Goto Next Page
Return To Front Page
Footnotes: This page isn't that bad I guess. I think it actually shows quite a bit of merit even though I dont actually like it. Its just the line work is so scratchy. Theres alot of promise in some of the background detail, like panel 6 and the clouds, wood and grass in front of him, all seem to work, its just he doesn't. I'm thinking that the pencil work here must have been alot stronger. Its very likely that I drew all the woodland scenes and it looked great in pencil as its easy to get woodland to look good, the pencils maintain a sense or degree of energy, but when it comes down to translating that into ink its easy to loose all the magic or to dreate something thats empty or misleading. For example, the first panel, I think the layout is strong, the perspective, and the structure of the wodland, but the technique used for the woodland itself is too white, the dense undergrowth of the mature forest would better have been shown alot darker. I think in retrospect I would have been better showing three layers of foilage going back to show depth, like a bush like silouette in diagonal hatching (light) with above/behind a seecond layer of foilage in cross hatch (medium) and then another layer behind all that in black (dark) which would then show the depth. I think what I tried to do was capture a technical resemblence of the wood, and not the essence or the wood. The main bulk of the woods would be the same, the actual trees, but the stratchy in between bits would be replaced. like this. Its a very rough outline and you would have to replace the two toning with ink hatching, but the use of darker light would have really worked better, it just looks so white as it stands. I could be assed to fill in all the top bits. The same goes for the next panel, technically the structure is there, but theres little substance, little graded hatching to really make it look like he was stood in a small patches of light in a dense woodland.
The fact that you cant read the lettering goes without saying really. I sort of like panels 3 and 4 as they are more chacterury but that looking under rocks sequence is a bit spoint by the poor anatomy of the hands.
Oh well, so this strip is sort of a bit of a nothing really, the story and concept is quite good, but the art lets it down in places, plus its a puch line story, the punchline is at the end, other than what I would call an adventure story where the reader is going on an adventure where each panel is worth reading in its own right, not just as a build up. Most of my other stuff, especially the newer stuff is an adventure, for example i'm working on Windsor at the moment and thats an adventure in the life of a girl. As such the reader is put on a train or roler coaster and each panel and each progression is worth it in its own right, its that immediate experience that builds it all up but this story is that, a story, but without adventure, instead with a punchline which then puts everything else into perspective. You could say its an adventure through a woodland, but its not, the woodland is all their to support the plot, we are not relishing in the mystery of the woodland. I think its a subtle, yet important distinction. And adventure story does not really need an ending, you do it for the ups and downs of the journey, not the detination, be in this story you do it for the destination. To me its a clear distinction, but i'm not sure if i'm saying it clearly. If you think about the great american novel, its an adventure, there is little in the end, the story ends with little drama as the essence of the book is in each element, where as a regular book will reveal the keys to unlock the mysterys of the preceding pages at the end, there will be a major climax, a finale that will condition the rest of the story. Anyway, thats enough wittering. No one ever reads this story anyway. I can tell from my web stats. lol