28 February 2012

Correcting a Modern Day Philosopher

After reading Horrock’s article which analyzes Scott McCloud's,“Understanding Comics”, I viewed Scott McCloud as a successful persuasive writer as well as a philosopher. These ideas may not be original according to Horrock. Scott McCloud's philosophies may just be a revised and polished definition already conceived from another great mind, Will Eisner.  Horrock’s main beef with Scott McCloud's explanation of what comics are is just that, how can one person make the judgment of what comics are. In his introduction, Horrock suggests that it's not hard to convince people who already enjoy comics of what comics entail.  This was one of the areas in which I had questionable doubt about Horrock and how much he paid attention to Scott McCloud's original target demographic.  I thought it was stated in Scott McCloud's work that comics can be in should be for anyone who is interested, so in a sense his book is supplying a definition to those who have not been completely exposed to comic culture.  This is beside the point, because Horrock’s observation of how Scott McCloud creates anew rendered definition is spot on.  He makes the connection between Will Eisner is original sequential art definition with the current textbook explanation for what comic books are in presents us with the notion that Scott McCloud's idea for what comic books are may not be all that original.

Horrocks analysis isn't just about identifying flaws in Scott McCloud's book, but also praising the fact that he can give a proper visual and contextual view of how society has trouble distinguishing content from form. Horrock also tips his hat towards McCloud for reclaiming and acknowledging certain portions of history that, by Scott McCloud's definition, qualify as sequential art.

As Horrock presses on towards the next book written by Scott McCloud, “Reinventing Comics”, he feels content with the fact that Scott McCloud mentions the Internet as a viable tool for artistic expansion. Horrock then turns back to Scott McCloud's definition which is reiterated in his new book, and asked the question is comics are really more of a visual medium. Horrock goes on to question Scott's validity by questioning the exclusion, or rather the neglect to acknowledge children's books as either comics are not. All of these questions and ideas subsequently lead to the explanation of how Scott MacLeod developed his definition, which was a direct product of metaphor usage.  I agree that Scott McCloud could have elaborated more on what is and is not comic, but I still consider Scott McCloud's work to not only be a steppingstone for the future philosophy of comics, but a great example of what could potentially become an economically viable medium.

1 comment:

  1. Your summary is biased against Horrocks, Leo. Remember to summarize with the author's original intent in mind, otherwise you lose credibility or appear to have an inaccurate summary.