When I wrote my first blog about “style” in early September, I wrote about what I thought the word meant as a universal definition. I still have the same general opinion about style. However considering style in relation to ENG328, I can adapt my original definition.
ENG328 Style is how words, images, graphics, and other objects are placed in a pattern to convey or express a message or meaning.
In class we discussed several types of writing technology. We read about the history of orality, literacy, writing technology and communications through the Internet and considered the social impact of the development of writing and how we communicate. We looked at writing style through Strunk and White’s Elements of Style and Joseph Williams’ Style: Toward Clarity and Grace to question why we observe the writing rules that we use today and also to give ourselves permission to ask “why” – to question and get answers about the rules.
We learned about visual rhetoric – the vocabulary and elements in order to evaluate and write about imagery and graphics. We learned about how style works in communication today and how it has developed over time and why it is important to be able to make the most of it in school, work, and life today.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Peer Review Recap, Part 4
After I worked with my previous (3rd Essay) peer review group, I felt I had gained a new understanding of the peer review process and was excited to work with our final group. My past group had been extremely supportive. We got assigned to our last group and we got to sit down face to face with our group and actually talk about where we were with our papers and also to talk about what we wanted to accomplish with our peer editing.
Just when I thought everything would be smooth sailing, bam - one of our members explained she was so dissatisfied with past peer reviewing that she had already decided not to participate. First because she did not feel it had been helpful throughout the semester and secondly because there isn’t any participation points from doing it. At first I thought she was angry at me because in the past she had written in her blogs about not getting support or good feedback.
I remembered that because I think I might have been one of the students who had "let her down" in the past. From what I remembered, it had been hard to peer edit her outline for the style essay.
Our second peer review was done at the wetpaint.com site and many students were frustrated and were trying to figure out how to approach the essay. They were trying different approaches to work it out. The interface at wetpaint.com was hard to format the text – it didn’t come out like a word document. So her outline came out reading like a long, long scroll. I don’t blame this student for being dissatisfied with the peer reviews. But you can’t be angry at all of your peers and blame them because you didn’t have enough material for them to evaluate. And you can't assume that just because one peer review didn't work out for you that all peer edits are going to be like that.
After that peer review and hearing other students whining about how they didn't like that one either, I signed up for the University Writing Center Peer Review Workshop and I’m glad I did. I learned some things about peer reviews this semester that I wish had known about when I was first starting at EMU. It sounds like such a simple activity, but I think teachers should offer this information in the classroom and poke students in the eye if they don’t listen. And this isn’t just for first or second year students either, its just good information for everyone.
The other thing that helped me come to terms with the dread peer review, was that while I have participated in peer reviews in many classes in the past, students were never asked to think about the process - just to do the actitvity. However because we were asked to think about it and write about it, I ended up learning about myself and others. Peer Reviews are for students (for me), to help others and to help themselves to be better writers. Students need to take ownership of the peer review, work with their peers, and be as supportive to their peers as they can be to get the most out of it.
Our final peer review extended over the Thanksgiving break which allowed for extra time for students to actually develop their essays to the point where peer reviews would be or hopefully be – successful. I received very good feedback so far from Siobhan and I’m sure I’ll get scorchingly good comments from the others in my group before the essay is due.
One of the points that Andrew from the writing center told me about that really made sense was that depending on the stage of the draft is how you should conduct your peer review. For example, there is a beginning, middle, and final stage of writing. Each stage requires a different focus. For example, you don’t check for punctuation errors in the first draft, you are looking at ideas, content, structure. Also, you need to talk to the person you will be editing and find out where they are in the writing process, what they need or would like you to help them with, and edit with an eye toward development.
Just when I thought everything would be smooth sailing, bam - one of our members explained she was so dissatisfied with past peer reviewing that she had already decided not to participate. First because she did not feel it had been helpful throughout the semester and secondly because there isn’t any participation points from doing it. At first I thought she was angry at me because in the past she had written in her blogs about not getting support or good feedback.
I remembered that because I think I might have been one of the students who had "let her down" in the past. From what I remembered, it had been hard to peer edit her outline for the style essay.
