This isn't a "right or wrong" kind of thread. It's a "which do you prefer" type of thread.

As is obvious from Broken Things , I'm a big fan of decompression. I love to immerse the reader in the atmosphere of a moment. Painting the emotional context of a scene via subtle cuts and drawn out expressions is a blast for me. Lone Wolf & Cub is one of my all time favorite books, & it is rife with decompression.

On the other hand, Terran Sandz is more about compression, though not like marvel books in the 70's. I want the story to move along. i don't mind brooding on a moment, but I'm more about a fast-paced, highly kinetic story.

I think I prefer decompressed story, as I want the "wow" to be viseral. I want all my senses to be immersed in the "wow', not just my eyes.

Compessed storytelling never leaves enough room for character developement for my tastes. Oh, sure, it's there, but, like everything else, it's rushed.

What about you?

later,
Chip

Compression, within reason. Lee and Ditko and Lee and Kirby got TONS of chracter developement within twenty pages, with a lot of words per panel. I know that puts me out of step with current comic making, where decompression is the rule, and certainly, decompression has its place. Personally, though, I think the pendulum has swung too far on the decompression side.

Again, my opinion only. I have certainly seen decompression done well. A good comic will do both---decompression in parts, compression where needed.

I just think the industry as a whole has changed to the point where it's not unusual to have a comic book where only ONE significant thing happens. I like the ones that juggle a dozen different balls at once.

A good article about this is here at http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2007/10/25/compressed-storytelling-versus-decompressed-storytelling-pros-and-cons/ ---notice how it shows exactly how much is revealed in one page of the Silver Age Spider-Man page...and how LITTLE is shown in the one page of the modern comic.

And bear in mind, NEITHER is a webcomic. And a webcomic, typically, presents ONE page at a time, and almost ALWAYS have new readers browsing through. So you have one chance to catch the reader.

If your art is good enough to capture the reader with that, with just a possibly cryptic page to a new reader, that's GREAT! But I prefer something a little more meaty.

But that's probably just me. I'm a BIG reader.---Al

I like both. It all depends on context, of course, and a lot of the time, I think the ideal is a balance between the two - enough decompression to set the mood visually, but enough compression that I'm not just flipping through pages.

My own comic could certainly do with some more compression - I have far too many silent pages, and not enough happens on every page. Of course, it is my first comic ever, so I suppose I can still excuse myself by saying that it's a learning experience (maybe I should set myself a task - write/draw a one-shot comic that is exactly 22 pages long, or something, just to try out compression).

If it's supposed to be a primarily action-y comic, then decompression is out of place. I love getting a sense of place, an emotional build-up and all that, but if the MC is kicking butts and taking names, it's jarring with the mood.

On the other hand, if you're telling a longer, slower story that needs tons of character development - one that is character-driven, rather than plot-driven (though you can certainly do decompression with the latter; it just takes a little work) - then decompression works better.

I like both, within reason that is. Most of old Marvel/DC comics are TOO compressed (or even worse, the writer didn't have enough skills to write it so he has character yapping all day long about what they do on the panels and between the panels... joined by tedious narration that does exactly the same).

On the other hand, sometimes you pick up a new issue and it takes more time to flip the pages than it takes to read the story.

In Din Krakatau, which is three days a week, I try not to rush things too much but also keep the story moving forward. The goal here is to give the reader SOMETHING to read on every page, but not overdo it, so that people who just started to read don't have to wade through 30 pages of talking heads and expository dialogue.
I'm trying to have every page either advance the plot, tell us something about the chracters or the surrounding world, or serve as a buildup to the next big page. That's the theory anyway. :)

I think I prefer plots that are slightly more on the side of decompression, as long as it's used properly and not just there to make people buy three volumes instead of one.

I have looked at that article and I must say, that Spider-Man page is totally uninteresting to me. All I see is word baloons upon word baloons to the point of nausea. I actually remember reading that issue in an Essential, and I also remember skimming through the dialogue and narration rather than reading every sentence.

I've never really thought about it...

The pacing of my comic is modeled after the types of things I enjoy, particularly Detective Conan and other TV series. (I originally envisioned Used Books as a TV series.) My short episodes are fairly compressed. I show what is needed to move the story forward. Every page counts. And the episodes/arcs usually take about ten to twenty pages. There are some moments/scenes that are drawn out for dramatic emphasis. However, there are overarching plotlines that advance at a very slow pace. When a story arc touches heavily on one of the larger plotlines, it usually turns into a larger episode itself (often 40 to 50 pages) -- not unlike multi-part episodes of a TV series.

Decompression is interesting and appeals to some people quite a bit. It seems to create appreciation for the "craft" (artwork, use of language, lighting, etc.) more than moving a story. It's sort of like the difference between reading a detailed novel and watching a movie. -- Drawing out the comparison, a lot of movies based on books have been poorly "compressed" and cut too much. Some books drag on endlessly, and readers tend to start skipping through long descriptions.

I usually enjoy more compressed stories, because I like stories/plot more than mood/drama or whatever. This is especially true in webcomics. I want to see some real plot advancement in each update.

I think good compressed storytelling is just more difficult. If you look at some of the better comic books from the 70s and early 80s, some of these books told complete mini-epics in an issue or two that spanned entire galaxies and a dozen characters, nothing felt rushed and the characters were fleshed out just fine. It's a matter of precision, I think, and making every line count. If a lot of these older books that moved very quickly seemed shallow and cheesy, it's because the writers weren't trying very hard, not because it's inherently impossible to tell a good story quickly.

