Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud

The simplest way to summarize Understanding Comics is perhaps to say it’s a comic book about comic books. But that probably doesn’t even begin to give you an idea of what to expect from this book. Written in an informal and accessible style, Understanding Comics looks at the history of the medium, at its vocabulary, at common misconceptions about it, at what makes it works, and at its potential.

I loved this book so much that I don’t even know how to start explaining why. It was so smart, funny, stimulating and unpretentious. And before you ask, no, you don’t need to be obsessed with comics or anything remotely similar to enjoy it. I think that anyone interested in art history or art in general would get something out of this book. Because even though it looks at an art form in specific, Understanding Comics also makes all sorts of interesting points about how art in general works, how our brains process it, how we respond to it and why we create it.


Scott McCloud begins by attempting to define comics. Contrary to popular belief, the word “comics” doesn’t refer exclusively to superhero stories. Rather, it refers to the art of juxtaposing static images in a deliberate sequence to convey information, to tell a story, or to communicate something. It is not the content that defines whether something is comics or not.

He also points out that comics are a medium, not a genre. Seeing comics being referred to as a genre is actually something I really don’t like. The word “genre” implies certain thematic similarities (though I could say a thing or two about genre labelling in general, but I’ll leave that for another occasion), and comics are not any more similar among themselves than, say, movies or novels or plays.

As he puts it,

If people failed to understand comics, it was because they defined what comics could be too narrowly. A proper definition, if we could find one, might give lie to the stereotypes, and how that the potential of comics is limitless and exciting.

(And yes, I realize that there's some sad irony in the fact that I’m divorcing the words from the images in the quotes I’m posting, but I really wanted to share certain bits and couldn’t find any pictures of the panels online. I did find this one, though:)


He also says:

Some of the most inspired and innovative comics of our century have never received recognition as comics, not so much in spite of their superior qualities as because of them. For much of this century, the word “comics” has had such negative connotations that many of comics’ devoted practitioners have preferred to be known as “illustrators”, “commercial artists” or, at best, “cartoonists!”

…and in our day, “graphic novelists”. Sixteen years later, this is still so true. Maus, Persepolis, Watchmen, The Sandman, you name it. The idea that if they are any good, it’s because they’re not comics but "graphic novels" is so widepread. And I tend to agree with McCloud that giving them a new label, one that sets them apart and makes them sound more “respectable”, helps perpetuate stereotypes and negative attitudes about the medium in general. I don't have anything against the term "graphic novels" as long as a qualitative distinction between it and comics is not made. But even though both are terms that refer to the same medium, very often it is.

I’m going on and on about the status of comics and the way they’re perceived socially because this is something I particularly care about. But really, that’s only a small part of what Understanding Comics is all about. Like I said before, much of it is about art in general. And also about how this particular art form works.

Scott McCloud points out so many things I hadn’t thought about before. For example, how time works in comics, how it is conveyed. It isn’t really true that each panel corresponds to a static moment. It corresponds to a time interval, and there are several ways the reader can be told about the length of that interval. He also explains about different types of panel transitions and how they are used in the West and in the East (the things he says about Manga made me even more curious about it), and about how the type of line used can convey certain moods. And these are just a few examples.



Understanding Comics is such an informative and enriching book. It’s also often very funny, and such a joy to read as. I highly recommend it both to comics aficionados and to those who are just starting to explore the medium. Whatever category you fit in, this is a book that is likely to make you look at comics in a new way.

A few more particularly good bits:

As I write this, in 1992, American audiences are just beginning to realize that a simple style doesn’t necessarily mean a simple story [insert panel with the cover of Maus here]. The platonic ideal of the cartoon may seem to omit much of the ambiguity and complex characterization which are the hallmarks of modern literature, leaving them suitable only for children. But simple elements can combine in complex ways, as atoms become molecules and molecules become life.

The comics creator asks us to join in a silent dance of the seen and the unseen. The visible and the invisible. This dance is unique to comics. No other art form gives so much to its audience while asking so much from them as well. This is why I think it’s a mistake to see comics as a mere hybrid of the graphic arts and prose fiction. What happens between these panels is kind of magic only comics can create.

Each new medium begins its life by imitating its predecessors. Many early movies were like filmed stage plays, much early television was like radio with pictures or reduced movies. Far too many comics creators have no higher goal than to match the achievements of other media, and view any chance to work in other media as a set up. And again, as long as we view comics as a genre of writing or a style of graphic art this attitude may never disappear.

Other Opinions:
1330v
Sophisticated Dorkiness
Jenny's Books
Rebecca Reads
Shananagins

(Let me know if I missed yours.)

And remember: