24 February 2010

Simcha Weinstein...Don't Ruin Comics for Us!!!

Smirch Weinstein writes this amazingly interesting, extremely creative book called, "UP, UP AND OY VEY!” which talks about how all the comic book super heroes are driven by Judaism. Weinstein starts off by writing his thesis which is to convince his readers that superheroes are indeed driven by Judaism. He writes about the current scenario of comic industry and gives few examples of inclusion of comic books in Universities and schools. He even writes about actor Nicholas Cage selling his comic book collection. Interestingly, Weinstein characterizes every super hero with a unique characteristic. Weinstein then shifts his gear towards Spiderman; he puts up a page with basic information on Spiderman, like his Alter Ego, Nemesis, his powers, date of birth, occupation, and more importantly his Jewish connection. Weinstein then starts writing tiny details about Spiderman. He even includes how Jack Kirby came up with the idea of making Spiderman a superhero? An orphan teenage boy living with his aunt and uncle, not popular at school and having hard times making ends meet. With a bite from a radioactive spider, peter Parker gains amazing spider-like power. On his process of proving his thesis, Weinstein adds several scenarios of relating Spiderman with Judaism, including his principles, ideology and moral values. He then switches his writing towards Spider-man's costume. He writes that no other super hero tries to hide himself like Spider-man does, and shows the relevance with the holy sages in Bible.
On the last section of the book, Weinstein elaborates how Jewish comic-writers have flourished in America as artists. According to Weinstein, these artists were putting down their experiences as an immigrant in America through their comics, pouring down their ideas in the form of comics, having to go through a very harsh past. Weinstein calls himself a die-hard comics fan. As a young kid he used to spend hours in his bath tub with his Star Wars figurines.
Weinstein was pretty convincing in his work. But, for the things that I love I try to keep them far away from sensitive topics such as politics, race, and religion. I'm pretty sure, only his Jewish readers agree with him on this topic. I don't agree with Weinstein at all, may be because my brain had already made the decision that he cannot be right. Also, I hope all the great comic creators, and writers didn't and don't necessarily create a character based on religion or any other basis. It's only when the character is highly popular and praised, critics and writers tend to play around with them. Writers like Weinstein, in my point of view create that border of religion between comic loves which is very wrong. Wrong in a sense that readers from different religion may not want to read comics for the sake of being true to their religion. So, thanks to Weinstein, we may just have Jewish readers left.

story of my life

Washington, Marcus

English 112

January 31, 2010

Chapter four was dealing with frames. Each panel shows a single moment in time when you have a sequence of panels, in between the panels (gutter) your mind fills in the intervening moments that we naturally assume or interpret what is happing. Scott uses a rope as a metaphor the shows that time figures and faces are equal. But if all the images are on the same line then the most important icon in comics is the panel which is overlooked. Scott makes a lot of good point but one major point is that not every figure or shape effects each panel strip. As well as action, drama, and additional effects such as multiple images, and streaking effects.

Chapter six “show and tell”. Tommy at school He pulls out his robot for show and tell, and he can’t explain how it works but he shows them, and Scott say’s we all started out like this using words and images but normally us as growing up translate from just shown something to being able to understand how it works and able to tell another person in just words what and how that robot works. McCloud says when were younger we read books filled with nothing but pictures because there easier to read and when you get older you move to books that have very few pictures and a lot more words. Then finally you read real books with no pictures in them. Early comics had no words and all pictures, and when words were associated with comics they stayed segregated to the normal writing we know today.

The part I understood best was when Scotts explains his self with the lines or just any motion in general not everything on the page is meant for that particular scene or panel. So he puts it through a short comic and each figure and face is matched in time. Which puts all the images on the same vertical line, but don’t change each other. So what I got out of that is each panel holds single a moment and a single moment is suppose to be read in a second, which we naturally do reading from left to right but as this happens our imagination fills in any transition spots that pictures or word leave.

On page 101, there are three different comics and each one tries to lengthen a pause. The first comic adds panels and of course it works, then the second comic makes the gutters wider which do nothing, and Scott wonders if there was another way to lengthen the pause. In the third comic he just stretches out the middle panel, and it works. I found that interesting because I never really thought about how to make a pause longer in images.

blogs

Marcus Washington

January 24, 2010

Chapter one STRS “setting the record straight”, starts off with Scott McCloud. Growing up he thought he knew what comics were, but he really had no idea the extent that comics affect us. He thought they were colorful magazines for kids. So Scott does some research and comes up with a definition for comics. At first the definition starts as sequential art, then it goes to sequential visual art. Since that’s too open, the qualifications of the definition help to develop a more specific definition, and after five tries Scott finally comes up with “juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence.