Personally, I like a healthy balance, really. I actually quite enjoy longer dialogue sequences if they're written well, for example, and I don't think every 22-page issue of a book needs to be self-contained. On the other hand, it's incredibly annoying how a lot of titles these days seem to drag their storylines out over 4-5 issues for no other reason than to fill a trade paperback.

I tend to write and read from a graphic novel standpoint with making the length fit the story instead of a page standard and so the thought of compressing or expanding a story line never really occurs to me. I like to pace any story line I tell along with whatever feels right for the plot at the time. If a character were laying bed all day I'd compress it down, but if I have a scene where I need to show a lot of action occurring I'd slow it down and draw it out.

I think I prefer compression in most cases. The one main exception would be Mike Mignola- I adore his comic atmospheres so much, and I love looking at his art when nothing is going on. Lone Wolf and Cub I also liked, but the art wasn't as visually powerful as Mignola's so sometimes I got impatient with it.

Usually though I prefer a story to move along. I like things to change in the comics I read and I like learning new information. Those things happen in decompressed comics but at a much slower pace. Although I think any comic can have decompression points if written right. I suppose the best would be a mix of the two- mostly compressed, but with some space where emotions or settings are taking the forefront. One of my favorite comics of all time is Castle Waiting which is very wordy, but an extremely good story and still has lots of good setting and personality.

In my own writing I have a hard time hitting the balance. I suppose I'm going for compression without being crammed. I want something to happen on every page and as far as the first couple chapters go, there's no reason to dwell on anything. That's part of the reason it took me so long to get started on my current project (not on DD yet, I'm building a buffer)- because I just wasn't happy with the script for a long time. I'm still not, really, but it's better to just get started.

I try to do both. I want to let the readers eat up the visual emotions of the comic, but I want to keep the story moving so that readers won't get bored with the polt.

I think there are different standards for webcomics and print. Or, more specifically, for comics you pay for and those you don't.

If a comic is free and the creator wants to put no more than two or three panels on a page with very little dialogue (as a lot of webcomics do), that's fine. When I'm only reading one page at a time, I can just enjoy the artwork.

If I've paid for a comic, however, and there are only two or three panels on a page with very little dialogue, I feel cheated. It might look pretty but, storywise, it's not value for money. It's basically just padding and is probably why DC and Marvel can no longer tell a complex story without spreading it over a dozen issues and as many different titles.

I like decompression since I love detail, character development and finding out all sorts of little things about the world/characters in any kind of comic.

I guess for me, it really depends on the story you are telling or the artist is telling. Decompression works for some types of stories and for others, not so much. Its like how you posted, Chip. Broken Things and Terran Sandz are two different works. If atmosphere is a key to the story, then decompression is the way to go. You can't just rush that and condense it into a few pages, even if people say other wise. Stories that are fast paced and light are normally best in a compressed form. I mean light, in that there is not much depth to the story. No symbolism. No character development. Its like going to see and Action film or a Slasher flick. No one goes to the theatre or video store to become attached to the characters, they want to see action and blood with some semblance of a story and be entertained and escape for an hour and a half then get back to what they were doing previously.

One is not bad over the other.
I think as a reader it depends on your mood.

also culture has a lot to say how you want to be serviced.

The U.S. is renowned for being fat and wanting things fast, packaged and with not much work put into getting what you want. We are known as the fast food nation...
Your way, right away!

Take Lost, for example. It is a decompressed story. Initially everyone was fascinated by this show and everyone watched it in the U.S. Then during the third season many people said, "Screw this. I'm lost. No answers. I'm giving up on this show". So there was a huge drop in viewers. Why? Because a majority of viewers wanted a self contained compressed story which they didn't have to spend a lot of time watching or re-watching back shows to catch things they had missed. Plus they wanted everything spelled out for them. They wanted it their way, right away. But this kind of story that Lost is telling would be terrible if it was compressed. It would pan out to being one of those crappy made-for-cable movies shown on the Sci Fi Channel, IMO. But there are those who really enjoy those movies. I mean come on, last Saturday they broadcasted a movie called Rock Monster ! Who doesn't want to plop down in front of the t.v on Saturday night with a bowl of popcorn to watch that!?

Rock Monster looks bad ass

Well said spacehamster! You took the words right out of my mouth :)

I feel kind of fortunate to be working on 2 webcomics because each one explores a different writing style.

Due East is clearly decompressed and deeply character driven. It's a gradual mystery unwinding and things become more clear with time and understanding of the characters, which in turn explains the underlying plot. Due East compressed just isn't even feasible...

On the other hand, I feel like Off Hours is pretty compressed. Although there is an underlying plot in it as well, it's a pretty straightforward comedy with a lot of characters. Decompression wouldn't work so well with it, I think.

The way I learned how to make comics basically dictated that I do more compressed stories. Character development and atmospheric drawings are nice and I really like them but I won't do them at the expense of not advancing the plot. Every time I did do a page that was just atmosphere I felt I was taking a huge risk of boring the hell out of my readers. Drawings like that are great if they're done really well and look really interesting, but if they're just OK they're dull. Character development doesn't have quite the same stigma for me because my comic's meant to be driven by the characters and how they choose to deal with the situations they're presented with. Pacing is something that I'm often second-guessing myself about, maybe someday I'll have some idea of what the hell I'm doing!