To write for the trade or for each individual monthly issue? It's a false dichotomy, of course, and yet far too much energy is still on occasion frittered away in squabbling over this imaginary either/or situation. For as with all serial fiction, the challenge for the comic book scripter isn't to write for the single episode or for the competed narrative, but for both. It's an obligation that's often perceived to be both far too arduous and counter-intuitively unnecessary, with the eventual collected edition being seen more and more as the context in which the success of each individual issue should be judged. Yet to avoid grappling with both aspects of this dilemma is to sidestep one of the essential responsibilities of the writer who's producing work for two separate audiences at the same time, namely that of not cheating the one in favour of the other.
Producing work that will be serialised brings its advantages as well as its profoundly exacting technical challenges. For the writer who's open to the opportunity, there's a chance to review future intentions in the light of both reader's feedback and sales figures. (If Dickens was willing to revise his work on a month-to-month basis according to his audience's responses, then I'd imagine that modern-era superhero writers might want to do so too, even given the far more protracted turnaround for today's comics.) Similarly, the conflict that's always present between crafting both the satisfying individual chapter and the accomplished collected edition can be put to use to drive writerly innovation, can inspire new ways in which to keep the audience informed while constantly propelling the narrative forward.
There appears to be the evidence of a writer wrestling with this conflict on the first page of "Secret Six" # 33. For there's a clear break between the storytelling choices used at the end of the previous chapter of "The Darkest Hour" and here, where Scandal Savage's first person narration has been introduced to compliment and ground the events at hand. This in itself is hardly typical in the modern-era superhero book, where such a shift in authorial technique between one chapter and the next is very much the exception rather than the rule. (Perhaps the general assumption is that the reader may be alienated by the introduction of different storytelling approaches from one chapter to another, although a contrary view might be that variety and cleverness would increase the pleasure of the reader's experience.) It seems to be that Gail Simone has here decided to frame the final chapter of this rather complex story in terms of Scandal's emotional response to the disconcertingly absurd and deeply hurtful circumstances surrounding her. In doing so, Ms Simone is explaining to the unfamiliar reader a great deal of why this opening scene is important in terms of Scandal's feelings rather than with reference to any mass of backstory, the repetition of which might weary the reader who's already consumed previous chapters of "The Darkest House".
![]() |
| Wasted space: move the bouquet and the blurb upwards and nothing of visual importance is lost. |
As an approach to snaring the reader's attention through inspiring an empathetic engagement with Scandal's predicament, it's a clever strategy. We're immediately made to understand that something exceptionally shocking and upsetting has occurred to the tale's point-of-view character, and any such awareness inevitably motivates the reader to plough onwards. And as the narration locks the reader emotionally into associating with Scandal, so the next two panels reveal more and more of the physical circumstances informing her situation. The second panel shows her surrounded by her teammates, and the third presents us with both her opponents and something of the stakes for which this conflict is being fought. But the problem is that although the narration inspires both emotion and curiosity, neither the art nor the dialogue functions precisely enough to deliver the bare minimum of the information which the new reader needs to hit the ground running. Much of this results from the problems Mr Calafiore has with presenting the basic information informing the confrontation between Ragdoll and Scandal. For example, there's
![]() |
| Very much not wasted space; a very impressive establishing shot might have been built up around the above as its centre-piece. |
no establishing shot on this page, and so the new reader is quite lost as to the essential business of where the events are occurring and of how the characters spatially relate to each other. It seems obvious that the third panel was the best opportunity for the placing of such an establishing shot, but Mr Calafiore has made a series of choices which make it exceptionally hard for the reader to grasp what's happening on the page. For one thing, Mr Calafiore's decision to arrange his panels in such an unconventional and awkward way makes it hard to the eye to work its way around the page. It's hard to grasp, for example, why Knockout and Ragdoll have been placed in that strange pentagon of a frame, because although their size means that we immediately grasp their importance, the situation they're being pictured fails to carry any sense of why we should be paying attention to them; they dominate this strangely-shaped panel, but the characters are given so much of the space that's available that all context is lost. And although this composition does allow a sense of claustrophobia to be created from the way in which the two leads are crammed over to one side of the page, much of the design is wasted on showing Knockout's garter belt and Ragdoll's knee. In truth, all the visual information that lies beneath Ragdoll's right hand is irrelevant to the meaning of the scene, which stands as a terrible example of wastefulness given that several other panels are crowded and, through absence of space, lacking in clarity and purpose. Indeed, placing Knockout so far out to the left of the page quite disastrously unbalances the composition, because the eye struggles to want to travel back to the last two, disconnected tiny panels placed so oddly one above the other far over to the right. In short, the reader who wants to quickly pick up the essential business of who, where and why on this opening page will first face the challenge of making sense of an unnecessarily turgid design and a confusing lack of transparency.
