King podcast

Listen to the newest podcast on King below:

King, by Ho Che Anderson

 As you may have noticed, King differs greatly from a number of other texts we've read this semester--both in its visuals, its composition, and its storytelling choices.

Early in the semester, you had a great conversation about the differences (such as they are) between "high" and "low" art, and how comics is often left to straddle divide between the two.  This conversation questioned the very notion of constructing boundaries between mass and elite cultural production, even as many of you admitted that the ideas of high and low continue to filter into how we appreciated and categorize art.  (Think of visiting "Half-Price Books," for instance--how does the store's shelf categorization suggest something about the place of genre fiction (such as crime fiction, romances, etc.) as compared to what we deem "literary fiction"?).  How does King borrow from the conventions of both "high" and "low" art, as well as the vocabulary of film, to tell MLK's story?  Is King more like the sort of visual art you'd see hanging in a museum or gallery than what you'd usually associated with the visual universe of comics?  For those of you who have the big, "special edition" of the text, how does the "making of" section in the back of the book affect your sense of Anderson's project in constructing King?

Moreover, as I will outline further in my podcast, King differs from the other works we've read because it tells the story not of a random individual (as Maus and Persepolis do) or of a group seeking rights (as Stuck Rubber Baby does), but of an iconic figure that many of us have already encountered in written or visual form (t.v., film, photography).  How does the fact that King is about an iconic figure affect your reading of the text?  How does it affect Anderson's use of visuals and storytelling technique?  What do you make of his opening of the text with young MLK, his use of the "chorus" of commentators on MLK, the stark black and white palette (mixed with the occasional use of color) employed throughout the book, and his introduction of photographs, however blurry, into the text?  Perhaps, most strikingly, what do you think about Anderson's choice to show the darker side of King in terms of his extramarital affairs? Please use the space below to comment on some of these questions about King. 

I know this text is a challenging one, and I will use my podcast and some further blog posts to help us make sense of it.

What's in a Label?

What's in a Name Label?

First of all, I want to apologize for the late post! This post is referring specifically to pages 1-103 in Stuck Rubber Baby.

Labeling race and sexual orientation through name calling, is a theme in Stuck Rubber Baby that immediately stood out to me. On the third page of the novel, a conversation with Tolend Polk’s parents set up the distinction that certain names should not be used:

Throughout the book’s dialogue the characters seem to consider “negro” as a more acceptable label. However, that term is now considered politically incorrect and currently people are taught to use African-American. Outside of the character’s dialogue, Polk as a narrator uses “black” to describe the community. These terms are in stark contrast on page 14:

Polk’s father and mother set up the need for distinction between offensive and acceptable labels for different members in the community. The language from the “Kennedy Time” and when Stuck Rubber Baby was published show a large change in how we talk about and identify race in America. The way the novel labels sexual orientation in the context of offensive or politically correct is also introduced in the novel on page 6:

I have several questions I wanted to address while reading Stuck Rubber Baby and noticing the labels, but primarily were so we draw the distinction between offensive and correct or joking? Is it an individual decision based on personal experience with such loaded words? Is it the historical context and its etymology a sole or significant factor in a label’s appropriateness?

I recently saw an interview that made me wonder if our language, and our culture, is evolving to a point where labeling differences are not needed. If this is the case, how do we decide what labels to use when describing historical events?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXAho8vlmAI

Howard Cruse does a great job of using different labels to evoke different feelings within the reader, or even develop certain characters based on their labeling of other people. I mentioned a few moments, but where are some other frames in Stuck Rubber Baby when he does this? What is his goal in using the specific language in those frames?

Civil Rights and LGBT Rights/ Questions about Stuck Rubber Baby

Throughout Stuck Rubber Baby, Cruse draws analogies between civil right and the rights of LGBT people.  Do you think this analogy is appropriate? How does the connection he draws help to illuminate the connections between race, gender, and sexuality? How does the theme of secrecy about sexual orientation in Stuck Rubber Baby relate/ not relate to the way Johnson and Pleece portray racial passing in Incognegro?

In order to help answer these questions and understand the timeline of what Cruse narrates in his graphic novel, please take a look at these links with the timelines for civil rights and gay rights in the U.S.

There's also an interesting NPR piece about the analogies between civil rights and the gay marriage. 

You're reading an (almost) banned book and other facts about Stuck Rubber Baby

In 2005, along with other books with gay themes, Stuck Rubber Baby was almost banned by a Texas library.

Cruse talks about being a pioneering gay artist, among other topics, in this interview with the Comics Reporter, as well as this one with Publisher's weeklyupon the reissue of Stuck Rubber Baby. 

Here's Howard Cruse's site.

More on Cruse and LGBT identity in comics

Article on LGBT representation in American comics, Part 1 and Part 2

Stuck Rubber Baby: Sketching Out Thoughts

Stuck Rubber Baby has a very different style than any of the novels we have read so far. I want you to discuss the differences of the storytelling/narration, illustration and layout, and amount of information. Just talk me through what you were thinking while getting acclimated to the new style of the novel. How has this thought process affected how you read the first part of the novel?

The narration of this novel seems to be more literature-based. It is also more inviting, perhaps, than the other novels we have read. What is the effect of the interjections by the man who we are to assume is Toland's current partner? What about the extra details the audience gets from each drawing (sound effects, the stars when Bernard was beaten up, song lyrics…)? What do you enjoy or dislike about all of these new types of information we receive from this book?

I also wanted to see if anyone has any ideas for why Sammy Noone's last name resembles the term no one. Just something to ponder.

Does anyone know why the book has its particular title from reading the story so far?

Just tell everyone what you were thinking while reading; make guesses and discuss them!

Incognegro: Heroism and Justice

          If there is anything that I enjoy in any story at all it is heroism. In most, if not all, stories, movies, TV shows, video games that I have seen and read, there is always the hero rising up against fear and doubt to overcome evil a bring a better tomorrow for everyone. This is what I enjoy to see and is what my inspiration and focus is as a writer. In fact, this is pretty much what everyone wants to see then it comes to storytelling. Incognegro was able to display this aspect when describing the events lynchings being busted by light-colored reporters including Zane. Zane was willing to risk his life so that the truth can be brought about the lynchings. And Carl wanted to accompany Zane for his last mission so that he could take his place. Based on Carl’s personality throughout the story, do you think that Carl wanted to take Zane’s place when he retired just for the fame, or was there actually a smidge of humility within him that wanted to see justice? What evidence is there that supports your thoughts? Also, what did you think of Carl’s death near the end of the book?

              
           In addition to the process of storytelling, another helpful mechanism to heroism would be the downfall of the villain. For every hero there is always a villain, and everyone wants to see the villain parish either by the hands of the hero, or by poetic justice. As we continue to read, we see the villain, Mr. Huey, for what he truly is and wish for him to get what’s coming to him. So when the book ends, do you believe that the ending was appropriate in poetic justice? What do you make out of the fact that the townsfolk actually believed what Zane wrote about Mr. Huey’s identity? Can people really be that naïve?