viz.

Image Credit: Self-Portrait by Scott McCloud, Google +

I realize that looking at the rhetorical aspects of comics (and the implications thereof) is well-trodden ground.  However, I am of the humble opinion that there are still some pretty interesting things to think about in this area, as well as some already-propounded ideas that would seem to demand further (and continued) examination.  Indeed, I believe that there is still much to be gained by looking at the (relatively) early texts examining rhetoric and comics.  In support of this contention, I’d like to offer the musings of Mr. Scott McCloud as Exhibit “A.”

In 1993, Mr. McCloud published “Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art.”  The book consists of the author outlining some of his ideas in a 200+ page comic.  The primary narrator is a comic version of the author, who is self-referential, speaking directly to the reader throughout the book.  Frequently, the frames of the comic in which the narrator is positioned illustrate the concept(s) he is conveying at that point in the story.

And for McCloud, it’s essential that the images in his book are, in fact, telling a story.  If the book consisted of individual illustrations, with each having no connection to those proceeding or following it, those images would cease to be comics.  McCloud suggests that what we might call a single-panel comic, is actually just cartoons juxtaposed with words (he takes pains to explain that “comic” and “cartoon” are far from synonymous).  So, for McCloud, “The Family Circus” is a cartoon, but it is not a comic (as an aside, the author of this blog would like to point out that “The Family Circus” sucks no matter what you want to call it). Here’s McCloud’s working definition of “comics:”

(kom’iks) n. plural in form, used with a singular verb.  1.  Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer.  (“Understanding Comics,” p. 9).

With the crappy “The Family Circus,” out of the picture (forgive the pun, if you can), being relegated instead to the realm of the “cartoon,” it may sound as though McCloud is being a bit restrictive with respect to what can properly be defined as “comics.”  However, following his own comic for just a few more pages, the reader (viewer?) finds that McCloud’s take on “comics” is far more expansive than any traditional (or contemporary, really) definition of the term.

Whether you want to teach rhetoric, per se, or to use a rhetorical device to teach another subject, McCloud’s definition doesn’t exclude any genre, subject matter, style, or medium.  (Id. at 22).

Image Credit: Scanned from Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics"

Most significantly, there is no part of McCloud’s definition requiring “words,” as we generally understand the term.  McCloud’s point here is perhaps the most significant for the purposes of visual rhetoric.  McCloud postulates (in a way that is brilliant in its brevity, but still too long for a blog post) that humanity is moving towards a universal language, and proposes that comics is a great contender for the vocabulary that would accompany this new, universal language.  (Id. at 47).  Equally interesting, McCloud depicts the way(s) in which the image and the written word are, in a sense, on a single continuum:

Image Credit: Scanned from Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics"

Some pretty heavy ideas; not the kind we’d expect from what we traditionally understand to be “comics.”  Which, of course, is exactly McCloud’s point.  But I suppose that it’s a bit presumptuous of me to make such a definitive statement on Mr. McCloud’s behalf.  If you want the next 17 minutes of your life to be well-spent, check out his TED Talk: