McCloud Reading Response

Before You Read

            As I look around my bedroom, I do see some faces in various inanimate objects. The plug holes in the outlets definitely look like a face. I have a rather large abstract painting on one of my walls. On it there are mostly what I would call squiggles and irregular shapes, but I do see several faces and especially what look like bodies now that I look at it. For what it’s worth, I can also pick out some animal shapes (giraffe) in it as well. My desk drawers also resemble a human face, with the handle in the middle forming the mouth, and the slots in the wood as the eyes. I have to say that I have never seen these faces in these objects before. I think it might be more a matter of seeing what you are looking for. That is, if someone tells you something looks like a face or some other shape, you are more likely to see it because you are looking for it as well as looking at the same object with a new perspective. Once you see things a certain way, it’s hard to unsee them.

Summary

            In “The Vocabulary of Comics” Scott McCloud claims that people are more likely to insert their personal identity and emotions into abstractions. He specifically mentions abstract images, but it could also be words that represent the abstract icon. McCloud argues that the power of cartoons-the power of pictures- is both their universality as well as their “amplification through simplification” (McCloud 8). By focusing on a specific detail (amplification) and overlooking the rest (simplification), it makes certain ideas “matter more” (15).

This calls back to Greene’s concept of framing, narrowing in on some aspect and ignoring or leaving out other things. I also recall Kantz’s use of Shirley and Alice as composites or representations of the novice writer and expert. I would consider them “blank slates” as McCloud considers images: they have specific attributes or weaknesses, yet are still abstract enough to be identifiable to readers.

QD

1. I have to say that I am pretty snobby when it comes to cartoons and animated entertainment. Maybe it’s because I’ve recently entered “adulthood” and feel the need to renounce things that I consider immature, but I have mostly written off cartoons. I also have a preference for realism and entertainment in which there is limited suspension of disbelief required of me. I do this even though I have read graphic novels that I adore. McCloud does a great job in arguing that there is nothing unsophisticated about images. The things he discusses- universality, abstraction, identity, and self-awareness- are all very sophisticated topics, topics that adults would be interested in. McCloud would certainly assert that there is no age at which reading comics or watching cartoons would be inappropriate, and after reading this piece, I’d have to agree. I’d honestly never thought about the universality and identity aspects of cartoons, I’d only ever focused on the simplicity.

3. On the one hand, I understand McCloud’s argument that if the messenger has an identity, especially a strong one, it could be distracting. It makes me think of the everyman or everywoman in literature and films- characters with generic qualities to make them more relatable. But on the other hand, I don’t see why cartoons don’t deserve their own depth and density. Just because you read about a character who is completely different from you does not mean you do not consider your own identity or search for other characteristics that still speak to universality or the human condition. I don’t necessarily see the need for readers to insert themselves into blank forms. Then again, I also don’t see faces in things unless I’m told to look for them.

AE

1. I absolutely think teaching strategies should be more visual, and McCloud is a perfect example why. I’m excited for my students to read this (and Berger, though to a lesser extent) because I think they’ll enjoy it much more than the dry pieces they’ve read so far for class. The lessons would be the same as if they had to read written text, although McCloud’s piece wouldn’t have been as effective if it weren’t in the format he wrote it in. It’s not so much the lessons themselves as much as the fact that it would be a different, more exciting delivery system of the concepts they need to know.

3. I’ve kind of said as much, but I think that, at least for me, adults are more interested in complex, realistic characters-flawed, complicated, and human rather than universal. But I’m sure there are cartoons that do have these complex characters. It just seems easier to watch live-action entertainment or read a novel to find realism than it does to do the same with cartoons. And yet, I’ve gotten a lesson out of McCloud’s piece just as I did from Greene’s and Kantz’s pieces.

Final Thoughts

            I really enjoyed McCloud’s piece. He made me consider comics and cartoons in a new way, though I am not entirely convinced. But I think there is something interesting in the fact that, while I remain uninterested in comics/cartoons, this McCloud piece was definitely one of the better readings, and I think my students will definitely agree. So maybe he ultimately proved his theory correct.