This book wasn't a pure definition of comic-book, but also wasn't purely an illustration book either. This remix of Frankenstein added a childlike wonder in the illustrations for me, so I will ask:
Did this remix of Frankenstein make the story more digestible and accessible for younger audiences to enjoy? Was it just the illustrations or something else in the formatting of the story? Do comic books or books with illustrations automatically correlate to being for children in your eyes?
 |
| Trying to identify the everyday monsters in 2020 be like |
Interesting questions. I would have normally associated illustrations (and comics) with children, but after reading Understanding Comics, I'm realizing that's not always the case. If I were younger and picked this up because the pictures looked cool, I would make it about halfway through the first letter and then I'd quit. I think because he chose to keep the text largely intact, children might look at the pictures but would struggle with the text. I obviously don't know what his intentions were, but I don't know that it was necessarily to reach a younger audience.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kate. I do think the anticipated age of readers for the original text is fairly the same for Grimly's. Shelley's language and the overall themes explored are probably better suited for someone at least older than 12 if not in high school. That being said, I think this format of the book would be a thousand percent more digestible and enjoyable to most in that high school age group. When I was 15, the most frequent critique I heard of the novel from people my age was that it was boring...I don't think many of us would use the same adjective for Grimly's version. So, does chopping out some of the details, giving the book an overall most aesthetic look, and adding those illustrations make it more appealing to younger (than college-age) audiences? Yes. But children? No.
ReplyDeleteI think this version does make the story more accessible to younger audiences. I can only imagine my 15 year old self opening Shelly's Frankenstein, seeing what the language looks like, and promptly closing it. On the other hand, 15 year old me, wearing shirts exclusively from Hot Topic, would certainly have been drawn in by the illustration style.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say that comics automatically correlate to being for children. Personally, though, 28 year old me doesn't love the illustration style. I found myself sighing when I saw Victor's steampunk car and pistol. It added an extra element that is not present in the original text, and thus distracted me (or maybe I'm just running away from my Hot Topic roots).
OMG Hot Topic. That's hilarious! Yes, the whole steampunk thing is is a little "sigh-y". And I decided to look into this issue further by asking my 13-year-old son to look through the book and give his impressions/reactions, and he said that he could see people his age wanting to read it but that he wasn't into it. When I asked why, he said "Because it looks like it's about zombies and stuff and I'm not into that." :) So maybe I'm wrong! Perhaps I'll look into this further...
ReplyDeleteI definitely think the illustrations make the story more accessible to a younger audience, though I don't know that that was the sole purpose for illustrating the story. Having images to go along with the story really helps to bring out deeper meanings, in my opinion, and with this particular style of art, I think I'd lean away from the idea of this version being created for a younger audience, rather than towards it. And no! I don't think if a text has pictures it's automatically geared towards children. I think a lot of people see it that way, most likely, but you also have to take into account content.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the others that this version of Frankenstein is more accessible to younger viewers. I can speak at least from my personal experience that when I tried to read Frankenstein when I was younger and now as an adult, I had a hard time with the language. In this graphic version of the novel, the language was still there but I felt that the concepts and metaphorical aspects were better illustrated. That visual aspect would help the younger reader start to grasp some of those concepts from the novel.
ReplyDeleteI have never really thought that comic books or graphic novels were geared specifically towards children. I have seen some examples from the Walking Dead series and remakes of various greek myths such as Cupid Pysche. There can be a lot of different meanings and ideas represented in a comic that a child may not grasp.
hmm, I'm going to go against the grain here and say that I don't think the fact that this is a graphic novel immediately makes it more accessible and/or geared towards younger audiences. I think there is a certain level of knowledge about the past, or at least a certain aesthetic that assumes a certain interest in/engagement with the past, that is assumed in Grimly's style; I don't know that the "letters" are easily read, in one specific example, if you have never thought about older handwriting, or sealing wax, etc. I think we may WANT to think so. But maybe Kate's son proves the point? It is definitely more accessible to people who have a certain aesthetic - Hot Topic and all - and that may be the case for many graphic novels of different styles. But that is just a level of allusion, of cultural knowledge, rather than an actual ease of reading a story.
ReplyDeleteObviously this is just my opinion (albeit an opinion I have been forming for some time!) but it's an important question for everything we are doing this semester. What makes a remix "accessible"? Is there anything that is universally "accessible" or is accessibility simply a matter of cultural capital (as Bourdieu would have it) or of understanding a certain level of allusions?
I think what makes a remix "accessible" may be dependent upon what is popular in the time it is made. As Caleb said, had he, a Hot Topic teen, seen this version of the story he would have been much more likely to read it than the original novel. It's accessible in its aesthetic for some people similar to Caleb in that demographic and of similar interests, but then not accessible for other young teens like Kate's son. It is also accessible in that I think comics are now more popular than ever thanks to the rise in popularity from Marvel movies. Comics have always had a following, but a lot of people now read comics who maybe wouldn't have ten years ago. They've moved much more into the sphere of popular culture, which makes me wonder how popular this version of Frankenstein would have been had it come out at another time.
DeleteYou make a good point about the letters. This is a case where the visual aspect may hinder the accessibility. First, the font isn't easily read. On the topic of younger readers, though, the framing device of the letters may be a bit misleading. Young readers could be a bit put off when they open a graphic novel only to find ten pages of faux-cursive text.
Deleteas someone with dyslexia, let me tell you the letters were a colossal pain. faux-cursive fonts are the bane of my existence. that said, the idea of including the letters diagetically (that is, they are presented as if they were actual letters presented to the reader complete with finger smudges and other blemishes, rather than just more text on a printed page) was a good choice for the visual-oriented medium.
ReplyDeleteI think the art style is very reminiscent of Tim Burton films, myself.
The letters were also difficult for me to read! They were personally my least favorite part of the book--but at minimum I could at least appreciate the aesthetic value they added to all of it?
DeleteI agree, the letters were hard. I think part of that is due to our sort of auto pilot mentality when were reading. This book really challenges that notion with both the comics and letters. This is definitely an active reading experience.
DeleteI had the exact same questions that you had! It will be interesting to how time will treat this text. I've always said that time is the artist's best friend or mortal enemy. I loved the look of this book, but at times I could see him borrowing from the work of Gerald Scarfe for Pink Floyd. Grimley did say in a NPR interview I found online that he wanted his version to be a "rock and roll version" of Frankenstein.
ReplyDelete