Who to believe!!??
McCloud had some pretty amazing persuasive ideas about comics, and now there is another who has much to say about his work. “Inventing comics”, by Dylan Horrack’s, is about Scott McCloud’s book, (Understanding Comics). In Inventing Comics, Horrack’s explains how McCloud’s idealistic theory’s (or as he sees them) are well thought out that his audience would not know rather to un-trust him or not, because his material is definitely convincing. The article begins by explaining McCloud’s definition of comics, and how it can be convincing to the point of actually looking at it like it’s the truth, much more rationally than rhetorically, in a sense. The definitions attempt to convince an audience is by killing out the stereotypes, and as Horrack’s explains this purpose, he begins by first looking back at some examples McCloud uses. He uses McCloud’s first encounter with comics and his after math of trying to get the word out about comics, but then no one wanted to listen to him. Horracks explains Scotts strategy by making him look more like he’s going to save the day and make the definition much simpler (but it doesn’t work that way). He brings up how McCloud had to sever all ties with the past history and look at it in a new form but instead, keep the old title (it’s more like shining up an old penny and making it look new again but it will be the same old penny, just with better quality). Horrack’s explains that McCloud’s search for a definition begins and ends with the ‘art of comics,’ Eisner’s “sequential art”.
Horrack’s explains McCloud’s definition (sequential art) and he interprets how McCloud makes an attempt to justify why it should be seen as a definitive element in comics to the exclusion of all others. Although, he may think McCloud’s re-constructed definition of comics is amazingly organized, but it’s too well thought out to the point where anyone would not try or even be able challenge it or not. Horrack’s says it himself, “if Scott’s tactic works, whenever we talk about ‘comics’ we will really be talking about ‘sequential art’. (Page 2) Horrack’s tries his best to actually damper McCloud’s credibility and do the infinite thing no else did, which was talk and make a statement about his work which to him was only based on what McCloud liked or cared about, rather than what the public cared about. After reading Horrack’s article, it really opened a much bigger argument for McCloud followers. Well its McCloud’s word against Horrack’s.