textual media

The story of afternoon starts with the narrator saying ” I want to say I may have seen my son die this morning.” then the narrator starts what I think is him flashing back to the past and reminiscing about an event that occurred in the past. then the story seems to focus back into the present because he starts taking about seeing her car not far from where there son attends school. There he saw bodies laying on the ground but just continued to drive off. This sounded really bizarre to me, a normal human being despite whatever the circumstance would have stopped to make sure that his wife and child were okay or that they weren’t involved in the accident. After a few frames when he is at a dinner with his co-worker he asks him why didn’t you just stop or turn around and find out if it was them. After a few frames of text we see that the narrator goes to his son’s school to find out whether he attended school that day, and from there we find out that the author is in fact divorced. We also find out that his ex-wife has a new lover and has moved on with her life unlike himself. You could see a hint of resentment to the new man in her life and from the way he talks about her you can tell that he still cares. The circumstances by which they broke up has not yet come to light, there is some hint to an indiscretion on the wife’s part. The narrator has some proof that his son and his ex-wife were inolved in the accident that morning, but it seems that he is more worried about what people will think about him if it isnt true. Thats why I dont understand why he does not go to the hospitals and see if they were there.

The story stopped there for me, when he decided against going to the hospital. After that it just started getting confusing. Who’s Penelope and what does she have to with the story? I really did enjoy this interactive fiction story because it flowed for me…. It did not require for me to type the commands.

Understanding Comics, pages 138-215

First I wanted to comment on what one student said yesterday—that for Japan comics to be “real” comics and not inferior, they could not use color, I did not know that and found that very interesting—could that also be why nearly 95% of this book is in black and white? One note on page 152, the author suggests both words and pictures can have great powers when authors exploit them both. The six steps are noted on page 170 as: idea/purpose, form, idiom, structure, craft and surface. I must say chapter 8 was my favorite chapter; while I do not mind reading about comics or comics themselves say in a newspaper, I think the medium has a part to play with how you read this book. Knowing that there are colors at the end makes me very interested in the ending; whereas when you read a newspaper (in the old days) many of the comics were black and white and the newspaper itself as a grayish color where as this book’s background is typically stark white. On page 188 it states the color began to symbolize the character, such as blue with Superman or blue/yellow with Wolverine, I find this very true—from the earliest days when I saw some X-Men comics, Wolverine had always been dressed in a yellow and blue costume. When the series came out as a cartoon on television, Wolverine had a different costume, this time brown and an orange color. I would have preferred it to stay the same, what I always had known. The juxtaposition of b&w and color on page 192 is very good example that helps to express his key points and ideas. For the final pages of the book, after reviewing the Buffy comic book, I think more contemporary comic books follow the sequential art theme; however, the “Mous” comic book also inherited some of the traits, such as the various spacing between the slides and how the gutter is used. However, with the Buffy comic, one could clearly see all sorts of sequential art and use of the gutter that was not typical of older comics, particularly “Mous,” which was the first comic book we reviewed.

Jason Nelson, The Bomar Gene and game, game, game and again game

I have reviewed and written a paper or blog about the Bomar gene previously; so I will not say too much about it. Much of it was revealed and discussed in one of the English 325 recitations or classes in reference to what it actually meant—however, that was a while ago—so I do not want to reveal what I think I know, as it may not be very accurate as it occurred a while ago.

Regarding Game, Game, Game and Again Game.

Unlike the Bomar Gene, we have some nice clear instructions and an about and it suggests you read them before starting, well sound advice indeed! The game was interesting, different music tracks for each level but I felt like I wanted to complete and win the game and that is what I focused on; however, I did notice when you progress in the game lots of words and phrases pop up in various places. My first and obvious question though is what is icon/sprite that “you” are in this game supposed to represent? To me, the sprite resembles a hairball. I did click one of the bull’s-eye buttons that said “click here” and it plays an embedded video within the flash medium itself. I finished it and I like how it ends, with cold-hard reality in the line at the bottom—but the comment at the top right, I am not sure what the author is portraying there. At the end you are also presented with a video “Possible Evolution,” the words “LARGE WINNINGS” are shown above it—so, well, I clicked this one. The author is filming potatoes and glasses; he is talking like a vampire or something and talking about orange juice. Then he starts playing with some seeds, he makes a mess, they fall all over his kitchen floor. Two of the seeds or one of them goes into the freezer, all which is left of their species. When that is happening, you also see the author likes multi-grain bread in the freezer, certainly an odd video. It is supposed to be the story of life.

