Basic Instructions, Part 6

In yesterday’s post I showed you how Scott Meyer’s comic, Basic Instructions, would look stuffed into a traditional comic strip format. It’s a tight fit.

Today, as an experiment, I rewrote Scott’s joke for Dilbert, to see how many words I could save by featuring a well-understood character, and reducing the humor peaks from four to two.

There are only about a hundred jokes in the universe. All humorists recycle them with their own twists and characters. In this case, you’re seeing a variation of “advice that makes things worse.” Scott’s twist on it is great because doing a bad job calming a child is naturally worse than doing a bad job at most other things. His setup does half of the work. That’s how he can find four separate humor points on one setup.

I took that same excellent setup and put it in an office setting. By featuring Dilbert, there’s a lot I don’t have to explain to the reader. You already know Dilbert has no skill in dealing with people, much less children. And you know his impulse for honesty and quantifying things causes him trouble. I don’t need words to describe any of that.

Click to enlarge

Using familiar characters, in familiar situations, makes humor work more easily. People perceive the familiar as funnier than the abstract. Familiar situations allow readers to add their own feelings to the situation. I would imagine, for example, that taking your own kid to the workplace would make you wonder about the worst thing that could happen to him there. That adds something, if you’ve ever been in that situation or considered it.

I’m not trying to compete with Scott’s frightened child comic. It’s his joke. If it works in Dilbert, it’s only because the setup is so strong. I’m just showing the benefit of having established characters. And one of the benefits is reduced words.

It should be noted that The Far Side had no established characters and used few words. There isn’t one solution to art. I’m just showing you the options.

Comments

[Tilius]

Scott,

your Dilbert draft also profits a lot from being placed in a concrete situation (without making too many words about it). I think Scott Meyer should consider placing all his advice in concrete situations, too. He did that very well in "How to open a snack quietly" (a visit to the cinema). In "How to calm a scared kid" the situation might be an evening when Mommy went out with her girl-friends (just my humble example).

Another thing I noticed is that both Scott Meyer's and your child look like small adults and lack typical child-like features like round cheeks etc.

[Mandy]

On the subject of familiar = funny:
http://www.dieselsweeties.com/archive.php?s=1823

To add my $0.02 to the discussion, I think Scott's comics work best in their wordier forms, whether square or strip-shaped. He seems to be the sort of person who needs to use more words to express himself, and he does it well.

This has been an interesting series of articles to follow. I'm looking foward to seeing what you guys will do next, and where it will all lead. He's very skilled and funny, I hope he succeds. :)

[synapticmisfires]

I thought the second panel was a little too blunt. Dilbert sounded almost malicious instead of awkward. I know it's just a demonstration, but I thought it could use just a touch more subtlety.
That said, it comes very close to preserving the spirit of the joke with a fraction of the words, and I do think Scott Meyers would benefit from this example.

[Nate]

Honestly, I have to say the Dilbert one falls flat. I don't know about everyone else, but the second panel in the BI edition is the one that really cracks me up, in the sense that he has a "This is the right way to do it", and the frame is a "This is doing what I say but not what I mean" type of deal. The comic would be a great deal less funny were that panel removed.

[CLD]

Ha! That was pretty good. And I was prepared to dislike it just because it wasn't "Basic Instructions."

[tyler]

you know..i love dilbert. i get it in my email everyday and i still read it in the paper just incase someone goofed and it's different.

but this strip sucked.

[Bonocogito]

In all the Mayer's comics showns so far, the drawn characters do nothing. They have no purpose whatsoever. His comics would be equally funny if only the dialogue has been published.

Try it and see.

I Dilbert, there are few things that characters convey, and this has been elaborated on (like cuteness, etc. - but his comics also do tend to show some expressions which underlines the point).

[Dave Sanford]

I like xkcd too, and various other web comics (partially clips) that don't try to make sense to the lowest common denominator - I'm of the opinion that these will continue to be more popular, of course they may also be pushing the envelope of 100 basic jokes too :-)

[Peh]

his was better.
pazah.

[carrie]

sorry Scott A., I don't like the dilbert version as much but I know it was kinda forced so I think that's why.

I like the Scott M. wordy comics because once you get used to the charactes (or if you're lazy) you can skip the explanation and just read what the people are saying. I feel like i have that option

[Kyribug]

Man, yours was *flat*. His was fine in newspaper format. Its still not the most amazing comic ever, but I did read the entire archives. Then again, I read about 75 comics which run 3-7 days a week slightly more than half of which are syndicated, so I've got a low threshold.

[Benjamin]

As soon as your Basic Instructions project started I went to the site and read the whole archive. By the end I felt like I knew the characters. Without the benefit of seeing pictures of Scott on the site I might not know that it's him, but got to know that character.

Most of the characters in BI ar recurring. Eventually you get to know them all, at least to the extent that Scott wants us to. I know what Dilbert's like, but that's not from telling me it's Dilbert. It's from having read Dilbert. Not assiging names to the characters leaves me free to identify with them, but I also get to know them over time.

[Bob]

Meyer's comic was not funny to begin with and Dilbert saying it doesn't help. You're trying to help by focusing on the format; try focusing on the funny.

[Joshua]

"How to Calm a Frightened Child" was my favorite of Scott Meyer's strips that I read. I like your interpretation too, I think it works, the one thing is that I thought in "Basic Instructions" the funniest part was the shadow panel where it becomes obvious that he was scaring the child more. While its funny either way, in Meyer's strip, I think the illustrations were funnier than the text.

[Leo]

I must say, as much as I am a fan of Scott's work, the Dilbert adaptation done for this blog post is unfunny.

[Ron]

Sorry, I just don't like Basic Instructions. Too wordy and it works too hard to set up the situation - just like you (Scott A), are doing trying to get this comic off the ground. Any chance you have some ve$ted interest in this strip? Time to move on.

