Scan barcode
A review by mandalor3960
Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art by Scott McCloud
2.0
As the title suggests, this book is a really great companion toward a viewer who knows little on analyzing and understanding comics. It's like an English manual for understanding literature, but instead created for understanding comics. Some of the chapters (7 and 9) felt very opinionated and didn't seem to fit in with the entire mood of dissecting comics, rather McCloud's opinion on the goals of an artist or the manner in which an artist creates artwork.
Rating Update 4/6/19- 4 stars to 3 stars. I'm not convinced this deserves 4 stars. Yes, there are some revolutionary ideas that McCloud presents, but I read everything like a sloth. Not all the concepts stick with me either.
Rating Update 4/9/19- 3 stars to 2 stars. Like the previous rating update, I remember there being revolutionary ideas but most of it was a slog to get through. I really can only remember two concepts that I loved but the rest were blah blah blah "here's a picture of how time moves through pictures".
Update 14 June 2019
With the adoption of my new rating system, a two star rating is befitting. I cannot recall the contents of this book. The original review and subsequent rating updates are true; the book is a bore to read but there are some neat ideas. Because I cannot recall the contents of this book, and fear that a three star rating would be based off of my idealized version of this book, I have left the rating at two stars.
January 30, 2020
Update
I cannot remember the contents of this book, though I do recall enjoying the pyramid that charted several comics styles. My educated guess for my original reception of this book was that I found the book to be an alright read and a decent guide for comics (two stars). This is supported by this statement in the original review: "It's like an English manual for understanding literature, but instead created for understanding comics. Some of the chapters (7 and 9) felt very opinionated and didn't seem to fit in with the entire mood of dissecting comics, rather McCloud's opinion on the goals of an artist or the manner in which an artist creates artwork". Notice how I praise the book as being an English manual, then critique it for diverting from this stance in two chapters. I believe I was comfortable with the book being a decent manual.
Rating Update 4/6/19- 4 stars to 3 stars. I'm not convinced this deserves 4 stars. Yes, there are some revolutionary ideas that McCloud presents, but I read everything like a sloth. Not all the concepts stick with me either.
Rating Update 4/9/19- 3 stars to 2 stars. Like the previous rating update, I remember there being revolutionary ideas but most of it was a slog to get through. I really can only remember two concepts that I loved but the rest were blah blah blah "here's a picture of how time moves through pictures".
Update 14 June 2019
With the adoption of my new rating system, a two star rating is befitting. I cannot recall the contents of this book. The original review and subsequent rating updates are true; the book is a bore to read but there are some neat ideas. Because I cannot recall the contents of this book, and fear that a three star rating would be based off of my idealized version of this book, I have left the rating at two stars.
January 30, 2020
Update
I cannot remember the contents of this book, though I do recall enjoying the pyramid that charted several comics styles. My educated guess for my original reception of this book was that I found the book to be an alright read and a decent guide for comics (two stars). This is supported by this statement in the original review: "It's like an English manual for understanding literature, but instead created for understanding comics. Some of the chapters (7 and 9) felt very opinionated and didn't seem to fit in with the entire mood of dissecting comics, rather McCloud's opinion on the goals of an artist or the manner in which an artist creates artwork". Notice how I praise the book as being an English manual, then critique it for diverting from this stance in two chapters. I believe I was comfortable with the book being a decent manual.