Understanding Comics presents an interesting take on not only understanding comics themselves but in understanding literature as a whole, be it visual or textual.  In defining what comics are at their absolute basic level we find that a sequence of images can illicit worlds of information and have quite interesting implications in their application, notably: is it a temporal sequence being viewed?  Or is it something entirely different?  McCloud suggests a necessarily chronological basis to comics, which is fair enough.  But viewing them as a whole, a collection of images on a page we find that our natural inclination is to associate images along a certain path, be they related thematically or not.  These visual assumptions again cloud our reading of more conventional literature and have great implications on some of the new media that has been read thus far in this course, notably with Afternoon wherein each successive screen is very ambiguously related to the one before it but as a more broadly thematical, plot-driven piece the reader can find certain inalienable truths within each screen, connecting each whether they deserve to be or not.  McCloud again deconstructs the visual language of comics to such a degree that his musings on hyroglyphics seems to bleed into a discourse on textual media in general, with words associated with other words by what we might deem a sort of correct or correct-sounding commonality.  This again comes back to the Jabberwocky Engine very early in the course, where words are created strictly from these rules that McCloud hints at.  This discussion, packaged in what can be considered a sort of “base” literary form, leads to a very interesting discourse on language and the language of images.  We all ultimately become some form of synaesthete with the appearance of words on the page, and helping to bridge the gap between symbol and text we can better understand the English language.

When I first bought this book, I wasn’t quite sure how it would relate with our class. I briefly flipped through the pages and wondered why we would even study comics in class. Even my sisters laughed when they saw the book, joking about how I just wasted money on a comic book, but I brushed them off and stored the book away until we needed it.

I remember having comic books as a child (mostly Marvel comic books), but never really got too much into it (because they had cartoons on tv), other than the fascination with the drawings (I loved drawing). Scott McCloud’s book, Understanding Comics, on the other hand is surprisingly quite an interesting read. Rather than using the typical book structure form to present his side/take on comics and the media, he uses the comic structure to produce a very creative book. You almost forget that you’re reading a book because the way it’s presented, which I enjoyed because it made it less boring and entertaining. He includes some witty remarks and humor in the book to make it more fun to read, which eventually keeps you turning the page.

His explanation of assumption in chapter 3 forced me to think ‘outside of the box’ and made me think of things I never thought about. His explanation of how we as society are quick to assume, even though we aren’t completely sure and not guaranteed anything, is a great examplanation of his term ‘closure’. He says all of our perception is an “act of faith,” which I agree with, but I guess never really thought about. Afterall, I guess I do assume things are there, even if I don’t see it with my own eyes. I guess our minds can automatically generate closure through what we percieve and assume on a daily basis, even if it’s an incomplete observation.

Understanding Comics forces the reader to think outside of his or her comfort zone and look at things differently. It’s creative and humorous way of presenting ideas of language, closure, and the basic understanding of comics has kept me as a reader interested and laughing along the way.

Chapter three touched on a reoccurring theme in this class: the reader’s desire for closure. However, the author didn’t just focus on closure in the sense of story’s end, he also examined human ability to “fill in the gaps” when looking at an incomplete image, and tying that back into human symbolic capacity.

This chapter is useful because it can be applied to just about any form of story telling. With comics, there is a spin on the idea of ‘showing not telling,’ since comics are primarily made up of images (I imagine it’d be quite difficult to tell instead of showing). With comics, it is more of a question of: “How much do I need to show?” In a lot of actions movies made today it seems like the directors try to compensate a weak plot or flat characters by putting in a lot of explosions and really graphic sex/violence. But after the smoke clears there is little resonance and no one cares anymore.

Any good story telling—no matter what the medium—is going to rely to some extent on the reader’s ability to “fill in the gutter.” It forces the reader to commit to the story and become an active participant instead of just a passive observer. This is basically what Hemingway was doing with his ‘iceberg technique.’ I believe this participation leads to a story’s resonance more than anything else.

