King – Part 2
I wasn’t
born yet when MKL was shot; many of your parents were more than likely not born
either. I learned of the man and the events the same way most of you have, and
while this pre-text might seem irrelevant, it is actually to the point. I have
always believed that everyone adored the man. I was often surprised in this
text to read about people who just wanted him to go away or shut up, and then
there are the people who we still hear from today that are still riding his
coat tails but have lost his message.
I asked my
mom once what she thought about him and she said this, “He just wanted the same
things for his kids that we want for you – a safe neighborhood, good schools
and opportunities for you to succeed.” It sounded reasonable then, and it is
what I read here again. This biography in the second half paints the picture of
a man trying to be more than he is to build something better and lasting. He
seems to doubt himself much more than I would have thought. Which begs the
question of how much of this is real vs. creative retelling? Do you believe
that this author is credible?
The second
half of this biography is drawn differently than the first half, and not just
the addition of color, but some of the pages are like paintings. For example
page 156 and 157 these are chalk drawings. For me this was more interesting
than the stark B&W images in the beginning of the book. How did this affect
the story, does it help or detract?
Dialog
bubbles – McCloud discussed the difference between different types of bubbles,
how did the change in color and shape of the dialog bubbles help or detract
from the flow of the story. Was it easier to follow the flow and speaker in the
end of the book vs. the beginning?
I like that you brought up this second question. I think it leads to this larger philosophical problem of how we can really know others and know ourselves. We could ask ourselves, does a person know himself best? If not, who? Would you feel more inclined to trust the autobiography or the biography? And where does a creative retelling fall?
ReplyDeleteI think Anderson was fair, but as easy as it is to be drawn into a complex narrative that feels deep with thematic elements. It's played with and mildly dramatized for narrative effect. This isn't to say it's untrue, or unfair; rather, it's just a framing of events in which any sort of other frame could be possible.
I'm sure the elements of King's ambivalence and insecurity are being more fair to King than any other sort of biographical retelling, especially when you think of all the weight and implications behind every choice that he makes. He wanted so much better for everyone, but he also held that heavy burden. Of course he is afraid of letting them down, or making the wrong choice, or not doing better. He'd be confident for sure-- have an ego sometimes for sure-- but some of the wisest leaders admit that they're not perfect and much as they believe in their actions, there will always be a hint of doubt.
I completely agree with your perspective on King’s retelling. I find it’s easy enough for people to get wrapped up in the concept of objective truth, particularly in the field of history. I think the life of Martin Luther King, particularly as shown in Anderson’s work, is an excellent example of just how impossible it is to establish complete truth. My own belief is that history cannot be wholly captured with a single source or account, let alone a single perception. Rather, it is an amalgamation of numerous perspectives, acknowledged as separate views on the same subject. This idea is captured wonderfully in Akira Kurosawa’s Rashomon, where the participants in a single occurrence provide their own unique (and conflicting) account of what happened.
DeleteAs you said John, conflicting accounts seem to bring fuller understanding of a situation. I think Anderson did a fairly good job of trying to subtly show those accounts without being completely dogmatic about the nature of King. The story has a bit of ebb and flow, and while to an extent I can see reason to be critical of setting unreasonable standards for King, I did not feel that Anderson crossed that line. Like Alyssa covered, his insecurities make this story more real than plenty of documentaries touting him as a nearly perfect son of a preacher. Yes no single text, or movie could cover all of the social stigma attached to an era, but I strongly believe that Anderson was not lacking in the department of political correctness.
DeleteIt’s interesting to think that despite the dream-like proportions and perspectives that permeate the visual landscape of King, it’s one of the most realistic representations of the man. I often wonder how much Anderson himself reflected on the illusory nature of historic truth when writing his work. It’s easy enough for us as an audience to reflect on this idea, but how sure can we be that Anderson was thinking along similar lines?
