Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Class Notes 11/4/10

EVD's picture

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

11/4/10- Continuing to read Graphic Adaptation of the 9/11 Commission Reports

 

 

ckosarek, Emotional Reaction to the Commission Report? (see quote on Towards Day 18) found that authors “worked under no assumptions” and that the real work in reading this was in interpreting it

 

adalke- McCloud says that you have to make your own connections between frames, its in the gutters that you must make these connections, the reader is pulled in and invited to do more work, “closure” is making a story out of the pictures

 

veritatemdilexi, The Ends do not Justify the Means (see quote on Towards Day 18)  Reactions:

-          -The stereotypical images in the graphic adaptation show how Americans viewed the world post-9/11

-          -Is the graphic adaptation made to elicit the same emotions as the commission report? Is the graphic version a variation of the truth?

-          -Does the graphic narrative instruct us on how to feel? Does it urge us to certain thoughts?

-          -Suggestions of evil in a very generalized sense create stereotypes

 

p. 76-77 have very stereotypical pictures and contrast between fully colored pictures and two-tone pictures depicts a struggle between “good guys” and “bad guys”

How much selection went into creating the graphic adaptation?

- written from American point of view

- the commission report gives a history since WWII whereas the graphic adaptation only shows events immediately before the attack

 

pfischer- is the graphic adaptation a “dumbed down” version of the real thing?

-          -Graphic narratives do not have to always be “dumbed down” versions but the 9/11 adaptation may be in this case…

-          -Are the authors targeting a less intellectual audience?

-         - Is it dangerous to let young people read this adaptation or even less intellectual adults?

 

pfischer- pictures are more “quiet” in that they have subliminal messages but are more powerful than words in the way that they can change one’s views


kgould, Subjective, Objective, Slapdash: (see quote on Towards day 18)- Everything is subject to construction and visual media is no less real (more constructed) than prose

-         - Is the adaptation really more constructed or is it just not comprehensive enough because it leaves out huge portions of the commission report

-          -Should we NOT edit certain things (like the commission report)? Can an adaptation really give the idea of the commission report effectively?

-          -If this timeline in the graphic adaptation was put into words (without visuals) would it be more believable or seem less constructed

-          -What is the meaning of adaptation? Does it matter that this word was used in the title or is it more important what the authors explicitly say the goal of the book is

 


smacholdt’s quote on Towards Day 18- Why do we find ourselves wanting to know so much about 9/11? Is this a good thing?

 

 

Does graphic representation do a disservice to what actually happened on that day?

 

What does Scott McCloud wants us to know about graphic narrative? See bullet points under Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art (Towards Day 18)

-         - Does the reader need “training” in an English class to understand the text?

-          -Does the adaptation accomplish the goal of amplifying important elements?

 

 

Close reading of p. 61 (in the way Scott McCloud wants us to read):

-         - Are the officials even looking at the information they are receiving?

-          -Is this accurate? In actuality, gov. officials received tons of threats and so could not pay too much attention to any particular one

-          Chaos on certain pages communicates the feeling at the time but does not help communicate the idea of the narrative and accomplish the goal of the book (to simplify)

-          -Does this confusion mean that the book is not “dumbed down” or does the book just not accomplish its goal of being clear?

-          -Perhaps overall the book serves as a clarification but certain parts are too confusing to accomplish this goal

-          -The sections with timelines accomplish the goal of clarifying...also p.107 which is very simple with an overall image and a few points laid out in text

-         - In the case of the flag page…its very simple but is it too simple? Does the simplicity enhance stereotypes? It seems as though the pages we object to most are the simple ones like this page

Comments

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
2 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.