[ND]

It's interesting that you keep going to your blog readership for their opinions. I can envision a future where Scott M. gets some newspapers to pick up a comic that's designed based on the readership's suggestions ... and it fails miserably.

But then, I'm a cynical computer programmer. This sort of thing happens every day in my business. Users give you specs for the program that they think they want. You give them exactly the program that they asked for. They hate it, and blame it on you.

(Hey, there's a Dilbert comic in that!)

[Gail]

Wow. I just read some of the comments on here, and the overwhelming impression I get is that nothing ruins humor more than overanalyzing it. Of course, I already knew that, but your post and these comments really drive it home. And now for my over-analysis.

I like the original BI version of the strip, and I like the Dilbert version. But I like the BI version more, not sure why, maybe because I read it first. Now, several people have commented that the child's visible expression in the Dilbert version is important in conveying the humor, and I think that's true. I also thought the child in the BI version looked like a grownup, so my only suggestion would be to make the child more childlike and more expressive.

There is a newspaper-format magazine called "Funny Times", and they print a lot of multi-panel comic strips like BI. I don't know how they select comic strips, or what the financial deal is, but I think BI would fit right in with their format.

[Steve]

I've been trying to put my finger on something about Scott M., and I've come to the conclusion that he may be the Billy Connolly of comics.

Billy's comedy is story-telling that builds and builds, which is similar to the 4-panel BI layout. Scott M's formula is "simple premise, increasingly absurd conclusions." I thought when he got brief it took AWAY from what he does best.

Another example is NewsRadio. It's IMO the funniest sitcom of all time, but in all the zaniness, I can hardly remember a truly "magnificent" punchline; a lot of it was in the delivery/expressions/tone (especially regarding the late Phil Hartman). But there would be scenes that would just make me keep laughing, because they'd build and build, a little bit at a time.

Or, to use a sports analogy, maybe Scott's not a slugger like Barry Bonds, but instead he's a tenacious contact hitter like Wade Boggs. Hits fewer home runs (but still gets a few, e.g., "How to Fake a Smile"), but at the same time strikes out a lot less, too.

You, Scott (A.), I tend to think of as more of the HR hitter type. But for you it may depend on the audience more... I don't know any Loud Howards, for example, so I just find that particular character annoying, not funny.

Of course, in case my own biases might negate all that, I also tend to like my humor weird and deranged, and Scott M. excels at that, especially in the 4-panel format.

[JoePike]

I really think switching to the regular newspaper 4-panel format while leaving ALL the words in works great for Basic Instructions. It's the perfect solution.

Scott Meyer's target audience won't mind the smaller print or the 'wordiness'. It still works, it has the same impact of his current format, and I think it's a great solution for getting the comic syndicated without having it lose anything.

[Ibid]

The familiar characters do help.
I've just started watching "Eureka" which is basically "The Outer Limits" but with all the stories happening to the same people in the same small town. That's not the whole reason I like "Eureka" better, but that's part of it.

[Nimrod]

Scott M.'s comic would be fine in its original format in college papers. Too bad there's no syndicate for that. (?)

[Brenden]

It kind of works because you shortened it a lot. Like I said in the previous post I didn't even read Scott's comic because it was way to wordy and small on my monitor. If he loses the context description he may have something.

[Alrdye]

I have to say the Dilbert version is much funnier. Probably because I'm already accustomed to the Dilbert characters but also I find this other comic strip very wordy. You ruin a punch line by working too hard to build up to it, IMHO.

[Alrdye]

I have to say the Dilbert version is much funnier. Probably because I'm already accustomed to the Dilbert characters but also I find this other comic strip very wordy. You ruin a punch line by working too hard to build up to it, IMHO.

[rita mae]

Back to work from the weekend.
Scott M.'s stip has the kid too big and lacking facial expressions.
Too wordy.
Scott M's work belongs in his original format. Doesn't seem to work as well in the four panel style.
This is like comparing apples and oranges.
Let's get on with it.
Make a decision and go.
I like Scott A's work and I like Scott M's work. But they are different. Different is good, right?

Scott, still love you, but still too old to stalk you.

Rita Mae

[Dilbert's Rabbi]

What makes this so interesting is that I ALMOST understand EVERYTHING that's going on. It's tantalizing to be an ALMOST-insider-but-not-quite. I'm sure that the two Scotts are really jazzed at the synergy of likeminded creativity. The rest of us can ALMOST taste that synergy... but not quite.

Maybe this is the attraction of "reality" programming...

[Urban Koda]

Interesting... Both comics use the same humor, but my reaction to them was different.

I felt I could relate more to the basic instructions one, maybe because I was putting myself in the role of the father. I think I've encountered this with my son a couple of times!

With the Dilbert version, it was as funny, but I felt more as though I were watching it happen in the Dilbert world, rather than relating myself to it.

Can't fault either of them though!

And I do enjoy the new format for BI - seems to make it a longer comic somehow! The 4 square block made it seem shorter.

[Claire]

Getting the point across in the shortest way is better. To the point, and dont have to search for the needle in the haystack. Less is more in this case.
I agree with alot of other comments here about a more graphic "scared face" on the child, and the child being younger, makes it more plausible.
A picture paints a thousand words so a scared face will say more.
So in conclusion, I think Scott A's worked better. Like i learnt in marketing - the K.I.S.S rule - Keep It Simple Silly

[Simon Jester]

Curiously, the sample Dilbert strip opens in a significantly larger window (800 x 271 pixels) than yesterday's sample BI strip (600 x 189 pixels).

[Ben]

A message to Scott Meyer... enjoy the publicity, capitalize on it as much as possible, and don't change your style or content because it's terrific as is.

Finally, publish a book so I can buy it.

Cheers,
Ben

[DF]

While I thought that the Dilbert comic was funnier, the Basic Instructions comic is closer to what I would do with my own kids. Incidentally, the comic would have worked just as well with Wally or Alice or Dogbert, but they would require a little tweaking to make it their own. You could probably get a weeks worth of strips if you developed it a little more. I could see the PHB showing the kids around the office and showing them Catbert's kid torture chamber, put them in product testing, or have them run on hamster wheels. Then showing the kids scrambling, running for their lives....

[sudeep]

Now that we have given enough advice to Scott Meyer to become a multi-millionaire, can we move on ....

[Joe]

I would love to see the kid continue to go around the office and get "comforted" by Wally, Alice, Asok, PHB, Catbert and ultimately Dogbert. They each would have such different disfunctional advice for the kid. It would be great. And best of all, we should never find out whose kid it is.

[George Frost]

Strip format or not, I think it would be better without all the text at the top of each window. And without that text, it could probably fit into a strip if needed.

[HALiverpool]

My son was supposed to come to work with me today, but didn't get up in time. He was still sleeping when I left. Dilbert with a child in it is kind of creepy.

A new suggestion (from me) for the other Scott; don't put so many good jokes in each strip, stretch them out so you can get more out of them.

-HAL

[Richard Clarke]

Hey Scott!

Give up please and go back to writing something funny or thought-provoking. I hate to say it but this comic strip author is not funny.

[Daniel]

I agree with you Scott that the other Scott's Basic Instructions is to wordy. I think he should omit all the background/supportive text and just stick to the character's dialog. You can still get the point without having to wade through all the muck.

[wernman]

Meyer's was funny. The Dilbert copy is just cynical. But I see the point you're trying to make, and it's a valid one. Whether it matters or not is a different story.

All you've really shown in this whole experiment is that it's better for Scott Meyers to not try to be Scott Adams, but to be himself, and vice versa.

Newspapers have "square" strips also (The Far Side, Family Circus, etc.) BI would fit in one of those as-is.

[webdesign]

Or, so I hear. Ask a lemming. Or some other monkey.

[webdesign]

I'm interested in a cartoonists take on these other authors' work.
上海网站建设 网站建设

[Rick Miller]

I haven't seen the other Scott's "frightened child" comic, but the bit about a kid being afraid of being killed is pretty clueless.

First of all, most kids are oblivious to their own mortality. They may be frightened by threats of harm but it's extremely rare for children in our society to even consider the finality of death.

Second, offices full of cubies are far more safe than any child's own home. How would a kid get killed in an office?

[gordon_goosemonster]

I don't think this other Scott actualy exists. It's just another persona of the original. He obviously just wants to get syndicated twice. What next?
Scott K Rowling writing books about a wizard?
Scott H Christ publishes the third testament?

Greedy w*nker.

[GEORGE]

Wordy complex strips. I wonder of Pogo would make it today.

[Håkon]

One solution to the wordiness-format-problem is that Scott nr 2 changes his strips into the sunday format. The strips will be less wordy, easy to read and... he won't have to produce as many strips (he might consider that an upside and newspapers might accept that).

[Alex]

Well..uum, I think "Basic Instructions" works better with more text than the "dilbert style"- text. When I first started reading "Basic Instructions" I expected a fine drawing and complex write...because the artist is giving us "instructions" about life.

Anyway, my opinion is: works really well with newspaper strip dimensions, and complex text.

[For statistical porpouses: I´m young, I´m Spanish, and I usually read this kind of strips at Internet]

Saludos!

[uk mender]

Scott M's BI strip is actually a series of four one-liners, in the American mold, each of which would have happily stood alone. The Dilbert strip, however, is a short story, in the British tradition. Build-up and punch line, 'BAM'. Which I suppose is why I prefer it. Also, it takes a lot less effort to read, and I am basically lazy.

[Teflonicius]

To date the humor of Basic Instructions has been built on the ironic contrast between the good sense of the advice given in the text and the inept or counterproductive behavior of the people in the pictures. Any reformatting needs to preserve this dynamic because without it BI would become a different comic.

The explicit contrast creates ambiguity. Is the author of the advice illustrating each point by showing the problem to be avoided? Is he fixing the advice in the readers' minds by humorous misapplication of the advice? Or is he just cynical about the abilities of humans to actually follow the advice? What is the motivation of the people in the pictures: are they morons or misanthropes? As a result there is an intellectual complexity which is part of the "richness" to which other commenters have referred.

So the text is necessary even though the reader can deduce what the characters are doing from the pictures and dialog because BI is not just about some doofus characters performing inept or slightly malignant actions. Its humor requires simulation of a serious discussion about principles of behavior. Removing the text would completely eviscerate its impact.

Since the word "verbose" refers to excess, BI is only slightly verbose; with careful revision each bit of text could be made a little shorter, but there is a limit. All the ideas present in the text are necessary because an "instruction manual" needs to discuss matters in detail (to give detailed advice) and the detail drives the content of the pictures.

In this light, comparing BI's "How to Calm a Scared Child" to the Dilbert treatment of the same concept is worse than comparing an apple to an orange; it's more like comparing an octopus to a clam. Both are excellent critters, not too distantly related, but they are quite different.

The wordcount is not reduced by the familiarity of Dilbert but by the different background, conventions, and goals of the Dilbert universe. Scared children are pretty familiar and even children scared by violent movies, so an "established" character or setting is not needed to give context to the idea.

[Joe]

Your version sucks and if you think it proves a point then it's just your imagination. It's come to a point where it seems like you're exploiting this guy's work for (crapy) blog material.

I just noticed, the only way you DO help the guy is by exposing his work to a crowd. Your advice are worth shit!