Chapter two, “the vocabulary of comics”, starts off with a pipe or so we think that’s what it is, but after four or five frames we find out that it’s really a printed copy of a drawing of a painting of a pipe. Then he talks about icons and what the word icon means to him. He uses the word “icon” to mean any images used to represent people, places. Every icon on page twenty six is not what it really is!!! It shows a picture of a face and it’s so detailed that it can only be one person, and then it loses detail to where it can be a few people, eventually it losing all the detail and it’s just a plain face to where it can be anyone in the world. Scott has a bunch of different shapes and with a simple addition of what looks like an eye; every shape looks like it’s a face. He said “we assign identities and emotions where none exist.

After reading chapters one and two I think the book is interesting. Scott McCloud has a really weird maybe even dry sense of humor and makes the book a little more fit to me. Because everything that I read made me think about times that I can relate to that issue.

Powerless vs. Power Batman is a BAD ASS!!!

Talk about an old school comic, that’s exactly what the Superman comic is. When Superman was a child he came to the planet in a space capsule. When he was growing up, people knew that he wasn’t a human being. He had ridiculous strength and he could fly. After he learns how to control his powers, he decides that he wants to be a protector for the people but without showing his identity. He saves the life of a lady who is going to be killed for doing something that she didn’t do. He is a hero because he stops bad guys from committing crimes, and saves peoples lives. When he’s not doing that, he lives his life like a normal person working for a newspaper company. At his work is where he gets his information on what’s going on in the city.

Batman on the other hand has no powers unless you consider his mind being a power. The skill he does have is fighting. He is a great fighter because he knows what he’s going to do. He uses your weaknesses against you and kicks your ass. He also lives his life normal. Batman just hangs around the commissioner and decides to solve the case himself when Mr. Lambert is murdered. After that he just starts helping people and solving crimes.

I would have to say that Batman is definitely better. The reason why is because if you look at it they do the same thing. They help people and protect them, but Superman has powers to do this. Does Batman? Hell no he doesn’t, he does everything Superman does without powers. So my opinion is there both good hero’s but Batman is just a bad ass!!!!!!!!

Batman is Definately the Shit

The Superman comic was really old school and pretty predictable. Anybody who knows Superman, knows his story. In the comic, it sets up how Superman bacme, well Superman. Superman came to Earth as a child in a space capsule. As he grew older, it became clear to the people on Earth that he was not human. He had abnormal strength and the ability to fly. After he controls these powers, Superman decided to take on the role as a protector. He wanted to use his powers for the goodness of the people. He then starts out by taking a woman that is to be electrocuted, to the governor's house to prove her innocence. Naturally, out of fear, the governor's assistant shoot's Superman. After the assistant realized he was not affected, Superman proved that the woman was innocent and saved her life. In Superman's "human life" as Clark Kent, he works at the daily news office. There he asks out Lois Lane on a date. While they were dancing, at the date of course, a rude creepy man decided to butt in and steal Lois on the dance floor. Upset that Clark didn't fight back, she called a cab to go home. Next thing Lois knows, she is getting kidnapped by Butch, the creepy guy on the dance floor. Outraged, Clark turns into Superman, picks up the car, unloads all the passengers, and hangs Butch from a power line. This comic turns out the typical save the damsel in distress type.
In Batman's comic, it begins with Bruce and Commisioner Gordon having a conversation. They then hear a report of a murder that occured nearby, so they both take off to the murder scene. After hearing the suspects interview, which happened to be the son of the victim, Bruce decides to leave the scene. He turns into Batman, tracks down the murderers, and beats the crap out of them and retrieves what was stolen. Batman finds among the beat up criminals a clue to another possible victim so he takes off to a new location. There, he discovers the man behind all the killings. A man by the name of Alfred Stryker. Alfred tries to shoot Batman, but because of his amazing reflexes and smarts he dodges the shot and punches the murderer to where he falls to his death.
In my opinion, BATMAN IS THE SHIT! I think that superman relies on his powers extremely too much and it is know fun to follow Superman because he has only one threat that can kill him. So what could possibly go wrong in all his stories, that he is threatened by the same thing over and over again? It gets boring to me. Batman on the other hand is a thrilling superhero! He is human so his life is at stake all the time. This makes everything suspenseful and exciting to keep up with knowing that is life is in jeopardy everytime he puts that wicked suit on.

Doomsday of two heros

The first comic created of Superman was awesome. The fact that in the beginning of the story, Superman saves a life while trying to save another. He was able to get a lady pardoned from being killed. Superman was able to see what he did for people without having to expose his true identity from the rest of the world. He uses his gift of powers to save the lives of innocent people and help those who need the help when the law cannot do anything else for themselves. Kant lives his life as a normal person who works for the newspaper company or with the city, he finds out the information about that is going on in the world. Superman stopped bad guys from robbing banks, hurting people, and taking advantage of the less fortunate. The man behind the mask is saving the lives of strangers and protecting the city when police officers could not be everywhere at night.
Batman was an original person amongst the city, he was basically a nobody who hung out with the commissioner. He takes matters into his own hands when Mr. Lambert is murdered and the police think that Lambert’s brother was the person who killed him. The police believe Lambert’s brother murdered him because his hands were all over the knife, his fingers prints were taken and matched. Batman shows up out of the blue just as guys were taking papers that had something to do with the murder of the two partners. Batman stops the bad guys from getting away with murder and finds that people worked together were all involved with the murder of the two partners at the beginning of the story.
I loved both story lines and feel that I can not pick either one. I like Superman because he is out saving the world and helping people, just as batman could do to. Superman has powers in which puts him in front of the line of super heroes. They both are important I think and I like them both because they both have something to offer the world. They have powers in which could only make them unique because they present better options in different situations they are involved in. The stories of Superman and Batman are truly amazing and have an impact on the world and the readers as well because comics would not exist if either one did not exist.

23 February 2010

Superman vs. Batman

So this is old school superman. In a nut shell as I’ve said before it has it all. Alien adoption of a superhuman, bringing to justice a murderess, women betting, employees dating, gangsters getting slapped around, and ends with the beginnings of uncovering of a political plot. To summarize Batman’s first comic starts with Bruce Wane smoking with the Commissioner Gordon, then two murders in two pages and a secret will to a chemical company one page later along with batman entering and discovering all but not telling(classic), and ending in the partner Alfred Striker being found guilty and punched in to a vat of chemical acid. Yes it was an accident but no remorse is shown. The first superman comic is so busy trying to set superman up as a good guy they completely ignore the fact that they are telling a story. They do set up his character as a defender of women as long as they aren’t murderesses. All though I was confused about how superman dropped Louis off to walk home from the outskirts of a big city. May-be there was less street crimes back then? I don’t believe it but either it’s my preconceived notion that superman is such a boy scout he can do no wrong or this comic was that good at setting up superman’s character. Personally I lean toward the first explanation. Now let’s talk batman. They do a good job of telling the story and setting up the character, but it is still pretty obvious that the story is just used to show the audience who the character is. So Superman is super strong and not shy about it when in costume, he protects the weak, and punishes the bad guys that no one else can. Batman well he’s more mysterious, he doesn’t show up as batman until the third page and his true identity is not revealed until the end of the comic. Batman is smart, quiet, detective, strong in the ordinary way, and unremorsefully when it comes down to the death of a villain. So it’s boy scout vs. vigilante. Who do I pick? Vigilante duh. Superman is so good that he makes everyone else look like villains. Batman makes everyday people look good. So my motives are what makes me look good, is good.

Superman.. Earth's Protector!!

