It’s obvious from the introduction of the comic that Anderson cares a lot for the direction his art takes in the books and that there is meaning whenever the way the characters are drawn and colored change. After the comic book covers the events of the march on Washington the art style takes a drastic change. In particular there is a heavy use of color not seen often through the first half the comic. Why do you think Anderson chose to do this and how does it affect your reading of the events that followed the march on Washington?
Along the same line of thought why do you think Anderson
left this bubble in the comic? Does it show his concern for detail or is it
merely a way of poking fun at his own pickiness?
For the sake of keeping of curriculum or simply to cover
large periods of time within a school year it does not feel historical events
are given they deserve especially something as momentous as the civil right
movements. Because this people know of the events and Martin Luther King in a
general sense but not in depth. Would you say the comic serves as a deeper
learning experience about the civil rights movement and King or does it barely
scratch the surface? Do you think it that Stuck Rubber Baby, Incognegro, and
King complement each other as far as covering the topic of racial issues or
does King surpass them because it revolves around actual events?
At first I really didn't get what the changing of the colors meant, but then I remembered what McCloud was talking about in chapter eight. He explained that color was used to emphasize certain events that were important to the story. I think that's what Anderson was trying to do. He was trying to identify the reader certain points that were important in the story and to keep our attention. Anderson has succeeded in this by creating multiple style of art that keep us tuned into the story. I didn't find the bubble in my version of the book but I think that it is to show concern for his style of art.
ReplyDeleteIt's no surprise to me that some schools are not giving enough attention to historical events that deserve to be in more depth. Before I read King, I barely knew MLK as one of the most influential men of all time. Now I see him in a new light because the comic gives us a deeper understanding of the civil right movement. There have been many other novels that have covered the civil right movement, such as Stuck Rubber Baby and Incognegro, but King surpasses them all by detailing the events of someone that is actually real. Persepolis has been my favorite book so far in this class, but King is now up there on my list of favorite books.
I think we ought to be careful about seeing ‘King’ as a ‘deep learning experience’ about MLK and the Civil Rights movement. No matter how much research Anderson did, he’s still writing fiction here even if he’s blurring the lines a little bit. The majority of book takes place through dialogue which is entirely constructed by Anderson. My take away from ‘King’ is that MLK and the Civil Rights Movement are extremely complex events routed in a great deal of fact and fiction, and it’s very difficult to separate the two. If am looking to paint an actual picture of true events, I would go to primary sources instead of a docu-drama format.
ReplyDeleteThe color was surprisingly less effective than I was expecting it to be. The book reached a visual climax at the March on Washington scene. The visuals were SO immersive in that scene, but for the most part still in black and white. Things that stood out to me were the blurring effects which gave the page this oscillation that allowed you to feel the excitement and the energy. The ultimate visual climax for me was when Anderson overlayed a drawing of MLK on top of a photograph of MLK in the exact same pose and the two were working together to create the image. (it was subtle, if you missed it, it’s worth going back and looking at). This signaled a climax both in the visual exploration that Anderson was undertaking and the narrative climax of King’s work.
So then the color was almost a let-down after all that excitement. I understand why people will say that it’s better than the earlier art, but just don’t agree. I also strongly reject a comment made on the other thread that ‘the color art is a higher art than the black and white art’. There’s absolutely no basis for saying that and frankly I don’t even understand how that conclusion could be drawn (I also don’t understand what ‘high art’ is because no one’s been able to define it). Anderson’s attitude toward drawing style in King is extremely nuanced and complex, and the use of color, photographs, and other mixed media techniques is all part of the visual journey that Anderson was on, so you have to understand it as part of a larger whole.
I think the changing of black and white to color is very symbolic for the story. Anderson uses black and white with splashes of color to depict the south, the area which racism was so apparent that it was pretty much black and white. Something where the middle just did not exist. When Anderson moves the story of King to the north, Chicago, I think the change to color was a metaphor of the racism in the North, that it wasn't as blunt as black and white but it was in the grey area. The relationship between the whites and black in Chicago had a much more complex relationship than they did in the south. King has been one of my favorite books we have read this semester, purely due to Ho Che Anderson's art within the story. Its utterly beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI think King provides more of a behind the scenes look of the civil rights movement. Not very often do educational system are given to go that far in depth, but as we get older I think it is our responsibility to go that far in depth ourselves. This book may be a comic but it most definitely isn't for kids, which is one of the main times that we, the US citizen, learn our general history.
