Ideas Machine 4: Ruminating
My ideas machine is broken, and I have been describing what all of the bits do.
The first stage is to put in a title, the second stage is to generate as many lists as possible associated with the input. The third stage is to create random connections between the lists; these connections form the basis of premises.
I know exactly what the next bit of the machine does. It is some kind of "ruminator": it ponders the comedic potential of the premises created in the previous stage.
But I'm not entirely sure how it works, or when it is active. It's the most challenging phase of the creative process to replicate on paper.
The previous phase of the machine came up with a few promising scenarios. It's difficult to define which ones have the most potential, but some of them can be ruled out because they do not sound like a lot of fun to draw. I often have ideas that revolve around peculiar goings on in office blocks. But these do not lend themselves to the comic form; they are better suited to low-budget sketch comedy. Maybe I'll knock them into TV script format and send them off to BBC3.
Other ideas offer some promise because they feature locations or characters that I have not drawn before: this is likely to sustain my interest throughout the chore of drawing.
But what makes premises funny? I've had to give this some thought since my machine packed up. I've had a look back at the comics I've created previously, and identified three or four things that seem to be a common feature:
Gaps
It seems to be funny when there is a gap between the eventual outcome of events, and the previous expectations of the reader, or of the characters themselves. Myths or fables are a good starting point for humour, because the reader will already have some familiarity with the expected outcome, which can then be subverted.
Misdirection is also an important part of creating this gap; the final panel will reveal that the reader has been barking up the wrong tree.
Perhaps the laziest way of creating this gap is the "it was all a dream" cop-out.
Another effective gap to exploit for drama or comedy is the gap between surface characterisation and true, deep, under-the-surface character. Robert Mckee cites James Bond as an example of a compelling character due to this gap. The thing that makes him interesting is the way in which his suave persona is mereley surface charaterisation; his true character is revealed when he has to make difficult decisions in extreme circumstances.
Insight
This may really the same thing as the 'gap' I just described. Humour can be derived by witholding key information from the reader. The 'closure' of the gap between expectation and outcome provides a very satisfying insight, that may force you, in an instant, to re-evaluate the previously depicted events.
For example, in one of my previous strips, a little girl appears to be playing an innocent game of make-belive, but the final panel reveals that the circumstances of her game are somewhat more disruptive.
It it also seems to be effective to withold significant information from the characters themselves.
Back Story
The rush of insight supplied to the reader is most satisfying when it suggests a story much wider, deeper, or significant than the events briefly conveyed in the strip. This is evident in a number of my strips.
This ellipsis - the ommission of explicit story events that are nevertheless implied by the plot - is something I've discussed recently with reidsrow on his blog. I regret I am just as ineloquent over there.
Other
Sometimes I just need to state the potential for conflict more clearly, in order to expose a worthwhile narrative. Occasionally, I reconsider the dominant attitude of the characters that is suggested by the premise. I think that all of these things are really different ways of describing the same thing: a gap between a conventional outcome, and the new outcome, which is then presented to the reader to allow a rush of insight.
This may all seem like a rather complicated procedure to go through to come up with ideas. That's because it is! Too bloody complicated!
But it's what I have to do to busy myself whilst I'm waiting for the insiration to arrive. If I'm lucky, a strong idea will come after two or three lists. I think that mentally, I occasioanlly go thorough the stages I've described in a sudden flash. The whole process is not usually committed to paper: I am writing down stuff here to illustrate the process.
Fortune favours the prepared mind. Quentin Blake said something along the lines of "I do not know where my ideas come from, but I do know that it is a prerequisite that I should be working at my desk in order for them to arrive". It is not sufficient for me to keep drawing. To me, drawing is just digging the same hole deeper, whereas lists, connections and rumination are digging new holes in different, and potentially more lucrative, spots. If I am still really blocked, even after the formalities of writing all this crap down, I instigate some systematic Lateral Thinking techniques, which I will describe in the next section.
This may be largely gibberish, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm attempting a few blog entries that amount to bit more than "Look at what I drew".