Our second peer review was done at the wetpaint.com site and many students were frustrated and were trying to figure out how to approach the essay. They were trying different approaches to work it out. The interface at wetpaint.com was hard to format the text – it didn’t come out like a word document. So her outline came out reading like a long, long scroll. I don’t blame this student for being dissatisfied with the peer reviews. But you can’t be angry at all of your peers and blame them because you didn’t have enough material for them to evaluate. And you can't assume that just because one peer review didn't work out for you that all peer edits are going to be like that.
After that peer review and hearing other students whining about how they didn't like that one either, I signed up for the University Writing Center Peer Review Workshop and I’m glad I did. I learned some things about peer reviews this semester that I wish had known about when I was first starting at EMU. It sounds like such a simple activity, but I think teachers should offer this information in the classroom and poke students in the eye if they don’t listen. And this isn’t just for first or second year students either, its just good information for everyone.
The other thing that helped me come to terms with the dread peer review, was that while I have participated in peer reviews in many classes in the past, students were never asked to think about the process - just to do the actitvity. However because we were asked to think about it and write about it, I ended up learning about myself and others. Peer Reviews are for students (for me), to help others and to help themselves to be better writers. Students need to take ownership of the peer review, work with their peers, and be as supportive to their peers as they can be to get the most out of it.
Our final peer review extended over the Thanksgiving break which allowed for extra time for students to actually develop their essays to the point where peer reviews would be or hopefully be – successful. I received very good feedback so far from Siobhan and I’m sure I’ll get scorchingly good comments from the others in my group before the essay is due.
One of the points that Andrew from the writing center told me about that really made sense was that depending on the stage of the draft is how you should conduct your peer review. For example, there is a beginning, middle, and final stage of writing. Each stage requires a different focus. For example, you don’t check for punctuation errors in the first draft, you are looking at ideas, content, structure. Also, you need to talk to the person you will be editing and find out where they are in the writing process, what they need or would like you to help them with, and edit with an eye toward development.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Blog 15 Prewriting for Project 4 Essay
In my group, we are still in the process of making and editing our video. Working with a group offers the potential of having group support, collective ideas, and commiseration.
Like all of the technology projects, what at first looks novel and fun, ends up becoming a lot of busy work that forgoes creativity in lieu of quickly producing something.
Very much like work and life outside (of the classroom) in the real world.
I feel like I finally caught onto to how the class schedule works (I'm kind of slow), While we were in the process of making the video, I started taking my notes while keeping in mind there was going to be a need to make connections with the reading material to produce an essay.
So I already started doing my own prewriting for this essay and re-writing it here or pasting in all of my notes just seems unnecessary. I know I will have to go back through everything - all of the material and my notes from all of the reading material to seriously decide on what I’m going to use in my final draft.
I’m sure all of our in-class discussions regarding the reading material was helpful enough that everyone in the classroom will be able to make their own connections for an essay. We only had about 15 minutes to discuss the last articles and video, however since this is supposed to be an individual essay based on separate group video making projects, it doesn't seem like a good idea to discuss individual connections and perspectives - especially since it was all covered in class.
Like all of the technology projects, what at first looks novel and fun, ends up becoming a lot of busy work that forgoes creativity in lieu of quickly producing something.
Very much like work and life outside (of the classroom) in the real world.
I feel like I finally caught onto to how the class schedule works (I'm kind of slow), While we were in the process of making the video, I started taking my notes while keeping in mind there was going to be a need to make connections with the reading material to produce an essay.
So I already started doing my own prewriting for this essay and re-writing it here or pasting in all of my notes just seems unnecessary. I know I will have to go back through everything - all of the material and my notes from all of the reading material to seriously decide on what I’m going to use in my final draft.
I’m sure all of our in-class discussions regarding the reading material was helpful enough that everyone in the classroom will be able to make their own connections for an essay. We only had about 15 minutes to discuss the last articles and video, however since this is supposed to be an individual essay based on separate group video making projects, it doesn't seem like a good idea to discuss individual connections and perspectives - especially since it was all covered in class.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
YouTube/Low-bridge videos: Are they good? Are they bad? Are they writing?
Making a simple video as a group project has been an interesting process. My group is in the collaboration stage. So far we have been trying to come up with ideas – similar to brainstorming for our project, trying some ideas out with the camera and working a little bit with the editing program to get some ideas about how things are supposed to work.
