Comic Book Instruction Books

luckymustard

A Facebook friend of mine posted this:

"Hey geeks, I need help. I've got an 11 yo who has decided she aspires to be a graphic novelist and/or animator. Can anyone recommend a few good drawing books and/or graphic novels written/drawn by bad ass women? Obvs this is so not my forte."

I said:

"The drawing books, which are instructional, that I suggest are: Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud and The DC Comics Guide to Creating Comics: Inside the Art of Visual Storytelling by Carl Potts."

Thoughts? There are a lot of people telling her good comics to read, but not instructional.

compsolut

I would suggest looking to youtube. There are a number of well known and closest artists that do tutorials on everything from "How to draw Batman" to "Blending colors using Copic markers and glossy paper". The nice thing with the videos is that you can see the full creation take shape, not static images . . . Just my thinking.

abstractgeek

The classic is

How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way
http://www.amazon.com/How-Draw-Comics-The-Marvel/dp/0671530771/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_y

There is also a long out of print DVD but the entire contents of the Dvd are on youtube.

also I love this one, Drawing Dynamic comics by Andy Smith
http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Dynamic-Comics-Andy-Smith/dp/0823003124/ref=pd_sim_14_8?ie=UTF8&refRID=0GWKY7WSNTZ6F3AN6PMW

and Bryan Hitch's Ultimate Comics Studio
http://www.amazon.com/Bryan-Hitchs-Ultimate-Comics-Studio/dp/1600613276/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1441202761&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=brian+hitch+drawing

this Stan Lee one is good for kids
http://www.amazon.com/Stan-Lees-How-Draw-Comics/dp/0823000834/ref=pd_sim_14_35?ie=UTF8&refRID=0GWKY7WSNTZ6F3AN6PMW

as is his one specifically on superheroes
http://www.amazon.com/Stan-Lees-How-Draw-Superheroes/dp/0823098451/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1441203359&sr=1-1&keywords=how+to+stan+lee+draw

There are 3 by will eisner, they are more theory like the McCloud books than strict "how to"
http://www.amazon.com/Graphic-Storytelling-Visual-Narrative-Instructional/dp/039333127X/ref=pd_sim_14_36?ie=UTF8&refRID=190SYR12NDTEENE1RHM1

http://www.amazon.com/Expressive-Anatomy-Comics-Narrative-Instructional/dp/0393331288/ref=pd_sim_14_39?ie=UTF8&refRID=190SYR12NDTEENE1RHM1

http://www.amazon.com/Graphic-Storytelling-Visual-Narrative-Instructional/dp/039333127X/ref=pd_sim_14_36?ie=UTF8&refRID=190SYR12NDTEENE1RHM1

i dont have this one, but SCAD has a big comics drawing program
http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Comic-Book-Art-Fundamental/dp/077043696X/ref=pd_sim_14_9?ie=UTF8&refRID=1H95VS57XV9TP3ACW3TX

all the DC ones are good, there are ones on writing, pencilling, inking, coloring & lettering, and drawing digitally.

There really are very many. Plus just books on drawing, perspective and anatomy are all helpful.

bralinator

I submit the following instructional comic for ANYONE who wants to get into a career in the arts.

fredzilla

Scott McCloud also has his book "Making Comics"

Any anatomy book will help with drawing human and animal figures.

I personally find Ben Caldwell's cartooning books to be helpful for more cartoony and animated styles

Action! Cartooning

Fantasy! Cartooning

bamfbamf

this dude is amazing

https://youtu.be/4ATo169nSlA

WetRats

If she can draw, but wants to learn how to create comics, the best thing is to not get her how-to books, but great books.

Find trades of classic runs from legendary artists from various periods and genres. Help her learn how they use the form to tell their stories. Drawing comics "the Marvel way" only teaches how to copy a style, not how to make comics.

nweathington

Well, an 11-year-old, no matter how advanced they might be, isn't going to know anatomy yet. If she's serious about wanting to be a professional artist, whether she wants to draw comics or animation or illustration, cartoony or photorealistic, she needs to start with basic anatomy. She needs to draw what she sees around her in her daily life, from cars to trees to coffee mugs.

That's not to say she shouldn't try drawing a comic until she's mastered anatomy, but it needs to be a part of her ongoing education if she wants to develop her own voice.

