tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post7583597723914709414..comments2024-01-04T08:02:29.500-05:00Comments on Attempts: 100 Great Pages: J T Waldman's Megillat Esther, page 84Stephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-76863996549723743212007-05-15T10:39:00.000-04:002007-05-15T10:39:00.000-04:00Andrew,Thanks for reading!I'm quite a fan of McClo...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading!<BR/><BR/>I'm quite a fan of McCloud, actually. I haven't read enough academic paper on comic to notice the phenomenon that you mention although as described I would (of course, given the description) be put off by it. I find McCloud's terms useful and, rather than stifling, liberating -- but of course when "useful" is the criteria (as it should be) context and purpose matters above all.<BR/><BR/>I'm also wondering which terms you mean. I've seen the most resistance to McCloud's definition of comics; three articulate oppositions to this come from <A HREF="http://stephenfrug.blogspot.com/2007/04/100-great-pages-samuel-r-delany-and-mia.html" REL="nofollow">Samuel R. Delany</A> (in an essay collected, IIRC, in his book <I>Shorter Views</I>), from <A HREF="http://www.hicksville.co.nz/Inventing%20Comics.htm" REL="nofollow">Dylan Horrocks</A> (in an on-line essay, click that link), and in various places by Eddie Campbell. (Incidentally, Eddie Campbell came by the comments of <A HREF="http://stephenfrug.blogspot.com/2007/03/100-great-pages-luigi-serafinis-codex.html" REL="nofollow">the Codex Seraphinianus entry in this series</A> and we hashed this out a bit; you might be interested in taking a look.) The one thing I'd add to this discussion -- which I think moots a lot of the criticism that Delany, Horrocks & Campbell have -- is that if you reread the first chapter of <I>Understanding Comics</I>, McCloud very clearly describes his definition as <I>provisional</I>. Granted, in other contexts he seems to take it as True; but I think he would personally admit to the pragmatic nature of the decision. And certainly that's how <I>I</I> see it: McCloud's definition opens up possibilities, and is therefore a good thing; if you see it as closing off possibilities, well, then, set it aside. (I have the same reaction to the "words and pictures" definition which is the other common one you see -- which I associate with Harvey Pekar & R. C. Harvey).<BR/><BR/>But I've seen less resistance to his other terms -- closure, the various types of panel-to-panel transitions, etc. I'm curious which terms you're thinking of. I'd have said I use McCloud's terms when they, well, come up; for a lot of the analysis that I'm trying to do they're simply not applicable.<BR/><BR/>If you say more, I'll try to follow up and say more too.<BR/><BR/>But for myself -- especially the definition -- yeah, liberating: one of the forces helping draw me back into serious comics readings seven or eight years ago was the (ongoing) impact of McCloud's work, the sense of being lead out of a dark and stifling basement to breath clean, bright air about what comics could be. So I tend to be a big McCloud booster.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment,<BR/><BR/>SFStephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-14862046807293691222007-05-15T06:37:00.000-04:002007-05-15T06:37:00.000-04:00stephen, thanks so much for this, I'm really enjoy...stephen, thanks so much for this, I'm really enjoying following your analysis.<BR/><BR/>One question: where do you stand (as someone who clearly actually thinks about comics rather than just enjoying them) on Scott Mccloud's framing of comics discourse? I've noticed that you reference some of his terms from time to time, but not always.<BR/><BR/>My feeling is that is some ways Mccloud's books, while useful, have had a bit of a stifling effect, not so much amongst actual comic heads, but with academics coming in from other disciplines. I recently read a book called the Sandman Papers where all these English masters and phd students used Mccloud as a crutch. He seems to have become the "safe" way to talk intelligently about the medium.<BR/><BR/>This, in a way, is why I like your pieces so much, particularly when you talk about something I've actually read. Your comments stand alone.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03217168861594969994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-57575299524970228542007-05-14T18:49:00.000-04:002007-05-14T18:49:00.000-04:00Thanks for the comments, Miriam & Matt!Matt: it's ...Thanks for the comments, Miriam & Matt!<BR/><BR/>Matt: it's definitely worth tracking down. The "Jewishness" is actually more noticeable on other pages, I think. (Unless it's all in my head.) I wanted to mention it, but it's hard to see here.<BR/><BR/>SFStephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16524368948187746248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-26909496601938699382007-05-14T18:14:00.000-04:002007-05-14T18:14:00.000-04:00Wow, that's a great page. I had never seen, or ev...Wow, that's a great page. I had never seen, or even heard of, this book before reading your post. We should try to get the word out about this guy.<BR/><BR/>Good analysis as always. I especially like the drawing of Esther doing her hair in the 6th(?) panel. It just looks really nice. You mention that she is drawn attractively, yet realistically, and the panel of her being comforted (the 5th?) is a great example of that; you can see the bulge of flesh underneath her clothes. Nice drawing, that. I'm not so good at recognizing the "Jewishness" that you describe, but I think I see what you mean. I really need to try to read this book.<BR/><BR/>By the way, congratulations on being linked by Journalista!; your stuff is quite deserving of wider recognition. Keep up the good work!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13867868039166531163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13734864.post-77158627868445809492007-05-14T17:52:00.000-04:002007-05-14T17:52:00.000-04:00wow. i'll have to go read that page again.it's sai...wow. i'll have to go read that page again.<BR/><BR/>it's said of all the best graphic novels that they get richer with successive readings, & waldman's reasearch is so extensive & his pages are so packed that a hundred readings would still turn up new stuff.<BR/><BR/>i am likewise mystified how little press this book got in the comics world. i heard about it first from people from my synagogue, & only got my hands on a copy once i met the artist.<BR/><BR/>the artist, by the way, & i are sharing a table at mocca art fest next month. tell all your friends!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com