Delete(Do you think the author is credible?) King covers a topic with which we can all claim relative familiarity. We all know of Martin Luther King’s work, the sacrifices and courage inherent in the nonviolent protests of the civil rights era, and how decisively it put forward the idea of free and open equality for all. Put bluntly, there is no need for more works to provide this perspective on MLK and his legacy; It has been established. Anderson instead provides us with an alternative understanding of the man Martin Luther King Jr., putting him in a more human, more relatable light. It’s easy enough to accept the simplified image of him as the saintly martyr, working with perfect grace and strength through his whole life. It’s an inspiring image, but it’s far from relatable for most anyone. It distances us from the truth of his legacy, which I think is a shame. Anderson has a particular focus on King’s human frailty in the work, but I don’t think this reduces his credibility to any real extent; with his inclusion of interviews and verbatim dialogue, it’s clear he’s done his research. But rather than emphasizing any one truth about the life of Dr. King, Anderson’s work ultimately tries to show the beautiful imperfection that characterized the man, the human being who is all too often eclipsed by the titanic legacy he has no choice but to attach himself to.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the way that this book portrayed Dr. King, because of how full of doubt he was. We only see the man for his great speeches, his social work, and his tragic death. Too often we miss the man behind the man, and this book was great for giving us a look inside of that. Like any biography of a dead person, I don't think that the reader should go into it expecting some kind of encyclopedic account of the person's life, they want a scholar's perspective on the important things that this person accomplished, their legacy, and to be portrayed in a manner that respects their work. Anderson accomplished all of this with King, it's one of the most creative storytelling mediums I have ever read.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this graphic novel. It did something that a lot of other biographies ignore or aren’t able to fully show. It gives a side of a person that only a graphic novel can possibly give. We see ventures into MLK’s mind. There are vibrant colors and or dim dark rooms, which represent his overall mental state in certain parts of his life. The way this story shifts art styles completely floored me. It made it very exciting and fun to read. I could tell when things were getting serious or when they were becoming more light-hearted. I believe this story is trying to show us how MLK was seen by his close friends and family as well as the public eye. It was like a roller coaster. One second he was seen as an amazing man, then the next he’s seen as a heretic. The way that this story is presented is not a complete biography. It gives us something that can only be given by someone who has only seen him from afar. I don’t think it has to be credible. It’s how we interpret the facts and how they can be presented.
ReplyDeleteThe use of black and white made the story seem more serious in their journey to present the structure of his life. It was giving hard facts and it looked like it was a rather important side to the tale. The use of color made the story more personal. I could see the colors representing emotion more than just black and white. The different styles sort of represented location. The chalk was like “home”, the dark pastels seemed to represent an urban setting, and even the pen-like etching was like “nowhere.” The way the pen-like art was presented, it looked like the characters were in the middle of an empty space. (pg 203) It placed importance on the character forms over anything else.
I found it rather fitting for the bubbles to change so often. Sometimes we’d get different colored font at random intervals telling a piece of history. These transitions seem important because it makes the story more static and even more personality. I felt more life from the way the story was presented toward the end than the beginning. The end was fast paced and vibrant. It needed to be.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading King. I thought that this interpretation of King’s life was vivid, emotional and very artistic. Having said that, I definitely took everything with a grain of salt while reading this comic. I think that Anderson is trying to be objective and to include different accounts and reconstruct King’s life to the best of his ability - I definitely don’t think his intention was to present a biased account or to demonize MLK. However, it would be impossible to tell this story with 100% accuracy and there always seems to be some fiction involved in re-telling history. But I do like that Anderson includes recollections that contradict each other at times, because he is showing more than one side of things.
ReplyDeleteI’m a little torn on the style of King. It’s a risk to present so many different style choices in one comic and I’ve never seen that done before. On one hand, it seems to flow with the mood of the story, but it can seem a little disjointed or jarring at times when the style abruptly switches. For example, the style is drastically different between pages 186-187 and 188-189. One thing in particular I really liked about Anderson’s style choices were the way they captured emotion well. For example, the illustrations on pages 225 - 229 are highly artistic and manage to convey a lot of horror and fear.
