Scott McCloud

So today was the day.

We tromped on down early in the evening to the OISE building (just across the street from the Royal Ontario Museum) and settled down to listen to Scott McCloud talk about comics.

First however came an impressive presentation from his daughter, Sky, in the eighth grade. She was frighteningly articulate and media savvy and I really fear for her workplace when she enters the world of gainful employment, she’s a Ball o’ Fire. Mostly she just talked about the genesis of the “Making Comics 50 State Tour,” but it was obvious right from the start that this particular junior high student was an old hand at talking to hundreds of people and keeping them entertained. The only thing I ever did that involved public speaking at the age of 14 was alienating my entire junior highschool by accusing them of voting for Student Council President based on who was the most entertaining. As you can imagine, that didn’t go over so well.

When the Senior McCloud finally took the stage, it was a kind of surreal experience, not because I was particularly star-struck or anything (while I have a great deal of respect and admiration for Scott McCloud he doesn’t make me go weak in the knees the way Neil-O did) so much as it was jut bizarre having someone thoughtful, witty, engaging and articulate… talking about comics. In a thoughtful, witty, engaging and articulate way.

For the most part, the talk was cribbed straight from his latest book Making Comics. His first book Understanding Comics was essentially Comic Critical Theory. His second book, Reinventing Comics brought comics into the 21st century by discussing the impact that the digital revolution was having on what was traditionally a print medium. His third book, the one that is the subject of this tour, is about Applied Comic Theory, in that this one actually talks about the mechanics–and consequences thereof–of framing, time, panel construction, characterization, dialog and writing in general and all that other good stuff that actually goes into taking an idea from your head to something that people actually read.

Of particular interest to me was something that he talked about which I have always discussed with other people, but which McCloud has distilled into a much friendlier, more digestible version. He talks about how comics are essentially created from five choices; choice of moment, choice of frame, choice of image, choice of words and choice of flow. It’s really quite straight forward when you break it down like that. Choice of moment is about which parts of your story you decide to cover. Unlike film where you can show a simple action like a guy starting a car in one continuous shot, comics must choose which moments are worth presenting, if any at all. Choice of frame is about the angle you pick, the distance from the “camera” and such. Choice of image is a bit misleading in that he seemed to be more covering the specific STYLE here. Photo-realistic, or stylized? Black & white or color? Choice of words is obviously how much writing actually appears as words versus how much as image. A good example of how redundant this can be would be an example he uses of a hero jabbing his finger at the camera with spectacular Kirby-esque foreshortening that completey undercuts itself with the caption, “And then he jabbed his finger and said…” and the word balloon “I JAB MY FINGER AT YOU!”

Choice of flow is the issue of pacing. Should the story be told sequentially from moment to moment? Do you throw in flash backs? Do you leap forward in time? Do you break up action moments suddenly with a voice over that analyzes character motivations that lead to this explosive moment? All of these can work quite well, given the proper application and an understanding of how this moves–or impedes–the story.

He also gave an interesting analysis of his take on the state of comics globally, particularly in the 80′s before the internet started homogenizing everything. He noted, for example, that the European tradition, particularly the Franco-Belgian schools that had produced icons like Herge (of Tin Tin fame) or Moebius (The Airtight Garage) had a dominant characteristic of being much at ease with “world building” in that often, the environments and the culture and setting were as important to the comic as the story that took place. He showed a few panels from various comics showing the intricate detail, how bicycle fender or car had just as much attention paid to it as the hero.

The Japanese manga scene–aside from its obvious stylistic difference–played much more with contrasts and slower pacing. He showed how the Japanese manga artists liked to make their characters stand out much more by simplifying them against complex backgrounds, and how the larger length of manga made the Japanese artist much less afraid of “wasting panels” by showing slower paced, more leisurely images. He showed examples with the “camera” in Japanese manga wandering over various parts of an environment, or focusing on simple, every day moments that American comics might deem to trivial to cover.

And of course, on the American side, there was the undeniable aspect that it was dominated by super heroes to degree unheard of in either Europe or Japan, but, more subtly, he pointed out that American comics had been heavily influenced by the theatrical or vaudville tradition. Because American comics were originally comedic, and the first comics came out during the era of Vaudville, comics were framed much in the way that a stage play was composed. This was also carried on to a large degree as film was introduced to American culture and when it happened, McCloud noticed that American comics are far more inclined to compose “beauty shots” where the characters are facing the camera. He commented that one of the things Will Eisner tried to advise young artists on was to give up this habit, saying that “you have to let go of this obsession with the close up” and then he contrasted this with the European and Japanese comics that frequently show the backs of characters, long shots, or what have you, but are nowhere near as concerned with getting that “beauty close up” as their American counterparts.

Another interesting thing that came up in his talk was his classification of comics creators into four “tribes.” There is the Classicist, and these are the people who are very much invested in perfecting craft and technique. These are the ones like Alex Ross or Jim Lee who make the kinds of pictures that are worthy of framing, who show people just how beautiful comics can be. Then there are the Animists, and these are people who strive for story, for engaging the audien
ce and actual medium of delivery is secondary to the effect it has on the reader. There are the Formalists, of which McCloud counts himself a member, who play with ideas. These are the guys that are interested in the medium itself and want to pull, push and stretch the boundaries of it, just to see what it can do, how far it can go. And finally, there are the Iconoclasts, who believe that comics should be about Truth and strive for Authenticity, and try convey some kind of important theme or point.

It was all quite educational, and quietly mind-blowing. I think if this kind of course had been offered when I was in university, I probably would have majored in comics, because I found myself deeply, deeply fascinated by all the information that he was just throwing up there and really wished I could just get in a conversation with the man to talk about this stuff.

Now the only thing that’s missing is that he needs to write a fourth book. I would find this book particularly useful if the titles was Publishing & Distributing Comics, since that’s the particular stage that the Wife and I find ourselves needing the most help with.

Then again, what struggling comic book artist doesn’t?