The dynamics of group work vs. working alone changes how a project gets undertaken. Trying to respect everyone’s ideas and vision of what the end product might be in addition to getting something solid on film is challenging. In my group, the members are intelligent and fun so it will be interesting to see what we produce. I don’t know if we are at the halfway point, but once we get our ideas solidified, I’m sure everything will come together.
The one challenge for me is that I can’t visualize what the end product is supposed to be and I don’t know where we are going with our “lol” topic. We decided that because of all of the interesting reading at the beginning of the course about how literacy and orality and communication is changing, we wanted to show the idea of how people use fewer words or maybe its just faster ways to get their ideas across to others.
Fewer words + faster speed + more interactions = today’s communication?
I’ve tried to apply the writing process – brainstorm, research, outline, rough draft, revise idea to the film making process, but it seems that with video making it doesn’t work that way. One of our talented team members is a film major, so we have some insight about the film making process. But because of the length of the project, it doesn’t seem that we are going to use a formal routine like, gather ideas, storyboard, script, and action camera, and edit. Mike told us how the filming order goes, but I can’t remember it. Anyhow – we will see what happens, there’s a lot more to do with filming and editing.
As part of the project, we watched Michael Wesch's "An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube" on the YouTube, and we read Alexandra Juhasz’s "Why Not (To) Teach On YouTube" and Daniel Anderson's "The Low Bridge to High Benefits: Entry-Level Multimedia, Literacies, and Motivation.” These were all helpful in different ways. Wesch’s video was inspiring and explained a lot of things about Web 2.0. He said, “When media change, human relationships change” and I feel that his video backs up his argument. He talked about a lot of social or maybe cultural anthropology theories that helped explain what is going on with current media and why it is being embraced by so many people. Another important thing he talked about was “Participant Observation” where you need to participate and observe in order to learn. This is something that we have been doing in ENG328 with all of our projects and I think it’s a good way to learn because it provides students with different perspectives - different ways to understand a subject – especially utilizing new technology. This video explains so much about society and technology that it’s just a must see sort of experience.
I agreed with different points in both Alexandra Juhasz and Daniel Anderson’s articles.
It would be hard to teach a class as Juhasz was doing under the constraints that she mentions. But I have a hard time relating to her need to create a “safe” space for her rich and privileged students – I’m not rich or privileged and I don’t think this should be a factor when it comes to education and teaching. What I did like about the article was how she and her students went about asking questions, analyzing the experience, and trying something new in the classroom. The best line in the entire article was when Juhasz writes, “Given that the site is owned by Google, a skilled and wealthy corporation, and that all these functionalities are easily accessible on other Web 2.0 applications, we were forced to ask: why do they not want us to do these things on YouTube?” This is what our class asked about Google.docs and this is something I can relate to because even though I’m not rich and elite, I got to experience it in ENG328.
There are several different issues Juhasz discusses in regards to teaching on YouTube. I don’t know if I agree with her conclusion (I’m still thinking about it), she says that “A rigorous, controlled, contained, rational argument is key to learning: not the flow, but the building of knowledge” (140). It sounds like something Professor Gradgrind from Hard Times would say.
I'm a believer in the "flow" theory - I can't spell the Czy name, but I believe in his theory.
I can understand the information that Daniel Anderson writes about in his article. I don’t understand his use of the word “motivation.” I need to read this article again and more carefully. Anderson addresses some important ideas about the need for a model of computer literacy and discusses issues about education and technology (and multi-literacy) for educators (and students) that need to be explored.
I think Anderson’s article makes many relevant observations about what is happening and should be happening with technology in the real classroom today. However at the end of his article he makes a strange conclusion, he writes, “When it comes to really transforming education with new media, even many compositionists must still find their voice.”
Oh - and I do agree that low-bridge technologies are essential in the classroom and for learning purposes. I even think that high-bridge technologies are important too - especially not just for the wealthy and elite.
The dynamics of group work vs. working alone changes how a project gets undertaken. Trying to respect everyone’s ideas and vision of what the end product might be in addition to getting something solid on film is challenging. In my group, the members are intelligent and fun so it will be interesting to see what we produce. I don’t know if we are at the halfway point, but once we get our ideas solidified, I’m sure everything will come together.