[Kevin Kunreuther]

Folks, this isn't a case somebody tells the joke better than another person, it's a matter of comparing and admiring both approaches. Consider this: the comedy in Dilbert is a distillate, boiled down haiku, Basic Instructions is a series of comedic jazz tone poems ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tone_poem ). They both work very well, it's a matter of personal taste.
Scott Meyers would like to experience some of Scott Adams success, (worldwide daily syndication) but does he need to change stylistic horses, abandon his broader observations and laser in on a more clearly defined aspect of human relationships, for the filthy lucre (woo-hoo!ka-ching!) offered by family newspapers? As seen in examples, Scott's attempts at syndicate style strips can be likened to Thelonius Monk trying write a pop song - not impossible, but not as entertaining as one could merely hope - because it's being done as an exercise. With perseverence and patience, he could find his voice in the new format. Or Scott Meyers could fall back into the skin he feels most comfortable. For Scott Adams, the three panel strip is perfectly natural, easy as breathing, water off a duck's back, but only because he focused on that format, and figured out to tell jokes with that medium - and figure the focus of the strip - here's reminder of how Dilbert started out( http://www.comics.com/comics/dilbert/news_and_history/html/the_dawn_of_dilbert.html )
Personally, I do prefer Scott Meyers current style, and would dearly love to see that in my daily rag that instead of Marmaduke, Heathcliff, Garfield or some dumb soap opera strip. But if he can't buck the odds and get the comic syndicated on his terms, there's no shame in making that slight paradigm shift, for a chance at wider circulation, wider acclaim, etcetera.

[Jason]

As an engineer who wears a crappy silk tie that folds over itself, I can relate to the Dilbert version.

I recently got roped into chaperoning a children's summer camp. I said some things that seemed perfectly logical and helpful to me, but seemed to make matters much worse.

For example, one of the young girls tripped on the pavement during the warmup and scraped her knee. Being the closest adult, I attempted to comfort her. Having no experience with children, I was of little help. Fortunately, a female instructor came and comforted the girl for a few seconds and waited for her to calm down. Finally, she stopped screaming and stopped balling. The female counselor left and I tried talking to the girl for a few moments to get her completely calmed down and to stop her sniffling. This eventually happened and I was convinced that the girl was fine. I then pointed out that her leg had stopped bleeding and that she was now fine.

Oops.

It seems that young children do not like bleeding or are even aware that they are bleeding. The knowledge that she had cut her leg made the situation much, much worse.

Anyway, thats why I fine the Adams version funnier. I can relate. Maybe when my nieces and nephews come to stay with me, I will be able to relate to the other version.

[the man in the trout mask]

Wake me when the topic is not Scott Meyer ... zzzzzzzzz.....

[Jason]

Mr Adams, I'm going to print that, forge your signatue on it and pretend its an unpublished one-of-a-kind.

You once wrote that you would verify my clam if I tried that with one of your books. Would you still verify that clam if I did it with unpublished texts that you rewrote from someone else?

Oh, and Jason is a pseudonym, so if anybody asks you if you signed Jason's copy of your original unpublished art, you'll know its me...

[George]

I agree with the other post about the multi-punchline aspect of Scott M's work. I like those under the breath or afterthought side jokes the best. Seems those would need to go out the window to keep it from getting too crammed in the panels. And the panels are getting a bit tight with the strip format.

Scott A. is right about at least exploring the standard comics format if Scott M. is to get published/syndicated. His 4-panels, while great, would take up a big chunk of space, and it would seem for a new comic strip this would be a gamble of resources.

I think you guys are on the right track though, and once Scott M. has had some time to allow this all to sink in, ideas appropriate to the strip format will start coming to him.

[Okgenuine]

I think it would have been funnier like this...

I can't find mommy. I'm scared.

Relax, you're only frightened because there are about a hundred ways you could get killed around here.

There are a hundred ways to get killed?

Well that's just accidentally.

Idk or something. It just wasn't up to your normal level of humor, imo. The original from the other Scott is definitely funny. His humor is like an obtuse guy with too much energy on his hands. Tx for the post.

[Arby]

Seems the better cartoons are where the simple drawings of the character/s and the setting tell most of the story, not the words. More words seem to say “Hey, I can’t express it in my drawing but here is what is happening.”

This is one of the reasons why Dilbert is so good because a lot of the background and dialog are abbreviated. We don’t need and essay to have the point driven home. Like early radio shows much of their appeal was in the things that were left to the imagination of the listener. “The Shadow Knows…..”

[Ken]

OMFG scott that I the funniest comic I think Ihave ever seen I'm still laughing.

[Grump]

Can u please move on from this cartoonist mentor thing?

I liked him, added him to RSS. How about posts like bull fighting or we're in a simulation?

[Dan K]

Looks like someone just saved you the trouble of coming up with your own unique strip, I think the joke works just fine converted to dilbert.

I agree with the posts that state that your sunday strips tend to be dilluted in comparison to your daily strips. Seems to me a lot of comics don't run daily strips, so maybe the focus should be on formatting basic instructions for sunday only... tada, it's done with no changes from the original format (other than slappin some color in there).

A lot of people keep referring to the characters as anonymous, just because you don't know these characters doesn't mean they are anonymous, at one point you didn't know the dilbert characters... in some ways I feel like I know the characters of basic instructions better, because they are based on the people the artist knows (enough that presumably the people he knows, know which characters are them in the strip, which to me makes it a little funnier).

[BoltBait]

Are you going to run this strip?

I think you should.

[rd]

this is great
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/senseschallenge/

scored 9/20 and feel inadequate :(

[Juan Carlo Rodríguez]

Scott, now you have me confused. I feel as though you've taken Scott Meyers under your wing, but you're also using him as inspiration. You seem to be helping him out selflessly, because I think you're that kind of a guy, but maybe you're exploiting him, because I don't know what kind of a guy you are. If I were Scott, I'd be trembling in a corner, feeling judged by the great and might Scott Adams. But I don't know him either, so as far as I know, he's probably in Seventh Heaven, knowing that he has caught your eye and actually find this information useful.