It's very hard to grasp why Mr Calafiore didn't simply arrange his page in the form of three tiers, with the middle row being used as a panoramic establishing shot. It's certainly difficult to understand why those final two frames stand where they are, given that even the presence of the lone bar of guttering on the page between them sticks out as a mark of compositional clumsiness. For it's difficult not to conclude that the page seems not to have been composed and executed with clarity as its main purpose. And so, there's also a puzzling lack of continuity here. Bane only appears as a hairy shoulder far off to the left of Scandal Savage in panel two's line-up of the Six, but in panel four he's moved right behind his colleagues to stand to Savage's left, having apparently pushed Deadshot quite out of the way. These are, surely, basic and easily recognised and resolved storytelling issues.
This whole matter of the lack of artistic comprehensibility is all the more to be regretted because Ms Simone's script, focusing as it does more on emotion than plot specifics, places a great deal of responsibility upon the art to explain who's present and how they relate to each other. Yet even where the art delivers something of this, the idiosyncrasies of Mr Calafiore's design choices distract the eye and obscure the text's purpose. No-one could deny Mr Calafiore the effort and attention he's paid to the detail of his work, and much of what he presents is energetic to say the least. But without further attention being paid to the basic compositional organisation and structural meaning of his pages, his art work will rarely stand as even the sum of its often-laudable parts.
But there are problems with the transparency of the script too. For example, although Ragdoll declares "This marriage is necessary." in panel 3, there's nothing on the page to indicate who that marriage is to be between. (*1) The reader not already up to scratch with the backstory of "The Darkest House" will be left trying to deduce who's supposed to marrying who. Similarly, Kay is referred to as "the property of my associate" by Bane, but that's not going to help a reader who's only lightly marinated in the history of the Six. Essential information is here delivered in a way that avoids clogging up the page with exposition, but there's a lack of a twist of precision which, to give but one instance, would've made the relationship between Scandal and Kay easier to grasp. Similarly, the adding of the two words "in Hell" to Ragdoll's page-turner of a declaration would've intensified the force of the cliffhanger for a newcomer, while clarifying for them exactly where these events are taking place.
In the end, the question is what would've been lost by making this page just that touch more welcoming to the unfamiliar consumer? As a reader who experiences "Secret Six" in trade form, I was myself quite seriously baffled by this tale, and I had to go back and buy up the preceding issues simply to grasp the basics of what's at stake here. Yet this page was in its fundamental properties remarkably close to carrying those qualities of entertainment, explanation and enticement that we were discussing yesterday. Scandal's narration certainly anchors events in a fascinating and involving manner. There's conflict in play and jeopardy too. And yet, the page remains relatively opaque even to a keen fan of the Six who's as yet only familiar with the last trade paperback collection.With just a touch more attention being given to the neophyte's needs, this page could've retained all of its potential and achievement - there's a clear and intense air of threat and loss radiating from these panels - while adding the storytelling clarity which the casual, and sometimes the not-so-casual, reader requires.
*1:- This reader thought at first that Ragdoll was insisting Scandal Savage should marry her dead ex-lover, given that Merkel appears to be offering Knockout's hand rather than claiming it for himself. In fact, the matter of who's getting married to whom isn't clarified until page 11.
to be continued, though probably not until after a return to "Why I Hate The Bat-Man";
.







I've never read an issue of Secret Six so, as a newbie, this confusing page doesn't grab me at all. But then, that's probably not the writer's intention.
ReplyDeleteThe ( relatively recent ) problem of writing for serialisation vs writing for trades seems to defeat even the most competent of writers, and I have it on trust that Ms. Simone is one of those.