The one challenge for me is that I can’t visualize what the end product is supposed to be and I don’t know where we are going with our “lol” topic. We decided that because of all of the interesting reading at the beginning of the course about how literacy and orality and communication is changing, we wanted to show the idea of how people use fewer words or maybe its just faster ways to get their ideas across to others.
Fewer words + faster speed + more interactions = today’s communication?
I’ve tried to apply the writing process – brainstorm, research, outline, rough draft, revise idea to the film making process, but it seems that with video making it doesn’t work that way. One of our talented team members is a film major, so we have some insight about the film making process. But because of the length of the project, it doesn’t seem that we are going to use a formal routine like, gather ideas, storyboard, script, and action camera, and edit. Mike told us how the filming order goes, but I can’t remember it. Anyhow – we will see what happens, there’s a lot more to do with filming and editing.
As part of the project, we watched Michael Wesch's "An Anthropological Introduction to YouTube" on the YouTube, and we read Alexandra Juhasz’s "Why Not (To) Teach On YouTube" and Daniel Anderson's "The Low Bridge to High Benefits: Entry-Level Multimedia, Literacies, and Motivation.” These were all helpful in different ways. Wesch’s video was inspiring and explained a lot of things about Web 2.0. He said, “When media change, human relationships change” and I feel that his video backs up his argument. He talked about a lot of social or maybe cultural anthropology theories that helped explain what is going on with current media and why it is being embraced by so many people. Another important thing he talked about was “Participant Observation” where you need to participate and observe in order to learn. This is something that we have been doing in ENG328 with all of our projects and I think it’s a good way to learn because it provides students with different perspectives - different ways to understand a subject – especially utilizing new technology. This video explains so much about society and technology that it’s just a must see sort of experience.
I agreed with different points in both Alexandra Juhasz and Daniel Anderson’s articles.
It would be hard to teach a class as Juhasz was doing under the constraints that she mentions. But I have a hard time relating to her need to create a “safe” space for her rich and privileged students – I’m not rich or privileged and I don’t think this should be a factor when it comes to education and teaching. What I did like about the article was how she and her students went about asking questions, analyzing the experience, and trying something new in the classroom. The best line in the entire article was when Juhasz writes, “Given that the site is owned by Google, a skilled and wealthy corporation, and that all these functionalities are easily accessible on other Web 2.0 applications, we were forced to ask: why do they not want us to do these things on YouTube?” This is what our class asked about Google.docs and this is something I can relate to because even though I’m not rich and elite, I got to experience it in ENG328.
There are several different issues Juhasz discusses in regards to teaching on YouTube. I don’t know if I agree with her conclusion (I’m still thinking about it), she says that “A rigorous, controlled, contained, rational argument is key to learning: not the flow, but the building of knowledge” (140). It sounds like something Professor Gradgrind from Hard Times would say.
I'm a believer in the "flow" theory - I can't spell the Czy name, but I believe in his theory.
I can understand the information that Daniel Anderson writes about in his article. I don’t understand his use of the word “motivation.” I need to read this article again and more carefully. Anderson addresses some important ideas about the need for a model of computer literacy and discusses issues about education and technology (and multi-literacy) for educators (and students) that need to be explored.
I think Anderson’s article makes many relevant observations about what is happening and should be happening with technology in the real classroom today. However at the end of his article he makes a strange conclusion, he writes, “When it comes to really transforming education with new media, even many compositionists must still find their voice.”
Oh - and I do agree that low-bridge technologies are essential in the classroom and for learning purposes. I even think that high-bridge technologies are important too - especially not just for the wealthy and elite.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Blog 13: Peer Review Recap, Part 3
Gosh – this exercise was almost painful. All that sniveling and whining! Thank goodness it’s supposed to help us reflect upon the peer review experience and help us make some sense of the whole writing process. After reading blogs about what other students are saying it all seems to come down to a few issues.
Most students write about the same shortcoming with wetpaint.com. Basically, the lack of flexibility using the editing and formatting features. However, they praise the thread feature that allows better quality commenting without messing up the essay for others to be able to read (notice the human need for an opportunity to commnent on something).
