- Bill Watterson
---
Ah, comics: the ultimate, most versatile usage of word and image. Comics exist everywhere, whether we notice them or not. Do they have to be funny? Nope. Some are informational, like the stick-figure illustrations that describe how to put on a lifejacket in event of emergency. Some are simply stories, with their fair share of drama, character development, and perhaps, conclusion.
But you've got to admit, funny comics are pretty entertaining to read. Take this old Calvin and Hobbes strip, for example:
Comic strips such as these inherently rely on the interaction of words and images to relay humor. This dependence is better illustrated by literally separating the two.
Here's the same comic strip with the words removed:
We can see Calvin and Susie walking along, Susie saying.. something. Or perhaps she's just yawning. Or trying to catch bugs in her mouth. Who knows? In the second panel, Calvin gestures to himself, eyes closed, in what seems to be a pose of dramatic intent. The frame disappears as well, indicating a focused, perhaps dream-like spotlight (which, when placed in context, seems intentional -- they are talking about a play, after all). The third frame has the two of them looking relatively happy, facing each other in some sort of exchange.. but the fourth? Susie's mouth is wide open, her hands clenched in fists to suggest angry yelling. Calvin is splayed out, back to the ground, feet up, stars and a curling line implying dizziness.
Wait, what? To tell a story like this with images alone would require many more panels, but even conveying the gist of things would require a ton of frames, perhaps showing Susie with her hands gesticulating, explaining something to Calvin, and getting progressively angrier until.. WHAM! the punch lands, and Calvin is knocked to the floor.
The point is, in a comic like this, image alone isn't capable of doing the job right. There is no sense of how much time has passed from panel to panel, and in a normal timescale where each panel is approximately the same length, it makes no sense to have Susie go from amiable to angry in such a short period.
The use of words alone fares a little better, but not by much:
Susie: "Do you have your line memorized for the nutrition play, Calvin?"
Calvin: "I'm still learning it. Being an onion is a difficult role, you know. What are you?"
Susie: "I'm 'fat.'"
Calvin: "No, I mean in the play."
Susie: "Anyone else want to say it?"
Calvin: "Aackk! Understudy! Understudy!"
The "I'm 'fat'" joke is a little clearer here. However, the last two lines of dialogue still make little to no sense, out of context. Keep in mind that words are words.. the tone in the comic is conveyed not by diction. but by the sheer imagery and how the words are drawn on the page -- primarily, how Susie's ending line is fully capitalized, with emphasis on the "else," not to mention that the speech bubble is large, spiked, and all-around scary. Also, Calvin's "aackk" seems almost out of place without being able to see him sprawled out the way he is.
But anyway.
At the end of the day, no matter how much analysis you put into it, Calvin and Hobbes is just a great read. Time to hit the books.. Attack of the Deranged Mutant Killer Monster Snow Goons, here I come!
---
If you love Calvin and Hobbes as much as I do, you'll probably find this search engine quite handy. Check it out at http://michaelyingling.com/random/calvin_and_hobbes.
No comments:
Post a Comment