Those black and white beginnings are reminiscent of early nostalgia photos. They can blend well with those black and white photos taken during the time. Like I mentioned earlier, it is color itself that draws attention. So when it's used, we naturally are drawn to it. The second half of the book I thought was still in a lighter mood then the first. So the use of color made sense. Those chalk pages you mentioned has that strong energy about it that conveys that emotion for the readers. It all has to be done visually, so what better way to convey emotion then with energy through color.
ReplyDeleteI was questioning how much of the story was factual and the other paraphrased events from the author. I have to take it more on the factual side since the book is technically "A Comic Biography." But it only seems natural for the author to put SOME of their influences in. They have to when they are dictating what visuals they show with the story. But we also must not let the other books we have read skew our thought on the authors input into a "comic biography" when some of the others are the farthest thing from factual.
So, in order to give a most accurate and real interpretation of a person, especially one as well known and famous as MLK, is to get as many perspectives as possible to tell your biography. That’s Ho Che Anderson has done with King, but instead of using a third person narration, he chose to have experiences of witnesses and people involved in the Civil Rights Movement move the story along. It makes for a more dramatic and descriptive story. It also helps that this was written by someone from another country (Canada) and that he wasn’t here during the 1960’s. It makes a less biased author, which makes him more credible because he had to find the people who were there. Not just talk to a family member who was alive back then, like so many of us do today.
ReplyDeleteThe second half of the book is where all the violence and where all the important events happened, such as the Marches, the sit-ins and the infamous “I have a Dream” speech. It makes more of an impact to have all of these be more vivid and colorful than the direct and contrasting black and white drawings and images. This section had more photographs than the first half as well. Redrawing the photographs wouldn’t have been so retelling than the actual photographs of the time.
The dialogue was much less jumbled and choppy in the second half. It made the flow better, kept the story moving. In the first half, the disconnected dialogue made the flow very difficult to follow, which never helps a story, in any format.
The credibility of the author seems to be authentic. The choices of art style at different points in the novel pair well with what Anderson wanted to portray. The second half of the narrative followed more along with the story that we have been taught in school. All of the different accounts included in the retelling of events further help to make the story a more interesting read. In the second half of the novel the plot does flow a lot better, however the first half of King kind of ruined my enjoyment of this book. The disheveled chaotic nature was well contrasted later in the story. It was interesting to see MLK presented in a different light, but the approach to the story in the beginning was just too rough.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I feel the same way, I assumed everyone admired MKL and still idolized him until this day, it was surprising for me as well to see how some reacted to him, that they did just want him to go away or shut up, which is sad considering he only wanted better things for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI think all parents want the same thing for their children, and try their best to make it happen. I don’t think MKL knew he would be remembered and idolized way after his death, nor be an example to be led by. What we tend to forget is, with heroes, or people who leave a great impact behind, we forget they’re humans just like us, they have the same fears we do, so it wouldn’t be surprising that he doubted himself, we all have these moments, where we try our best and still think it isn’t enough, but that doesn’t mean we give up, that’s something that makes us keep going.
I think it is hard to say, I would personally say he is credible, but how do you really know?
Yes, I loved the second half, I really wasn’t expecting the color, but nonetheless, and it made me love the book even more. I may be a bit irrational, I just feel a comic is better if it is in color, but that’s just me. I think it helps, and having the first half B&W and then adding the color made it all the more an enjoyable experience to read.
Yes, I think it was much easier to follow the flow and speaker in the end of the book than it was at the beginning, color does have a big impact on how the story is portrayed.
I believe the author is as credible as he could possibly be writing a biographical story about a legendary cultural icon such as King. There is no avoiding the question of whether King was murdered or martyred and the depth of personal struggles and convictions contrasting King's well known speeches lead to the emotional impact of this climactic tragedy.
ReplyDeleteThe variety of mediums, from periodical style photographs to impressionistic pages of abstracted brushstrokes allow the reader to delve into the empathetic experience of King's own likely internal conflicts.
The diversity of styles is much more effectively utilized in the art than the lettering and word framing. This is apparent in the seemingly random and motley use of color, to define the speakers within dialogues, after the dream speech.