Welcome to the first of two columns about writing short comics!

I’ve always thought short comics are an excellent format for writers – especially beginning writers – to experiment with different techniques, to get experience working with artists and editors, and to gain some publishing credits. So they seemed a natural topic to cover early in my new column.

This week I interview Phil Hester on the craft of writing the short comic, and next week I will be looking more at the publishing side of things as I talk with the editors of some of the best anthologies out there.

When I decided to cover the topic of short comics, I assembled a rather short mental list of writers I would consider modern masters of the short form, and Phil Hester was at the top of it. Luckily for us, he agreed to share his wisdom on the subject.

(For any of you unfamiliar with Phil’s work, he is the creator of The Atheist, The Coffin, Deep Sleeper and the artist of Green Arrow, Nightwing and The Irredeemable Ant-Man, for starters)

Now, without further ado, the interview:

Other than length, what would you say are the main differences between short comics and regular monthly books or OGNs?

Economy. Short stories have to pay off immediately. Monthlies and OGNs can build for dozens of pages before being required to make a point. Not so with a tiny story. A payoff, even a minor one, is required within the confines of the story.

When writing a short comic, do you approach it any differently than longer works? For instance, do you find the inspiration process any different? 

I certainly execute them differently. It's been my goal as writer to learn to trust the reader to interpret the story their own way. I'm trying to imply more and be a little less expository. I think the short form really puts that to the test. You literally can't explain everything in four pages, so you have to drop hints in dialogue and art that imply a wider world and a more complete story.

I'm not sure I conceive an idea with any sort of forethought about what length it will be. Nearly all of my longer projects began as a scene, or chunk of dialogue, or snippet of action. They all grew from being short stories in the first place. I will say there's both more freedom and more restriction in the form. The restriction is practical and comes from lack of space. Economy, which is an aesthetic principal I hope can be found in all my work, is an imperative in the short story. I feel very comfortable paring things down to essentials, so that restriction doesn't really bother me.

The freedom of the short form comes from low expectations. It's tough to accomplish anything in one, two or four pages, so when you score at all it feels pretty significant. A lot of my early short stories are just abstruse tone poems appended with creepy images, but when only two pages are at risk that sort of whim is worth expressing. That's the bottom line. Short comics are a license to really explore facets of your creativity that wouldn't normally see the light of day.

As a general rule, do you find short comics or longer comics more difficult to write?

Shorts are easier, but only due to time commitment.

You’ve written and drawn many short comics. Thanks to TPB collections, I was easily able to find close to 50 in one afternoon at my comic shop. Is there any particular story that seems to have received the most positive feedback?

It's one of the silliest. I did a one-pager called "What Good Is It?" for Negative Burn about little green army men, specifically, the figure holding his rifle above his head. I don't get a ton of feedback about my short stories, but people will bring that one up pretty regularly.

Is there any particular story that’s your personal favorite, and why?

It might not be fair to bring up something unpublished, but it's the story I just finished for Postcards. All the principles we just covered are on display as best I can muster in that story. Also, I feel like I successfully wrote something in another person's voice, but still conveyed a sentiment that was very personal to me. It's not very cinematic, but the images step to the fore when needed and drop back when the text takes over. It's either the best thing I ever did or the Hindenburg of short stories. You be the judge!

Many professional comic creators get their first opportunities working on shorter pieces. Was this the case for you, and if so can you tell us a little about the experience?

My first published gig was actually pencilling a monthly, albeit a forgettable one. But my break in the mainstream, both super hero and salon, came from short stories. Just out of college I got assignments doing Judah the Hammer back-ups in Nexus (a character I loved). At the same time I was trying to process all the ideas art school had pumped into me and was producing weird little shorts that I thought no one would see. I submitted them to Taboo and, to my amazement, Steve Bissette bought them. I'm not sure if I would have continued with short stories had it not been for Taboo. I was so convinced that the shorts were a lark that I even did them under a pseudonym, but Steve correctly pointed out how jive that was. Anyway, that acceptance letter from Steve felt like hitting a home run. I had gone from pencilling amateurish, black and white super hero books for tiny publishers to sharing the pages of Taboo with Moebius and Neil Gaiman and Eddie Campbell. Heady!

For writers or creators that are just getting started in comics, are there any particular advantages to trying short comics before moving on to longer works?

Again, the stakes are low. Get your sea legs and stretch yourself creatively. If the stories are good, people will notice. If they suck, people will forget them. It's a win-win!

In your opinion, what’s the main thing that makes or breaks a short comic?

Clarity of vision. I don't care what a creator is trying to express, but if they jump in and execute it with conviction it will succeed on some level.

Do you see any particular mistake(s) made or trap(s) fallen into in short comics that writers should be sure to avoid?

I think trying to cram an epic into a six pager is the most common mistake I see. Lay off the exposition. Trust your reader to bring as much to the story as you are.

I think the comic anthology is currently experiencing a bit of a renaissance. In you opinion, what makes a good anthology?

Talent and variety. I love getting a new vision every five pages, even when the material is uneven. When all the talent is great, then seeing a new vision every five pages is absolutely exhilarating.

I'd love to see an anthology that had straight science fiction, super heroes, horror, art house, and humor material together. In my world those forms are not in competition with one another, they may be in the real marketplace, but not in my library. Not to get all Disney on you, but I think Iron Man and Acme Novelty and Flaming Carrot are part of the same tapestry, not disparate threads pulling away from one another. It would do a D&Q reader good to see a really kick-ass barbarian story, just as it would do a Witchblade reader good to see James Kochalka work his magic. I'm dreaming.

You’ve written for other artists, you’ve written and drawn your own material, and you’ve drawn comics written by other writers. Do you prefer any one of these approaches to the others?

No. I'm a pretty promiscuous creator. Whatever thrill a project can provide is worth exploring. Sometimes I write something that I know I would just butcher as the artist, so handing it off is no problem. Also, I love drawing Thor. God help me if I ever had to write Thor. So, I get my kicks in both roles. That said,  sometimes a work is so personal that you have to hang on to every aspect.

Any final advice on the life or craft of writing in general?

Be fearless. All the best artists went where they weren't supposed to go. Don't be embarrassed by your mistakes. I'd rather have a career full of interesting mistakes than perfectly rendered Wizard covers.