I think McCloud makes an interesting point about our culture's interaction with all media and not just cartoons when he describes on page 36, "When you enter the world of the cartoon--you see yourself" (36.4). His expansion on this idea, saying that cartoons serve as vacuums that absorb our identity and awareness, allowing us to inhabit these "empty shells" and travel to other realms, is an accurate description of many people's reasons for reading romance novels, going to the movie theatre, and watching CSI. Ours is a culture that appreciates escapism, especially when we can place ourselves in the main character's seat. What caught me, though, is the idea that we identify more easily with a less representational image, especially as children.
I was skeptical at first that there would really be that big of a difference--when he asks in the last frame on page 36, "would you have listened to me if I looked like this?" (showing himself in a more realistic form) I thought, "...yes." But as he expands on the role of messenger as blank slate, what struck me was the fact that, as a blank slate, he can be "just a little voice inside [my] head" (37.4). What convinced me was his suggestion, "if who I am matters less, maybe what I say will matter more" (37.7)--at least, for this text.
See, I think the plot and purpose of the text have equal influence on our identification, and also on the effectiveness of different styles of drawing. For example, I think of the style of the "Cynicalman" comics. Because he is drawn so simply, I can see him as the cynical "devil on my shoulder" without any depth to his own character. On the other hand, American Born Chinese and the Palomar stories were so effective for me for the opposite reason. They were--for the most part--fully fleshed out characters telling their own stories, and they wouldn't have been nearly as compelling if I were trying instead to project myself onto them.
Or would you argue that, unconsciously, I was projecting myself? Is it possible to simply absorb a story without forcing yourself into it first? And going back to the idea that kids identify better with cartoons than realistic images, why do I remember equal airtime given to cartoons and to shows like Saved By the Bell on Saturday mornings? Or is this not a conclusion that can be drawn across types of media, or at least away from drawing and into the world of actors and sets?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Interesting question re: live-action vs. animated programs. But I'm more taken with your observation that McCloud's work may in fact benefit from the (visually) bland persona of its protagonist, even while Hernandez's work benefits from the very distinctive characters of his work. As a thought experiment, you might consider what _Understanding Comics_ would read like if the narrator weren't the more "realistic" depiction of McCloud himself but rather--Luba! Or what if the men and women of Palomar were all as flat, visually, as McCloud's stand-in (with missing pupils, even)?
All this is just to acknowledge that the choice of style in art is like the choice of style in language, and the visual rhetoric of a comic demands just as much consideration of subject and audience as the verbal language of a speech would. Sometimes the plain style is best; sometimes a lusher style is best.
Post a Comment