I do wonder, however, how today's comics writers would cope with the old "Funnies" format of the Golden Age of newspaper strips, when creators were churning out weekly and Sunday strips, week in, week out. Bill Watterson, a more recent practitioner of this arcane art had this to say on the subject of Sunday strips:
"The daily strips were sold separately to the Sunday strips, and newspapers did not always buy both. Consequently, readers might be seeing the whole story, all of the story except this strip, or this strip and none of the story. Thus, the challenge for me was to make this strip integral to the plot, yet entirely self-sufficient, yet utterly expendable."
Phew! Headache time!
Hello Mr C:- I think your first point is a key one; just looking at this first page, is it likely to appeal to readers new to the property? Now, take that principle too far and every book ends up looking safe and too much like every other comic too. But there is such a thing as being individual without alienating and I can't help but feel that the lack of a comprehensible sense of design leaves the uncommitted reader feeling excluded from the first moment. (It shouldn't be MY job to remember to move my gaze across the page from Knockout over to the cliffhanger. That should be assured. Where does the eye go from Knockout? To Ragdoll, to his words, to the text above her garter?) That doesn't mean that the page is without virtue at all. It's energetic, it's forceful, the facial expressions are very much intended to carry the script's meaning. But the lack of an informing grammar, the sense that this is a page which has been constructed as a pattern rather than as a purposeful design alienates readers, I'm sure, before the content of the page even registers. If we pick up a book where we recognise the author and find the first page is in a foreign language we don't recognise, we put it back. And the Secret Six is a great book with fine scripts and it deserves to be positioned in such a way as to attract folks such as yourself who recognise good work and would be willing to give a new thang a try.
ReplyDeleteWhy would comics be making it harder for themselves in such a difficult time? I know I couldn't recommend this issue to someone who isn't very much a comic book reader simply because the art is so crowded, lacking in clear panel-to-panel continuity and even missing the helpfulness of establishing shots. It's all energy and very little structure. It escapes me why this should be so.
Or perhaps it isn't and I'm quite wrong. Yet I'm a fan of Secret Six and I can't find, for example, an excuse for the almost-quarter of the first page here which was simply wasted space.
Watterson's quote is SO appropriate. I keep coming across comics - none of them as well written as Ms Simone's - where even the imperative to write transparently is missing. In the absence of that ambition to communicate is a genuine threat to what's left of the industry. Who'd watch TV if the very act of doing so was so demanding and confusing? There'd be a small hardcore who enjoyed such a situation, but the mass audience would simply bleed away.
Headache time indeed.
I wish we could have Nicola Scott back. Instead, she's drawing Teen Titans for JT Krul! I guess I can understand why they want to have two comics with one good creator and one bad one, one them rather than one good book with tow good creators, but of course I don't appreciate it at all!
ReplyDeleteI actually don't remember being very focused on the first page though, whether trade or issue. Perhaps it's just me. In general of course I don't much agree with your first paragraph, but I will wait until I can think of a more thoughtful and thorough way to conceal my disagreement. I do appreciate that you addressed the matter, though.
Oh, and I loved the first "Why I Hate the Bat-Man" and I am definitely looking forward to more of it. I already knew, from some of the more honest recently analysis as well as my brief exposure to the early work itself, that the "original Batman" never existed as such, but it's definitely a theme worth expanding on.
One thing about this current arc keeps bugging me. And thats can New Gods even end up in DC's convoluted Hell?
ReplyDeleteHello Carl:- I too miss Nicola Scott's work, and now you mention it, I must go check out that Titans book. I really feel I ought to go and give JTK's work a second look now he's got a few more months experience under his belt.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why it is that artists are allocated tasks are they are. Some of course can pick and choose where they go, but of those without such power in the marketplace, it would be interesting to know why X ends up at Y. Still, I do find it hard to believe that there's a limited a pool of creators as appears to be. 360 million Americans, six and a half billion others? I sometimes wonder if the companies are paying enough or looking hard enough.
On that first paragraph: I thought I ought to see if I could state my beliefs re: that issue in one paragraph, which I could then reference in future rather than ALWAYS going on. (They're will be SOMETIMES-going on occuring yet!) And I thought about doing so, because good folks have expressed strong disagreement with the point. Then I recalled listening to Gore Vidal speak at London's South Bank - one of my favourite ever experiences of sitting in an audience for anything! - and disagreeing with just about everything he said. That was especially so about the last War and about his analysis for what he saw as America's corruption. Yet disagreeing with him didn't make me want to listen to him less or admire his writing less. Now Gore Vidal is a great and I'm a lil'blogger, but it always helps to remember that being right isn't the point so much as commiting to an arguement which might need some discussing. I have a bookshelf of GV's books and rarely a month goes by when I don't re-read a series of his essays; in that he's a great inspiration not to try to be safe. Being wrong isn't so bad, I guess, and I do hope that my own awareness of how conditional my position is comes through.
