Editor’s note: We were all ready to discuss who you should be focusing on in your graphic novel, and then we remembered that John Ostrander, writer of <\/em>GrimJack, Munden’s Bar, Star Wars: Legacy and <\/em>Suicide Squad, had already answered the question for us a while back. So we’re reprinting his piece from October 25, 2007.<\/em> <\/p>\n In any given story, one of the primary questions that must be \nSometimes, when I\u2019m having problems with a story, I\u2019ll go back to that \nThe story may not always be about a person. When I wrote Gotham Nights<\/em>, All this becomes possible or even relevant when you have a The secret to creating a good supporting cast is that you have to know If you don\u2019t know the series, it\u2019s based on a BBC series created by \nThe rest of the cast is also superb and, in a brilliant move by the \nThe concept that makes the show work is that it is entirely shot from \nEach and every character in that office believes that the documentary is \nHowever, I realized fairly early in my life that, while I was the \nIn freshman year of high school, I went to Quigley Seminary North which \nI\u2019ve seen a couple arguing in the street by a car. For a moment, their \nOn The Office<\/em>, the main story is the Scranton branch office of \nAs a writer, I\u2019m fascinated. The characters within the story are aware \nJim and Pam\u2019s ongoing up and down romantic relationship \u2013 felt and \nIt is not, however, the story \u2013 the office, as it is being filmed, is Remember: you can follow all the NaGraNoWriMo posts here<\/a>!<\/em><\/p>\n Be the first person to comment! <\/a><\/p>\n
\nanswered by the writer is \u2013 whose story is it? For example \u2013 in any
\nBatman\/Joker story, we assume that the story is going to be about
\nBatman. He is the title character, after all. However, the story can be
\nabout the Joker \u2013 taken from his perspective, with the Joker as the
\nprotagonist and the Batman as his antagonist. A protagonist, after all,
\nis not always a hero.<\/p>\n
\nsimple, basic question \u2013 whose story is it? The answer sometimes
\nsurprises me. When I was writing my historical western for DC, The Kents,<\/em>
\n I assumed for a long time that the story was about Nate Kent, who was
\nthe direct ancestor of Pa Kent, Clark\u2019s adoptive father. It was only
\nwhen I was deep into the story that it occurred to me that the story was
\n actually about Nate\u2019s younger brother Jeb, who takes a wrong road,
\nshoots his brother in the back at one point, becomes an outlaw, and
\neventually has to make things right.<\/p>\n
\n the focus of the story was the city itself, and the city was comprised
\nnot only of its buildings and roadways but, more importantly, the people
\n who lived there, of whom I tried to give a cross-sampling. Batman was a
\n part of all that because he is a part of Gotham City but the miniseries
\n didn\u2019t focus on him. It was Gotham City\u2019s story.\n<\/p>\n
\nwell-developed cast of supporting characters. The main purpose of any
\nsupporting cast, be it a book or movie or TV show, is to bring out
\ndifferent aspects of the main character who is the protagonist of the
\nstory. We all act slightly differently according to whom we\u2019re with. For
\n example, how you act with your sweetheart would be inappropriate with
\nyour mother. You tell your friends things that you might not want to
\nshare with your family, your siblings have the dirt on you that you\u2019d
\njust as soon was not shared with everyone, and your parents not only
\nknow how to push your buttons, they installed the wiring. We\u2019re always
\nthe same person but different people bring out different aspects of us.<\/p>\n
\nas much about them as you know about your main characters. They have to
\nhave stories of their own to tell; we\u2019re just not choosing to tell them
\nat this particular time. One of the best examples I know of this dictum
\ncurrently is the TV series The Office<\/em>.<\/p>\n
\nRicky Gervais. The American version is set in the Scranton, PA, a
\nregional office of fictional paper manufacturer Dunder-Mifflin. Steve
\nCarell plays the lead role of office manager Michael Scott, the
\nterrifically funny and somewhat creepy Rainn Wilson plays assistant to
\nthe manager Dwight Schrute (he is not, as people keep reminding him,
\nassistant manager), and the main romantic pairing is played by Jenna
\nFischer, who is receptionist Pam Beasley and John Krasinski, who plays
\nJim Halpert.<\/p>\n
\nproducers, they\u2019ve been allowed to develop their roles from background
\nfigures into fully fleshed characters. Everyone who watches the show has
\n their favorites. Brian Baumgartner\u2019s Kevin Malone is a fan favorite.
\nAngela Kinsey\u2019s tightly wound ice queen Angela Martin is another and her
\n romance with Dwight has been a fearful one \u2013the two might have
\noffspring and that would be a bad thing for the world. Ed Helms joined
\nthe cast after the first season playing Andy Bernard \u2013 both he and Steve
\n Carell are graduates of The Daily Show<\/em> and have apparently
\nlittle or no sense of shame. There are others \u2013 one of my own faves is
\nLeslie David Baker who plays salesman Stanley Hudson. Stanley is moving
\ntowards retirement and just doesn\u2019t give a damn about Michael or the
\nother idiots in the office \u2013 an attitude Baker probably learned while
\nworking in various Chicago City Departments before going to Hollywood.