Dear God, man, what are you doing to me???

BTW, I like both, since your styles are so contrasting yet you have the cynism I have grown to love. I hope Scott succeeds as much as you have with your creation. (Oh, yeah, this was the part of the comment where I actually meant to say something. Darn, you draw strange charcters to this blog...)

[Daniel T.]

I think that having the familiar character of Dilbert present the joke does indeed help it to be much funnier. Although the original was funny, I wasn't able to associate with it on a personal level. When presented by Dilbert, I definitely was able to associate with it on a personal level. It may also help that the typical Dilbert reader will likely find a frightened child amusing (a byproduct of the cubicle mind warp). I have read the entire backlog of Scott Meyer's work and I think that he is a very talented man. The majority of his comics made me laugh out loud (at work) and I even posted the one frame of his comic on my boss's cubicle wall (the one on how to negotiate with the United Nations... Now comes the hard part, profiting from your minions hard work). Also a question, how hard is it to change a comic from the 4-square format to the compressed format? Is it possible to offer the comic in multiple formats and let the editors choose which would work best for their readers?

[Abe]

I'd like to see Scott use alt text. It's a device that some of my other favorite webcomics use. It's an html tag that displays a line of text if the image cannot be viewed, or can be viewed by hovering your cursor over the text.

Some use it as a supplement to share an added idea of the artist, or an inside joke to the readers who think to check it. Others are more dependent on it, which makes it a little less acceptable.

consider these two - I like them, and also think they offer a contrast to the dependency point:

www.achewood.com
www.xkcd.com

[belt]

For the record, can this reality thread be moved to its own blog so we can get our usual stuff back please?

[Demetri T.]

ARGHHH.... scott... please no more.... i like dilbert and your thoughts on random things... part 6 of basic instructions is getting mind numbingly boring... i feel like im missing out on a big part of my daily computer life without a real post from you.

[winston]

Isn't one of the reasons we appreciate Scott Meyer's work that he really can fit four jokes into one four-panel cartoon? Now it's also well proven that Dilbert is one of the most successful strips ever, and everything Scott says about the science of cartooning is likely true, but ... but ... well anyway I guess it is easier to get ahead without mounting a revolution unless you really have to. But Li'l Abner and Doonesbury, both with fairly dense print and too many ideas, were both successfully syndicated weren't they?

I think I agree with the people who've suggested a two pronged strategy of going with Scott's generous help to win syndication for BI while maintaining as well, for online readers, the original format version that many of us seem to think is pretty damn good.

There's normally a difference between the smaller market for what's most brilliant and the larger one for what's most saleable. Maybe Scott2 might join Scott1 with feet in both camps.

[RA]

i never read comics with too many words..beats the purpose
and i m only 22
thts why i love dilbert

[Jed Snole]

There are only a hundred or so jokes. There is a well-established format for a strip, which is virtually mandatory if any newspaper is going to accept it.
Why do I get the feeling that there is a finite number of possible ideas for any given comic strip? You could have a computer just write them all. Think of the characters and settings as objects. You just write the right code for the base class for these objects, and then you set the properties of the objects, call generate(), and you're done. This is probably why the longer running strips have had to bring in new characters, age the existing characters, or do something else to change the properties of the objects, so they could generate some new episodes.

The Far Side had new characters in each strip, but their characters weren't very well developed, so many of them were functionally identical. This caused them to lose the benefit of multiple objects. Still, they had a pretty good run.

Peanuts characters never changed, and they had very few new characters. If you catalog all the episodes, you will find there were a lot of repeats. Charles Schultz simply ran out of combinations of input parameters.

Dilbert brings in some transient characters who only last a week or two. There are also some jokes that depart completely from the central theme of the strip. This buys some time, but the main setting and characters are still being used up gradually. As the pool of available combinations dwindles, I hope Scott doesn't do something foolish, like giving the boss or the company a name. I remember the Dilbert TV show, where they decided to give the company a name, and all I could think was that some hot shot writer with a PHB mentality probably read a week's worth of Dilbert strips and then decided he knew exactly what to do to improve on it. Charles Schultz knew better than to show us the little red haired-girl. The makers of the Winnie the Pooh videos made one where they showed Woozles and Heffalumps, and I'm sure they regretted it. When Dilbert's time is up, he should go out gracefully or get transitioned into a new setting. Don't violate the fundamental principles of the strip just to keep it alive a little bit longer.

[Damien]

I think I've finally worked out what's bothering me about Scott M's comic strip. The setup is longer than it needs to be, even with the lack of established characters.

Let's try taking it to the other extreme. The Far Side doesn't need established characters. It's humour is based on something else. I would call it "post-situational".

Larson's single frame format generally captures the aftermath of a funny situation, or a home truth, and the captions are often written in the past tense. This allows the reader to fill in the blanks with their own imagination and experiences, making the humour more personal, despite the use of animals as the players.

It may be worthwhile for Scott M to experiment with the single-pane format, and focus on the aftermath of something funny. If the theme is relationships, it's something we can all relate to and the single pane could depict a situation aftermath or one of those awkward moments we recall from our own lives in a humourous way.

- Damien in Sydney

[Sweet Pea]

Scott, Scott (Meyer) is awesome -- remember that comic strip about a fitness center and a chicken you "helped" out of business? Maybe it would be better to let this poor man be funny on his own. If you want to help, write him a letter of recomendation to a syndication, or better yet, send money. Various people have tried to "help" me with words during my life, and the only help that has ever helped has been the tangibles -- food, recomendations, a job. Let the poor man be.

[antony wardle]

I think that the dilbert one works better because the kids is much smaller than the one in the other strip.

