Rhetoric Analysis -- Understanding Comics

                I am doing my paper on chapter 9 of Understanding Comics.

                The chapter was written to show why you should try and understand comics, why we don’t, and how we can. He writes about the “wall of ignorance,” and how people are not trying to open their minds to comics and such, and how they can if they break the wall. He is a professional comic writer and doesn’t like that people these days view comics as something just for little kids. He thinks they are being underestimated and that they can tell a very good story using picture and word.

                Intended Audience: Anyone who wants to buy a book called Understanding Comics.

                What helps us understand the chapter: He was the most straightforward in this chapter, and it helped me to understand all of the other chapters we had read.

                Argument by author: He argues that people aren’t opening their minds to comics and because of that they get a bad reputation.

                Authors motivation: He is a professional comic writer, and he wants to stand up to other kinds of media (TV, movies, etc.) some day.

Thesis: Scott McCloud in chapter nine tries to help the reader better understand comics and how to break down the wall of ignorance that is keeping us from understanding comics and that they aren’t just for little kids.

Understanding Comics Chapter Nine

           I would have to say, this was my favorite chapter of all. It made me understand all the other chapters more, and what McCould meant by all of it. I liked all the illistrations he used to show how Comics are a medium. They involve word, and image, and still allow for space for the reader to put themselves in it. He says "Creator and reader are partners in the invisible creating something out of nothing, time and time again." By this I think he means that not all parts of a comic are laid out for you on the paper, you have to use your own imagination to help tell the story that the creator has already started. You create a story out of the invisible, and make it into something to tell. He also says that comics have harnessed the power of cartoons to command viewer involvement and identification. Using simple characters allows the person to put themselves in the story.
         I liked pretty much all of this chapter, and he made it easy to understand and summarized the whole book very well. He makes me understand comics ;)
        I think writers could use this to show that comics are a way for readers to insert themselves into the story. Also, that comics have come a long way. When images and letters seperated, comics were lost. Then, they made a comeback and we see them all the time now.
     

       Discussion Question: McCloud said that "all that's needed is the desire to be heard, the will to learn, and the ability to see." Is he implying that all human beings cannot do all of these? And, if we could, would we all enjoy comics more?

Understanding Comics Chapter 6

                In chapter 6 of McClouds Understanding Comics, I like how he opened the chapter with showing how as little kids we used a combination of words and images (or showing) to get our point across. Eventually, we grow out of that. Combination of words and images is like comics, but, we’re supposed to “grow out” of that. I also liked how he explained that pictures and words went totally opposite sides of the spectrum for a while and they were never used together. They then started to migrate towards each other again. I guess you could consider an advertisement a comic in a way because there are few words and a picture to describe what it is. When he explained the different kinds of categories of comics more of this chapter made sense. There is word specific comics where the words are the ones that mostly describe what’s happening while the picture is not very detailed. There is also picture specific where there are few words but you can tell by the detail of the picture exactly what is happening. Then there is a mix of both called duo-specific where the words and picture are both detailed and saying the same story.

                There wasn’t much I disliked about this chapter. I am just not a huge fan of comics in general, but McCloud does a good job of making this book pretty interesting and not boring or too weird.

                This chapter can help people understand how texts work because he basically showed the evolution of text and pictures together and how they relate and don’t relate.

                Discussion Question: McCloud says “as long as we view comics as a genre of writing or a style of graphic art this attitude may never disappear,” talking about how comic artists are never able to match the achievements of other media. Why do you think this is?

Understading Comics - Chapter 3

In chapter three I liked when he explained closure. I had never really thought of that word that way. By the way he explained it, I see it as something that you perceive to be true, although you cannot see or prove it. He explained it as “observing the parts but perceiving the whole.” Like the earth; most have us have not seen it from a rocket ship, but we know it to be round. It made it easier to understand how when we watch TV or a movie, it is closure. We are watching this stuff happening, and although its just through a TV screen, we know it to be true and happening. You could also think of it in the sense of religion. Knowing that a god exists is closure, because you cannot see the god, but you know its there. Closure almost always includes faith in what you see to be true. We have the bible, so that’s observing the parts, but perceiving the whole is knowing that God and his prophets wrote it.

                I don’t understand how he thinks that no matter what all pictures are related in some way, like in the Non-Sequitur type of cartoons. On page 72 there is a picture of a random space thing that says ep! Beep! Then the other picture is farmer Joe. I don’t see in any way how those could be related. He says that he thinks with every picture there is some sort of alchemy at work in the space in between the comics. I don’t really agree with that.

                I think this chapter was useful in studying how texts work because all texts I feel create some sort of closure. You’re reading these words on a page, and you are imagining them happening in your head. Closure in books is especially true in non-fiction. Its real life, but you don’t see it personally so you have to make your own perception and believe it.

                Discussion Question: How are non-sequitur comics related to one another?

Chapter Two - Understanding Comics

                What I liked in Chapter 2 is the point he makes about how when you look at a picture of something, it’s not the actual item. He uses the example of a picture of a pipe, and how its not a pipe, it’s a “printed copy of a drawing of a painting of a pipe.” I also like how he explained how human nature is to see you in everything. If someone draws a circle with two dots and a line, we automatically see it as a person. We insert ourselves into it. He explained how if he had made a more detailed picture of himself in the book, we would likely not listen.

                He gets a bit complicated whenever he writes, and I think some of the stuff is unnecessary. I think he does well for the most part, but he seems to go way out of the way to prove his point. He got into a whole rant about what you see in a comic and about how some comics make theirs more complicated, or less complicated, but you must always have room to see yourself in it.

                I think the point he was trying to get across in this chapter was that humans like to be able to insert themselves in whatever they see in order to understand best. Comics often are very simple, and it is so you can see yourself and create your own life for it.

                Discussion Question: What would happen if all comics were detailed?

McCloud Chapter One

                    “JUXTAPOSED PICTORIAL AND OTHER IMAGES IN DELIBERATE SEQUENCE” is the definition  Scott McCloud came up with for Comics. By this, he means it is side-by-side pictures put in a sequence to make sense of the pictures. McCloud wanted to prove that Comics aren’t just superhero stories and such, but many things are comics. Comics came from far before our time, and have progressed over the years. Egyptians even used comics. I think he was rather successful in showing what “comics” really are, and that they are used in everyday life; like car manuals, instructions, planes, etc.

                I liked how McCloud used many different examples in order to show is point that comics have a bad reputation, but many things are not recognized as comics, that should be. When I think “comic book,” I think a series of pictures (containing few or no words) that are put in order so you can see what is happening. This usually involves men in tight pants saving the day from the evil man. I read the books Captain Underpants which was a comic about a baby superhero that wore underpants around all the time. What I didn’t like was how he was downgrading what we think as comics in order to show his side. Those are still comics, and perhaps, the most common type.

                I think he does a good job showing what a comic is and what it isn’t by definition. I don’t feel like comics are very common, but then when he shows examples, you realize they are. They are in the instruction booklets on planes for how to put on your oxygen mask, and how to assemble furniture.

                Discussion Question: How did the word ‘comics’ get the reputation of superheros with tight pants?

Rhetorical Situation

Rhetorical Situation

             In Grant-Davies article, he quotes Bitzer in saying a rhetorical situation “a complex of persons, events, objects, and relations presenting an actual or potential exigence which can be completely or partially removed if discourse, introduced into the situation, can so constrain human decision or action as to bring about the significant modification of the exigence.”

                From this article, I think a rhetorical situation is one in which when a written or verbal communication is used to prevent a potentially bad/dangerous situation. For example, if a school board fires a principal for a stupid reason, a group of parents get really mad. One of the situations, or an exigence, that could come out of it is the parents form an angry mob and damages the school building. Instead, a parent writes a letter to the school board expressing their concern and anger that resulted from them firing the teacher. The letter “constrained human decision or action”

                The discourse is basically removing the potential exigence that would have existed if there no communication was used. Instead of reacting with communication, you react with action. Say the same situation above, no one bothered to call or write the school board about their concern or anger, they just got torches and lit the building on fire, then the discourse would be removed and the exigence is used.

                “A rhetorical situation is a situation where a speaker or writer sees a need to change reality and sees that the change may be effected through rhetorical discourse.” If a mom is upset with how a babysitter is treating her kids, instead of getting in a physical fight, she might talk to her in person with her concerns. The mother is trying to change reality and the situation, and understands that the best way for this to happen is through communication. A rhetorical discourse is a form of communication where no response is really wanted or needed. The babysitter could not argue that she needs to change, when the mother is her boss and could fire her if she wanted. If the mom says she is concerned, the babysitter could not say “no you aren’t.” It’s not something you can argue with.