Thank you for the generous words about that Batman piece. I'm finishing off the second piece now and I find I'm really enjoying it. I would love to write that Bat-Man, because he's like nothing else I know. He's not a pulp hero - despite the received truths - he's not a superhero, he's not even particularly sane in several essential ways.
But I appreciate your kind words. I rarely get comments which I feel I have to delete when discussing anything other race and gender, but there were several extremely dismissive/unpleasantly irritated comments about that piece. I can't imagine that anyone would care, can you?
Hello LurkerWithout:- that's a point well worth the considering. I must admit, I'd never imagine that Kirby's New Gods would end up sharing the same afterlife as we ordinary mortals. That just doesn't feel right, does it? At the least, I'd imagine the New Gods had their own area of the afterlife, as the heroes of Ancient Greece and Rome had in their myths and legends.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the romance between Knockout and Scandal is such a powerful business that I've no objection at all - quite the opposite - to see the two of them meet again. But still, it's all a matter worth thinking about. It really is.
'Who'd watch TV if the very act of doing so was so demanding and confusing? There'd be a small hardcore who enjoyed such a situation, but the mass audience would simply bleed away.'
ReplyDeleteEars are burning again...
Nah, I'm with you this time, the page layout is awkward as hell (heh). You make a good point that something is lost, once making pretty or novel patterns with panels takes precedence over laying out a page with purpose. But the fact is that these patterns aren't especially particularly pretty or novel, so the page falls down on that count too.
And that lone bar of guttering drives me MAD. There should be that sort of guttering throughout, not those thin black frames that are neither one thing nor t'other, and that aren't distinctive enough from the darker tones throughout the page.
Immersing the reader is fine, but homogeneous colour palette PLUS odd panel layout PLUS full bleed PLUS figure protruding from one panel into another PLUS black panel borders instead of guttering (with one awkward exception) creates a page with the shortcomings of all of these techniques and the advantages of none.
Alex S
Hello Alex:- well, no Rotter's Club for you this time!
ReplyDeleteI remain baffled at how the culture which permits these fripperies manages to maintain itself. Pages such as this as clearly not going to work, they're the equivalent of playing a song out of tune. It can't ever work, it can only be at best an approximation of how the work is SUPPOSED TO BE.
But obviously no-one thought so, which does make me feel that the CCC is so powerful that common sense and craft carry as much weight as satellite data at a flat-earthers convention.
It's a shame, and especially for Ms Simone's script, which contains some very good material, But it's also a shame for Mr Calafiore too, because someone ought to be giving their creators some useful feedback too.
Or is that presumptuous, to expect such feedback to take place?
A good read once again, Colin: thank you. I've read none of the comics you've dissected over the past few days--really, none of the attendant series, either--so I have no stake in any of this, but I'm finding your insights very interesting nonetheless. Certainly your observations throw light on the likely source of my continued frustration when it comes to what's supposed to be the cream of the current Marvel crop--Agents of Atlas, Secret Avengers, Abnett's and Lanning's cosmic comics, etc. Despite the incredible advances in colouring, paper stock, even (and this is moving on to more contentious terrain, I concede) intricacies of linework and dialogue, I find myself more liable to pick up an old copy of Marvel Team-Up when I want some solid reading pleasure in the midst of childcare duty.
ReplyDelete(An aside, if I may. Really, any recent installment of Thor vs. that old Marvel Fanfare issue with the Warriors Three? Not even a contest! John Buscema literally going to town, starting with a bar brawl and then proceeding through Brooklyn. The plot, meanwhile--Len Wein's? Archie Goodwin's? I forget--picks up characters like lint: it's a veritable marvel of storytelling concision, almost like somebody compressed the entirety of Star Wars into just 17 pages.)
