After reading some much about comic form last week, I feel like its important to discuss the impact of reading this in comic form. If i'm being completely honest I think I read last weeks book without really interacting that much with the comics. I think because it was a book explaining the use of comics, a lot was said. However with this Frankenstein, which is very creepy, I feel like the comics add more function to the book. I felt like you needed the pictures here, where as the other text it was explaining the pictures. For instance Volume 2 chapter 3 is almost entirely visual. Personally speaking, I found this a bit challenging. In many ways I felt like I was on auto pilot reading portions of this text and then when I got to that portion I really had to stop and think. It truly is a different way of processing information. I feel like it is a different type of reading in a way. I'm not sure If I like it or not yet. I think ultimately I like the blend of words and comics. Only having the pictures is difficult for me.
Also worth mentioning I was familiar with the general plot of Frankenstein, but not overly familiar. I had never read the book. So personally speaking I found the scene where he is forced to recognize his duty as a creator to be very well done here. I think this was a good example of when the use of the comics added to the story telling element of the text. The visuals really hit home emotions with the limited text. So I found that to be a strength of this version of the story. But I have never read the classic text so I do not have much to compare it to.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI tried to edit my comment and I couldn't figure out how, so I just deleted it.
ReplyDeleteI found that I interacted with the drawings in Understanding Comics much more than I did in Frankenstein. I had to stop and remind myself to look at the drawings in Frankenstein, where as in UC I was "reading" them simultaneously with the words. I even found myself sort of skimming the drawing-heavy parts (like the end of Vol. 2), and had to make myself go back and look carefully at everything. I think it's so ingrained in my head that words make meaning that I tend to overlook any other medium!
I had a very similar response to Frankenstein that you did, and I also felt the need to slow down when the story got more "visual." I think it's an interesting medium in that we typically think of simply writing with the cliched creative writing mantra, "show, don't tell." Grimly takes this opportunity to give the readers another element to concentrate on, and I think that's hard for some of us. I know that if I were to go back and look at what we read for this week again, I'd see some pictures that I didn't even know were there the first time because I wasn't looking hard enough. I think that's what's so unique and strong about this text; there are just so many layers and I don't think you can experience it all in one read-through, which is I think why I really enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very interesting to me. With books, I think it's easy to assume our brains process it similarly because it's text. Obviously, some people might have more obstacles with getting into the style of an author. But, for the most part, we're all comfortable and accustomed to reading text. Here, however, I think my experience reading this was a little different than a few other's. I never hit a point that I felt like I was on "auto-pilot" reading the words. In fact, I was so eager to start reading the illustrations after enjoying McCloud last week that I couldn't stomach the pages of written letters in the beginning and had to pull up and audiobook version on YouTube to get through that section. And every time I run into one of those pages that just has a huge paragraph of text on it, I groan inside. Because I'd gotten used to the speed and ease of going through with snippets of text and the rest revealed in the pictures. The only point that I was conscious of the images slowing me down was when we see the creature's story and there was no narration to go along with it. I found myself going, "Okay. He's in the woods. He sat to a tree." Before I realized I was being silly and didn't actually need to translate the meaning of the pictures into words in order to process what was happening.
ReplyDeleteI feel like when images and art are involved, it is so much more instinct and less deliberate thinking an analyzing/ imagining. While this makes for a less 'imaginative' read, it 100% has its pros, that being a kind of whimsical and subconscious experience of the story.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure part of our experiences with this is influenced by our own artistic tendencies as well (which also makes sense because we have more experience with what we're good at in general). I am the least visually artistic person I know, but I'm undaunted by long or difficult texts, because I am (as you all probably noticed) irritatingly verbal. My husband and I always have different experiences with songs, for example, because he notices and remembers the music itself, while I listen to the words more than the music. It's like a kind of orientation - my eyes look for words on the page first, and then other things.
ReplyDeleteI find your comment particularly interesting because I can relate to it and it connects to the McCloud piece from last week: as we grow older, it is harder for us to appreciate visual texts. Personally, I am uncomfortable at times with pictures because there is both less and more room for interpretation, if that makes sense? Pictures show us exactly what what the artist wants us to see; however, it is up to our own mind to decipher what emotion that creates in us. I also agree that at times it was easier to zone out, so to speak, when reading this text. I personally found I could skim the writing more easily and use the graphics to orient myself to what was happening, not that I exactly minded.
ReplyDeleteThis is why I am sad that we won't get to do our X-Men comic, and I really want to encourage everyone who's already gotten it to read it and enjoy it! Reading comics is something we all can and should do easily, but because most of us have been trained to "read" words but just observe/perceive/look at images, we tend to feel more passive when it comes to images. Comics force us to read both equally, which is why I think it's such a powerful and important medium. We have simply been taught that the written word is more formal or sophisticated or significant when it comes to narrative. But that's silly! We didn't get to do my whole exercise that I wanted us to do in class (which involves reading narrative paintings that are rather famous and then reading paintings that are less "narrative" but nonetheless tell significant stories) which is sad but I think we all "get it" from reading Grimly, don't we?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteart of the problem is that Grimsley's graphic novel is closer to what I would consider an illustrated and abridged adaptation. it simply provides visuals surrounding explanatory text. the text is still the primary means of storytelling, and you could read the entire book without looking at the illustrations
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post, but I'm wondering how this version will "age"? I find it visually intriguing, and I think the book is almost written for those of us who already know the story, but I wondered how someone with no background approached the book. I can see why Volume 2 and 3 can be so confusing.
ReplyDeleteI also struggled a bit with the graphic aspect of the graphic novel. I had to constantly remind myself to take a moment to look at the images. When I finally convinced myself to do so, especially with the sections of book that are almost entirely visual, I did really enjoy it. A lot can be said without words. I personally have read the original in the past year or so, so I often caught myself breezing through sections, assuming I had a handle on the situation. When I went back over these sections, though, I was able to see that this is not the EXACT same story as Shelly's Frankenstein.
ReplyDelete