In Varnum’s The Language of comics: word and image (2001) Varnum doesn't quite establish the
difference between a cartoon, comics, and graphic novel. Instead he refers to them as being a family,
interlaced in some ways but vastly different in others. "Comic strips, comic books, graphic novels,
single-panel cartoons, wordless comics, animated cartoons and various other kinds of visual texts bear
family resemblances to one another. None of the members of the family shares one feature in common
with all the others, but any two share common features." (2001)
What separates these 'genres' from having one concrete definition that, either, cements them all
together or individualises them, is the use of words, visuals, both, or none of either at the same time as
well as the sequence in which the words/images follow or doesn't follow i.e. a comic strip tells a story
through pictures arranged in a sequence. Varnum (2001) references two authors Couch and Harvey who
argue "it is the juxtoposition of words and pictures, not sequence, that is essential to the comic form."
Another way of looking at it may be to see all these genres as falling under the same umbrella
efinition while still having their own meanings. Another author whose essays are looked at, Ludwig
Wittgenstein (Varnum, 2001) says: "explain why football, chess, poker, and hide-and-go seek are
called "games"." Essentially they stem from the same family thus making it difficult to define the
differences in each genre.
Media in its purest essence, regardless of the form, all strive toward the same end, in my opinion.
Whether it be comics, novels, films, or whatever, each genre appeals to its niche through the same
draw card: the promise of being transported, entertained, educated- each in their own individual way!
Comics, usually now days, combine visual and written elements which are its defining features.
In the cartoons Harvey and Couch (Varnum, 2001) discuss, "words and pictures for the most part
dance together in a civilized partnership." A novel, for instance, relies heavily on written word alone
(for the most part). Not to say that one form is better or more engaging than the other; they all have
their own challenges and appeals.
Varnum (Miller, 2015) says that the combination of word and image is capable of expressing events
and emotions in ways impossible with just the written word. I disagree. Being an avid reader and
having a vivid imagination I find that creating my own interpretation and ‘version’ of the author’s
world created through the text, is more powerful and engaging, to me, than being limited in the world
of the author because they’ve spelled it out for you through image. This opinion might differ from
someone who prefers to be shown exactly what the author means and falling into their world instead
of creating their own definition of the authors world.
In relation to Tintin and the Blue Lotus (1946) were that written in novel form, my image of Chang
drowning and the heroic save by Tin Tin would be vastly different form that which Herge depicts.
(No doubt a more substantial word count would have been present seeing how much I have already
written!) On that note, let’s wrap it up!
To summarise, Varnum (2001) refers to comics as being a family- all coming from the same place but
each having different characteristic which may or may not be shared between them. In terms of how
the comic genre relates to other media? I believe the same metaphor of ‘family’ can be applied to all
genres; they all transport you to your happy place- the mode of transportation is just different.
Varnum, R., Gibbons, C. T., (Ed.). (2001). The Language of Comics: word and image. Jackson: U Press of Mississippi
Miller, M.L, (Ed). (2015) Class Please Open Your Comics: Essays on teaching with graphic
narratives, pge. 146, McFarland
Herge, (1946). The Adventures of Tintin: The Blue Lotus, Casterman
Great response Tharina, and your 'voice' comes through clearly. I personally share your opinion about written-word vs. visual-textual combinations - however you are right that many would disagree. Have you ever seen movie AFTER you have read a book and found it clashes with your own interpretations? And what about reading a sequel after seeing the original?
ReplyDeleteHi Brendan, I'm always slightly hesitant to see the movie after I've read the book because I usually harbor so much love and devotion to the book (if i liked it obviously) that I fear the movie isn't going to live up to my expectation and so far I have only ever experienced a hand full of films that have faaaar surpassed the book and my interpretation. I guess it's all subjective and at the end of the day it's the interpretation of the director and producers and the film might be the exact portrayal of what THEY imagined. (Also let's not forget the actual drive behind certain decisions being made for films which may or may not contrast with the original text... $$$$)
ReplyDelete