Crossing over from When Will The Hurting Stop, and also keeping in mind the quite excellent postings done recently on Jim Shooter's website on storytelling basics, a pattern begins to emerge. Which is amusing, I suppose, given your misgivings about the overall effect of the Shooter retrenchment, as I think you have called it on more than one occasion. Still and all! Perhaps it's possible to be a staunch conservative in regards to matters of craft while remaining as open-hearted as can be when it comes to what that craft may be harnessed to express.
I'm not sure if my last comment made it through. I hope it did, because it was a long one, I was quite pleased with it, and I'd rather not try to wrack my brains figuring out what I'd just said. If my comment didn't make it to you Colin, please let me know and I'll try again.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, if it did make it to you, then there's no need to publish THIS post explaining myself.
Hello Taneli:- thank you for such a kind and thought-provoking comment. My best to you :)
ReplyDelete"...I find myself more liable to pick up an old copy of Marvel Team-Up when I want some solid reading pleasure in the midst of childcare duty."
I do know exactly what you mean. There's so often a triumph of surface over craft in today's books that stories are both thin and uninvolving. Such a mixture of negative qualities produces a fatal brew, for a reader might be at least interested in a book which was a quick read and yet an intense and involving one too. But without a command of structure, and of craft and pop and all those words I keep over-using for want of alternatives, what's there to be excited about. I find your example of MTU telling, because it was often seen at the time as a minor book, as an example of fun disconnected from continuity, and yet there were a host of genuinely enjoyable stories in that book, the reading of which might occupy more than just 2 minutes story-time. I'd agree too with your mention of craftsmen such as Archie Goodwin, Len Wein and John Buscema, where regardless of one's engagement with any single piece of work, a good time was guaranteed for all. I sometimes feel that if the reader isn't grabbed by the headline, cross-line meaning of a book today, the whole experience becomes somewhat .... well, irrelevant, really. And that matter of 17 page stories is something we'll be returning to on this blog in the near future too :)
On the "Shooter retrenchment", which I have a suspicion I did use a good few times, but which I probably picked up somewhere else; there's a rule that any phrase a blogger thinks they came up with was first generated elsewhere! I think the point you raise, and the quandary you suggest, is ABSOLUTELY pertinent. I do think that Shooter seems to have confused as the years of his leadership passed on CLEAR STORYTELLING with SHOOTER'S OPINION. As a result, folks who might have flourished under his regime were alienated because of the lack of space to follow their own stars. And yet, there's no doubt that he was right about craft. No doubt at all. And his time was marked by at least four of the best superhero books of all time too, including the radical X-Men, DD and Thor tales of Claremont/Byrne, Miller & Simonson.
The truth was that Marvel was in a terrible state when JS took over. The question is whether he had to alienate so many creators to stabilise the situation, and I very much doubt that. But the principles he introduced needed restating, just as the Quesdada revolution of '00 needed putting into place. Yet all revolutions quickly become in need of overthrowing, don't they, and the JQ model has become as stifling as the JS had.
But I am absolutely with you on the question of craft and expression. Folks get to be radical experimental storytellers when they can produce transparent, highly competent pages. 20 years of teaching taught me that achievement is based on a mastery of the details of competence, and it's a remarkable aspect of the present day that such seems to be a discredited point of view.
Thank you for your comment. I hope you might forgive my rambling, but that's often how I work out my thinking!
Hello Isaac:- thank you for popping in, and I'm SO sorry that your comment didn't appear over here. I find that SO frustrating, because I do appreciate the fact that folks are generous in swapping ideas here, and so I am sorry about the situation. It's happening too often and I'd hate for anyone to think that I was somehow not responding to comments made in general.
ReplyDeleteMy best to you, Isaac. I realise that there's a great deal to do in a day beyond writing a comment again, but your words are always welcome here, I do assure you.
Well, the main reason I didn't try again was in hopes that my comment got through, AND I needed to hit the hay. I've got a spare couple of minutes, so I'll see if I can recall the broad strokes of what I wrote.
ReplyDeleteI defended JT Krul, as the current Teen Titans writer, who did an amazing job with taking up the reins of a series that had been decimated by the previous writer (who now gets to write her favourite character, Static, a reward that strikes me as bizzare considering her tenure as possibly the LEAST capable comic writer I'd ever read), defending also the movement of Scott as artist from Secret Six to Teen Titans, arguing that the Titans (what should be a flagship DC title) had been brought to such a low rock bottom point that EVEN the DC guys in charge would take notice and effect a positive change, meanwhile the Secret Six, a relatively niche title, would remain at approximately the same quality (or at least sales figures) while still being written by Simone, and so long as no big name writers (such as Morrison) got it into their head that they wanted to use Bain or Catman or whomever in their books.
