narrative, truth, morals

for some reason when, when we are children, we are programmed to think that an autobiography has to be boring. we assume that it is told as a "chronicle"(as White depicts it) rather than a "history" (containing the word "story" for a reason) and is mostly a list of facts and events. it seems, however, that people take their story and make it more readable, more literary. why document your story though if it isn't even exactly your story, how it happened? i presume that the autobiographer picks a theme and chooses out the important parts that support the concept they are trying to portray through their narrative. Satrapi certainly had to do this to make her story specifically about the effect of the war on her coming-of-age. besides that, she probably said things that didn't happen. this makes me think of the "the things they carried." in that novel, tim o' brien talks about how sometimes when telling a story, one must exaggerate to share an honest feeling. essentially, in order to make the reader feel what the narrator was feeling, the narrator must change or amplify the actual events because reading them cannot simulate experiencing them. the desire that White talks about, the intrinsic desire to tell one's story, is rooted in the need to make others feel what you were feeling.

was there a moral in "persepolis?" i got the feeling that starapi was trying to stay away from inserting a specific lesson into the story. this is one things that sort of opposes what white things a narrative is. i suppose there are a few things that the reader could take as morals. the closest i can think of is the idea of a "rebel with a cause." it is your prerogative to rebel against a dictator (especially a dicktator) or unjust ruler. however, there were also scenes of misguided rebellion, and the initial rebellion lead to lifestyle even more unhappy and dangerous for the families of iran. so the question of whether the rebellions was successful or not is never answered in the book. i feel that satrapi wanted to leave a lot of metaphorical doors open for the readers to explore after reading her story.

synesthesia and symbols

one thing that i think really stands out in "jimmy corrigan" is ware's style of drawing. he uses bold lines and fills those in with solid colors. those colors are mostly dull, and combined with the 2-dimensionality of his images, this creates a very flat and monotonous tone for the reader. i wondered how he could use this style to his advantage. so i noticed that there are parts where the background (which is often one dull color) behind a close-up of jimmy would sometimes change color based on his mood. mccloud talks about synesthesia in art saying that "line, shape, and color [can] suggest the inner state of the artist and provoke the five senses." chris ware employs this concept by portraying jimmies emotions through the color of the space surrounding him, suggesting the "inner state" of jimmy rather than the artists. this color usually stood out against the normal colors of the comic. unfortunately, there are no page numbers to offer, but one specific example i remember is when the other children are making fun of his horse and there is a progression of close-ups on jimmy. the wall behind him goes from blue, to greenish, to goldish, to bright vivid red. this helps the reader feel his anger even before he expresses it.

were there any other effects the occasional bright backgrounds had on the reader? i think that it added the carnival motif that persists throughout the story. when his face is stationed on sheet of bright blue or red, it looks like poster, like it doesn't belong with the rest of the story. it isolates him even more from the people he is around; he becomes more of a spectacle.

i also just wanted to address the fact that this book had symbols. this is the first time i felt myself trying to figure out what certain symbols meant while i was reading, symbols in the literary sense. the ones that really stood out to me were peaches, the red bird, and the robot. off the top of my head, i think that in some cultures peaches symbolize longevity. if that is what ware intending, i find it quite appropriate. it fits the concept that the corrigans go on and on doing what they are doing and being a straight-up dismal bunch. any other ideas on the peaches? i could be totally off base. the red bird seemed to express jimmy's desire to escape his life, to "fly" away. the robot, much more obvious than the other too, obviously identifies his inability to express his emotion. any other thoughts on symbolism in "jimmy corrigan," fellow students and/or teacher?

relating to dream

Preludes & Nocturnes is obviously a very vivid and colorful graphic compilation. I would even go so far as to describe some of the images as being psychedelic. Something that really stood out to me was the fact that Dream and Death (as characters) were both very colorless. What is the significance of their very black & white complexion in contrast with the rest of the graphics? I can think of a few reasons why Gaiman decided to do this. The most apparent would be to make them stand out in the novel, make them obviously different from the rest of the cast. Reflecting on McCloud though, I thought it could be for another reason. McCloud talks about how when something is a cartoon, it becomes more subjective and relatable. I think that could have something to do with why Dream has no color. It makes him look less like a human other than ourselves so we can relate to him more. We can become part of the reality that is not matter.

Why would Gaiman want us to relate to the Sandman? I think because this story follows a more traditional "hero has a goal and he goes through trials but overcomes" scenario, the Sandman could appear to be too much of a perfect hero figure. However because of the artist's decision to make him colorless, along with the way the character is set up, (which we discussed in class) as if we are him, he is made to seem less iconic and heroic. Obviously, the plot helps with that, considering the fact he is trapped by humans for a lifetime and eventually wins out because of luck. But I think it was integral to the story that we relate to Dream.

question 2 and q&a x 2

Describe the difference between a cartoonish face and a more realistic face in comics. What is the effect of each? What is the significance of their differences?

some artists draw with more detail than others in their comics. the more detailed and realistic an image is, the more separate we feel from it. for instance, when we see a photo of a face, we know it is not our face and so feel totally outside of the image. however, when we see a cartoon face with fewer features, we are able to see ourselves in that image and relate better to it. when we cannot see things, they are often a part of what we are doing, like when we are driving our vehicle. we therefore imagine it in less detail than we would see it in. so the less realistic a cartoon is, the more we can feel a part of it.



i also found the concept of closure very interesting. i wondered if, based on different experiences, people sometimes connected two images with something different. the writer/artist of the comic probably has to create a detailed enough sequence, or to include enough information in the images being viewed, to allow all readers to imagine similar closure. however, wouldn't that be difficult to do, considered the writer has his or her own experiences to draw from and could assume that everybody would close the gutter in the same fashion they would? i suppose occasionally people read things differently than others. i just realized this also happens in poetry and books, just there is not visible gap to close in those types of communication. it probably doesn't change anything drasticly, but could create infrequent confusion.

celebrities as spectacles

"When the real world is transformed into mere images, mere images become real beings — dynamic figments that provide the direct motivations for a hypnotic behavior. Since the spectacle’s job is to use various specialized mediations in order to show us a world that can no longer be directly grasped, it naturally elevates the sense of sight to the special preeminence once occupied by touch: the most abstract and easily deceived sense is the most readily adaptable to the generalized abstraction of present-day society. But the spectacle is not merely a matter of images, nor even of images plus sounds. It is whatever escapes people’s activity, whatever eludes their practical reconsideration and correction. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever representation becomes independent, the spectacle regenerates itself." - Guy Debord

this aphorism really made think of society's obsession with the lives of rich/famous people with whom they have had absolutely no real experiences. because people are constantly bombarded with images of celebrities, they start to feel that they actually know them. "it is the opposite of dialogue" because it is a completely one-sided relationship. the spectacles (the celebrities in magazines and such) do not know anything about any of the people who know the intimate details of their lives through photos and interviews. guy debord makes a sound point when in reference to this spectacle.