Beyond that, I'd start her with How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way. It's simple language, and very basic information, but it will give her a solid foundation in the language of comics. After that, if she's still enthusiastic about it, I'd go with Will Eisner's Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative, along with Andrew Loomis’ Figure Drawing for All It's Worth, which is a great beginner's guide to understanding anatomy and how to pose figures (there is nudity for obvious reasons, so it will depend on the parents’ discretion). (I'll also throw in that if she's interested in drawing humor, Kyle Baker’s How to Draw Stupid is an excellent resource, written in a casual style that a kid might enjoy, though it assumes some basic level of skill in the reader, so it's not a book to start off with.)

Those three books will help her look at the comics/graphic novels she reads with a more critical eye, and help her understand the artistic choices made. It will help her see when something an artist does works, and equally important, when something an artist does doesn't work. If she’s interested in reading more books beyond those three, great, if not, that's okay, too. Basically, at this point she should just read anything that catches her eye and makes her want to draw.

At 11 years of age, she doesn't need a strict, formal education—no need for a regiment of art textbooks or reading list of must-read classics. There will be plenty of time for that later if she’s interested. All she really needs at this point is to practice drawing from life, to get a basic understanding of the medium, to think about why she likes or doesn't like the artwork in whatever she's reading, and above all to have fun drawing.

WetRats

nweathington said:

At 11 years of age, she doesn't need a strict, formal education—no need for a regiment of art textbooks or reading list of must-read classics. There will be plenty of time for that later if she’s interested. All she really needs at this point is to practice drawing from life, to get a basic understanding of the medium, to think about why she likes or doesn't like the artwork in whatever she's reading, and above all to have fun drawing.

So true.

I missed the 11 years old part of the question.

I'd still put a good Carl Barks collection on the list, though. There's a ton of good lessons there.

nweathington

WetRats said:

I'd still put a good Carl Barks collection on the list, though. There's a ton of good lessons there.

And, more importantly, it's fun to read.

WetRats

nweathington said:

WetRats said:

I'd still put a good Carl Barks collection on the list, though. There's a ton of good lessons there.

And, more importantly, it's fun to read.

Yep. Best way to absorb the essence of good storytelling is to read good stories.

WetRats

I do think that by 11, you can tell if a child has an artist's eye.

Skill can be developed, but talent can't be taught.

I remember a co-worker who had her two sons' drawings tacked to her cubicle walls, and I could tell that the three-year-old saw the world differently than his six-year-old brother. His stick people had eyes instead of dots. Sure enough, the younger son won art contests all through high school.

kiwijase

WetRats said:

nweathington said:

WetRats said:

I'd still put a good Carl Barks collection on the list, though. There's a ton of good lessons there.

And, more importantly, it's fun to read.

Yep. Best way to absorb the essence of good storytelling is to read good stories.

If she did read the Barks stories and wanted to learn more about the Disney approach. Id recommend The Illusion of Life, by Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnson. Though not strictly a how to book, it's an excellent insight into the process by which Disney built up their singular style of animation. It's very informative and stuffed full of amazing artwork.

nweathington

WetRats said:

I do think that by 11, you can tell if a child has an artist's eye.

The "artist's eye" can be trained to a great extent, and you don't necessarily need a lot of raw talent to develop into a quality professional artist. I believe an artist’s level of achievement comes more from the desire to draw than it does from any natural talent. (Though you could argue that the more natural ability one has in drawing, the more likely they will have the desire to draw.)

Take those two six-year-olds. I'd be willing to wager that the one who was more developed probably received more attention (and more enthusiastic support) for his drawings over the years, and as a result put more of his energy and time into drawing, getting better and better as time went by, while the other likely got less attention for his drawing and so put less of his energy and time into drawing and so never reached his potential.

I'm not saying innate talent has nothing to do with becoming a great artist—it can very often mean the difference between a good artist and an exceptional artist—or that everyone can become a good artist if they just put in the time, but humans (especially as children) tend to spend more time doing things that come easy to us, things we can succeed/excell at, and the more time we spend doing something, generally speaking, the better we become at that thing. It becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And you know the old saying that you have to do something 10,000 times before you can become truly good at it. That number may vary from person to person, depending on their innate abilities, but the principle is a sound one.

Basically, in the battle of nature vs. nurture, I believe that while nature is certainly important, nurture plays a far greater role.

WetRats

nweathington said:

Basically, in the battle of nature vs. nurture, I believe that while nature is certainly important, nurture plays a far greater role.