Hands down… Superman is the best!! If your only argument is that has not from this planet and he has powers… “O WELL”!! Superman isn’t from Earth but he is the protector of it… he helps people all over… Batman is just in Gotham city (which isn’t in America either… LOL) so you can’t use the fact the superman is from earth. Superman can’t be beaten by Batman or any other super hero, the superman comic ends kind of bad but it’s suppose to bring you in to by the next issue. Superman runs to the governor’s housebreaks down the door because the governor’s assistant wouldn’t listen and someone’s life was at stake, so he had to break down the door and demands that he the penitentiary. If it was batman the door would have been up still and the lady would have been executed. The governor assistant thinks Superman is crazy and demands him to back up or he will shoot him, superman cannot be hurt so he can take those risk at explaining himself with a gun in his face.
Batman is a man who has great fighting skills but his biggest tool since he has no powers is his mind. He deals with a murder case and is able to break it apart in no time but he’s able to fight you using your weaknesses against you and really giving you a beat down to remember him. Batman is a great hero but he’s just not better then superman.
In the comics “The Batman Begins” and “Superman”, I got to see the differences and similarities between not only the two comics but the times in which they were written. It the early 1930’s comic artist weren’t as clean as today with detail and colors. As far as the written part of comics today’s comic is very similar but different in some of the choices in words. A major difference in today’s comics is that they focus more on the main characters and give you as much action as possible because they are so expensive and not big in the numbers of pages. In both of these comics they show that the crime fighters are assisting the law enforce and still focusing on both as if they don’t want the people to just get caught in the super heroes life but show that the police is fighting these crimes as well.

batman is better than superman any day of the week.

Superman a man from not this planet, a man with incredible ability incredible strength, he is even able to fly. What makes superman so great? To figure it out you have to look at the first superman. There’s a woman about to be executed for murder but she didn’t do it. What should be done there’s not much that can be. Unless your superman. Superman runs to the governor’s housebreaks down the door and demands that he calls the penitentiary. The governor thinks this dude is crazy and demands him to back up or he will shoot him, but little does he know that superman cannot be hurt. “POW” he shoots him it just ricochets off. While the governor is in awe he calls the penitentiary and calls off the execution. The next day Clark Kent aka Superman asks Lois Lane on a date. She hesitates at first but accepts the offer. While on there date a cocky man comes in and try’s to take superman’s date. Trying to act innocent Clark acts like there’s nothing he can do. Baffled by this Lois Lane gets angry and leaves. Little does she know that the asshole is following. And kidnaps her. After this superman gets ready and runs and gets in the way and rescues Lois. Then takes the man and hangs him on a telephone pole. The next day Clark’s boss asks him to go do some research and find a story. Instead of going where he was told he goes to Washington DC and is trying to crack down on the government corruption. This is where the story ends. It leaves you hanging at the end. Making you want to know what happens next you’ll just have to wait till the next one comes out. Once this happened Superman became one of the most popular super heroes in the world.

Batman a man of smarts, wit and a knack for doing the right thing, Batman is different than other super heroes, as he does not posses special powers. He keeps his town safe by using his smarts. This comic starts off by having a millionaire murdered in his mansion. His son is thought to be the murder but he pleas that it is not him and that his prints are only on the knife from him trying to help his father. Then out of nowhere Batman shows up beats the murders up and takes what they stole. He returns the stolen items. That’s the end of batman until the next issue.

The reason Batman is better is because he fights crime with out super powers he’s just a real smart guy that knows how to fight. I think superman is a very fascinating character but I can’t see myself as him. I can see myself as batman because he’s real. He can get hurt. He’s human. That is the main difference between the too is that Batman is someone that any one can see there self as. The simple fact is. Is that superman is just to super.

Superman + Batman = Another Blog

Born from another planet, and with the physical structure years beyond ours, a child found its way to Earth in a space capsule. The people of Earth soon discovered the child's extraordinary strength and ability to achieve outstanding tasks. All grown up he decided to commit his powers and life to helping others. This is the beginning of Superman. Superman begins his super hero role by taking a lady to the governer's house. This lady is to be electrocuted for a crime, but Superman has proof of her innocence. After getting shot at by the governer's assistant, Superman finally reaches the governer without a scratch. Superman gives him the proof of innocence and the lady's life is saved. Superman or Clark Kent works at a daily news office and likes a woman named Lois who also works at the office. He asks her out on a date and while dancing they are confronted by a rude guy named Butch. Butch cuts in and tells Clark to go away while he dances with Lois. Clark, who is still trying to conceal his identity of Superman, does not fight back and defend Lois. Lois is frustrated and mad by this and darts out of the restaurant. While she is riding in the taxi, Butch rams the car and abducts Lois. Then out of nowhere Superman grabs the car and shakes the passangers out. He then grabs Butch and hangs him from a power line to teach him a lesson. At the end of the night Superman saves the girl. "Bearing Lois in his arms Superman heads toward the city depositing her upon its outskirts" (Action Comics 10).

At the beginning of the comic two men are in a room conversating. One is commisioner Gordon and the other is Bruce Wayne. After hearing news of a murder commisioner Gordon and Bruce Wayne head straight for the crime scene. After interviewing the son of the murdered father, commisioner Gordon learns of another murder threat. Bruce leaves the scene right after this and tells Gordon that he is going home. What Gordon does not know is that another murder is taking place and Bruce is heading straight to it, but not as himself, but as Batman. He beats up the criminals and takes the piece of paper that was in their possession. After reading this document Batman heads to another location to save another life. A man by the name of Alfred Stryker is behind all of the murders. Killing all his partners will make him the sole owner of their chemical corporation. Batman explains this to the last victim, Rogers, after saving him from his death. While explaining the story Stryker draws a gun to try and kill batman. Batman reacts quickly giving Stryker a good punch to the face, causing Stryker to fall to his death "He's falling right into the acid tank" (Detective Comics 6). When Rogers tries to thank Batman he turns around to find Batman gone. The next day Bruce Wayne visits Commisioner Gordon and hears about the growing rumors and news of the Batman.

I enjoy both super heroes but have to say that batman is better. Yes superman has super human strength and can leap a mile but the special thing I like about the batman is he could be anybody. I am a fan of all the characters in Batman and enjoy the villians as well. But one thing I find very cool is both Batman and Superman have these crazy secret identities. Everyday they collaborate with the news or police and still manage to hide their secrets from the ones who are best at figuring out that kind of stuff. Two kick ass superheroes, everyday right in front of your face.
In the recent reading the writer talks about McClouds book Understanding Comics. The writer explains that Understanding Comics is probably one of the most important things to ever happen to comics. The writer goes on to tell the reader that McCloud’s work is more of a rational and less rhetorical way of thinking. What the writer means is that McCloud uses his own definitions to establish what he is trying to convince, for example it means that McCloud convinces the reader in his book that what he is saying is true, because he gets to the reader and states something but really doesn’t explain it to well. Then McCloud comes back to what he has said was true and gives examples off of what he has said. McClouds strategy is to convince that comics are more then they appear to be. The writer goes on and analyzes that McCloud uses metaphors to convince the audience. The essay uses pictures, which explains to the reader what it means making it easier to understand. In the essay the writer really likes that McCloud expands the meaning and knowledge of comics.



Overall I thought the essay was good. I thought the author explained very well on what he thought about McCloud. He explained what McClouds mistakes were and what good he did for comics. Though this was only one person explaining on what he thought McClouds work it still opened up my mind and looked at McClouds in a different way.

Long Ass Essay

Horrock gave credit to McCloud for his book Understanding Comics. Horrock mentions that Understanding Comics is the most important book about comics. Horrock points out that McCloud’s work is rational rather than rhetorical. He means that McCloud easily convinces what he is saying is true, especially to those who share common views of comics with him. Horrock also writes that McCloud uses his own definitions to establish what he is trying to convince. McCloud strategy to convince what comic is by separating the form and content of it. Also Horrock analyzed that McCloud uses metaphors to convince the audience. Horrock’s essay even has foot notes, which explained his essay better. In the essay, Horrock praises McCloud for expanding the meaning of knowledge. McCloud uses a man named Will Eisner as a source in his book. He uses what Eisner teaches and put it into his own idea. McCloud uses Eisner to describe sequential art is. Chapter six get brought up in Horrock’s essay. It is about text and images.
This essay was too long. I don’t think I will ever have a problem with reading McCloud’s work ever again. The footnotes in Horrock’s essay really helped. I do believe that Horrock better explained what McCloud was trying to convince. I felt that Horrock summarized everything in McCloud’s book. I think he could have left out the pictures and just referred to the page. It made his work seem too long.

