That Stubble

McCloud in his piece, literally stated that the less detail that a cartoon has, the more people can connect with it. "By stripping down an image to it's essential meaning (by simplifying it), an artist can amplify that meaning in a way that realistic art can't" (McCloud 30). I saw that as, if I was going to draw a cartoon on something like the Holocaust for example, I would make sure that my characters would be drawn in a simple way. Essentially, I would try to make it look not like a sketch of a character but a simple drawing with minimal details. By doing that, people would be able to relate to the characters themselves more, but..what about "Arab in America"?

What about "Arab in America"? It's a memoir in a graphic novel format. The reason I'm bringing up is because the cartoons involved in the memoir are actually really detailed compared to a more simpler design of cartoon as found in "Persepolis". Being really detailed one would think that it would be harder to relate with, wrong. People find the story not only relatable but in some cases even MORE relatable than "Persepolis". Personally, I favor "Persepolis" but is there a gender bias involved?

The majority of people that I noticed had related to "Arab in America" were men. I am not a man (thought I should state it just in case you didn't see my name). The protagonist in "Persepolis" is a female, while the protagonist in "Arab in America" is a male, scruff and all. Both graphic novels are in black and white entirely with a color book cover. What's funny is that in Persepolis, there is never a specific color designated for skin. Every character is white. However, in "Arab in America" the same thing happens but on the cover of the book, the protagonist is in full color. The protagonist was given dark-medium tan skin compared to "Persepolis" where the character still has the white skin she has in the book.

I don't believe that race has anything to do with people relating to one story more than another since the men or people in general that related to the "Arab in America" were of mixed races. If anything I believe that there might be a gender bias since more girls related to the story with the female protagonist compared to the male one. McCloud says, "The cartoon is a vacuum into which our identity and awareness are pulled..an empty shell that we inhabit which enables us to travel in another realm. We don't just observe the cartoon, we become it!" (McCloud 36).  If you were to read that quote, it would explain why I wouldn't personally relate to "Arab in America", however many of the people in the class that could did not look like the character portrayed. Is it because we look for key features in the people we relate to? Do I as a female look for girls with long hair and eyelashes? Do men look for characters with features such as stubble or bushy eyebrows? 

McCloud says, "Who I am (as a cartoon) is irrelevant. I'm just a little piece of you" (McCloud 37). If a cartoon is just a little piece of me well then NO WONDER why I didn't relate to "Arab" but if that's the case, then how did so many people STILL relate to it, even though there weren't any basic similarities (that I could tell from my basic observation). Do tiny details like scruff really help someone relate to a character? I believe this topic is something that could be solved if I was to begin a psychological research study, but for now the best I can do is think that: People see themselves a certain way, and when they see a cartoon that has elements in which they can relate too, they have an easier time connecting with that character in particular. Sometimes, the thing they can relate too could also be a personality trait that would be able to cross gender barriers like a stubborn person--it's not gender exclusive. 


McCloud, Scott. “The Vocabulary of Comics.” In Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. 24-45.