When it comes to aptitudes, I'm of the opposite belief.

Skill can be developed with the 10,000 hours model, but innate talent is special and it provides more than just a head start.

kiwijase

WetRats said:

nweathington said:

Basically, in the battle of nature vs. nurture, I believe that while nature is certainly important, nurture plays a far greater role.

When it comes to aptitudes, I'm of the opposite belief.

Skill can be developed with the 10,000 hours model, but innate talent is special and it provides more than just a head start.

Barry Windsor Smith has said you have 15,000 bad drawings in you before you start producing good ones.

WetRats

kiwijase said:

WetRats said:

nweathington said:

Basically, in the battle of nature vs. nurture, I believe that while nature is certainly important, nurture plays a far greater role.

When it comes to aptitudes, I'm of the opposite belief.

Skill can be developed with the 10,000 hours model, but innate talent is special and it provides more than just a head start.

Barry Windsor Smith has said you have 15,000 bad drawings in you before you start producing good ones.

I contend that without an artistic predisposition, you're highly unlikely to stick with it for 15,000 bad drawings/10,000 hours.

nweathington

WetRats said:

I contend that without an artistic predisposition, you're highly unlikely to stick with it for 15,000 bad drawings/10,000 hours.

Which is why I say it's the desire to draw that's most important. Just because you have the predisposition doesn't mean you have the patience or dedication to sit down and do the work required to become good. Someone with a modicum of artistic ability who sits down every day and draws and learns is very quickly going to become a better artist than the most naturally gifted person who can't sit still long enough to finish a drawing.

WetRats

nweathington said:

WetRats said:

I contend that without an artistic predisposition, you're highly unlikely to stick with it for 15,000 bad drawings/10,000 hours.

Which is why I say it's the desire to draw that's most important. Just because you have the predisposition doesn't mean you have the patience or dedication to sit down and do the work required to become good. Someone with a modicum of artistic ability who sits down every day and draws and learns is very quickly going to become a better artist than the most naturally gifted person who can't sit still long enough to finish a drawing.

I don't disagree with that, but I think a person who is good at something is less likely to get discouraged.

nweathington

WetRats said:

nweathington said:

WetRats said:

I contend that without an artistic predisposition, you're highly unlikely to stick with it for 15,000 bad drawings/10,000 hours.

Which is why I say it's the desire to draw that's most important. Just because you have the predisposition doesn't mean you have the patience or dedication to sit down and do the work required to become good. Someone with a modicum of artistic ability who sits down every day and draws and learns is very quickly going to become a better artist than the most naturally gifted person who can't sit still long enough to finish a drawing.

I don't disagree with that, but I think a person who is good at something is less likely to get discouraged.

True, and I’ve already said as much. But I think there are far more professional artists of average natural ability who achieved their success through hours of practice than there are professional artists of exceptional natural ability.

That's not to say that those dedicated artists of average natural ability are necessarily among the top artists in their respective fields, though some of them may well be, or that every dedicated artist of average natural ability will end up becoming a full-time professional artist. I'm just saying that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of natural artistic talent to become a good, professional-level artist.

But I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to leave this rabbit hole.

kiwijase

nweathington said:

WetRats said:

nweathington said:

WetRats said:

I contend that without an artistic predisposition, you're highly unlikely to stick with it for 15,000 bad drawings/10,000 hours.

Which is why I say it's the desire to draw that's most important. Just because you have the predisposition doesn't mean you have the patience or dedication to sit down and do the work required to become good. Someone with a modicum of artistic ability who sits down every day and draws and learns is very quickly going to become a better artist than the most naturally gifted person who can't sit still long enough to finish a drawing.

I don't disagree with that, but I think a person who is good at something is less likely to get discouraged.

True, and I’ve already said as much. But I think there are far more professional artists of average natural ability who achieved their success through hours of practice than there are professional artists of exceptional natural ability.

That's not to say that those dedicated artists of average natural ability are necessarily among the top artists in their respective fields, though some of them may well be, or that every dedicated artist of average natural ability will end up becoming a full-time professional artist. I'm just saying that it doesn't take an inordinate amount of natural artistic talent to become a good, professional-level artist.

But I'm starting to repeat myself, so I'm going to leave this rabbit hole.

I first got that quote from Dave Sim, who is a perfect example of an artist who started off with a minimal amount of ability, then steadily got better and better through sheer perseverance.