, I think. I was also surprised that for most of my draws, this task was much easier than I thought it would be. Only one or two draws had me scratching my head. Which suggests that I might have had in mind a more solid conception of my characters than I initially guessed.

( I ran it a third time, because why not…)

A thing I like about this is that by saying "you get this card, and you get this card," you are also deciding "you DON'T get this card," which gives us that differentiation I mentioned at the start. For example, I imagine all four men would have "Courage" as a value, but this process encourages me to think: who is notably courageous? What does that suggest? And my other, less-courageous characters—how does that come in to play?

Just like the "Scene-Sequel" approach, it's easy to see shortcomings in this little game. For example, in that last bottom row, I gave Eyman "Wisdom" and Susa "Self-Discipline," and I really would have liked for Susa to get "Wisdom," too. But that's okay. It's just a little exercise to try and think about things differently. For example, this has got me considering a Susa who is the calm, careful stoic who isn't actually all that insightful—he comes across as "the wise man," but might not have the goods to back it up. And though Eyman seems indecisive and unsure, perhaps deep down his judgment is rock-solid.

Unfortunately, apparently the Andreea Niculescu who co-wrote the deck titles herself a "brand strategist"—barf—so I can't whole-heartedly recommend a purchase, but here's the link anyway.

I would like a companion deck of "Weaknesses"—like "Bad with Money," "Liar," "Lazy," etc—but that might have to be a DIY project, because I can't imagine any brand strategists thinking that would be very profitable.

GIMME A DD4 UPDATE, HANDSOME!

Those wallpaper pages really slowed me down. Can we make it to 66% by the end of February? That's my goal.

Happy February, Dear Readers!

TC