First, bad art is laughable. I've noticed a lot of people post work online that clearly shows that they have not only not taken any drawing classes, they think that because they managed to eke it out onto the page, it deserves attention. As someone whose bread an butter is professional art, I find this somewhat insulting. It's as if art is treated as something "cute", without effort, a mere hobby, and not something that you would invest hours and hours of time in like you would if you were going to be a surgeon, a lawyer, or, well, even a writer. There are a lot of good artists out there, and the field is extremely competitive. Perhaps this has led to the rift between really good artists and really affordable ones. If you don't have a good artist, someone with style, professional polish, and at least a working knowledge of how to visually tell a story: you are wasting your time. Please keep in mind that cover illustrators are what get someone to pick up your novel. Art is not an afterthought. Good art is worth paying for, and if you're not paying for it, or treating the artist as a pity party, you're going to get what you give. Any artist that has made the effort to learn the basics of visual storytelling probably wants to be validated with pay, not the old adage of "Hey, people will get to look at your petty pictures if you draw what I say!" (Which is never pitched to mechanics or veterinarians trying to establish themselves, I notice.) In graphic novels, the writing and the art are equally important. Wall-eyed, anatomically awkward characters with bad pose, worse composition, terrible color palettes, and uncanny valley in spades isn't going to sell. Odds are, the person you're trying to pitch to is going to chuck it aside for someone who has an inkling of skill.
Second, novel writing is not a script. Script writing is about communication. Good, open communication that leaves room for both parties to breathe creatively. The writer is not a tyrant just because they're in charge of story. It's within the nature of writers to want to tell too much, and the devil in the details will strangle your artist. As a writer, you are responsible for what the characters say, what they do, and how the story plays out. How it LOOKS is up the artist. Referring back to the first rule, the artist's portfolio should reflect a particular skill set. Namely, that they've done sequential art before, and have the ability to make visually interesting characters and action scenes. If your artist can't do that: don't look at them for your project. You're wasting your time. If your artist draws armored superheroes covered in chains and bloody skulls, why would you ask them to draw your whimsical graphic novel about kittens? And this bears repeating: if your artist can barely scribble down a face in an hour, why would you ask them to draw buildings and backgrounds and airships and monsters? The flip side of these is that a writer should be allowed to make suggestions or requests of the artist. The artist is allowed to veto, but under no circumstances does that mean that an artist's ego is allowed to hijack your idea in their quest for validation as a "true artist." If you have a good artist, you don't need to worry about what things are going to look like. A lot of people have mentioned Niel Gaiman, who in the Sandman Collector's Edition, remarked that he was always astonished with the artwork when it came back. Know why? Because the people on board were good already, and he didn't have to sweat it. If you're the writer, concentrate on making your writing awesome. Study how scripts work, how pacing in comics work. Do your homework. Your artist will work on making it LOOK awesome. It's their responsibility, not yours, and if you've chosen wisely, you'll be much happier, won't you?
A contract is necessary for both parties. I've noticed that a lot of new artists are willing to accept work that doesn't pay for the chance to "get out there" and see their work taken, never to be heard from again. I've also read a couple of lamentations from writers who paid their artists up front and got shafted when the artist skipped down. As a professional artist in the games industry, I noticed when I was trying to break into the field, that the shady sorts treated a contract request as insult, while the real professionals wouldn't think of doing it any other way. If you want an artist, get a contract. A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is the most common of its kind. It lays out whatever rules the artist and writer agree to, with the added bonus that neither of you will blab about the project before its launch (spoilers can affect sales.) You both get a copy of the contract. You don't sign the contract until you're happy with it. Again, contracts are a sign of professionalism. So even if you are doing this with a friend and it's all understood under the table: get a contract. People who don't operate with one are already not operating on a professional level, and professional level is what you WANT to show to a publisher. Yes, the contract should include compensation; would you sign a contract with your agent that said "Eh, you might get some money if the agent feels like it." If you feel like $1000 is too much to pay for an artist to sit down and draw, ink, and color a hundred pages: ask them how many hours they're willing to work. Because if they spend 10 hours on each page, that's $10 an hour (and 10 hours per comic page, while accounting for thumbnailing, composition sketches, color studies, and all the background work that goes in to perfecting a spread, is really not that much at all.) They could make more than that in a lot of other professions, or even in another contract job. Your contract should say who is getting paid what and when. And if things go south, and you want to pursue damages in a legal way, at least you have a document permissible as legal evidence.
Second, novel writing is not a script. Script writing is about communication. Good, open communication that leaves room for both parties to breathe creatively. The writer is not a tyrant just because they're in charge of story. It's within the nature of writers to want to tell too much, and the devil in the details will strangle your artist. As a writer, you are responsible for what the characters say, what they do, and how the story plays out. How it LOOKS is up the artist. Referring back to the first rule, the artist's portfolio should reflect a particular skill set. Namely, that they've done sequential art before, and have the ability to make visually interesting characters and action scenes. If your artist can't do that: don't look at them for your project. You're wasting your time. If your artist draws armored superheroes covered in chains and bloody skulls, why would you ask them to draw your whimsical graphic novel about kittens? And this bears repeating: if your artist can barely scribble down a face in an hour, why would you ask them to draw buildings and backgrounds and airships and monsters? The flip side of these is that a writer should be allowed to make suggestions or requests of the artist. The artist is allowed to veto, but under no circumstances does that mean that an artist's ego is allowed to hijack your idea in their quest for validation as a "true artist." If you have a good artist, you don't need to worry about what things are going to look like. A lot of people have mentioned Niel Gaiman, who in the Sandman Collector's Edition, remarked that he was always astonished with the artwork when it came back. Know why? Because the people on board were good already, and he didn't have to sweat it. If you're the writer, concentrate on making your writing awesome. Study how scripts work, how pacing in comics work. Do your homework. Your artist will work on making it LOOK awesome. It's their responsibility, not yours, and if you've chosen wisely, you'll be much happier, won't you?
A contract is necessary for both parties. I've noticed that a lot of new artists are willing to accept work that doesn't pay for the chance to "get out there" and see their work taken, never to be heard from again. I've also read a couple of lamentations from writers who paid their artists up front and got shafted when the artist skipped down. As a professional artist in the games industry, I noticed when I was trying to break into the field, that the shady sorts treated a contract request as insult, while the real professionals wouldn't think of doing it any other way. If you want an artist, get a contract. A Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) is the most common of its kind. It lays out whatever rules the artist and writer agree to, with the added bonus that neither of you will blab about the project before its launch (spoilers can affect sales.) You both get a copy of the contract. You don't sign the contract until you're happy with it. Again, contracts are a sign of professionalism. So even if you are doing this with a friend and it's all understood under the table: get a contract. People who don't operate with one are already not operating on a professional level, and professional level is what you WANT to show to a publisher. Yes, the contract should include compensation; would you sign a contract with your agent that said "Eh, you might get some money if the agent feels like it." If you feel like $1000 is too much to pay for an artist to sit down and draw, ink, and color a hundred pages: ask them how many hours they're willing to work. Because if they spend 10 hours on each page, that's $10 an hour (and 10 hours per comic page, while accounting for thumbnailing, composition sketches, color studies, and all the background work that goes in to perfecting a spread, is really not that much at all.) They could make more than that in a lot of other professions, or even in another contract job. Your contract should say who is getting paid what and when. And if things go south, and you want to pursue damages in a legal way, at least you have a document permissible as legal evidence.
Last edited:
