Comic craft and masculine depictions

Given what we've read so far, I'd like to limit my discussion of McCloud's work to it's significance to the American masculine manifestations in comic books, with a focus on the readership. As we've discussed before, as significant as the complexities and nuance of sequential art may be, our examination of masculinity within the 20th century (within a very specific historical context) limits what we might take from McCloud signnificantly, so for the moment we can put discussions of comic books' predecessors to the side. If we must limit ourselves, however we should at least examine McCloud's analysis of iconography, and closure, with a focus on the readership in addition to the contexts, etc. I should note that outside of a strict craft-based approach my visual analysis capabilities are rather limited so anything more than a superficial understanding of some of your notations (kinetic v. sequential, specifically Eisenstein, film, etc) requires a significantly different depth and background to discuss.

Before I discuss iconography, let me clarify why I limit myself to so narrow a term. McCloud's discussion of the vocabulary of comics makes a point regarding Magritte's "The Treachery of Images". Now, I have to preface myself by saying that I being unfamiliar with Magritte and the critical analysis surrounding this particular painting, I'll have to resort to using an analogous example in American politics in order to discuss this point. If we are to make any cultural analysis of the United States, or the West during the 20th century, we must look to the aspect of mechanization, specifically the mechanization of language. This is the course that the American government steadily adopted from FDR's administration on; a model heavily based on modular systems, accompanied by a language that, as Dean Achenson said, should "sweep through [your] administration like a blunderbuss", which is to say that language, theory, and action all become confined (concentrated? simplified? this evolution of language is still up for debate in the policy world... but that's another course) into key phrases, like "insurgency", "reconstruction" or "war on terror". I use this example as symptomatic of an ultimately greater condition of material existence (mechanization "won" WW2 after all- one can argue it's continual novelty) on representation. What does this mean for comics, and the masculine iconography manifested within? Well, given the historical context of WW2, the Interwar period, and later on into Vietnam, we see a society driven by mechanization on all strata (television, brand names, etc.) meaning that it is certainly possible for characters like Captain America to reach iconic status, encapsulating a set of very specific values regarding the paternalism we discussed earlier. McCloud also points out that the method of representation is important to the accessibility of characters to the audience, ranging from the realistic (and thus less accessible) to the abstract and iconic. While McCloud's argument on the subject of representation is important, I feel that iconography doesn't necessarily have to fit within this limited spectrum. Captain America, Superman, or any superhero can reach iconic status and remain leaning on one side of the spectrum. Instead we can say that it is perhaps the method in which ideas become systemized into these symbols that makes icons, in this case. Style, though impossible to divorce from the icon, is perhaps more significant in a literary sense, but then again this might simply be subjective of my context. With this in mind, from the "golden age" until rather recently, masculinity in iconographic representation is a thread easily teased out of the sinewy constructs of superheroes emblazoned with almost heraldic color schemes. (Captain America: red white and blue, the flash with the red of virility, etc) A question I have regarding the mechanization of language is to what extent is mechanization part of a masculine identity? One might arge that the physicality of mechanization makes it so, but there is also an element of dehumanization which speaks to a gender neutral aspect. One might also contrast it

Regarding closure, McCloud correctly asserts a significant trait in the American comics medium, the reliance or proclivity action to action, with scene to scene and subject to subject as a simple glue to hold scenes together. Now, the sexualization (excuse my lacking vocabulary... gender divide perhaps?) of this methodology might easily be placed within the masculine realm, in it heavy physicality, and given the context of the material that we're reviewing, it privelages the attributes of the young male: almost unrelenting action, in addition to appropriating him through iconography. After all, in recalling golden age comics, one can hardly avoid the image of Captain America socking a Nazi henchman. In comparison to eastern styles of manipulating closure, one might say that my argument falls apart, however it is important to realize that masculinity ultimately places itself in different locations in society based on specific material means available, in addition to a strong sense of history and art that comes with Japanese comics. What does the masculinization of a certain style of manipulating clsure mean when we discuss the readership? Perhaps it is possible to ascertain to whom particular pieces might appeal to, although I would argue that the American closure style is symptomatic rather than marketed. Given our previous discussion about the paternal appeal of Captain America, there might also be able to make some conclusions about the maturity of the readership given the level of participation necessary for such a closure style, however this leads us into the same trap. Regardless, until we can further "unpack" (I have not had one professor not use this word) the readership, closure, the primary mechanism for readership participation, remains key, is somewhat elsusive to me at this moment.