Many students seemed to like the interaction of the assigned small groups when we used Google.docs. A few students mentioned they like the access of seeing how other students were approaching their essays on wetpaint.com. It seems like some students get concerned if they aren’t assigned to peer reviewers, like they might be passed by or something (notice the human need for personal interaction).
Sometimes it isn’t what people are saying, but what they are not saying and I think a lot of the students are afraid to really comment in the peer reviews because the assignments have been so strange and vague. How can a student give advice to others when they aren’t even sure if what they are doing with their own essay is correct?
I can see what my own problems are by looking at all the complaining that I do in my blogs. I keep referring to problems with time. If you look back on our schedule it has been chaotic. Apparently, from my writing, I seem to think there needs to be more time allotted to writing essays, peer reviews, and giving closure on the assignments.
We start learning about a project/essay by reading articles and/or books, then we discuss it in class, write blogs, make something, write an essay, have peer reviews, then we start on the next project.
While we are still trying to finish the first essay, we have already started on the second project, we read books/articles, have classroom discussions, write blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the third project.
While we are still trying to get the second essay done, we have already started the third project, we are reading books/articles, classroom discussions, blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the fourth project.
Ooooh – and there’s still all those revisions that more than likely, will need to be done.
Students should have more than the weekend to come up with an essay. Not having sufficient time to develop and write an essay means that the essay won’t be as good as it could – meaning the writer will probably have to go back and revise their work if they want a decent grade. Not having sufficient time also means that the paper will not be in a position for the writer to get the most out of what peer reviews are suppose to do.
Most students want to get feedback from peer reviews, but when a paper is not ready because it had to be slapped together or it is still in the outline format, then it is wasting everyone’s time to do a peer review. And not allowing for sufficient time to actually do a decent peer review means that students are wasting time by just going through the motions of doing the peer review for the sake of participation. Students should not, nor should they be expected to have do peer reviews in a day and a half.
One person mentioned that they liked being able to go home to do the peer reviews. However, if students were allowed to do the peer reviews during class time, they could probably eliminate some of the technical and miscommunication problems that students are complaining about, as well as having the writer of the paper nearby to discuss some of the issues. Many students want interpersonal interaction and to talk about their ideas and their papers. Having to take time, after already sitting through a class talking about the next big project, while the current project is still unfinished on the table is frustrating. Most students are trying to do a blog, reading for the upcoming class, working on their current essay, and then trying to find extra time to do the peer reviews and this is all for one class.
This last peer review we did, is different than the first two. The people in my group know what they want with peer review, we know because we actually had a chance to talk for a few minutes about it. We also had a chance to discuss our schedules and where we were with our papers. In the first peer review, all the students could do was quickly exchange emails and it was so hurried and rushed, that some of us got the wrong email addresses. The second peer review was with a bunch of people we didn’t know. That impersonal quality makes you feel like you’re trying to work with someone who doesn’t really care about you or your paper, they are just doing it for the participation points for their grade.
Oh look at this ... I'm still whining about it!
Most students write about the same shortcoming with wetpaint.com. Basically, the lack of flexibility using the editing and formatting features. However, they praise the thread feature that allows better quality commenting without messing up the essay for others to be able to read (notice the human need for an opportunity to commnent on something).
Many students seemed to like the interaction of the assigned small groups when we used Google.docs. A few students mentioned they like the access of seeing how other students were approaching their essays on wetpaint.com. It seems like some students get concerned if they aren’t assigned to peer reviewers, like they might be passed by or something (notice the human need for personal interaction).
Sometimes it isn’t what people are saying, but what they are not saying and I think a lot of the students are afraid to really comment in the peer reviews because the assignments have been so strange and vague. How can a student give advice to others when they aren’t even sure if what they are doing with their own essay is correct?
I can see what my own problems are by looking at all the complaining that I do in my blogs. I keep referring to problems with time. If you look back on our schedule it has been chaotic. Apparently, from my writing, I seem to think there needs to be more time allotted to writing essays, peer reviews, and giving closure on the assignments.
We start learning about a project/essay by reading articles and/or books, then we discuss it in class, write blogs, make something, write an essay, have peer reviews, then we start on the next project.
While we are still trying to finish the first essay, we have already started on the second project, we read books/articles, have classroom discussions, write blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the third project.
