Reading Response #4 -- Dancing With Cartoons (McCloud)

          "Vocabulary of Comics", drawn by Scott McCloud, is a deconstructed, or rudimentary, comic that tells those who seek to learn more about their craft, academic members of various institutions, and those who have a simple way of looking into animated pictures that the essence of drawing itself is a mere representation of a complicated idea: drawings are merely icons, and the more simple the icon is, the easier the purpose of the symbol is hopefully seen. The easier that symbol becomes, the easier it is the person seeing that symbol can see itself within, who would then place its' beliefs, ideas, and dreams inside that icon, placing that symbol into the eyes of the beholder, where one could see something within the symbol another cannot see (and that's just going beyond the theory that thanks to Childlike Features, Universal Identification, and Simplicity, children having an easier time applying this concept to themselves at that age). To add, McCloud says that going past the idea that images are either practical or non-practical, icons are images that can represent anything, to physical objects such as places, people, or ideas, or more abstract images, such as ideas, philosophies, and concepts. Therefore, as the chapter ends, McCloud stresses that because of the way we humans see others compared to the way one can see itself in cartoons, there is a essential difference between the amplification through simplification nature of cartooning, to seeing another when seeing a more realistic drawing.

          This idea that cartoons could really expose character, depending on the way it's drawn, almost contradicts the public opinion of drawings itself, which amounts to something that doesn't have anything beneficial or meaningful to their social surroundings or their personal lives, therefore, pointless to their lives they leave. Sure, it's there to relive laughs whenever needed, and there is this one character that brings utter joy to their personality, but unless cartoons are in a setting that adds to their social life, the idea that drawings can enrich them into a drive to find more work and share them into social means is something that does not arouse curiosity to those off the street. This is where Kleine's article, ""What Is It We Do When We Write Articles Like This One--and How Can We Get Student to Join Us", comes in. To Kliene, his article is him creating a model of Hunting and Gathering, which is them used to follow his observation of writing in an more social setting, to make writing more appealing to fellow college students; changing procedures to make this more fascinating. McCloud does the same thing, in that he analyzes the way people might see cartoons and how there can be a deeper meaning in them, simply to make the material more fascinating for those who have an interest in it. The only difference is that McCloud is aiming to make his material look interesting for a much more wider audience, while Kliene proposes a new model to make it more it more sociable to those who are writing papers for College.

Before You Read

           As for favorite cartoons, there's too much to talk about, but in relation to favorite characters, there's "Duck Amuck", a cartoon that defines on how its' crew, consisting the combined efforts of Michael Maltese, Maurice Noble, Ken Harris, Ben Washam, and others under the guidance of Chuck Jones, see in its' characters, in this case, Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny. Why this cartoon out of hundreds of others? Well, the cartoons tells me on how rich these characters could be, and it works like this: in the whole cartoon, Daffy and Bugs are in a constant battle of control, where one wants to take his existence into serious consideration, while the other will have none of that and reveal to the audience watching that his character is really a true farce. The result is a cartoon where Daffy, the frustrated test subject, wants us to think of one way of looking at himself, but the director, Bugs, constantly challenges that personality by focusing on what primarily interests him, in this case, aggravating Daffy into a state of helplessness, where that personality has to fight something greater than he is in order to assert himself as the main character of that cartoon. As such, this reveals on what makes Daffy Duck, at least under Jones: a character who is constantly fighting to bring himself into pure respect among others, and instead of being depressing when things do not goes his way, it actually brings out on how rich a character he truly is: a craving duck with high ambitions for something greater than himself. This contrasts with Bugs Bunny, who is really just satisfied with the way situations are with himself, and instead of finding purity amiss the world around him, he seeks to find happiness in his own life, and if the opportunity arrives that challenges that approach, or in Duck Amuck's case, a chance to expose someone else for what they truly are, he will take it and enjoy every minute of it. So, obviously, a cartoon like that tells me on how each character operates, and as far as I'm concerned, there's something appealing about seeing the characters as who they truly are on screen, in the name of comedy, for six to seven minutes like that cartoon, and if given the chance to talk more about Daffy Duck in the future, it shall bring nothing but glee on my part.