Controversies over Comics

Inventing Comics: Scott McCloud's Definition of Comics, by Dylan Horrocks was basically an over view of everything McCloud told us in his comics. Horrocks had a few twists and spins to throw in with McCloud's work which possibly added to what we got from Understanding Comics. Horrocks gave more detail to McCloud's writing and added some art work as well as explaining the definition. Horrocks work was pretty much trying to better explain anything and everything that McCloud wrote. Horrocks also discussed the controversies between R. C. Harvey and McCloud in a Comics Journal review.
Well, yes i know, not much of a summary, but i don't really know how to write a summary on something I have already summarized. I found that everything that was discussed in Horrocks writing was the same as McCloud's comic book. I can't say i found it interesting because in several different parts of the article i felt the Horrocks was just repeating himself over and over. I understand that the point of the article was just to clear things up even more but I realty didn't see a need in it. Using different panels for Understanding Comics only made me feel as though Horrock was writing for a person that didn't understand a single thing McCloud wrote. I did however find the controversies interesting. McCloud didn't really seem it back up his theory and it was made obvious by R.C. Harvey. It was as though he just let it fall without a really hard try for backing. It was in no way necessary for Horrocks to try and explain anything once explained by McCloud. Yes, i did find myself interested in a few things he said, it was very few.

Superman and Batman.. My secret Identities!!!!!!!!!!

Action comics #1 is the first comic book of the famous Superman. A kid with phenomenal super-natural power is found. His powers are amazing, he can leap buildings, run faster than a speeding train, and carry weights hundred times greater than his weight. Superman's secret identity is Kent, who is a reporter for a newspaper. He has a softer side for a lady co-worker. He embarrasses himself to protect his identity. However, he seeks revenge when nobody is there to see him. He fights crimes remaining under the law.
Detective Comics was the first comic book of the Batman. With no detailed story, the comics starts with Lambert and Bruce Wayne talking to each other when a sudden killing of a businessman grabs their attention. The son gets blamed for killing his dad just because the police finds his fingerprints on the knife. Meanwhile, another business man gets killed. So the series of murders makes Batman to investigate it and on the process of the third businessman being killed, he stops the murderer and gets the evidence. He later discloses that the person behind all the killings was the businessmen partner who did all that for sole ownership.
I don't know which one is better, personally Wolverine is. Fine, just for the sake of this blog I think its batman.Like Ben said, Batman is an ordinary human being. Superman has super natural powers, if it wasn't for that he would be some gym teacher. Also, batman is way cooler with his cars, bikes, and his secret hideout. I wish I was batman. may be I am . Who knows?

when its all said and done...

The main point of Chapter 9, the last chapter in Understanding Comics, by Scott McCloud discusses or should i say reviews was the things discussed in the Chapters 1 through 8. It is a basic summary first going over communication, how we view comics, to the nitty gritty of the way we should understand a comic over all. The view people have on art and on comics should be one in the same according to McCloud, although he may have worded it differently. The things going on in a comic book are just as important as a painting on the wall and should be viewed with the same respect. The way a person views an image is amazing because even if the image isn't so clear, most of the time the human mind can easily conclude what the image is. Though some art in comics is not the greatest it should be, at times be viewed at high quality art, McCloud is trying get this thought into his readers heads. Yes, there is some great work out there but comic book art is far from being the worst and should be given more credit and respect. McCloud has a true interesting in getting his readers, and himself included, to really understand comics.
The drive and desire is there in McCloud's writing and he is truly showing is how to understand comics. I find it very interesting to see that someone has such strong feelings for comics and trying to persuade others to try and grasp his feelings. For one person to pun in so much effort it says a lot about how and why he is doing it. I would have never considered comic pictures as real art, but McCloud sure changed that for me. I can honestly say that he may have rambled on too long in some chapter but i was never at the point that i wasn't interested. He really made a lot of sense when he said, "The first step in any such effort is to clear our minds of all preconceived notions about comics. Only by starting from scratch can we discover the full range of possibilities comics offer". I think that was one thing that should have been said from the beginning. Had a read those lines at the start i probably would have gotten a better feel for the entire comic book.

