Dylan Horrak writes in his article, Inventing Comics, about Scott McClouds definition on comic books and the world they revolve around. According to Horrak, McClouds definition is too broad and isn't very good. Horrak shows a few comic panels from McClouds book and talks about how McClouds definition is too broad. Horrack states: "Nowhere in Understanding Comics does Scott attempt to justify why ‘Sequential Art’ should be seen as the one definitive element in comics to the exclusion of all others"(Horrak 2). I don't think McCloud attempts this because he is trying to make is own definition about comics and not use Eisners'. Horrak then states:"His textual vocabulary, too, is often built on these geographical metaphors"(3). He then quotes some of these "metaphores" that McCloud uses. At the end of his article Horrak then says good things about McClouds book.'Reading Understanding Comics brought those two ways of loving comics together for me - in that sense it helped me to write my own book Hicksville. Part of me has been in a dialogue with Scott’s book for the past six years - and will be for some time yet."(6)
To me it seems like Horrak is trying to 'out do' McCloud and say that McClouds definition isn't a fit one. For someone to write a whole book about comics in comic form isn't easy. McCloud really knows what he is talking about and it all makes sense. The whole purpose of this book was to shed a positive light on comic books not to go into such depth about the definition. Sure the definition is kind of broad but after reading this book most will look at comics differently. And if so... Mission Accomplished by Scott McCloud!