While we are still trying to get the second essay done, we have already started the third project, we are reading books/articles, classroom discussions, blogs, write an essay, have peer reviews, and then we start on the fourth project.
Ooooh – and there’s still all those revisions that more than likely, will need to be done.
Students should have more than the weekend to come up with an essay. Not having sufficient time to develop and write an essay means that the essay won’t be as good as it could – meaning the writer will probably have to go back and revise their work if they want a decent grade. Not having sufficient time also means that the paper will not be in a position for the writer to get the most out of what peer reviews are suppose to do.
Most students want to get feedback from peer reviews, but when a paper is not ready because it had to be slapped together or it is still in the outline format, then it is wasting everyone’s time to do a peer review. And not allowing for sufficient time to actually do a decent peer review means that students are wasting time by just going through the motions of doing the peer review for the sake of participation. Students should not, nor should they be expected to have do peer reviews in a day and a half.
One person mentioned that they liked being able to go home to do the peer reviews. However, if students were allowed to do the peer reviews during class time, they could probably eliminate some of the technical and miscommunication problems that students are complaining about, as well as having the writer of the paper nearby to discuss some of the issues. Many students want interpersonal interaction and to talk about their ideas and their papers. Having to take time, after already sitting through a class talking about the next big project, while the current project is still unfinished on the table is frustrating. Most students are trying to do a blog, reading for the upcoming class, working on their current essay, and then trying to find extra time to do the peer reviews and this is all for one class.
This last peer review we did, is different than the first two. The people in my group know what they want with peer review, we know because we actually had a chance to talk for a few minutes about it. We also had a chance to discuss our schedules and where we were with our papers. In the first peer review, all the students could do was quickly exchange emails and it was so hurried and rushed, that some of us got the wrong email addresses. The second peer review was with a bunch of people we didn’t know. That impersonal quality makes you feel like you’re trying to work with someone who doesn’t really care about you or your paper, they are just doing it for the participation points for their grade.
Oh look at this ... I'm still whining about it!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Reading and Writing about Comics ala McCloud Part 2
After reading Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art and trying to apply that information in my previous blog, I decided to take a look at the comic selection by my fellow classmates and see what they had to say. I liked what Beth - click on the following link to read her blog: http://elogsdon009.blogspot.com/ had to say about the comic: “Deranged Delusions Episode 11: Hair Die” it can be located by clicking here: http://derangeddelusions.net/Deranged_Delusions/Comics/9EE3C6CA-85D2-48C8-AC84-9963D7278BE0.html. I agree that it’s cute and simple, as well as her other ideas about this comic. She indicates that due to the simplicity of the comic and lack of extensive verbal cues the reader must infer what is happening within the seven-panel layout. She reminds us how McCloud describes “the in-betweener” theory” on page 88 about how the brain has to fill in gaps in between pictures to be able to understand what is taking place.
The comic has seven panels that have an interesting arrangement that helps the reader get a better idea of what is happening. There are two columns with seven panels that have a sort of zigzag layout. I think they are the subject – to – subject panel type because all of the panels pretty much stay in the same scene and with the same idea. The characters are simplified iconic line drawings in vivid basic colors. There is a blank white background in every panel. The first panel is at the top left in the first column. It contains a purple frog and a penguin that asks the frog why he is purple.
Panel two in column two and has the same two characters and the purple frog’s answer to the penguin is, “hair dyes.” Panel three, column one shows the penguin throwing the purple frog into a bathtub with blue dye. Panel four is dropped down and slightly overlaps panel three showing that the scene is connected - the gutter area is eliminated by this overlap. In this panel the purple frog is sitting or swimming in the bathtub of blue dye. He says to the penguin, “It’s so wet.” Panel five is back in the first column but this time it is overlapping panel four, while panel six is overlapping it from column two. The panels seem to have an interwoven or braided layout.
This zig zagging with the over and under-lapping panels occurs from panel four through seven where most of the physical movement in the comic occurs. This overlap eliminates the gutter by connecting the movement of the panels and showing how each panel is interrelated to the one before or after. So even if there isn't a complete length of white space or gutter between each panel, the panels themselves require the mind to fill in the gaps and the "missing pieces" of the story. So this was an interesting way to layout and connect the panels. The white space around the comic, the layout connection, and how the action within each panel occurs helps the reader to better understand what is happening in the comic.