Along the same lines, on pages 84-85, McCloud tells the same story four times using a different number of panels each time. In all four cases, the first and last panels are the same, so the basic plot remains the same even though one comic has fifty two panels while the other has only two. This is a great demonstration of how to determine what is essential to a story. The first comic has a lot of extraneous information, while the third and fourth comics leave the protagonist flat. The second comic seems to be a pretty good balance of the two (though I may have chosen to do it a little differently). By breaking a story up into these panels, it is easier to see what information is essential to the plot, what is important to character development, and what is extraneous. Cross-medium experimentation—whether from short story to comic, or comic to movie, etc—could be a useful technique in getting to the heart of a story.

Scott McCloud’s educational graphic novel, “Understanding Comics”, explores not only the historical inception of the “comic” tradition, but also its legacy as a genre in literature. Defined as “juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence”, McCloud argues that comics (or sequential art) tell a story similar to those in books (pg. 9). Rather than relying strictly on words, comics incorporate pictorial images to enhance the action of the plot and its characters. The separation of frames and sequences creates an abstract visual timeline upon which the comic is read. Unlike traditional literature, comics also make use of the “icon”. McCloud defines the term as meaning “any image used to represent a person, place, thing, or idea” (pg. 27). Comics make use of a broad range of icons in their language. Symbolic icons, pictorial icons, and communication icons are among the many that contribute to the construction of a comic’s readable language (the “written” words and signs, not the accompanying graphic images). 

McCloud argues that often under-appreciated medium of comics is just like any other artistic medium. In Chapter 7 he describes the six steps of creation: 1) Idea/Purpose, 2) Form, 3) Idiom, 4) Structure, 5) Craft, and 6) Surface (pg. 170). This path begins with an impulse to arrange specific content (an idea) in a specific way (form), and ends with the stylistic execution of the creator’s composition. If the creative process is so similar to that of painting, drawing, filming, etc. – why does the term “comics” still remain a dirty, neglected word in contemporary culture? McCloud frequently laments on the comic’s inability to secure itself as a legitimate literary genre. He argues that, unfortunately, comic artists themselves reject the term – and that the disdain of “comics” is a self-perpetuating (and self-fulfilling) prophecy (pg. 18).  Until those who are actually involved in the field stand up to support it, their audience will continue to ignore it. 

I admired McCloud’s dedication to educating his readers about the comic’s history and its purpose in literary culture. His justification of the comic as a legitimate form of textual media was accomplished through his application of a comic’s “graphic theories” on other forms of art – renowned paintings, narrative tapestries, ancient wall art, and woodcut novels among the few. As an art history major myself, I found his knowledge and inclusion of artists like Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee fascinating. His ability to actually connect these groundbreaking artists to the comic genre through their similar artistic ideals was a comparison I would never have thought of.

I found this book to be incredibly interesting and engaging. The whole presentation of the text was new and it made the information stick in my mind more than a simple block of text would. The one problem I did have with the text was the use or overuse of the bold words. It seemed that every other word was emphasized and did not need to be. The overuse of bolding also made some speech bubbles hard to read. I don’t know if anyone else had this problem, but on the larger bubbles I would skip lines because my eyes would get distracted by the up coming bold word.

Now that I have aired my frustration about the bold words I can talk about the content of the book. Someone talked, in an earlier post, about the beginning of chapter 2 where the author goes through the rigmarole of “this is not a pipe.” It was funny, clever and it got his point across about icons and what our minds perceive these lines on a page to mean. These pages about icons pointed out something that I think everyone realizes but never really focuses on and explores. The fact that all these icons are just lines and we are the ones that put meaning to them is an idea that has always interested me, mostly because of the divisiveness of certain images, such as the image of MMuhammad. A few years ago there was a huge international story of a Dutch artist depicting the profit Muhammad and, I think it was, the Boston Globe that ran the cartoon or comic, depending on your definition. Now to some people this was a joke, one in really, really bad taste but a joke, but for others this was seriously offensive. No matter how you feel about this situation, it was caused by lines on a page. the only difference between those lines and the lines on the pages of our book is what they represented. I find that incredible, not bad or good, but simply incredible.