          Looking around in my room, I do see some patterns that remind me of a human face. For example, the rug in my room has circles that remind me of eyeballs, the guitars in a painting in my room has a circle and a line below it, and the air conditioner, if looked right, resembles a face that is fast asleep. With the air conditioner, the face is a lot more abstract, with the two knobs as eyes and the lines below it as multiple mouths. With the guitars, it's just one circle and a black line below, but that's enough as far as I'm concerned. Ditto for the "eyes" on my rug; there's about two circles in each circle, some looking like the moon with a circle inside, while one looks like a ring, along with others moving the "pupil" around. Now, of course, they're not really eyeballs, since the human eye has a shape that never matches with the circles needed for such objects like a rug, painting, or an air conditioner, but once you get past the superficial similarities, it's not that hard to see them without thinking about faces, as I just said.

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

          In regards to adult liking cartoons, obviously the popularity of show like Family Guy, South Park, The Simpsons, and others--where the gags brings them utter joy, and plots that gives adults material that either matches with their own thoughts on the subject or material that reminds them of the time and place they are in, only in an exaggerated matter--tell people that interest in adult is there, so the idea that someone could outgrow cartoons might come into question. It's only when someone tries to watch a series out of the appropriate age demographic where things become problematic, like when someone who is not aware of the hopes and dream of a certain generation tries to seriously analyze something like Scott Pilgrim, or someone else watching anime that is aimed to a more feminine audience, because as far as the public is concerned, they're just there to appeal to a certain age group and have no business invading those spaces (unless an opportunity arrives to make those audiences aware on how much they're wasting their time on such things), since it does not comply to what others want to see. I'm not sure on how McCloud will see this, but judging by his comment that no one will take himself in the comic seriously if he was drawn in a more realistic matter, I'm assuming he will look at adult animation nowadays and thinks that it matches with his own theories and day no more on the matter. 

          As for McCloud comments that if drawings looked more realistic and people being more preoccupied with the drawing, not the purpose of the drawing, I would say he has a point. The thing is, though, is that as he mentions in the book, when someone looks at a realistic drawing of someone else, they are not seeing themselves, they are seeing another. Once that happens, then something will feel "off" about those drawings, and as a result, different way of approaching those drawings, like how to correspond to the overall story and why a technique like that is approached has to be applied to make it work. That doesn't mean, however, that cartoons are just "blank states" that fulfill the artist's purpose; as seen with my thoughts on Daffy, if seen in one way, that purpose could really create a character that can form a personality (with the artist/director/craftsman seeing his own creation being important) that can exists on its' own, because for one thing, it's really the character the audience sees, not the people who make it; in other words, people's own thoughts takes center stage than the director's thoughts on the subjects. As such, it's really up to the audience themselves on whenever or not they should approach a character, and if they want to hear the creator's own thoughts on the matter, then once again, it's up to them.
 
Applying and Exploring Ideas

          If asked on why some adults "grow out" of my cartoons, I would probably say it simply doesn't apply to their lives anymore. As people grow up, responsibility, time, and a sense of power comes into adult's lives, and unless cartoons are a part of giving some adults that power, or when cartoons no longer gives them material that personally relates to themselves, then there is really no point of watching such drawings that doesn't give share their own thoughts on themselves of the world around them. That doesn't mean they're finished with cartoons; if their kids are into that sort of thing, where their responsibility coincide with the child's attitude toward the cartoon, or when adults remember on what made them happy as children themselves, there's a chance that cartoons will never go away in the long run.

          Now, should more teaching strategies contain visual imagery? I say, judging by the current popularity of comic books, the possibility of this kind of teaching could work wonders. Thinking about it, I can see students having a much easier time understanding where the plot is going, and with their imagination already done for them, they could now focus on the text and try to find the context of the overall story and see if it matches with the pictures instead of trying so hard to find the purpose of the text itself. 

          All in all, because of my own thoughts on drawings, where I figure out on the possibilities animated characters could bring to anybody and why they should be taken seriously, McCloud's comic is a subject I find myself coming back to over and over again, and if there's a way for me to talk about such a topic in the future, perhaps even writing about it for an academic audience, I would take that opportunity and go with it. If it inspires others to look into it more seriously, then color me blissful.