Another comic element that is seen in Episode 11: Hair Die is the use of different types of word balloons which McCloud discusses in Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art on page 134. The different types of word balloons along with the fonts and symbols can help the reader understand the verbal cues – and because there isn’t much dialogue in Hair Dies, the word balloons are very helpful. For example, the shape and lines kind of let us know the emotional element of what is being said. When the penguin first asks the frog a question in panel one, it is contained in a smooth oval balloon. In panel two when the frog says “hair dyes,” the word balloon and text looks like it has spikes around it indicating that the frog is answering in an elevated tone. The penguin’s word bubble shows what he is thinking, “oh god.” When the frog jumps out of the tub and has turned green, but also looks like his skin has turned into a monsterously furry coat, he exclaims that the water was bad in a sharp edged balloon. While this is a simple comic, it’s a good one to examine when considering some of the elements that Scott McCloud's book informs us about.
The comic has seven panels that have an interesting arrangement that helps the reader get a better idea of what is happening. There are two columns with seven panels that have a sort of zigzag layout. I think they are the subject – to – subject panel type because all of the panels pretty much stay in the same scene and with the same idea. The characters are simplified iconic line drawings in vivid basic colors. There is a blank white background in every panel. The first panel is at the top left in the first column. It contains a purple frog and a penguin that asks the frog why he is purple.
Panel two in column two and has the same two characters and the purple frog’s answer to the penguin is, “hair dyes.” Panel three, column one shows the penguin throwing the purple frog into a bathtub with blue dye. Panel four is dropped down and slightly overlaps panel three showing that the scene is connected - the gutter area is eliminated by this overlap. In this panel the purple frog is sitting or swimming in the bathtub of blue dye. He says to the penguin, “It’s so wet.” Panel five is back in the first column but this time it is overlapping panel four, while panel six is overlapping it from column two. The panels seem to have an interwoven or braided layout.
This zig zagging with the over and under-lapping panels occurs from panel four through seven where most of the physical movement in the comic occurs. This overlap eliminates the gutter by connecting the movement of the panels and showing how each panel is interrelated to the one before or after. So even if there isn't a complete length of white space or gutter between each panel, the panels themselves require the mind to fill in the gaps and the "missing pieces" of the story. So this was an interesting way to layout and connect the panels. The white space around the comic, the layout connection, and how the action within each panel occurs helps the reader to better understand what is happening in the comic.
Another comic element that is seen in Episode 11: Hair Die is the use of different types of word balloons which McCloud discusses in Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art on page 134. The different types of word balloons along with the fonts and symbols can help the reader understand the verbal cues – and because there isn’t much dialogue in Hair Dies, the word balloons are very helpful. For example, the shape and lines kind of let us know the emotional element of what is being said. When the penguin first asks the frog a question in panel one, it is contained in a smooth oval balloon. In panel two when the frog says “hair dyes,” the word balloon and text looks like it has spikes around it indicating that the frog is answering in an elevated tone. The penguin’s word bubble shows what he is thinking, “oh god.” When the frog jumps out of the tub and has turned green, but also looks like his skin has turned into a monsterously furry coat, he exclaims that the water was bad in a sharp edged balloon. While this is a simple comic, it’s a good one to examine when considering some of the elements that Scott McCloud's book informs us about.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Blog 11: Reading and Writing about Comics ala McCloud, Part 1
Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art by Scott McCloud is a unique book that explains comics as a medium. The book is uses the comic medium to convey a lot of information that is both informative as well as entertaining. One of the drawbacks of the book is the lack of a glossary and an index, however reading the book and getting the information that McCloud shares with the reader almost makes up for those missing “book user” components.
It’s interesting to try applying the information in McCloud’s book, by considering a variety of comics. On McCloud’s website there is a good selection to consider when reading and learning about the elements in his book.
For example, in the comic, “Inertia Man,” located in the section called, “The Morning Improv Archive” on the website, click here for the link to this comic: http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/mi/mi-12/mi-12.html we can examine several of the concepts that McCloud discusses with the reader.