He looks too big to be scared by monsters

kiwi

[p]

i "love" the responses treating todays post as some sort of competition. i can only assume that people wouldn't recognize the highest form of creative-process-roundtable nurturing-and-development if it bit them in the ass. or appeared in their beloved blog.

[Scott]

I liked your version better. It had better pace and a cleaner look.

[malodorous]

Another vote for the original being better. Scott A's strip is shorter because it contains less jokes, and thus, is less funny. I like the "multiple punchline" style of Scott M's strips.

[Katy Newton]

I think the problem may be that it's the current format of Basic Instructions combined with the content that makes it work, rather than just the content. I like it very much. It's genuinely original. I like the fact that there is a lot going on in each strip, I like the narrative. I like the progression of the theme over the four panels, and I like that there's more than one punchline. The current format allows for a depth of layering that makes it much richer and more enjoyable than most linear three-panel one-punchline that's-it-for-now format. For me, tweezing out one sequence and putting it into that more conventional format just doesn't work; the strip as set out in the original format is always better, even if virtually all of the content is reproduced. But that's just what I think; it's a matter of personal taste, really.

[standgale]

Familiarity definitely plays a part in liking a comic (and probably many other things). I never start reading a new comic because I see one that is funny. I see a couple that are somewhat funny and a recommendation from someone. Then I read a couple and I am not really convinced that it is good - but the person recommended it, so surely there is something in it? I read more, and after some point I decide that I like it, but I didn't like it before that. It takes getting used to, and then I read it everyday.
Possible exception is Dilbert - I can't remember how many I read before deciding I liked it. It may have been one but it was a few years ago now.

[Joe Auchter]

The most unexpected part of the Dilbert version: who knew anybody in Dilbert's office was the sort that could actually attract a mate and have a kid?

Hope for me as I sit in my cubicle on a weekend....

[Will]

The child you drew actually _looks_ like a child. The other Scott's "child" in his strip looks like a large teenager. I think that's where part of the joke got lost.

[arlo]

with all the fuss about adjusting for newspapers, i think the comics regularity makes it more suitable for the sunday papers. which is an different format, entirely , i think..

anyway, is it just my computer or is the spell-check feature new on this place?

[Chad]

I disagree with your assertion that the Far Side had no familiar characters. There were 2 familiar characters. Animals portrayed as humans and regular people doing something strange as if it was part of normal life.

[Kola]

Scott:

Of the two, I prefer the BI comic over yours. While I found your approach humorous, I think I would have found it funnier if I had not known it was a riff on another comic.

I think how a comic is presented is best determined by how the artist/creator is hard-wired. In my opinion, Scott Meyer is obviously hard-wired to do wordy and complex comics. To me, his original comics are funnier than the ones he has reformatted or created in the standard syndicated format. Since I think his work is funny, I'm willing to invest the time of reading and looking at his work because I'm preety sure the humor presented will be worth the effort.

Now, Scott (A.), please understand that the following is just my observation and opinion. Also, realize that I truly admire and appreciate your talent, otherwise I wouldn't have the Dilbert strip emailed to me everyday, visit this blog everyday, and buy and read your books.

In my opinion, you are hard-wired to do short, three or four comics. I say this, because I prefer your weekday strips over your Sunday strips. The weekday ones are just funnier to me. The Sunday edition of Dilbert just doesn't deliver the same punch. It seems to me that in filling up the extra panels you are forced to dilute the impact of the humor or joke. While I can recall numerous weekday comics that I have found funny, I can only recall one Sunday strip that I found funny in all the years I've been reading Dilbert. In comic strips, you shine at a "hit and run" three panel format.

That concludes this years performance review, Mr. Adams. You can write down any of your comments in the space provided, and please sign and date on the appropriate line.

[Karenalien]

Freaky happening: I've been on vacation for two weeks so I am not caught up on this blog. I found "Basic Instructions" yesterday, by hitting "next blog" about 5 times, starting from a friend's blog.

And yes, it's very funny. Even the ones that feel assigned are still funny.

Who needs print? I read most comics online. Run some ads, I don't mind :)

[Chad]

Scott...(both of you)...I must say that I am a huge fan of the original 4 panel comic, however, most of the comics I find plenty of satisfaction in 3 of the 4 panels and the 4th is icing on the cake. You mention in today's post how you're going for 2 humor points...I'd really like to see some of Basic Instructions in a 3 panel format rather than 4. It would give more room for wording each of the 3 panels.

[Matt]

I completely disagree. The unknown character setup is much funnier because it allows the reader to focus on the joke itself, and not get bogged down by predispostions or personalities of the character. Scott's original 4 panal version was far funnier than any of the changes you made.

[John D]

Durn. I was about to agree with you that established characters can afford some economy with words, but then I got to thinking "actually, that premise would work just the same with the child meeting a totally unknown human character in the office... or a Cub Scout meeting a fuzzy but vaguely menacing bunny rabbit in the woods... or..." And now I see others have made much the same point. I guess the moral is, you can trim the concept to just the bare essence of the joke and it still works, sort of.

It would make a decent enough Dilbert strip, and a better one if it were part of a group of "Take Your Kid to Work Day" strips. The added context would help more than the established character, I think.

In Scott M.'s version, the characters and concept are of necessity self contained, which does require more words AND more drawing. But there is a richness in that, which evaporates when translated to a 3-panel strip. Economy of line and economy of words is great, but it doesn't compensate for what we've lost since the old days when newspapers gave the comics enough room for the luxury of substantial content!

[p]

there's something great though about B.I. scotts format: it's actually Hard to care about his characters and that in itself allows for a different kind of focus on the ideas.. with Dilbert we're invested and feel like we know tthe Nature of the players.. in as many B.I. comics i've read i feel i know Nothing about the characters other than they deliver witty/snarky/hilarious banter.. and that in itself is enough. i like that they're 'anonymous'. ps that might've been a digression.

[Tometheus]

Hmmm. I just realized that what I got out of the original comic was much different than what you (SA) got. I saw it as more of an uncle telling scary stories (i.e. building the child's fright level while /appearing/ to assuage their fears) -- thus the final panel with the gory game. Whereas you saw it more as /incompetence/ in comforting children. In my take on it, the Dilbertization would have involved Dogbert trying to 'comfort' the child instead of Dilbert.

[Jason Allen]

I didn't like Scott M's scared child joke. It needed too many words to get the point across and just didn't seem to work as a joke. Scott A's simplified version was much better. Some times less is more.

Farside didn't have much in the way of established characters, but the jokes were mostly simple visual. Doonesbury is wordy, but mostly to further an ongoing story line with established characters. Their artists found the right mix for the jokes they were trying to convey. Scott M needs to keep looking for the right mix for him.

[Gleetnorx]

Ahhh, it's not any funnier as a Dilbert toon, dude.

Now the beaver, the pointy haried boss, the Elbonians and all the rest, that's funny. It also goes somewhere beyond merely funny. Somewhere through Dilbert runs this subtle insight around the vagaries of human nature and modern life.

The other thing lacks all that. The
pointy haired boss would point that out to you right away!

[Rob]

That was a really sucky Dilbert Comic.

[Dildog]

I think the key here is for a 4 panel strip there simply has to be fewer words. Scott's strip would work better, IMO, with something like this:

http://img3.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/94c5fe58f5.gif

Of course, I like the original large layout better, but if you're going to reduce it I don't think you can be so verbose as what the larger panel allows.

[Mark Thorson]

Your experimental comic looks
a little rough. Did you draw
it manually instead of using
the computer?

[V R]

Too many words with Scott 2. And all you can't even see the face of the kid. All you see is words words and more words.

[RML]

[i]You missed one of the funniest visual jokes of Scott's comic, which was the scary pose his character assumed when talking to the child. Dilbert wouldn't do that, but if he could have done something inadvertantly threatening...[/i]

Wally would take the scary pose, I reckon. :)

[Michelle]

I've seen Adam@Home and Cleats (neither of which are A-list comics, but whatever) do a series of jokes on the same theme Monday through Saturday (example, see http://www.gocomics.com/adamathome/2007/07/23/ and the rest of that week). So in this case, if Scott 2.0 could come up with two more ways to calm a frightened child, he could have a whole week's worth of strips instead of one. Once you realize what the strip is doing that week, it's really interesting to see what else he can come up with the next day. The only problem would be formatting the wording and art into a rectangular panel versus a square.

[Background Guy]

I've missed a few posts. I assume that someone else has already compared "Basic Instructions" to Matt Groening's "Life in Hell" series by now.

Life in Hell was awesome in its square (non-strip) format. It's hard to imagine Life in Hell working in a strip.

If Basic Instructions are squeezed into a one panel strip, then I wouldn't worry too much about the audience that has trouble reading the text. I'm guessing they'd have trouble with the humor as well. Probably just as well if they skip over that one, the same way I skip over "Mary Worth."

Perhaps Scott M should avoid selling out and resign himself to an edgier but more appreciative audience?

[D. Mented]

AAAAWWWWWWwwwww....Scott's sweet on Scott! Now he's copying him!
D. Mented

[tenassian]

You missed one of the funniest visual jokes of Scott's comic, which was the scary pose his character assumed when talking to the child. Dilbert wouldn't do that, but if he could have done something inadvertantly threatening... Like the time we had some friends over, and was cutting limes in the kitchen while chatting with one of them, and I pointed the knife at him while making a point... then realized what I was doing.

I still prefer Scott2's cartoon. But your point is well taken.

[Avi]

How to calm a scared child or Take you kids to work day? I won't say which is funnier, both of them are hilarious. They both are completely different jokes, just the same underlying theme.

Recurring characters? The Far Side had cows...and stuff.

[Robert Hamilton]

Scott, while your intentions are purely good and your advice is extremely valuable to him and to every would be cartoonist, the guy needs a little room to breathe. He now has 6 billion people watching him to see if he can follow your "suggestions".

[Nacho]

Great. But Scott's is better :)

[Peter Payne]

I know what you mean about there being a finite number of jokes. One that you see in Japanese animation a lot is one that plays around two words, "oneesan" (oh-NEH-san") meaning "older sister" but in the case of someone unrelated to you, a woman aged 18-25 or so. Then there's "obasan" (oh-BAH-san), meaning aunt, but in the case of someone unrelated to you, "middle aged woman." So anyway, there's a large body of jokes involving a girl aged 25 or so who wants to be thought of as an "oniisan" but who is (in the eyes of the person speaking) an "obasan." There's a version for older brother/uncle/middle aged man too.

http://www.jlist.com

[Nomi]

Wow. That's fascinating. Same joke with such a different tone. Yes, less set up and fewer words because of a known character, but also the tone is so different, yet just as funny. Fascinating.

[SpongeJim]

[I’m not trying to compete with Scott’s frightened child comic]

Of course not. You're trying to assimilate it.

[Russell]

You're suggesting that he has some established charachters right?
If that is right how on earth is he going to get established characters BEFORE he get's published?
Not all people who read whatever paper he gets into would have been veiwing his work online for enough time to have his characters established in their head so it's impossible to have established characters without resorting to serious plagourism.

(First post! and i'm in England, a completely different country. Yay!)

[Kevin Kunreuther]

[It should be noted that The Far Side had no established characters and used few words. There isn’t one solution to art. I’m just showing you the options.]

Duly noted. Gary Larson could make another mint writing and producing "silent" animation shorts online, he's got a mind like Buster Keaton for comedy.

You did great, minimalist work there, but like the other Scott, you've honed your technique for your comic well. You make it look like you could have done that in five or ten minutes, with one hand clutching a tasty beverage, like a parlour trick. I can imagine many other readers of your blog writing, "Cool! Now do that with Get Fuzzy or Tom The Dancing Bug", which kinda' misses the point.