I think Max makes some pretty good points. It is very important to keep in mind that, while this book is based on real events, a lot of it is fabricated around those real events.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, it shouldn't take away from the real events that did happen (his infidelity to his wife, the march, etc.) I think those were merely used as a diving board to these topics, which Anderson got material from his research he did in writing the book.
So I would say that in a way it's a deeper learning tool, in the way that we got to see more of MLK's character than you would in a typical history book, but it is important to read with a grain of salt that these conversations and stuff aren't all 100% accurate, in the same way we would a film based on a true story. There is always some amount of dramatization.
In a way it shows how the world finally took a different look at what was happening. Before the march the topic of civil rights was a certain style and then afterwards the style changed.
ReplyDeleteAnderson seems to be more of a serious about details and with such a serious book there isn’t a whole lot of space where comedy would be appropriate.
I didn’t see a lot of learn experience about the civil rights movement that I haven’t been presented before but it does appear to be an attempt at a personal exploration into the life of MLK. As pointed out, King is a fictional piece and as Randomattster said the accuracy in this could be as accurate as a film. A lot of the conversations had to, probably, be guessed on.
I agree with Max. We should be careful about how we look at this book in regards to a learning experience. I personally don't feel that this book is one that we should hold to the save equal standing as factual history records. Its like having a movie based on real life events. Its not actually what happened but a representation of it.
ReplyDeleteI don't feel strongly in one direction or the other in regards to if Stuck Rubber Baby, Incognegro, and King complement each other as far as covering the topic of racial issues. I don't feel that King surpass them because it revolves around actual events, instead because it is a story that is a version/representation created by is author it should be held to similar regards as Stuck Rubber Baby and Incognegro. Even the creator of King himself states that this is a work created based on his own creation/representation based on readings and videos that he watched about MLK.
I think that Anderson chose to use the color after the March on Washington to indicate change. The change could a change in people both black and white, a change in black people, a change in the United States. The change could be good or bad depending on your perspective.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan Esterkamp, I think there was a much more serious reason why Anderson would leave the bubble there. It may be a printing error as well.
I think that Anderson's "King" is a glimpse into what he think drove a man like Martin Luther King to make the impact that did on the United States at that time. As it seem that nowadays Martin Luther King is more of an afterthought to most, unfortunately. Stuck Rubber Baby I believe is the same it is just a glimpse of what it have been like for a white man struggling with his sexuality in the south during the civil rights movement.
I'd say King is a deeper learning experience mostly in that it is an outsider's view (a canadian) on American civil events. We also get a take on approaching criticism of an iconic American figure.
ReplyDeleteI think the use of color begins in the novel as an indicator of violence and perhaps a foreshadowing of further violence as it becomes more and more frequent. The colorful section of the novels indicate tension and rising determination as well. The "I have a dream" speech is very expressive and fully colored and collaged. As the violence builds, so does the expression until ending in King's assassination in red, then resting again in black and white.
The March on Washington was a cornerstone of change in America, and I think the use of color is intended to underline its importance on the grand scale. After the march, there was a newfound optimism amongst the Civil Rights movement; their numbers had been shown in plain force, and they had succeeded in getting their message out on a massive scale. That optimism translates to a sort of vibrancy in the book itself; something that makes things feel more alive and immediate.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure what to make of the "keep this color when you change the font" bubble. On one hand it might be some sort of meta-commentary ("color," "change"), or it might be a printing error. Though I'd be surprised if it was the latter due to the amount of detail in the book, stranger things have happened in mass-run prints.
I think that King certainly acts as a valuable contextual aid for the historical events that it covers. I mentioned this in a previous post, but historical figures like MLK or JFK often become amorphous and unapproachable. Everything about the Civil Rights movement exists in a mythic haze for the younger generation today. Texts like King help readers to get a better grasp on understanding the more subtle and nuanced elements of those events, offering insight that might be otherwise left out of historical text books in school. I think that any text that bolsters such important elements of American history have certainly earned their right to be acknowledged for being as vital as they are.
The change in color signals the change in the movement after the March on Washington. It sparked a change in public opinion and ignited a momentum that is represented by the stark alteration of color. It also brings us into more modern times, following the the timeline of comic publication as well as film (B&W-->color).
ReplyDeleteI'd say deeper, but less broad. It gives us a more intimate, detailed account but doesn't quite cover the scope, context, or facts of the civil rights movement in the way a text book. This is after all historical fiction, not academic. An important distinction to remember.
I don't think that the texts complimenting each other and King surpassing the others are related. I do think that they compliment each other well, as the all share themes and historical phenomena, but I think it compliments Maus and Perseoplis all the same. I don't find its explicit fact-based quality to be superior, or more affecting, than any of the other graphic novels.
When it comes to providing historical depth, I find no shortcomings with "King." Instead of focusing on historical fact, Anderson attempts a deeper, albeit fictionalized, understanding of MLK the man. The purpose of this graphic novel is to focus on the individual (micro) as opposed to the Civil Rights Movement (macro).
ReplyDeleteNot to burst anyone's (thought) bubble ... but when it comes to the part of the graphic novel that is in color .... perhaps the author himself says it best in an interview; "I'm working on the final volume and I'm just feeling like doing it in color."
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/03/talking-comics-with-tim-ho-che-anderson/
I love the quote because when reading the graphic novel, the use of color seemed just a little forced to me. Don't get me wrong - it works (and Anderson felt it was appropriate). But I definitely found it a bit jolting.
Lastly, I do not have the bubble pictured above in my edition (I have the 'Special Edition'). I read that Anderson kept going back and tweaking "King" after it had already been published. So it could be anything from him poking fun of himself to a mistake. Let the conspiracy theories begin ...
I think that Anderson chose to make this change merely to show how history was changed forever after the march on Washington. He shows that the change from racism to racial equality had begun in full swing. Furthermore, I find it ironic that after the march on Washington, the world is no longer seen as black and white, but rather very colorful. Yet no longer do the colors cause a stark contrast with the world, but they blend together to make beauty.
ReplyDeleteThis panel is sort of a post-structuralist view that I believe Anderson left in the book in order to point out that it is merely one representation of Martin Luther King Jr. and not to be taken as the official nor exclusive account of his life. He wants his readers to question the version of King that he shows. For this reason, I think he shows the superficiality of the novel, pointing out that it is merely a book; it is merely art, not reality.
I think that the comic is actually kind of shallow in regards to the civil rights movement. I don't see it showing enough of the iconic, powerful fight for racial equality. I would say that it focuses mostly on Martin Luther King's personal life and tries to offer a vignette of the hero as close to reality as possible. Anderson does not glorify Martin Luther King or embellish him at all. However, I would argue that it seems like Anderson's King is rather unlikable, perhaps more so than in reality. Personally, I found Incognegro to be more enlightening concerning the topic of race issues because it seemed more real, and it took on multiple viewpoints rather than being shallow and slightly one-sided. Furthermore, Incognegro dealt more with racism on a personal level, while King focuses on a single person's political and ideological quest. While Stuck Rubber Baby did show a great deal of the civil rights movement, I felt that it mostly focused on the acceptance of homosexuality and merely used the civil rights movement as a parallel.
I liked the change in artwork following the million man march because it helped show the massive shift in tone of the story. Up to that point, the story had been slower, with characters still trying to decide what side they were on (hence the fact that they were drawn in black and white, often straddled between light and and darkness). After the march, most of the story was drawn in color, and the characters' appearance was more defined. This showed that they had hit their stride and they they weren't going to stop. But I also noticed towards the end that there are many pages where the art seemed to be blurred, which coincides nicely with King's feelings of uncertainty regarding the movement's future. as for the bubble, I can't offer much thought because I also have the "Special Edition", so it's not present. But, given the fact that this entire story hinges on color (metaphorically, figuratively, graphically, AND literally), it can be surmised that it is probably a funny bit of commentary.
ReplyDeleteI heartily agree that momentous historical events like the Civil Rights Movement are not given enough time in curriculums for an in-depth understanding, and I think this book does a reasonable job of bridging that gap. With such events, there is such a wealth of information that there simply isn't time in a standard curriculum to be able to study it all. This book gives a fascinating glimpse at the inner machinations of the Civil Rights Movement, which is something that is usually glossed over in history classes and books. The other novels we have read complement this and each other by offering differing perspectives on this same subject, which is all too often boiled down to two sides.
I thought it was interesting that Aaron Coleman brought up how Ho Che Anderson stated in an interview, "I'm working on the final volume and I'm just feeling like doing it in color." Anderson has experimented with many different styles throughout the course of this book. It seems that he is a person who gets bored easily and has to change thing up to keep it interesting. This could very well be the case, but it also works in the same way for the reader.
ReplyDeleteI also find Sebastian Misleh theory to be a good possible answer. He said, “Furthermore, I find it ironic that after the march on Washington, the world is no longer seen as black and white, but rather very colorful.” Anderson could have change up the style to represent this. Although, it’s not like everything changes instantly after the march, but it did seem to be the turning point in the civil rights movement, so it could be used to indicate that.
