
_______________________________________________
The above strip belongs to a curious -- to me at least -- subset of Peanuts strips. The majority of Schulz’s comics take place at a single location: a stonewall, living room, baseball diamond. . . . But some, like this one, have a different background for every panel.
This creates an interpretive quandary. Typically we interpret the approximate duration of a given comic sequence by comparing it to reality: roughly how long, for example, would a cartoon conversation/monologue take if it occurred in the real world? The flow of the dialogue above suggests a fairly quick passage of time. Yet the shifting locations can imply something very different: Charlie Brown takes long pauses between each line of dialogue as he moves to a new 'location.' (Why do comic book characters talk to themselves far more so than most of us do?) Or else Schulz leaves much of Charlie Brown’s in-between-panel dialogue un-narrated. It’s interesting to imagine him walking from place to place -- from panel to panel -- meditating on these ideas about punishment and the inevitability of his own disciplining. (In so many strips the only actions are walking and/or talking -- and the walking here is implied, not shown.)
We could also consider the backgrounds as decorative; they do not necessarily imply any real time gaps between panels. They are a way for Schulz to create visual interest (and to keep himself interested in the drawing) when the gag doesn’t depend on the images in the way that other Peanuts strips do. When I read strips like the above with students and ask them about time duration, they almost always do not consider the backgrounds; if they notice them at all on a first reading, they read them as decoration with no narrative implications. In a sense, they pay attention to the words and not the pictures. And this approach is fine; it can be justified by the nature of this monologue (or in some of the strips below, the conversation); each of Charlie Brown’s observations follows quickly from the one before it.
I think this kind of strip, which is more prevalent in the earlier decades of Peanuts, shows that a form of reading that emphasizes a fairly literal connection between time in comics and time in the real world overlooks some of what makes comics strange. Time in a seemingly simply strip like this one can be meaningfully interpreted in two contradictory ways, both of which make equal sense. Sometimes a conversation in a film will employ a similar series of background shifts, but the ‘weight of reality’ pushes us toward an interpretation that acknowledges some amount of un-narrated time; after all, it takes people time to move from place to place. But cartoon characters can do whatever they, and perhaps their authors, want.
The third panel above does something that's unusual for Schulz -- it's rare that the main characters occupy such a small portion of the panel.
This pulling back of the 'camera' highlights the shift in tone; here Charlie Brown gets philosophical and perhaps even somber, framed by a dense (for Peanuts at least) natural backdrop. Yet in the last panel he looks happy that he has adopted an attitude that might appear pessimistic to us: we can only briefly delay the realization that things are rotten, tricking ourselves into a few moments of joy. (Or is this attitude actually optimistic?) In this panel, the particular background setting selected for this dialogue seems to have a meaning that is neither strictly narrative nor decorative; rather it symbolically amplifies the emotional content of the dialogue. {It's a haunting image, yet it's easy to overlook - we have been trained to read comic strips so quickly.}
Here are three more strips; the first uses shifting backgrounds, the others don't (at first, the third might seem to, but each panel is connected by the same sloping ground in the background).
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Peanuts Time
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
It's really nice to see so much specific, substantive comics criticism!
It's boring to read such common intuitions and obvious conclusions slowly drawn out to seem profound. Does Ken Parille ever write about less safe, trodden subjects these days than Clowes, Ware, and Schulz? This blog is stale!
Actually, Ken is pretty much the only one keeping this blog afloat! Imagine he's heard that criticism before...
Hopefully Anonymous will make do with the other game-changing sites for not boring, uncommon, inobvious, nonsafe antitroddenness.
I must not be as smart as anonymous, because I never thought about those two ways to look at those strips. Though I've been reading Peanuts for decades I never paid any attention to the puncutation until I read the post about it. I'm surprised I didn't notice it.
Why hasn't anyone, particularly Mr. Ken, mentioned Herriman, the clear influence here?
"Why hasn't anyone, particularly Mr. Ken, mentioned Herriman, the clear influence here?"
Now someone has - thanks.
This is a very interesting theme in comic strips, since much of them are only dialogue driven (as Jason once said in an interview: "strips that can be read in the radio")
I think that this technique used by Schulz here works on strips that post a though or statement of the character, using only words.
As all the idea is put on words, the shifting in the backgrounds might help keep some interest on the visuals, but at the same time if done wrong too many information may lay on the visuals and interest might shift to them. This might cause the force of the text to get lost, which would leave the strips in a kind of strange grey area. Think is a very tricky thing to put out well.
Watterson, Milloanaire and Kaz do/did it a lot too.
I also always think if the characters should talk to themselves, why they do it, or if one should use captions or though balloons for that.
Love this little essays.
Ignore the haters. Keep these comin'!
Post a Comment