I have never read a book in comic form previous to this; looking back, I think it is because I assumed such reading was childish and not as effective or powerful as non-comic stories. While reading Persepolis, I was surprised not only to find myself so interested in the story, but also to see that powerful and meaningful passages relied on the pictures, and not just the words. On page 136, the last tile shows the parents talking to their child but looking at one another--having an unspoken conversation. While it may just be me looking too much into it, I felt that scene was extremely powerful in showing the parents worry/concern/love for their child/ etc all in one look. Language could have been able to do that, yes, but I feel that it wouldn't have been as powerful. On page 31 of McCloud, he writes that, "the ability of cartoons to focus our attention on any idea, is, i think, an important part of their special power, both in comics and in drawing generally". Take my tile as an example--there is a lot going on in this--yet by focusing the parents eyes on one another, a multitude of ideas are "told" in a more focused way. I think that this is also done through the ability of a cartoon, as McCloud states, to "de-emphasize the appearance of the physical world in favor of the idea of form" so that the "cartoon places itself in the world of concepts". Where language has to go on and on to illustrate a concept to readers, comics are able to do faster and more efficiently.
As I tried to understand deconstruction, I was drawn to the following, "One important implication of this insight is that if all things are produced as identities by their differences from other things, then a complete determination of identity would require an endless inventory of relations to other terms in a potentially infinite network of differences. Truth, as a result, will always be incomplete". However, I wonder, in comic form, does this still hold true? Since an idea need not necessarily be explained via lines of text, but rather a picture, would you need the network of differences? or would truth be complete here (or at least more complete than with a textial presentation of an idea). I can understand the argument about all things being differences from other things, but I'm left to wonder if with comics, you need the differences in order to understand an idea....isn't that the purpose of the "icon" McCloud wrote about? Or does each icon stand to represent all of the differences that go into making an idea? One of Derrida's central issues was "all thought is necessarily inscribed in language, and that language itself is fraught with intractable paradoxes"--is a comic more efficient than text? Since it invokes both image and word, does it help to fix the paradoxes presented in the language?
3 comments:
Hm. I'm left a little confused by your second paragraph. The question you ask is based on the quote "if all things are produced as identities by their differences from other things". First, a page number would be helpful so I can look up the context of the quote. Second, I don't understand why there is a question of whether this applies to comic form. Maybe the context of Derrida is something important here that I'm missing. I don't see why the comic form wouldn't be in the category of "all things". Is Derrida only referring to all language and that's why you question the pictures' application to the theory? The images in Persepolis still have identities and I would argue that, just as with language, we identify these images based on their differences from one another requiring "an endless inventory of relations to other terms in a potentially infinite network of differences". Aren't words and comic images both icons? I guess I would need to see exactly where in McCloud is this idea of the purpose of the icon that you see differing from Derrida's definition.
I understand what you mean, the paradoxical dilemma. I think your questions point to a point that was brought up in class not too long ago. You're wondering about the "textual truth," and if it's more "true" or reliable because it's presented alongside an image. And then I believe you're saying, "does the textual alongside the iconic still allow for these differences from other things?" I think a central issue to the idea you're presenting here would be, what complements what in Persepolis? For instance, would the words be effective without the icons, or do the icons direct us on how to interpret the words? I think that just because a text is presented alongside an icon, it is not necessarily more "true." I think icons still carry an identity only with a relative group of people, much like a word. Remember what Bahktin wrote about heteroglossia and the context or situation its used in ascribing meaning? I think the same applies for icons. We can't rely completely on an icon because differences exist, and we can't rely completely on a text because difference exists, and so can we rely on the two side by side? No, because one might not necessarily agree with the other. Marji's scolding in textual form may not seem to imply anything except perhaps Marji has done something wrong. The iconic representation, however, may suggest Marji has done nothing worth reprimand at all. So yes, I see a bit of a paradox between what can be accepted as truth and what cannot. I will say, however, that I think the combination can be even more jam packed with cultural differences and allusions than any mere word, leaving the reader with huge interpretive responsibilities.
This is a really interesting post to me. I am definitely there with you on the whole misunderstanding comics thing- I always thought of comics as an inferior literary form. Prior to reading Persepolis, I had never encountered a comic book so brimming with depth and meaning.
The element that really interested me about the comic book images was the use of black and white. So black and white are colors that often represent contrasting concepts. In movies, if a scene is meant to be eerie or frightening it is often dimly lit, and there is a lot of blackness used to portray a sense of gloom and danger. In books, if a character is intended to come off as sinister and evil, he is often dirty and dressed in dark colors. The "good characters" are often wearing lighter colors, and "good" scenes are never in dark cellars or prison cells. I could go on and on. The point is, black and white, light and dark, are used to convey meaning.
In Persepolis, I feel like black and white are key. I would almost say that you can determine what the frame will contain by looking at the colors in it. Many of the completely blacked out frames are really dismal and horrible/dark things are happening in them. In noticing this, I have come to think of comics in a different way. The fact that like movies and books, they can convey deep meaning by the simple use of colors earns them a bit of credibility in my eyes. I love the fact that they can effectively do the same thing using the same tools that other art forms that I have always respected do.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.