\nSuffice it to say the entire cast is brilliant.<\/p>\n
\nthe point of view of documentarians who are filming this branch office
\nof Dunder-Mifflin. As creator Gervais said (in an interview that I saw),
\n all the characters are aware they are being filmed at all times and
\nbehave accordingly. Michael Scott, for example, is in many ways an
\nidiot, socially oblivious, self-centered to an appalling degree but he
\nis always trying to present himself as a good guy, smart, and a
\nwell-loved boss. The anonymous and never seen documentary film crew is
\nitself a character in the story just as Gotham City is in the Batman
\nstories. The fact that the characters know that their behavior is being
\nwatched must and does by its very nature change their behavior.<\/p>\n
\n about them. Each character has enough story in them that it could be.
\nIt\u2019s something that\u2019s true for all of us \u2013 as Shakespeare said, we in
\nour lives play many parts. Each of us are \u2013 or certainly should be \u2013 the
\n lead characters in the stories of our own lives.\u00a0 (If not, then you
\nhave serious self-image problems.) We are the protagonists in our lives;
\n our narrative is about us. Many people come in and out of that
\nnarrative \u2013 antagonists, supporting characters, romantic characters, bit
\n part characters, people in crowds.<\/p>\n
\nprotagonist in my own story, in someone else\u2019s I might be the
\nantagonist, the villain, a support character, or maybe I was just
\nwalking through, giving background texture or noise. Other narratives
\nwere going on constantly around me besides my own; I had only to pivot
\nfocus to hear them or see them. You can do the same \u2013 how many different
\n stories are you a major or minor part of every day?<\/p>\n
\nwas located just north of Chicago\u2019s Loop. I took the elevated train back
\n and forth to school every day and, during the winter months, would
\nfrequently come home after dark. If I was sitting next to the window, I
\ncould stare out and look at the apartment houses that faced \u2013 sometimes
\nabutted \u2013 the tracks. The windows might be lit and the shades not yet
\npulled down and I might see a moment of another life \u2013 another narrative
\n \u2013 being flashed through that window. For that moment, they had part of
\nmy attention, were a part of my life. At the same time, I realized that,
\n in their narrative, I was just another train passing by. Just noise. It
\n all depends on where you choose to focus \u2013 on whose story you\u2019re
\ntelling. <\/p>\n
\nnarrative bursts in on mine. Sometimes I\u2019ll see a face or a posture that
\n grabs my eye as I pass. I never question as to why my eye is drawn; I
\nsee, I register what I\u2019ve seen, I tuck it away. I\u2019ve glimpsed a part of
\nsomeone else\u2019s narrative. I don\u2019t know the context but it doesn\u2019t
\nmatter; I\u2019m a writer. I can create a narrative around what I see. It\u2019s a
\n rock thrown into a still pool; the rock is the moment I see, the pool
\nis my imagination. It creates ripples, which are the beginning of
\nnarrative. I toss in other rocks \u2013 other things I\u2019ve seen and remember,
\nor the \u201cwhat ifs?\u201d that could occur \u2013 and the ripples cross one another
\nand sometimes a story forms itself.<\/p>\n
\nDunder-Mifflin. The only link that these disparate people have binding
\nthem together is the place where they work. Not even the job itself
\njoins them because they have different jobs within the office. It\u2019s the
\nlocation. The separate story lines are all threads being woven together
\nfor the documentary that is being made. The event of the filming creates
\n the series.\u00a0 That\u2019s the narrative focus. <\/p>\n
\nthat the story is being told and, to a greater or lesser degree, try to
\ncontrol that narrative. The show is achingly human and also achingly
\nfunny. Maybe painfully funny is a better description. Michael Scott,
\nCarell\u2019s character, is cringe-inducing; sometimes you feel a humiliation
\n for him that he is too self-absorbed to feel. The only narrative of
\nwhich Michael Scott is aware is his own. He appears oblivious to the
\nfact that the other people serve any other function than as support
\ncharacters in his story. We as the audience are aware of it and of his
\nsocial tone-deafness even if he is not.<\/p>\n
\ndenied, proclaimed and refused, currently together \u2013 has functioned as
\nan \u00fcber story, something that connects the show throughout the seasons.
\nIt\u2019s a major component to the series and about which the fans care a
\ngreat deal. <\/p>\n
\nthe main story. Like the people I glimpsed from the subway, we get
\nsnippets of the lives of those who work there and, for a moment, they
\nare part of our lives, our narrative, even though we are not and will
\nnever be part of theirs.\n<\/p>\n