22 February 2010

Dylan Horrocks Outlook on McCloud's Understanding Comics

Inventing Comics; Scott McCloud’s Definition of Comics by Dylan Horrocks. Horrocks initiates that Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics is an influential element of discussion about comics being art. It is possibly the most significant book of comics’ theory. Horrocks claims that in his book McCloud is influential and effectual, “he is persuasive and inspiring.” All theory is to some degree argumentation, theory deals with convincing others to be under a particular impression. Understanding Comics has established a way of talking about comics that declares and encourages the want for essential honor and appears to present a getaway from the aesthetic restrictions and isolations. McCloud uses his definition to demonstrate the limitations of the comic world. He aspires to destroy the received ideas that prevent individuals from acknowledging the distinctive art of comics. People think all comics are poorly drawn, poor quality, tacky and unintelligent, people link comics with their history and not with their possibilities. McCloud detaches our judgments of comics by focusing our observation their configuration; form is what McCloud defines. McCloud uses Will Eisner’s “sequential art” because it focuses on the things he appreciates about comics. Sequential art allows pictures to go beyond the customary limitations of a single image, transforming into a narrative. Also the combination of words and pictures, speech balloons, panels, styles and genres all assist McCloud in finding his proper definition. Comics have become a smaller extent of mass medium but they appear to become more like a province, erasing the drifting ways from the edge of the arts. McCloud’s definition is a venture to free comics from is restrictions and isolations that former definitions imprisoned them with. McCloud seems to indicate that the release of the isolations and restrictions will leave an individual entirely free with infinite exploration. He merely wants to broaden our boundaries. McCloud ventures into history to reclaim medieval broadsheets, narrative sequences, picture stories, wordless novels, picture books and more. McCloud’s definition of comics like any definition is itself a conceptual structure. In the center of McCloud’s definition is the concept that a comic is a sequence of images. Horrocks gives examples of conceptual or metaphorical structure “comics are a kind of writing that uses words and pictures, comics are a set of narrative conventions or comics are texts etc.” A metaphorical system such as McCloud’s definition can influence the way we read comics. Horrocks ends his composition by talking about “Show and Tell” chapter six, the relationship between words and pictures. Horrocks states, “the relationship between words and pictures has always been more complex then Scott suggests.”

Horrocks work was extremely long. I found it more difficult to understand then McCloud’s book, but Horrocks examined and analyzed every factor of McCloud’s definition. Horrocks pointed out to me that McCloud has been persuading his readers that comics are art, I never thought of it that way; I always thought he was just educating his audience. Now I realize that McCloud not only educates but he inspires, persuades and argues that comics are indeed art; and I agree comics are a form of art.

DAMN!!

Dylan Horrocks wrote a long rhetorical essay about Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics summarizing only the main points which had helped him strengthen his thesis. Horrocks provides quotes, pictures and examples to back up his point. Giving the reader a summary of McCloud’s text and why he used the examples he used. Horrocks makes a lot of good points and does mention a lot of important points that McCloud had made. Mentioning each chapter but only the main topics that were in that chapter leaving out any information that was useless or wasn’t as elaborated on as the ones he had mentioned. He also includes footnotes which help the reader gain more information on what was being said. This writing was very long and was written for academic use because it had included a lot of complicated grammar and complex thoughts. Its intended readers are that of an academic one and who had read Scoot McClouds text. In the beginning Horrocks summarizes the book as a whole calling it a polemic (a passionate, strongly worded, and often controversial argument against or, less often, in favor of somebody or something). Even as going as far as calling it a manifesto for some people in the comic’s community. Preaching to the converted is better done when you’re talking rationally and not rhetorically because people understand what the person making an argument is trying to say. Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics is a perfect example because “he’s a man on a mission” (page 1). Covering the entire book and mentioning each chapter’s main points. Horrocks ends the essay with his love of Scott McCloud’s book.

I found this reading interesting and it took me awhile to finish the whole thing but easily kept up with what Horrocks was trying to say because he had included pictures and footnotes. I found it difficult to understand but like any other reading I did my best to understand its purpose. I found it interesting that he called this book the greatest when Horrocks himself didn’t seem to notice that McCloud does contradict himself he however praises it and makes it seem like it is more important to comic lovers. The reading was interesting but took awhile to read, I kept reading it over and over again hoping I got its main points.

Dylan Horocks views & perceptions!