I also I identify with McCloud’s view point that the word “comics” has bad connotations. When I was little I loved comics and my Dad always thought they where silly but he loved the Far-side cartoons. I never saw the difference. With McCloud’s definition, with I agree with, I see the difference but I still feel like my Dad is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Not being a particularly big fan of comics, or what I had previously perceived as comics, I was not very excited about diving into this book.  After getting a quarter way through the reading; however, my mind had changed.  The direction of the writing was different than I had originally anticipated, I was expecting more of a focus on what we now think of what comics are, but I got much more than that.  The history, though I thought it was a bit stretched, as well as the building blocks of comics and then the make up and structure of comics was intriguing.  McCloud did a really good job of incorporating humor to keep me interested, he was able to relate many of the aspects of comics to what I’m used experiencing in reality, and I found that the way he relates the aspects of how I percieve art, pictures, and finally comics to many facets of my everday experiences.

I won’t necessarily say I’m going to be more interested in comics, and that I’m going to start reading them, but the way that McCloud conveys comics, and the way that he explains their complexity as well as their versatility and uniqueness makes me appreciate the artform quite a bit more than I had in the past.  I will no longer think of comics simply as superhero tales, but a more intricate art that incporates many many layers that I would have never considered had I not began this book.  I rarely say this, and though I don’t really consider this a textbook, this is one of the few readings that I have had that I really look forward to completing, which is saying quite a bit considering my prior disdain for both comics, and assigned readings.

When I realized I had to buy this book, I was seemingly annoyed that I was spending my money on such a thing. I also found myself some what embarrassed when I pulled it out to read a few chapters at work. When I got a little ways into the book, I started to find some interest in it. The structure is really captivating and it allows the reader to analyze the written words through illustrations. For instance, on page 51 he shows “The Picture Plane” triangle, which charts the many phases of drawing a face. On the following two pages, there exists an even more complex triangle where there is an even clearer explanation of the concept of the symbol. I found that I was appreciating the slow progression of each explanation, because it allowed the reader to stop and think about the little details of a comic more than they probably ever have before. Another section that caught my attention was the concept of time elapsing between pictures. I never realized how much time and thought goes into that break or ‘the gutter.’ McCloud explains that the gutter allows the imagination to come into play. The two frames he provides on page 66 is of a man shouting no and the next frame you just see a city scape and the word “EEYAA!!” He explains the action as our “special crime, each of [us] committing it in your own style.” I like this idea and I think this is why many people are drawn to comic books, because their imagination has a chance to decide what happens and to create a story the may not have even been there. There are several concepts that McClous brings up that I had never thought about before. I think even the length of the book tells a lot about comics and their complexities, because all I knew prior to this book, was that a comic essentially consisted of pictures and dialogue bubbles. Thanks to McCloud, I can appreciate the amount of work and effort that goes into each comic strip of the Sunday paper.

As I started reading “Understanding Comics” by Scott McCloud, I couldn’t help but remember reading a book written in a similar fashion which went over the concepts and ideas of Nietzsche. The book was like a simple introduction to Nietzsche by using a comic-like structure which was heavily based on illustrations. With “Understanding Comics,” the technique was utilized even better with the books subject matter. I think everyone would agree the illustration heavy format invites readers and promotes an easier read, however, more importantly I think this format was necessary in relation to its subject matter. Obviously many of the images were simply to please the eyes and entertain the reader, most of the illustrations work with McCloud’s explanations and theories in order to drive his points home.

McCloud makes a couple of points that I really found interesting. In chapter 2, he talks about how quickly our minds tend to associate imagery. We see symbols and signs which to some, based upon their exposure/understanding to these symbols, would just see lines or a random image. Yet based upon all our experiences and understanding we immediately (and as McCloud also states, are forced) to make a specific association. Additionally, I found it really interesting when McCloud talked about how simplistic characters can draw attention away from themselves and more towards the ideals they represent. In that sense, many comics only appear to be simplistic, yet can indeed be very deep based on the ideas or points being relayed to its readers.

