Understanding Identification in Understanding Comics

In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud proposes the concept of “amplification through simplification” to explain the richness & intensity of our identification with comics characters. It’s one of McCloud’s most appealing concepts–and one of the most frequently critiqued. 1/12 #ComicsStudies

As McCloud observes, our often-intense investment in cartoon characters might, at first glance, seem counterintuitive. Why would these simplified, generally unrealistic, obviously unreal, and often comedic characters appeal to us as much–or more–than images with more fidelity to reality? 2/12

To answer this question, McCloud theorizes “amplification through simplification”: “By stripping down an image to its essential ‘meaning,’ an artist can amplify that meaning in a way realistic art can’t.” This seemingly succinct statement about simplification is deceptively complex. 3/12

At the most basic level, McCloud argues it’s precisely the simplified nature of cartoons that makes them so intensely appealing & identifiable. According to McCloud, simplified characters are easier to identify with because they connote greater universality than more specific, realistic images. 4/12

McCloud argues that, “the more cartoony a face is… the more people it could be said to describe.” There’s an obvious logic to this: a circle with dots for eyes and a single line for a mouth doesn’t have any recognizable gender or ethnicity. Such a face could, in theory, represent anyone. 5/12

Yet many scholars have discussed how cultural hegemony informs our perceptions of universality. Because minority or minorized individuals (women, people of colour, LGBTQ+ folks) are less likely to be represented as protagonists stories, they’re less likely to be perceived as universal subjects. 6/12

Within societies where whiteness, straightness, and maleness are culturally dominant, viewers are less likely to perceive a supposedly universal face as actually universal. They’re more likely to perceive supposed universality as reflecting the hegemonic “norm.” 7/12

Case in point: presumed male cartoon characters tend to be depicted with few if any overt gender markers precisely because they’re presumed male. And exaggerated markers of femininity are often required to denote female cartoon characters so that we *don’t* default to assuming they’re male. 8/12

Whether amplification through simplification automatically enhances identification might also depend on what’s amplified, what’s simplified, how & why. For instance, racial caricature amplifies cultural stereotypes to simplify reality in the service of racist dehumanization, not identification. 9/12

As Misha Grifka Wander observes, many female characters similarly prioritize objectification rather than identification: “The qualities which are ‘amplified’ are not those which signal the personhood of the woman in question, but her availability as a sex object & object of the male gaze.” 10/12

Other scholars, like Ethan Frome, argue that by focusing on iconic images devoid of context, McCloud neglects the importance of narrative as a factor in identification. Without context, “although we can identify [Charlie Brown] as a boy, we have trouble identifying with him as a character.” 11/12

Despite these critiques, the enduring appeal of McCloud’s concept of amplification through simplification speaks to its elements of truth. There is undoubtedly something powerful about the language of comics art, which McCloud offers us a foundation to consider, debate, and refine. 12/12