So there was that point, and also a point wondering about a percieved story telling illiteracy by a good crop of current artists that rely entirely on writerly direction (doubly dangerous when those same writers aren't fully story literate themselves).
I said something like "It both saddens and relieves me that more artists don't take up the writers pen, or generally master their story telling language. Saddens because there's less quality on the shelves, and relieves because as a writer who will never make his mark on the world through his drawing skills I'm natually terrified of the superman that can both write AND draw."
Naturally I listed some obvious examples (the only ones I could think of) Jurgens, Giffens, Kirby, Eisner. Oh, and Simonson- how'd I forget that guy the first time through?
Oh, and also I'd talked about how I met JT Krul at a convention last august, and how he convinced me personally to give his issues of Titans a try, via his obvious concern for the craft of the book, and yes, through his super niceness.
And now I'll just control copy this post- just in case...
Hello Isaac:- well, bless you for responding to my point that I wanted to check Mr Krul’s work, because what you’ve written just makes me want to go and do just that. The Teen Titans is a property I gave up on a very long time again, but I retain my fondness for the book and I’ll follow your recommendation. (The Teen Titans along with the X-Men during the late Sixties were two of the comics I would hunt through jumble sales for.)
ReplyDelete“I defended JT Krul, as the current Teen Titans writer, who did an amazing job with taking up the reins of a series that had been decimated by the previous writer (who now gets to write her favourite character, Static, a reward that strikes me as bizzare considering her tenure as possibly the LEAST capable comic writer I'd ever read)”
I know nought of the previous writer. When I looked the matter up, I’d not even come across the writer’s name, which shows how far out of the loop I am in Titans-land. Yet I will say that the allocation of opportunity in comics-land has long been a source of bafflement over here at TooBusyThinking
“defending also the movement of Scott as artist from Secret Six to Teen Titans, arguing that the Titans (what should be a flagship DC title) had been brought to such a low rock bottom point that EVEN the DC guys in charge would take notice and effect a positive change”
Did Ms Scott go straight from SS to TT? Gosh. Well, I can understand the logic of trying to maximize sales across the line, but it does raise the question again of why there seem to be so few folks whose work is competent enough to pass muster.
“meanwhile the Secret Six, a relatively niche title, would remain at approximately the same quality (or at least sales figures) while still being written by Simone, and so long as no big name writers (such as Morrison) got it into their head that they wanted to use Bain or Catman or whomever in their books.”
Who’d be a writer on a non-line-leading book? Ms Simone was discussing the fact that she didn’t get to choose the line-up of BOP when it was relaunched on Twitter recently. I’m staggered …..
”I said something like "It both saddens and relieves me that more artists don't take up the writers pen, or generally master their story telling language. Saddens because there's less quality on the shelves, and relieves because as a writer who will never make his mark on the world through his drawing skills I'm natually terrified of the superman that can both write AND draw."”
I retain baffled by this resistance to learning the craft. But I think back to my days as a student teacher, for example, and I can recall that no-one sat me down and said “start with a, b and c”. It’s as if there’s a cultural resistance against the idea of both teaching and learning the basics.
”Naturally I listed some obvious examples (the only ones I could think of) Jurgens, Giffens, Kirby, Eisner. Oh, and Simonson- how'd I forget that guy the first time through?”
Giffen is an interesting example, isn’t he, in that he dropped out, reworked his style and ended up with a style so transparent and yet individual that he’s a much respected layout artist in addition to a creator of work that’s 100% his.
”Oh, and also I'd talked about how I met JT Krul at a convention last august, and how he convinced me personally to give his issues of Titans a try, via his obvious concern for the craft of the book, and yes, through his super niceness.”
And those are the moments which only hearing from someone else will deliver, by which I mean that that’s not the kind of thing which tends to get in the press, but which does mean a great deal all the same. I will definitely be acting on your recommendation.
Thanks for persevering with your comment. I hope the day has been a kind one, Blogger aside, for you.