I really like McCloud’s statements at the end of Chapter 3. As he sums up the chapter, I began to think heavily on the freedom given to readers of comics. The gutter, in some cases, provides a window for the reader to expand upon the story and invites imagination to take center stage. The idea of filling in the gutter can be applied to so many things, especially within the realm of art. As soon as I read this segment, something quickly came to mind. I recently watched the Coen Brother’s No Country for Old Men again. At the end, the film has Anton and Carla Jean together in a house. It goes from the two together, talking about if he is going to kill her, yet cuts to an exterior leaving out the actions which took place. Anton exists the house where Carla Jean was in and the audience wonders what happened. The gutter here is ambiguous and leaves the audience to question the actions that just took place. Using prior scenes, the audience can make a better judgment of what happened inside the house, yet one must use their imagination in order to fill in their own details.

Scott McCloud, in “Understanding Comics” defines comics as, “Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer.” This definition has two distinct problems: It is two encompassing, and  it fails to grasp the comic as a medium.

Kanji are Japanese written characters that are pictoral in nature. Unlike English characters, they are not purely symbolic images, but are most often extremely simplified and abstracted versions of the objects. They do not symbolize sounds like our characters, but actual objects and concepts. When written, they are juxtaposed in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information. Calligraphy is an accepted form of art in many countries, including Japan, and so in many cases, the words are intended to produce and aesthetic response in the viewer. By his definition, Kanji and any written language like it are comics.

McCloud himself uses this definition to question the whether forms of art never classified as comics, are. By expanding the territory so far, he loses the medium of the comic – or at least the medium as we’ve seen manifested throughout the past century. McCloud defines comics as art. But perhaps the most important item we need to define comics is what they are exclusively produced on – paper and monitors.

This is key to defining the comic as a medium, and separtating it from, say, hieroglyphs or Kanji. The term “comics” is specifically designed to distinguish works of art like “X-Men” from any other genre of art by their apperance, manifestation, and distribution. To take that element out of its definition is to destroy its meaning and purpose entirely.

Finally, the word “comics” also inherently implies a triviality to the work. This doesn’t mean that the art lacks merit, but even McCloud is quick to acknowledge that the comic makes an almost unique usage of simplicity in the search for universiality. This aspect of comics should be included in any definition of comics, as stripping down of reality to build something else is inherit in the art and its imagery.

Although I’m not an avid comic book reader, I really enjoyed reading Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics: An Invisible Art.  I thought it was a smart idea to write the book in the form of a comic, instead of feeding audiences the material in textbook form.  I think structuring the book as a comic makes the overall experience much more pleasurable for the reader.  Considering the fact that McCloud has created a comic book about comics,  it’s no surprise that I often found myself reading the material and then unconsciously applying it to my own reading.  However, McCloud does make it a point to remind us that we are in fact reading a comic, forcing us to notice what’s happening and what tools are at work.  I also enjoyed McCloud’s lively, conversational tone.  It makes the book even more animated and fun to read. 

My favorite chapter so far was Chapter Two, in which McCloud talks about icons — Why do creators use pictures that are representative of the “real thing” instead of just using realistic images?  Why do icons appeal to us?   McCloud suggests, “We humans are a self-centered race.  We see ourselves in everything.  We assign identities and emotions where none exist.  And we make the world over in our image” (32-3).  So very true.  We make up a culture that revolves around symbols and icons, and we often attach personalities to inanimate objects like our cars, our clothes and even our iPods.  After all, these objects are symbols for our identities.  In short, comic creators use iconic images so it’s easier for readers to see themselves as the characters in the comics.

I also thought McCloud’s discussion of “closure” was quite interesting.  I think he’s right when he says that we often observe parts and perceive them as a whole.  We don’t have to see something to know that it’s there.  McCloud then goes on to discuss the “gutter,” or the empty space between panels.  He notes that “here in the limbo of the gutter, human imagination takes two separate images and transforms them into a single idea” (66).  In other words, readers fill in the gaps using their own imagination.  In this sense, interactivity is inherent in comic books.  This made me think about the different hypertexts we’ve looked at in class.  When “reading” these hypertexts, the reader must fill in the blanks, much like he or she does when reading a comic book.  But I’m skeptical of the term “closure” to describe this phenomenon.  Readers might be making mental connections between images, but do they really achieve a sense of closure?