23 February 2011

Does McCloud Really Do A Good Job At Defining Comics? Some Think Otherwise!

Is Scott McClouds definition really a good definition of comics? Well Inventing Comics by Dylan Horrack is all about McCloud’s definition of comics and why it isn’t that good of a definition. In McCloud’s book Understanding Comics he tries to define comics and make people think of comics in a different light. Horrack’s piece is all about how McCloud doesn’t do a good job defining comics. In Horrack’s second paragraph he states “When you’re preaching to the converted, its easy to convince them that you’re speaking the Truth- rationally rather than rhetorically. (Horrack page 1)” Harrack starts off by explaining McCloud’s book and how he goes about explaining comics. Horrack explains how McCloud came up with the definition that he came up. The term ‘Sequential Art’ actually came from Eisner who used it in his when he was defining the art of comics. Throughout Horrack’s piece he talks about how McCloud’s definition is not very good, because he just uses a term that someone else used and just said it was the definition of comics. Scott McCloud makes his definition look like a dictionary style so the he pulls the reader into believing that his definition is correct. Horrack mentions in his piece that McClouds doesn't say anything about the style or the content of comics. He merely defines comics as sequential art. Another big part about McCloud's definition is closure. Horrack just writes about all the bad aspects of McClouds definition.

I think that Horrack's piece on McClouds book is good. I like it because he really talks about why McCloud's definition is not good, or accurate. I agree with Horrack just because McCloud doesn't ever talk about what makes up comics and i think that is important. Before I read this piece i really liked McClouds definition, but now i think that it is to broad. McClouds definition can include some stuff that I do not think are comics. But everyone has their own view on comics. Comics can include a lot of things but i think that McClouds definition is too broad. And Harrock just shows all the bad things about McClouds book and definition


  1. Your summary was very well written. I agree with you when you talk about how McCloud's definition is to broad and that he should limit his definition.

  2. I agree with Bre, Margaret, except for one small detail--Horrocks doesn't think McCloud's definition is bad or incorrect.

    But more importantly, proofread!