McCloud’s "Vocabulary of Comics" is, in itself, a clever blend
of both aesthetically appealing (generalized and relatable) comics as well as a
vast informational source of interpreting the very sort of text that it is
comprised of. This purposeful choice of the producer serves perfectly in
expressing the key cogs of the comic, but has also served as the source from
where I have drawn some comparisons between McCloud’s assertions of the comic
(and it’s functions) and the relationship between the text and the audience.
McCloud essentially states that because of the anonymity (or the generalized image of himself, rather than the detailed – more realistic – image) of his basically drawn narrator, the audience is more likely to connect, see themselves in the character and ultimately see the text as more credible. “Apart from what I told you about myself in chapter one, I’m practically a blank slate … I’m just a little voice inside your head. A concept … You give me life by reading this book and by “filling up” this iconic (cartoony) form … Who I am is irrelevant. I’m just a little piece of you … but if who I am is matters less, maybe what I say will matter more” (McCloud, 37). Can the same be said about characters in text-only productions, like novels?
One could argue that a less-detailed character to follow in a novel could serve the exact opposite; a less interesting and credible relationship between the audience and the text. In the case of our class text, Persepolis by Satrapi– we can see this specific tool in work; as the depiction of our narrator is quite simple and is notable lacking in color. This choice itself (in both texts – El Rassi’s as well as Satrapi’s) to not add the element of color along with the very basic depictions in Persepolis, allows the audience to connect to the narrator and the story on a much more intimate and emotional level. This allows the audience to become emotionally attached to the characters, emphasizing with them as the story progresses.
McCloud makes certain declarations of self-awareness, specifically noting the difference between vivid detail and general placement when two people are facing each other and having a conversation. He states that “When two people interact, they usually look directly at one another, seeing their partner’s features in vivid detail” (McCloud, 35). This makes sense. McCloud then also states (comparatively) that “Each one also sustains a constant awareness of his or her own face, but this mind-picture is not nearly so vivid; just a sketchy arrangement… a sense of shape… a sense of general placement” (McCloud, 36). Can this same comparison be made to audiences and the texts that they are interpreting? For example, an audience is viewing a text. The audience sees the vivid detail of the text in front of them whilst simultaneously having a perception of their own cognitive self- one that according to McCloud’s description – is not completely accurate, and would be considered the general placement. This makes me wonder whether the vivid detail (whether a person in front of us, or a text in front of us) can directly influence the perception of the general placement of our own selves.
McCloud essentially states that because of the anonymity (or the generalized image of himself, rather than the detailed – more realistic – image) of his basically drawn narrator, the audience is more likely to connect, see themselves in the character and ultimately see the text as more credible. “Apart from what I told you about myself in chapter one, I’m practically a blank slate … I’m just a little voice inside your head. A concept … You give me life by reading this book and by “filling up” this iconic (cartoony) form … Who I am is irrelevant. I’m just a little piece of you … but if who I am is matters less, maybe what I say will matter more” (McCloud, 37). Can the same be said about characters in text-only productions, like novels?
One could argue that a less-detailed character to follow in a novel could serve the exact opposite; a less interesting and credible relationship between the audience and the text. In the case of our class text, Persepolis by Satrapi– we can see this specific tool in work; as the depiction of our narrator is quite simple and is notable lacking in color. This choice itself (in both texts – El Rassi’s as well as Satrapi’s) to not add the element of color along with the very basic depictions in Persepolis, allows the audience to connect to the narrator and the story on a much more intimate and emotional level. This allows the audience to become emotionally attached to the characters, emphasizing with them as the story progresses.
McCloud makes certain declarations of self-awareness, specifically noting the difference between vivid detail and general placement when two people are facing each other and having a conversation. He states that “When two people interact, they usually look directly at one another, seeing their partner’s features in vivid detail” (McCloud, 35). This makes sense. McCloud then also states (comparatively) that “Each one also sustains a constant awareness of his or her own face, but this mind-picture is not nearly so vivid; just a sketchy arrangement… a sense of shape… a sense of general placement” (McCloud, 36). Can this same comparison be made to audiences and the texts that they are interpreting? For example, an audience is viewing a text. The audience sees the vivid detail of the text in front of them whilst simultaneously having a perception of their own cognitive self- one that according to McCloud’s description – is not completely accurate, and would be considered the general placement. This makes me wonder whether the vivid detail (whether a person in front of us, or a text in front of us) can directly influence the perception of the general placement of our own selves.
McCloud, Scott. “The Vocabulary of Comics.” In Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. 24-45.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.