McCloud's Comic - Audience

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?

Grand Style isn't always Greatness

In On the Sublime, “Longinus” argues that greatness and sublimity are not always found in the grand style or “turgidity” of speech. He suggests that it is instead found in words or speech that connect with an audience and cause a profound emotional reaction. 

“Turgidity,” according to the Collins English Dictionary, is the “quality or state of being pompous and high-flown or bombastic” in regards to language. In our terms, it is associated with using Latinate language in a way that invites scrutiny because it is out of place. “Longinus” agrees that turgidity, though, is a “hard fault to avoid” because speakers are naturally inclined to “escape the charge of weakness” which may be caused by using common speech. However, he says that, like tumors, turgidity is bad, and “may well bring us the opposite result” that the speaker intended (348). From what I understand, turgidity and the “grand style” suggested in the introduction go hand in hand according to Longinus’ understanding of the surrounding public’s opinion. He offers a theory that is at odds with that opinion by connecting “greatness” with the audience’s “elevated” emotional connection with the speaker’s subject (354, 358). 

Longinus' 5 Steps

Longinus’ On the Sublime shows how a discourse, in a text book style, can be made sublime, “a kind of eminence or excellence of discourse” (Longinus, 347). The question I have is can there be perfect discourses within an imperfect language/can an orator really communicate with their audience perfectly?

Longinus gives steps to achieve such sublime discourse in his essay, with five steps:

i.                    The power to achieve great thoughts

ii.                  Strong and inspired emotion

iii.                Noble diction

iv.                Dignified and elevated word-arrangement  
v.         Competence in speaking is assumed as a common foundation for all five; nothing is possible without it (Longinus, 350)  

Longinus suggests, “real sublimity contains much food for reflection, is difficult or rather impossible to resist, and makes a strong and indefectible impression on the memory” (Longinus, 350). If an orator is to achieve this “real sublimity” then there must be a way to communicate with their audience to some extent. However, Longinus is not concerned with communication. Rather, he is more concerned with presentation in his five steps to obtain sublimity.  

On the Sublime/ McCloud

I had trouble understanding this piece, in part because I'm no great scholar in Grecian epic story-telling and also because a lot of the text was lost or based off unknown literature.

What was interesting to me though is that this article was remarkably concerned with audience reaction for when it was written. It reminded me of our discussions about who has agency, or if multiple people can have agency over the same text, or if the text itself wields some type of nonsentient agency, etc. There is no doubt that Longinus believes the author has superior agency over a text but the fact the text's effectiveness is derived from its level of sublimity confuses the matter of agency a lot. He defines sublimity as "a kind of eminence or excellence of discourse." It is partially a characteristic someone must be born with but the artistry (the fine-tuning of it) comes as a practiced skill. He believes that in order to speak this way you have to be experienced with high and weighty thoughts; you must visualize appropriately and imitate the greats (within reason). Where is the agency in that? It doesn't seem like it would be within the author because is is implied that practically everyone after Homer is just putting their own spin on Homer; the originality is ceaselessly in question. Even Homer becomes suspect with the Odyssey where he becomes to narrative and mannerly for Longinus. That leads me to believe agency is within each text.

Sublimity's Effect on Modern Society

Longinus’s piece, “From On the Sublime” is a literary critique set to help its audience better discern what is adherently right and wrong with certain types of writing.  In his writing, Longinus deals with several genre’s of text ranging from rhetorical speaking to poetry, specifically the importance of control a writer has on his work.  In this journal entry I hope to dig deeper into Longinus’s theory in an effort to better understand how and if his literary critique is relevant in today’s writing world.

Right away Longinus states that a text must fulfill two requirements. “[A text] should explain what its subject is...” and “... Is should explain how and by what methods we can achieve [the message that the text is trying to convey]” (Longinus 346).  These two fulfillments are crucial in helping a piece of writing achieve what he calls, “the sublime.”  Longinus later defines this sublimity as, “... A kind of eminence or excellence of discourse,” perfection in writing.  It is the writers responsibility to become disciplined enough to not fall into the trap that is non subliminal literature.  Subliminal writing comes through a set of man created rules created with the intent to create not only more morally correct writing, but also writing that was rhetorically correct.  The importance of rhetorical correctness is valuable because, “persuasion is on the whole something we can control.”  (Longinus 347).

As I continued to read his piece I noticed that the concept of control began to show up as a recurring theme.

McCloud, Persepolis, and El Rassi

In "The vocabulary of Comics", McCloud gives us the idea that "an icon is an image used to represent a person, place, thing, or idea" (McCloud, 27). He goes on to say that symbols are a subcategory off icons that are more complex. He uses the example of a cartoon to tell about how icons and symbols are simplified. The idea that cartoons are simplified down to their basic core appearance allows the audience to identify with the character and become one with the cartoon. He claims that by the cartoon being striped down and simple, the audience is able to identify more with the cartoon and, in a way, see ourselves in it. It is surprising how this idea is supported and contrasted in many different types of comics. It is clear in our class case studies that McCloud's theory about basic comics is not always used to get the audience to identify with the story or character.

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?

From On the Sublime

I am going to try something a little different with this discussion post since Dr. Graban said we should try to dig deeper in thought and not just give a summary of the reading.  As I was reading the text “From On the Sublime” where Longinus talked about thought, great thoughts, and natural greatness, I was wondering about the various process for achieving the greatness of thought.

I myself have taken a poetic technique as well as an Article and Essay Technique class and in both classes I learned how to achieve great though in two ways. In poetry class I learned that the greatness of thought is achieved by being in a relaxed state of mind, out in the public with minimal noise and distractions, but interesting actions and reactions that are happening constantly so that the thought process is achieve, and it’s achieved when the thought comes to mind. In my Article and Essay Technique class it was taught to me by reading and relaxing, but also commenting or talking back to the author, which would help trigger ideas that were already there, but needed to be fostered into action.