Choosing which words to emphasize

[Sir Tim Drake]

On the '70s Kirby thread, MWGallaher mentioned that Kirby had an annoying tendency to emphasize verbs ending in n't. I never noticed that before MW mentioned it, but I have noticed that other writers tend to emphasize words in a somewhat odd way. Specifically, James Robinson is usually a really good dialogue writer, but his choices of which words to emphasize can be very odd. When I read Robinson's Starman, I frequently feel forced to ignore his emphases and make my own decisions as to how to "read" the dialogue. Here is an example from Starman #40:

So my father doesn't ask much of me.... I mean yeah, he asked me to be a superhero... which is kind of a big "son, could you do me a favor," I admit... but apart from that he lets me be. He doesn't criticize how I dress, either. He doesn't judge. So he comes to me with something that needs doing... what can I say... "Yeah, Dad, you want, you got," right? Except it's only then I learn what that something is..."

Okay, this isn't a particularly well-written internal monologue, but let's ignore that. I don't understand why unimportant auxiliary words like "yeah," "doesn't" and "what" are emphasized, while important nouns and verbs are not emphasized. If you read this monologue out loud and emphasize the words in bold, it sounds very unnatural. If I were speaking this monologue, I would probably distribute the emphasis as follows:

So my father doesn't ask much of me.... I mean yeah, he asked me to be a superhero... which is kind of a big "son, could you do me a favor," I admit... but apart from that he lets me be. He doesn't criticize how I dress, either. He doesn't judge. So he comes to me with something that needs doing... what can I say... "Yeah, Dad, you want, you got," right? Except it's only then I learn what that something is..."

(It occurs to me, though, that when most people speak, they use multiple levels of emphasis. For example, if I were speaking the above text, I would probably put a slight emphasis on words like "say" and "criticize," and a stronger emphasis on words like "superhero". But most comic book writers only use one level of emphasis -- either a word is in bold, or it isn't. That makes it difficult to represent more subtle tones of voice.)

So let's talk about appropriate and inappropriate use of emphasis. By the way, am I correct in assuming that the writer, rather than the letterer, is responsible for deciding which words to emphasize?

[Paradox]

**chuckles**

I knew from the title this had to be about Robinson. :biggrin:

[Jamie]

How much of this emphasis is the letterer's responsibility, though, compared to the writer's? I'm unclear about the leeway the letterer has, and has had over the years.

[Bicorn Halfelven]

How much of this emphasis is the letterer's responsibility, though, compared to the writer's? I'm unclear about the leeway the letterer has, and has had over the years.

I've often wondered this myself.

[MWGallaher]

While letterers have no doubt taken some liberties occasionally, choosing which words to emphasize is not part of their job. Historically, the writers (or editors) have indicated which words should be bold by underlining them in the script. Letterers are expected to follow those instructions.

[Slam_Bradley]

I never pay any attention to the emphasis on words in comics because it virtually never makes a bit of sense.

[Scott Shaw!]

Here's a page from one of my recent scripts for Bongo; it appears in SIMPSONS COMICS PRESENTS BART SIMPSON No. 43. You'll notice that the emphasized BOLD words are written in capital letters, not underlined. As you'll see, my rationale for using bold-lettered words is to emphasize key names, places, story points and words that would be stressed when actually spoken.

Here you go:
----------
PAGE TWO:


Panel One -- Miss Hoover's classroom, int., day -- Lisa realizes that she left her backpack -- and her homework -- on the bus.

MISS ELIZABETH HOOVER:
Would everyone please pass their HOMEWORK forward?

LISA SIMPSON (thinking):
“HOMEWORK”? I can't BELIEVE it!
I left it in my BACKPACK on the BUS! Stupid!

Panel Two -- Miss Hoover's classroom, int., day -- Lisa rips her skirt, catching it on a nail in the door-jam when she exists her classroom for recess.

SFX:
RRRIP!

LISA SIMPSON (thinking):
Oh, GREAT. Now I'm RIPPING myself to PIECES!

Panel Three -- Springfield Elementary School hallway, int., day -- She stops at her locker to see if she has a needle and thread, only to discover that her locker's been vandalized…by “El Barto”, no less.

LISA SIMPSON 1(thinking):
Maybe I've got some SEWING NEEDLES and THREAD
here in my locker…

HAND-LETTERING ON LOCKER:
LAZY LISA HAS A BIG OL' BUTT!
-- EL BARTO!!!

LISA SIMPSON:
Oh, cle-VER.

Panel Four -- Springfield Elementary School playground, ext., day -- On the schoolyard, it's Lisa's turn to be “it” in the dodge ball circle and her fellow players are way too zealous.

NELSON MUNTZ:
Hey, you're “IT” for DODGE-BALL this week, Lisa!