It does demonstrate how well you understand how jokes work and how you can adopt another person's idea and fashion it in your own voice.

The Aristocrats, anyone?

[karan]

Scott, in yours, the joke would work equally well without even established characters, just script-style text -

Child: I can't find my mommy! I'm scared!
Unrelated Man: Relax, you're only frightened because there are about a hundred ways you could get killed here.
Child: There are a hundred ways?!
Man: Well... not counting accidental.

It barely needs more context than that - male are naturally assumed to be incompetent with children, especially not their own - which to be honest, comes from your experience and ability to distil the joke down.

Basic Instructions on the other hand, uses "Narrator text", dialogue, visuals and a little sprinkle of imagination (What scared the child? What are they looking at in the final scene? Why does the man cock up the "nonthreatening body language" so badly? Is that his father, and if so why is he so bad at it?) It works in the end, but only with grunt-work on the part of the reader.

[mtty]

But, I don't want to become a cartoonist. Please, please don't make. Ple. . . .

[JJ]

Missed the last couple of days. Had to comment and say that Basic Instruction comic re: kids, was absolutely hilarious.

[Real Live Girl]

It's easier to get the joke in your version because the image of the frightened child isn't lost in a sea of words.

[Artemas Gruzdeff]

This post is not provocative. This is unusual. I don't like it.
Please go back to atheism.

[Cameron Watters]

The funny thing is, I don't think the Dilbert comic works (better) with fewer words just because of the established character. I think the fact that the kid in the Dilbert version is expressive makes a huge difference. By showing his reaction in his facial expression, you are able to express a far richer depth and create a stronger connection with readers.

The other comic, while funny, seems to use graphics/characters as window dressing for a joke that is spelled out with (too many) words.

If the kid were a bit more facially expressive, the other one would work with fewer words even if I didn't understand/know the characters.

[collegefan]

today's strip is one of the funniest i've seen in a long time. this one is definitely getting put up on the office door.

[Tom]

I have to be honest, I like yours better. But I prefer Dilbert to any other comic strip so that's not a surprise. Even if Scott Meyer had established characters and a working setup, he still wouldn't be quite as funny as Dilbert just because it can't be done.

However, I do like his strips. Most of them are really funny.

[adora]

I like this strip!
I think this works better because it also implies the suicidal behavior in cubical life.

[JFitz]

Could you please itemize the other 99 jokes. Thanks.

[Matthew Rubin]

Scott, I'm curious about your take on the Far Side. It was always one of my favorites, along with Calvin and Hobbes. I'm interested in a cartoonists take on these other authors' work.

[Tom Foster]

There probably aren't many rules of writing a comic that the Far Side isn't an exception to.

[Andrew]

I prefer Scott's version. (This diplomacy lark is easy.)

What would happen if the original 4-panel, four-peak version was changed to, say, two 3-panel, two-peak comics? I've seen Dilbert run one conversaion over two comics so I assume people can follow it, and provided there's a joke at the end of both and the second makes sense on its own I can't see a problem.

In this case, I'd try splitting the comic in Part 5 straight down the middle and expanding the first and last frames to two. The extra space would be useful and the only casualty would be the pace. Which would be a shame but that would hopefully be resurrected by sticking the two strips alongside each other in compilation books.

[LA Clay]

Early on I tried to stay out of the whole Scott Meyers thing, while i consider myself an expert on comics, it's his art and I just have an opinion.

This is what my opinion is based on and perhaps it will help.

My dad grew up during the depression and all that that means. he once told me the Comics were the most important part of the newspaper, he was a reporter so he should know. This was his reasoning, no matter how bad the things are, comics are always funny and can put a bright spot in your day. He went on to say "the day comics aren't funny is when you should really start to worry"

No pressure at all, keep us laughing

[Deepali]

I actually did not enjoy yesterday's comic strip version of BI but it worked for me in this Dilbert strip, so I do see the point in having established characters make the work easier.

Don't lose heart Scott M.- I'll definitely keep returning to read Basic Instructions!

[Jenny from Chicago]

Hmmmm...humble opinion here: I don't think established character mattered on this one. But I do think fewer words appeal to a larger cross-section. You don't want to have to work for it unless the pay-off is big.

Last frame suggestion: Well...if we stay out of Accounting.

[rd]

there are only a hundred?
anything familiar is comforting
and if it's a joke, could be the same repeated joke but all other things, general settings around me f.e would differ slightly everytime, then i'd perceive it slightly differently and still laugh if it's a good joke
same thing with music, when i love a new song i'd listen to it so many times again and again and again and interestingly i would not get bored
BI's jokes were new for me, delicious
its contrast between the instruction and its realization is the best working humor, all formatting and familiarity thing aside
the situation itself is familiar
your kid's frightened look is hilarious
'there are a hundred???'

[Simon]

Dilbert would make a terrible dad.

[Guido]

Well, you have less words, but the tradeoff is that you have less punchlines. As you mentioned, but I think the two aren't really that comparable anymore - in fact, one might argue that reducing the humor peaks has more of an influence here than having well-known characters does.

[Prometheus]

Sorry, Scott, but Scott Meyers' strip on this theme was way funnier than yours.

[Cathy]

Although I think Scott A's rewrite proves my comment to the previous post that the new Scott can make his humor fit a marketable size by good rewriting and editing, reducing the number of words.

[moiagain]

I'm a big Dilbert fan, but in this case I prefer by far the original. Sorry Scott A.

[jerry w.]

You could have used "Umm..." instead of "Well..."

That would have saved one letter.

Not much, but the longest journey starts with the first step.

Or, so I hear. Ask a lemming. Or some other monkey.

I had to write that.

Gotta dance now.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/