The first stage is to put in a title, the second stage is to generate as many lists as possible associated with the input. The third stage is to create random connections between the lists; these connections form the basis of premises.
I know exactly what the next bit of the machine does. It is some kind of "ruminator": it ponders the comedic potential of the premises created in the previous stage.
But I'm not entirely sure how it works, or when it is active. It's the most challenging phase of the creative process to replicate on paper.
The previous phase of the machine came up with a few promising scenarios. It's difficult to define which ones have the most potential, but some of them can be ruled out because they do not sound like a lot of fun to draw. I often have ideas that revolve around peculiar goings on in office blocks. But these do not lend themselves to the comic form; they are better suited to low-budget sketch comedy. Maybe I'll knock them into TV script format and send them off to BBC3.
Other ideas offer some promise because they feature locations or characters that I have not drawn before: this is likely to sustain my interest throughout the chore of drawing.
But what makes premises funny? I've had to give this some thought since my machine packed up. I've had a look back at the comics I've created previously, and identified three or four things that seem to be a common feature:
Gaps
It seems to be funny when there is a gap between the eventual outcome of events, and the previous expectations of the reader, or of the characters themselves. Myths or fables are a good starting point for humour, because the reader will already have some familiarity with the expected outcome, which can then be subverted.
Misdirection is also an important part of creating this gap; the final panel will reveal that the reader has been barking up the wrong tree.
Perhaps the laziest way of creating this gap is the "it was all a dream" cop-out.
Another effective gap to exploit for drama or comedy is the gap between surface characterisation and true, deep, under-the-surface character. Robert Mckee cites James Bond as an example of a compelling character due to this gap. The thing that makes him interesting is the way in which his suave persona is mereley surface charaterisation; his true character is revealed when he has to make difficult decisions in extreme circumstances.
Insight
This may really the same thing as the 'gap' I just described. Humour can be derived by witholding key information from the reader. The 'closure' of the gap between expectation and outcome provides a very satisfying insight, that may force you, in an instant, to re-evaluate the previously depicted events.
For example, in one of my previous strips, a little girl appears to be playing an innocent game of make-belive, but the final panel reveals that the circumstances of her game are somewhat more disruptive.
It it also seems to be effective to withold significant information from the characters themselves.
Back Story
The rush of insight supplied to the reader is most satisfying when it suggests a story much wider, deeper, or significant than the events briefly conveyed in the strip. This is evident in a number of my strips.
This ellipsis - the ommission of explicit story events that are nevertheless implied by the plot - is something I've discussed recently with reidsrow on his blog. I regret I am just as ineloquent over there.
Other
Sometimes I just need to state the potential for conflict more clearly, in order to expose a worthwhile narrative. Occasionally, I reconsider the dominant attitude of the characters that is suggested by the premise. I think that all of these things are really different ways of describing the same thing: a gap between a conventional outcome, and the new outcome, which is then presented to the reader to allow a rush of insight.
This may all seem like a rather complicated procedure to go through to come up with ideas. That's because it is! Too bloody complicated!
But it's what I have to do to busy myself whilst I'm waiting for the insiration to arrive. If I'm lucky, a strong idea will come after two or three lists. I think that mentally, I occasioanlly go thorough the stages I've described in a sudden flash. The whole process is not usually committed to paper: I am writing down stuff here to illustrate the process.
Fortune favours the prepared mind. Quentin Blake said something along the lines of "I do not know where my ideas come from, but I do know that it is a prerequisite that I should be working at my desk in order for them to arrive". It is not sufficient for me to keep drawing. To me, drawing is just digging the same hole deeper, whereas lists, connections and rumination are digging new holes in different, and potentially more lucrative, spots. If I am still really blocked, even after the formalities of writing all this crap down, I instigate some systematic Lateral Thinking techniques, which I will describe in the next section.
This may be largely gibberish, I'm sorry. It's just that I'm attempting a few blog entries that amount to bit more than "Look at what I drew".