LISA SIMPSON 1:
What?

SFX:
WHAP! WHAP! WHAP! WHAP! WHAP!

LISA SIMPSON 2:
>Sigh!< I'm going to be BLACK and BLUE for a WEEK…

Panel Five -- Miss Hoover's classroom, int., day -- Back in class, Lisa attracts Miss Hoover's ire when she innocently corrects the teacher on some obscure fact.

MISS ELIZABETH HOOVER 1:
One of the best-known dinosaurs was BRONTOSAURUS…

LISA SIMPSON:
Uh, Miss Hoover, don't you mean, “APATOSAURUS“?
“BRONTOSAURUS” actually refers to a species that's now considered NON-EXISTENT…!

MISS ELIZABETH HOOVER 2 (icy balloon):
One more rude interruption like THAT, young lady, and YOU'LL be the one who's considered “non-existent”!

Panel Six -- Springfield Elementary School cafeteria, int., day -- At lunch, someone trips Lisa and she falls flat onto her tray of colorful and gooey food and chocolate milk.

SFX 1:
TRIP!

UNSEEN STUDENT (from off-panel):
Tee-hee!

SFX 2:
KER-SPLATTT!!!

LISA SIMPSON:
Ohhhhh…
----------
Aloha,

Scott!

[Scott Shaw!]

Hmmm...crickets.

Lots of discussion -- that is, until I supplied a page from one of my scripts for Bongo. Did my sample satisfy your questions/curiosity? Or don't you regard humor as a legitimate example? Or...why no responses? I don't get it.

Aloha,

Scott!

[Hintermann]

By the way, am I correct in assuming that the writer, rather than the letterer, is responsible for deciding which words to emphasize? I was talking to Don Rosa tears ago about his Donald Duck comic Lost Charts of Columbus. Rosa was dissatisfied with the font size of the lettering because he felt that the letterer had used a size larger than he, Rosa, had specified, thereby making the dialog balloons too large. During that conversation, I am sure Rosa mentioned about the emphatic words as he had instructed; I therefore assume that your assumption is right. The writer and not the letterer is responsible for the emphasis.

[Aaron King]

I think a lot of it is at least intended by the writer, though. Nearly every script I've read has emphasized words in all caps (as shown by Mr. Shaw!). Why do so many writers still do this, though? My copies of Persepolis and Epileptic (translated as they may be) forgo any sort of font effects past size changes. With so many lettering effects easily possible with the advent of computer lettering, why aren't things italicized like in other print media? Even copying, say, novels in their conventions, there would be a lot less emphasis. The only novelist I can think of who is so prolific in italics is Salinger.

[Jamie]

I think a lot of it is at least intended by the writer, though. Nearly every script I've read has emphasized words in all caps (as shown by Mr. Shaw!). Why do so many writers still do this, though?

If you're familiar with the heady world of publishing (as I'm afraid I am, albeit on a smaller scale than I would like), you may be aware of something called Standard Manuscript Format. For those not in the know, SMF is the generally preferred (though less so with the advent of electronic documents) way for editors to receive manuscripts of prose fiction -- and one part of the SMF is that editors prefer to have words underlined for emphasis, rather than italicized. Why? Partly as a throwback to days of yore, when typewriters were the way of the land -- and partly because it's easier to see a word being underlined than italicized, especially when you're bleary-eyed from having read two or three dozen manuscripts already that day.

I'd imagine it's a similar situation for emphasizing words in ALL CAPS -- hard for the letterer or editor to miss that. :)

And I went back and tried to read the original sample dialogue out loud, and the emphasis isn't all that off. It isn't how I would naturally speak, but it isn't that out of whack either. But then, I'm just nearing the Jack Knight age (30 in four months) so maybe it's a generational thing.

P.S. Scott -- nothing against your script sample -- I thought it was quite interesting. It just sort of seemed that nobody had anything else to say because you're the chief Published Comics Writer 'round here. :)

[Shellhead]

Aaron,

I know what you mean. I really wanted to like Starman, but after reading several trades with bizarre emphasis on dialogue, and also substandard artwork, I gave up. The weird emphasis thing was especially bothersome, because the dialogue otherwise seemed pretty natural in style. But with the wrong words emphasized, I kept hearing Jack's voice like a teenager whose voice keeps cracking. "I don't know ma'am, I'll have to ask my manager."

[dan bailey]

I haven't read Starman yet (though I will at some point, having amassed the complete run a few months back), but I found Robinson's apparent insistence on awkward emphasis quite distracting in the first thing of his I read, the Golden Age mini, a couple of years ago.

I can only assume that, like Saturn Girl in the latest version of the Legion, Robinson has never actually spoken a word but communicates solely via telepathy. Presumably, he also can't hear.

If only comic book publishers, y'know, employed editors ...