Ho Che Anderson is an Afro-Canadian comics artist who created a three-volume graphic biography of Martin Luther King's life. Born in 1969 in London, Anderson's family soon moved to Canada for work. Anderson was a young man when he began writing King, but took ten years to complete the project. Unlike Maus and Persepolis, King is not a personal narrative, but instead a visual exploration of the complex life of an icon. Called "a milestone for biographical comics," King takes the reader into the most controversial aspects of MLK's life and character while retaining respect for King's stature as a civil rights leader and activist.King is visually very different from the graphic novels we've read in class so far. How does Anderson use images differently than Satrapi and Spiegelman? How are photos and other documentary-style images melded with drawing to tell the story of King? What role do the "witnesses" who narrate much of the story have in the biography? How is the question of race--and its visibility--addressed in Ho Che Anderson's story and images?
Anderson does use images very differently than the other authors we've studied and to many advantages for his specific story. The repetative use of black and white, in a story largely about the color as a racial identifier, is striking at times. Although color is used in some of the pages, the blood and effect used to depict violence is black, white and black flesh is depicted in white space in King, making us pay closer attention to the details of the faces, which, also, change style in different frames. Indeed, we have to look closely and try to identify, at certain times, the visual characteristics that differentiate African and European bodied peoples. Often, the context of the scenes give this away, but I found myself having to read the words and look closely at the faces of some of the witnesses to see if they were white or black, looking for colloquial language of either or for their own admittance of their race. The documentary style, as well as the real photos, brings about certain verisimilitudes to King where the private, and I'm assuming mostly imaginary, conversations of the comic's characters, especially Dr. King, can lead to one taking his story out of the biography format. When we get caught up in the drama or unexpected candidness in which the civil rights icon is cussing and saying "goddamit" in a preacher's robe, the realistic images (similar to the picture of Auschwitz's gate in Maus) and photos ebb our minds back to these events being real and previously documented in a variety of formats. Anderson's biography moves so far out and infers many private and unseen or unknown sentiments about Dr. King's life, that these other types of frames seem to hold the chronology and the informative aspect of the novel together. Unlike Satrapi or Speigelman, Anderson uses highly expressive faces for his characters and puts emphasis on the way the light and shading and seemingly real dynamics of photography and perspective render certain moments, although sometimes the faces are indicernable, they are much more realistic and human. What Scott McCloud says about the simplicity in facial construction lending a sense of ownership or closeness to a given body in the frames of comics is totally accurate with my reading of King. I have not once felt a transferable emotion about Dr. King's dilemmas through the images themselves. I am am equally repulsed and marveled at Anderson's use of text and dialogue in the text, especially at the mobs of angry whites and the horrid things they espouse, and therefore I feel my deepest connection to the text found in following the texts and the events of plot. Also, the irony of me knowing what will happen to Dr. King affects my reading too...I am comfortable with my knowledge that I already know what's to come, and already have settled that it's tragic and awful. I am finding this reading to be way less personal for me, but largely due to the given circumstances of me knowing the story somewhat already and the artistic style that King is drawn in, like McCloud suggests, creates a real, effectual distance from the text's characters.
ReplyDeleteKing is definitely using a different visual style, compared to Maus and Persepolis. I really like that there are actual photographs kind of blended with some of the pictures. It adds power to some of those scenes.
ReplyDeleteAnderson also does a great job of detailing the features of the different characters in this story. I like that colors are reserved for the scenes like the house fire and when King is stabbed.
One of the things that I'm having a bit of difficulty with is knowing which talk bubbles to follow...it gets a bit confusing at times. Sometimes when there are multiple people talking to each other in one scene, it becomes a bit hard to follow.
Also-- toward the beginning of the novel there were a few different pages where I wasn't sure which frame I was supposed to read next. The further in the book I get though the more comfortable I've grown with the layout. I think it helps that I am familiar with the main story and what happened throughout the civil rights movement. I think if I were not familiar with it though, at times it would be hard for me to follow.
I do appreciate the back stories though and that Anderson seems to be depicting MLK authentically -- not just as the preacher and activist that most know him as -- but as a human being with faults and flaws.
I feel that the images in King have been drastically different from the images in Perseopolis and Maus. The people in King are drawn with much more detail, however the characters are often drawn with heavy shadow. I found this to be especially interesting in relation to the witnesses. I felt as though he was protecting identities this way.
ReplyDeleteThe use of violence is also more frequent in King. Some of the images, and word choices made me feel very uncomfortable. I feel that Ho Che Anderson did a really powerful job of connecting the reader to the events that were taking place.
Overall I really liked what Anderson did with his work. In the beginning I felt that it was a little difficult to understand, but once I got used to his style I felt it was easier to comprehend. Time jumped around a lot, and once the reader figures that out, it becomes a much easier and enjoyable read.
Anderson's use of the "witnesses" is for the purpose of giving us different accounts of the story. Most of the time when an author is writing about history we only get one side. In addition because King is such a larger than life person a lot the decisions he made was under intense scrutiny. The "witnesses" played sort of a dual role, one being to give us different perspectives and the other to act as a jury. Race and invisiblity are one in the same. What we see is a person being judge by the color of the skin and not by his character. Since this is the case people based on skin color are not identifiable, they are all the same person. Anderson's use of drawings merged with real photos give a a true since of reality. By doing this it adds a dramatic and very serious tone. Besides this it makes it harder for people to deny what really happend during this time period. There are several people who refuse to believe or in denial about the horrors of slavery. Anderson doesn't give them any other options, but the truth. His account of King is both personal and historical. We got to see King as a human and not just a super Icon.
ReplyDeleteI like the way Anderson told the story of King, I am a Africana Studies major, and i have studied and read alot concerning King. I enjoyed the stand point from which he took. I am not someone who is into graphic novels but this was amn enjoyment to read.
ReplyDelete