"Oh, and I would consider making at least one of the two key children a girl."
From general inclusivity (always a fine goal), or because you think it would enhance the joke in some way? I checked the attached footnote 6, but it doesn't appear strongly related, unless you are saying that Jeremy is considering asking the braided girl for a trade, rather than the blonde boy, so the dark haired boy should be giving her advice instead?
I assume Jeremy is facing to his right because, if he was facing forward, it would make recognizing him immediately as a vulture harder. And if he was facing to his left it would make the conversation (appear) non-private, and potentially be menacing. So comic structural reasons force him to face where he does, rather than zoological reasons. :-)
But, yeah, the comic would definitely be strengthened by the rearrangements you suggest.
I agree with your excellent observations about why Jeremy should be turned to stage right. He is currently in a position that in theater is called one-quarter right, but in the visual arts is often called three-quarters left (this is not confusing at all, why should it be?). This one-quarter / three-quarter view (the one where the person is facing partly front instead of partly back) is both the most informative and the most interesting perspective on a face, and the perspective that should be used by default.
In any case, Jeremy should definitely be facing away from the conversation about him for the reason you note: He should be oblivious, because the alternative seems menacing. The gag is definitely funnier that way!
Interesting, Tom! So in that case the punchline would be the seeping bag lunch? That strikes me as the way that, say, Charles Addams might pay off this scenario. For Boothby and Guerra’s style, that might be a little subtle. They’re all about the punchline, which can range from quasi-naturalistic (like this one) to punning or playing on words or phrases.
Take the three Mannequin in the Moon comics I alluded to in the opening paragraph. The squirrel therapist is telling his human client, “We don’t use the word ‘nuts’ in this room.” With the octopus in the office, a man standing at a printer is saying to another, “The printer is out of ink again. Somebody scare Eric.” And the horse at the twelve-steps meeting is concluding, “In the end I realized that they may have led me to water, but they didn’t make me drink.”
Here’s another one you may appreciate: A Dalek at a restaurant confronting another Dalek seated at a table with R2-D2: “It’s true: You have been seeing another franchise!”
I don't think you're wrong, exactly, but I disagree, even within the framework you've set up (which I agree, makes sense): (a) As you suggest, the speaker does have dark hair, which I think is enough visual highlighting to draw the eye to him after reading the caption, when the reader searches to see who is speaking. (Yeah, as you say, there are also others there who have dark hair, but the visual cost of bleaching the whole rest of the scene white, no dark hair elsewhere, just to make the speaker even more obvious, would be greater than the benefit.) Though I reluctantly agree with you that he should have had darker clothing or another visual highlight in addition to the hair.
and (b) I think your model of how the reader naturally interacts with this kind of comic makes sense: first glance at the picture, then read the caption, then second and closer look at the picture--"If the caption then invites us to seek additional visual information in a second look at the art, that additional information should be, if not the punchline, at least something that adds to the gag—the crucial detail, perhaps, that we perhaps missed the first time." In my actual experience of reading this comic, my second look at the picture (my third step, after reading the caption) was when I first noticed (I'm not as observant as you...) that evocative "seeping" under the scavenger's lunch bag, which then was what finally took the whole comic to the next level of being not only absurd but also funny, for me.
So I would grade the comic higher, successful, even under your grading rubric. But I get that you're not trying to grade it failing or passing, so much as using any comic to illustrate (like a teacher) ways that a comic artist _could_ do comic art better.
"Oh, and I would consider making at least one of the two key children a girl."
From general inclusivity (always a fine goal), or because you think it would enhance the joke in some way? I checked the attached footnote 6, but it doesn't appear strongly related, unless you are saying that Jeremy is considering asking the braided girl for a trade, rather than the blonde boy, so the dark haired boy should be giving her advice instead?
I assume Jeremy is facing to his right because, if he was facing forward, it would make recognizing him immediately as a vulture harder. And if he was facing to his left it would make the conversation (appear) non-private, and potentially be menacing. So comic structural reasons force him to face where he does, rather than zoological reasons. :-)
But, yeah, the comic would definitely be strengthened by the rearrangements you suggest.
General inclusivity! :-)
I agree with your excellent observations about why Jeremy should be turned to stage right. He is currently in a position that in theater is called one-quarter right, but in the visual arts is often called three-quarters left (this is not confusing at all, why should it be?). This one-quarter / three-quarter view (the one where the person is facing partly front instead of partly back) is both the most informative and the most interesting perspective on a face, and the perspective that should be used by default.
In any case, Jeremy should definitely be facing away from the conversation about him for the reason you note: He should be oblivious, because the alternative seems menacing. The gag is definitely funnier that way!
P.S. I meant “oblivious,” not “obvious”! Edited.
I'm not sure it even needs words.
Interesting, Tom! So in that case the punchline would be the seeping bag lunch? That strikes me as the way that, say, Charles Addams might pay off this scenario. For Boothby and Guerra’s style, that might be a little subtle. They’re all about the punchline, which can range from quasi-naturalistic (like this one) to punning or playing on words or phrases.
Take the three Mannequin in the Moon comics I alluded to in the opening paragraph. The squirrel therapist is telling his human client, “We don’t use the word ‘nuts’ in this room.” With the octopus in the office, a man standing at a printer is saying to another, “The printer is out of ink again. Somebody scare Eric.” And the horse at the twelve-steps meeting is concluding, “In the end I realized that they may have led me to water, but they didn’t make me drink.”
Here’s another one you may appreciate: A Dalek at a restaurant confronting another Dalek seated at a table with R2-D2: “It’s true: You have been seeing another franchise!”
I don't think you're wrong, exactly, but I disagree, even within the framework you've set up (which I agree, makes sense): (a) As you suggest, the speaker does have dark hair, which I think is enough visual highlighting to draw the eye to him after reading the caption, when the reader searches to see who is speaking. (Yeah, as you say, there are also others there who have dark hair, but the visual cost of bleaching the whole rest of the scene white, no dark hair elsewhere, just to make the speaker even more obvious, would be greater than the benefit.) Though I reluctantly agree with you that he should have had darker clothing or another visual highlight in addition to the hair.
and (b) I think your model of how the reader naturally interacts with this kind of comic makes sense: first glance at the picture, then read the caption, then second and closer look at the picture--"If the caption then invites us to seek additional visual information in a second look at the art, that additional information should be, if not the punchline, at least something that adds to the gag—the crucial detail, perhaps, that we perhaps missed the first time." In my actual experience of reading this comic, my second look at the picture (my third step, after reading the caption) was when I first noticed (I'm not as observant as you...) that evocative "seeping" under the scavenger's lunch bag, which then was what finally took the whole comic to the next level of being not only absurd but also funny, for me.
So I would grade the comic higher, successful, even under your grading rubric. But I get that you're not trying to grade it failing or passing, so much as using any comic to illustrate (like a teacher) ways that a comic artist _could_ do comic art better.