“Inertia Man” is a five panel, brightly colored comic about an inert superhero. Inertia is the tendency of a body to resist movement, change, acceleration etc. Inertia Man does just that. He gets a warning from another superhero that the city is going to be destroyed by a doomsday machine and he remains inert until the city is blown up. The first panel is the title of the comic. The second panel has a simple pastel illustration of a city skyline in the background, while two superheroes are in bright primary colors in the foreground, presenting the majority of text in the form of dialogue. The third panel shows the same scene from panel two, only the other superhero has flown away and Inertia Man is unmoved. We are informed that it is “Twenty minutes later.” The fourth panel shows the word “Boom” with lines indicating movement; the blowing up of the city and Inertia Man is a radioactive skeleton. The fifth panel runs along the
bottom of the comic where Rhetorical Question Man asks us, "Is this the end of Inertia Man?"
One of the concepts in McCloud’s book that deserves to read and understood is his theory regarding a phenomena called “Closure” which he says means to observe the parts and perceive the whole. It must be similar to Gestalts theory where you can look at the parts of pattern and understand the shape it will form. McCloud says that “Closure can take many forms. Some simple, some complex” (64). For example, he says that sometimes outlines, shapes, lines that can trigger closure and that in comics, it is the reader that is “the conscious collaborator or participant and that closure is the agent of change, time, and motion” (65). The sequencing of the panel – to – panel transitions along with the gutter or space between the panels allow for “us to connect the moments within the comic and mentally construct a continuous , unified reality (67) There are several types of panel – to – panel sequencing. In “Inertia Man” the illustrator utilizes the type called, “Subject – to – Subject.” This type of transition occurs where the closure stays within the scene or the idea of the comic. If they didn't use color with this comic it would
be boring, because we expect our superheroes to by dynamic and colorful. McCloud mentions that use of subtler colors in the background helps to diminish the less important elements in the story, while brighter colors help to emphasize what is important. He also mentions that placing characters in the foreground is a popular western style of comic design.
It’s interesting to try applying the information in McCloud’s book, by considering a variety of comics. On McCloud’s website there is a good selection to consider when reading and learning about the elements in his book.
For example, in the comic, “Inertia Man,” located in the section called, “The Morning Improv Archive” on the website, click here for the link to this comic: http://www.scottmccloud.com/comics/mi/mi-12/mi-12.html we can examine several of the concepts that McCloud discusses with the reader.
“Inertia Man” is a five panel, brightly colored comic about an inert superhero. Inertia is the tendency of a body to resist movement, change, acceleration etc. Inertia Man does just that. He gets a warning from another superhero that the city is going to be destroyed by a doomsday machine and he remains inert until the city is blown up. The first panel is the title of the comic. The second panel has a simple pastel illustration of a city skyline in the background, while two superheroes are in bright primary colors in the foreground, presenting the majority of text in the form of dialogue. The third panel shows the same scene from panel two, only the other superhero has flown away and Inertia Man is unmoved. We are informed that it is “Twenty minutes later.” The fourth panel shows the word “Boom” with lines indicating movement; the blowing up of the city and Inertia Man is a radioactive skeleton. The fifth panel runs along the
bottom of the comic where Rhetorical Question Man asks us, "Is this the end of Inertia Man?"
One of the concepts in McCloud’s book that deserves to read and understood is his theory regarding a phenomena called “Closure” which he says means to observe the parts and perceive the whole. It must be similar to Gestalts theory where you can look at the parts of pattern and understand the shape it will form. McCloud says that “Closure can take many forms. Some simple, some complex” (64). For example, he says that sometimes outlines, shapes, lines that can trigger closure and that in comics, it is the reader that is “the conscious collaborator or participant and that closure is the agent of change, time, and motion” (65). The sequencing of the panel – to – panel transitions along with the gutter or space between the panels allow for “us to connect the moments within the comic and mentally construct a continuous , unified reality (67) There are several types of panel – to – panel sequencing. In “Inertia Man” the illustrator utilizes the type called, “Subject – to – Subject.” This type of transition occurs where the closure stays within the scene or the idea of the comic. If they didn't use color with this comic it would
be boring, because we expect our superheroes to by dynamic and colorful. McCloud mentions that use of subtler colors in the background helps to diminish the less important elements in the story, while brighter colors help to emphasize what is important. He also mentions that placing characters in the foreground is a popular western style of comic design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)