Defining Comics with Scott McCloud
Scott McCloud devotes a significant portion of the first chapter of “Understanding Comics” to creating a definition of comics In conversation with McCloud’s definition, let’s consider the pros and cons of defining what comics are–and what they’re not. 1/14 #ComicsStudies #UnderstandingComics
McCloud states his case for defining the comics medium by addressing enduring stereotypes attached to it–most notably, the assumption that comics = “stupid stories” + “guys in tights.” McCloud associates these assumptions with childishness, suggesting the need for a more “mature” definition. 2/14
Part of McCloud’s definitional project is emphasizing that comics are not a genre, but rather a medium that does and can include many different genres. Some comics may be for children, others are not. Some might star superheroes, others do not. Some might be “bad,” others are not. 3/14
For McCloud, ancient pictorial writing, such as hieroglyphs, have pictorial elements similar to comics, especially when they are part of narrative murals. There are many ways to quibble with the equivalences McCloud makes here, which might neglect important aspects of cultural specificity. But his goal is clear: elevate comics by proposing a rich history. 5/14
McCloud is able to argue that Egyptian hieroglyphs and the Bayeux tapestry are forms of comics because of the emphasis on sequentiality within his definition of comics. As McCloud acknowledges, he borrows this aspect of his definition from previous cartoonists and theorists, most notably Will Eisner. 6/14
The ways McCloud builds & defends his definition of comics are, once again, very rhetorically effective. He stages potential criticism as a back-and-forth discussion between himself & an imaginary audience, involving readers in the (seemingly logical) journey toward the “correct” definition. 7/14
Taking us inside McCloud’s thought process in developing the definition, and suggesting it’s a crowd-sourced effort, makes the definition more convincing. We can see (literally, because this is a comic) how potential exceptions and critiques are raised and deflected through additions and edits. 8/14
Eventually, McCloud arrives at this definition of comics: “Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or produce an aesthetic response in the viewer.” It’s a thoughtful definition that serves McCloud’s purposes. But what are its limitations? 9/14
According to McCloud’s definition, when they employ juxtaposed sequential images, safety brochures are a form of comics. But because they are (generally) single panels rather than sequences, staples of the newspaper comics page, such as “Family Circus” and “The Far Side,” are not comics. 10/14
In her book Singular Sensations, Michelle Ann Abate conversely argues one-panel comics are definitely comics & definitely essential to our ongoing quest to understand the history and artistry of comics: “single-panel comics represent the medium at its most compact, elemental, and efficient.” 11/14
McCloud also considers film strips “very slow comics,” but discounts children’s picture books. This discounting of children’s picture books and emphasis on “mature” forms of comics has contributed to contemporary comics scholars neglecting some of the most popular comics of the 21st century. 12/14
McCloud’s emphasis on visuality also neglects the possibility of non-visual comics, such as audio comics & braille comics developed for blind & low-vision readers. For instance, Ilan Manouach’s Shapereader uses engraved tiles & textures to create sequences that don’t depend on sight. 13/14
McCloud concludes his definitional discussion by acknowledging that new definitions will undoubtedly be proposed. But we can also ask: do comics need to be defined? McCloud wants comics to be limitless, but does imposing a definition inherently limit them? Here’s to the great debate! 14/14