24 June 2010

Breakin' It Down

Comics, however defined or thought to be, are always a topic for debate and judgement. In Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics he chooses Will Eisner's term "sequential art" to define and explain comics. But as Dylan Horrock explains, McCloud doesn't attempt to justify why this sequential art should be seen as the one definitive element in comics to the exclusion of all others. He only chooses this term because he likes it and it is useful; it highlights the things he values most about comics. But doesn't come to suggest that it is the only such element or that it is unique to comics in any way.This rhetorical essay was more difficult to understand I thought that Scott McCloud's book, but Horrock does break down and analyze every aspect of McCloud's definition as to what he believes comics are. McCloud's argument is refered to as simple because the majority of those who will read, or have read this book do share his same views and concepts. It's hard to get someone to read something that opposes their point of view or idea as to what comics really are, or just to get someone to read something new and in book form in general now a days.

1 comment:

  1. You're post is a little cut and dry, Ruben, but I'm impressed to see you correctly label Horrocks' essay as a rhetorical analysis! It's just like the ones you all wrote for class...only longer ;-)

    Also, remember to keep your summary and opinions separate to avoid bias.

    ReplyDelete