Dr Dread
Staff 
The Odious-1
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Dr Dread on Aug 9, 2008 19:22:39 GMT -5
Just to break down the difference, so everyone is on the same page: Compressed storytelling- Usually event driven.
- The dialog helps to drive the plot forward
- The panels usually make large jumps between scenes
- Stories typically self contained; sometimes a loose story thread to wrap up later
Decompressed storytelling- Usually character driven.
- The dialog helps towards building character growth and atmosphere
- The panels usually make smaller progressive scan over a scene to build character interaction
- One story typically runs through 6 issues, while multiple subplots being developped
Some have claimed decompressed story telling is lazy, as the writer just stretches a story that would normally fill one issue over six issues. Supporters of decompressed storytelling praise it for character growth and creating more suspense and drama. More information on compression and decompression storytelling can be found here! |
|
|
|
Post by arcalian on Aug 9, 2008 19:24:25 GMT -5
You're going to have some of each, naturally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merai on Aug 9, 2008 19:28:57 GMT -5
Neither is better than the other, in my view. A story doesn't have to be long to be fantastic.... but there are plenty of times a story is far too rushed to be effective. Grant Morrison stories could often benefit from being decompressed, whereas Bendis stories often need a good lot of compression.
Both can work equally well, it's all in the execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by David on Aug 9, 2008 19:37:28 GMT -5
IMO, in most cases, those storylines that stretch over six issues can be told with little or no sacrifice in three. It really bugs me to get two storylines a year per title--- and that's if all issues are on time (a rare occurance for most ttiles)! Personally, I think a good storylteller can still develop character in that amount of space.
So I'm coming down on the side of compressed.
Of course, there are exceptions to this opinion--- Geoff Johns' longer Green Lantern arcs come to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brandon on Aug 9, 2008 20:11:05 GMT -5
I don't see an other option, but I think a compromise between the two is good. Larger story arcs unfolding over a number of issues is good and helps give readers a more rewarding read I think, but the decompression we see in some places is ridiculous.
But I also think it is really important to deliver it in self-contained chunks or at the least in smaller two-parters, sorta like episodic television these days. You get smaller stories that feed into the larger one. I think readers also need a sense of conclusion for their money, and a really good story should keep their interest regardless. I think writing for the trades only encourages the audience to wait for the trades.
|
|
Dr Dread
Staff
The Odious-1
Posts: 1,547
|
Post by Dr Dread on Aug 10, 2008 15:58:10 GMT -5
Both can work equally well, it's all in the execution. That is a good point. Compressed and decompressed storytelling can either be terrible or great depending on the writer and execution. However, I find decompressed storytelling is just way too used these days. It's almost frustrating buying a book where nothing happens. It's not that I hate all decompressed stories; in fact, that style lured me back to comics. I just find it being abused for no good reason.  |
|