In Inventing Comics by Dylan Horock’s he begins with discussing Scott McCloud’s famous book Understanding Comics. He explains how powerful, persuasive, and inspiring McCloud’s novel really is. He also explains how all theory is somewhat controversial, and arguable; as in the case of Scott McCloud’s book. He goes on by mentioning how understanding comics “constructs a way of talking about comics that affirms and supports our longing for critical respectability and seems to offer an escape from the cultural ghetto.” As follows, he goes over the definition of comics that McCloud brings to the table, his claims, and the exploration of the medium. His interpretation of the definition of comics and what closure is, and how scott begins to construct his own “proper” definition of comics. Next Dylan Horrock’s criticizes how mccloud has defined comics and essentially “has taken one term or concept (Eisners ‘sequential art’) and grafted it on to the old word ‘comics’. Same old word – new meaning.” Horock’s then ensues that comics have seemed to become like a community that includes shared history, mythology, culture and how in a sense that comics have begin to assert themselves. He goes on by contending “that understanding comics is full of geographical metaphors, globes, territories, map-like grids, and spaces being traversed.” Now the author of this essay begins to state that Scott McCloud’s definition on comics is an attempt to free comics from societies negative critiques and “the restrictive ghetto to which previous definitions/maps have confined them.” In a way he states that McCloud only wants to broaden and expand our borders to what comics really are. He then explains how after McCloud erased the history of comics, he now returns to the field of history and in that, he gathers authors from the beginning of the art form. The author now expounds how McCloud’s definition allows for cartoonists to break boundaries, and to detach themselves from traditional methods , styles, genres, and methods. The writer now overviews how ‘a comic is a sequence of pictures’ as a metaphor. A metaphorical system such as McCloud’s definition for comics can influence the way we read and create comics. An assumption is then thrown out that each ‘art form’ is separate and distinct from every other one. He tells us how comics avoid limitations, and how that a good art form possesses those unique qualities and abilities. He now quotes R.C. Harvey’s and his book, the art of the funnies. “The thing that comics do that no other graphic art does is to weave word and picture together to achieve a narrative purpose” he then states how comics are a blend of word and pictures. Not a simple combination but a blend, a ‘true mixture’. He continues with when form, is conceived of as a genre, “differences such as novel, poem, or illustrations work the same way as detective story, science fiction or superhero story.” There is no natural law, limitations or cites that say how an author should arrange his own personal work. He now speaks on the where we draw the border between comics and illustrated texts. Ultimately, he states “any borders we may draw along that spectrum are arbitrary and depend more on what relationship we wish to see between words and pictures in comics than on any objectively valid criteria.” He closes his main points section by talking about chapter six, how we mix words and pictures, the time and intervals and the history of both. He also says that how in a sense comics are somewhat a new form of language, preserving the grammar of written language but replacing the actual words with pictures.

In my opinion Dylan Horock pin pointed and discussed every key element of Scott McClouds definiton of comics to an exact point. It was very interesting and well written in a way that i saw things in McClouds book with the help of Horock that i had not seen before. He broadened up my mind to explore new life in McClouds novel. I enjoyed the reading though it was rather long and at the same time very difficult to understand. I now have more insight to the definiton of comics by McCloud from others point of views.

Inventing Comics

I believe that Dylan Horrocks describes very well the aspects and what Scott McCloud is trying to get across in Understanding Comics. Horrocks points out that Scotts argument is refered to as simple more because that the majority of those who have read the book are already within the commic book community or agenda. I agree with this statement simply because it can be difficult to get people in general to try new things. Horrocks also mentions that Scott is trying to move the readers attention from comics past history and to be looking more towards the future as he always did himself. He does this by using the form Vs. content. Knowing history is an important thing I believe but it also must have its place. He focuses the reader on the more pure form of comics rather than the bad history undermining the entire community. One must be willing to let go of the past to some extent to look toward the future for anything.



Horrocks also points out that comics are more than just pictures and bad art. Each piece has hidden power or invisible art to it, Horrocks points out. Horrocks mentions that the most important aspect that Scott is trying to get across to his reader is the aspect of closure. I agree that closure is very important in anything in life. Imagine anything without closure it would just feel incomplete. 216

Many people who read commics enjoy the depictions from pannel to pannel. Others whom prefer a novel say that novels are more efficient and more recognizable as a reading source of true literature. Horrocks mentions that Scott argues that comics are just as important if not even more. There is so much culture within a comic just as in books. Just like a novel comics also contain deep stories and meaningful characters. It is not just about the guys in tights fighting the bad guy who is trying to destroy or take over the world.

Horrocks brings up that Scott is trying to broaden the world of comics and not just keep it confined by those outside the comic community. Scott has given speaches on the subject at conventions that seem to dwindle each year. Scott still believes that comics age is far from over as we look to the future.