I would say that King offers a deep learning experience about the civil rights movement just because it attempts to see the historic event through many different perspectives. I also do believe that King, Incognegro and Stuck Rubber Baby complement one another because the books all cover different perspectives and time eras of the same movement. I wouldn’t say that King surpasses the other two because the other two are also based off of real events.
While I was reading, I thought that the color signified a change in the atmosphere of the civil rights movement, and the country really. The color coincides with the "I Have a Dream Speech" but also in this book (immediately following the speech) Kennedy is assassinated. His assassination is the beginning of a very cynical time in America, and I think as it's presented here we see that it's the beginning of serious discord in the civil rights movement. King starts to lose his appeal with the American public. I don't really know why color would represent this change, but if anything it just highlights that a change has occurred. I agree with some of the others are saying about possible creative boredom, or that the color could represent society seeing things as more than black and white.
ReplyDeleteI found King to be a tad bit overwhelming just because of the amount info presented, but that might just be me. I think that it could be used in schools to give a more complex idea of what historical events and figures realistically look like. In textbooks, its easy to make figures look like heroic god-like statues of people. For instance, Kennedy's hestitance toward civil rights marches was something that was mysteriously absent in high school history lessons. Conflict makes for an interesting story though, so I think a realistic portrayal of the events would keep students more interested as opposed to the sunshine and roses the textbooks usually dish out.
It seems that Anderson wanted the book to start out highlighting the black versus white issues and then as the African-American community gained small bits of recognition and victory, bits of color were added. After the Washington speech by MLK, the African-Americans' lives were changed in a big way and so much more notice and recognition were given to them. I think bringing the color in shows the audience that there was a new life for the African-Americans - new opportunities, hope, acknowledgement.
ReplyDeleteMy copy of the book does not have that bubble in it, so I can't really comment on it in the same way. But I think it was probably just a mistake?
I think this is definitely giving me more of a handle on what actually happened during the Civil Rights Movement, but this book alone is too much for me to enjoy learning about it. But the three books together have opened up my knowledge about the topic. I like the combination of fiction and real events because I get to see the truth of the matter and the creativity that spawned from the truth.
I think I agree with most of the points that Anderson could really have taken two directions regarding the use of color. As it was pointed out earlier the use of color isn't really present until after Martin Luther Kings speech. This would fuel the idea that "color" is spreading like the ideas that King is preaching. The inception of this event being the march on Washington.
ReplyDeleteHowever I tend to lean towards the second notion that Anderson was simply getting bored of the straight black and white approach. I believe that the longer Anderson dealt with the subject the less simple the story got. While on the surface it seems like a Black and White issue, these types of conflict and struggle are in no way unique to the United States. Many countries still face these types of injustice, though they occurred at different times and locations. This is an issue of identity, how we see ourselves and how we perceive the people around us.
The change in color really signifies the change going on through the Civil Rights Movement. The biggest change was right after the Million Man March. We see characters becoming more defined and the color popping throughout the rest of the graphic novel. This shows the progression of the movement and how African Americans were becoming more involved and empowered in the movement. It shows how people, particularly some whites, viewed the movement. They saw this transition in more light rather than darkness and the issues involved were made more apparent. I found it interesting that the bubble was included but cannot come to a conclusion as to why it was still in there.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the aspect of getting more out of this story because it is based off of actual events, I believe that I have got a lot out of this story and more insight on the Civil Rights Movement. But, I don't view Fiction any different from Non-Fiction. Some stories are based on actual events but is considered Fiction because the names are changed or there are certain aspects that are elaborated or dramatized more. This just helps get the author's point across on issues involved at a certain point in time. I don't find my view on the credibility of the works we have focused on any different from King because it gives me a different perspective on issues.
I agree with some others that the change in color correlates with the events of the civil rights movement and the March on Washington. As King becomes associated with and is challenged by more and more people we begin to see color in the book. This cannot be a coincidence. Matters regarding race relations can no longer be seen in "black and white" because the issue affects so many people. As more individuals are confronted with the prospect of people of color receiving the same rights as white people, we continue to see more and more color throughout the book.
ReplyDeleteI think Anderson leaves the bubble because the color scheme for the font is black and white so he's sort of poking fun at us actually or should I say anyone who chooses to continue seeing things in black and white when many color schemes are available.
I also agree with others that we have to be careful about considering this a historical book. Someone made a good point about the dialog being almost completely fabricated unless it's written down somewhere what King said at a particular point in history. However, I do think it serves as a stepping stone for deeper learning and I really enjoyed it.