If you’ve ever been a part of a controversial conversation, you know how difficult it can be accepting some of the harsh truths that are associated with such topics. What’s just as important to anyone who is receiving this sort information, is the fashion in which this package of information is delivered. It is essential to strategize the order, style, and tone behind its delivery that most effectively conveys this information to the audience in a way they can understand fully. But the task can become significantly more difficult in certain situations: what if you don’t necessarily know who your audience is? What if your controversial topic is so hard to relate to, that people lose interest in what you have to say? I would imagine these are some of the exact issues that author Alison Bechdel encounters through her work; particularly in her famous graphic novel, Fun Home. The controversy surrounding queer identity is the focus of her story in her memoirical graphic novel. And the full-send, no-holds-barred method in which she presents the information, as well as conveys her emotions during the novel has turned some heads, including mine. The combination of suggestive pictures, and colorful language does a masterful job of grabbing the reader’s attention; however, when it comes to this notion of effectively displaying information, especially related to the educational topic of the story (Queer Identity from her perspective), she very well may come up short… In her analytic article, “Closing the Gap in Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home”, Jennifer Lemberg states that the graphic novel is able to “assert the value of comics as a medium for bearing witness,” but is there a possibility that she does this almost too well? I think yes. Albeit it is true that her “in your face” style of delivering content does a great job of hooking the reader into the plot of a very controversial/uncomfortable topic. But this effectiveness comes with a price: it makes it more difficult for the reader to separate themselves from the emotions and feelings of the character Alison Bechdel in order to fully grasp the messages and lessons she has embedded in the novel. This issue would be fine for less substantive reading. But for a topic so important in today’s society as queer identity, I would imagine that getting those points across were of utmost importance.
Jennifer Lemberg offers an interesting insight into the science behind Bechdel’s uncanny ability to intertwine the reader’s emotions with those of her younger self. An important concept to understand that Bechdel appears to have mastered to enact this strategy is the relationship between pictures and dialogue. On this issue, she claims, “photographs prove difficult to decipher, while overidentification with literature by and about other people threatens to throw lives off course.” She continues, “By framing each of her chapters with words and images that bear a complex relationship to each other, Bechdel reminds us that it is in the space between existing visual images and familiar storylines where we make meaning of our individual lives.” In other words it is Bechdel’s word and picture choice combined that draws our attention to whatever aspect of that page she so chooses to highlight. But somewhere along the process of our minds “making meaning” of these words and images, it is easier to quickly sympathize with the feelings than it is to comprehend the messages associated with her delivery.
While it is easy to understand why Bechdel’s blinding ability to create sympathy through narration is bad for the reader, I can’t help but acknowledge how this style could be beneficial. The aforementioned space in which the reader makes meaning of what’s said in a novel works in mysterious ways. It is very possible that instead of redirecting the reader’s focus to the emotional trauma of a young Bechdel, those same strategies and rhetoric could make the reader focus on the problems behind that character’s feelings and take issue with that. In her article,”Selling Queerness: The Curious Case of ‘Fun Home'”, Kalle Matilla takes a stance against the theatrical rendition of Bechdel’s graphic novel. She claims that, “Bechdel’s heavy themes, and light-hearted tone remain intact in the performance itself, the way her story has been marketed has undergone a calculated shift to ensure it reaches the broadest audience possible.” In her mind, this marketing shift “has naturally meant downplaying the more controversial elements, such as queerness and suicide.” Matilla is alluding to the fact that a different approach to presenting this information has been attempted already. It may have gained the recognition it quite frankly deserved in the theatre realm (Tony Award-Winning Play), but the messages themselves were drowned away by the story even more so. What’s ironic is that in the case of this play, the humorous, nonchalant approach that Bechdel leans on to share her story has been dumbed down significantly; and yet the themes that are so key to the plot got lost even more so than in reading the graphic novel. Whether or not these occurrences are caused directly by the change in delivery can’t certainly be determined, however it does leave me wondering what is the best way to deliver this controversial, but essential content?
There are a few plausible, very simple solutions to bring the social issues and their corresponding messages in Fun Home back to the forefront of discussion regarding the book. A concept that I think would work particularly well, especially in the graphic novel would be a “zoom in, pan out” approach. As mentioned before Bechdel already does a masterful job of allowing the reader to delve into the plot of the story. Feeling very emotion, and dying to know what’s next. This portion of her strategy can be labeled as the “zoom in” part of the solution. But, like in the film world, a “pan out” shot shows the bigger picture. This portion of the solution would involve Bechdel taking a step away from the plot every so often to synthesize her thoughts on the issues of her story (queer identity, suicide, family relationships etc.) in order to specifically address the reader. This way, as the plot thickens, the reader is still able to comprehend the underlying messages of the story and still immerse themselves in the character’s struggle.
When it comes to presenting information, delivery is everything. This necessity is magnified when the information being discussed is controversial, or unsettling. In her memoir/ graphic novel, Fun Home, Alison Bechdel discusses a few of these controversial topics: queer identity, and suicide. However, her ability to assimilate the reader into the plot by creating sympathy for its characters creates problems when it comes to getting her points across about the more significant topics. When discussing such major topics in more substantive reading, this can indeed be an issue. Through the theatre, attempts to change the way in which the story was interpreted were made, but in the process they were actually less successful in conveying the themes and messages set in motion by Bechdel. To solve this problem, a potential approach of delving into the plot, then “panning out” to summarize, and synthesize her (Bechdel’s) thoughts on the messages of the story was proposed. I think this would work more so than her current approach because it wouldn’t allow the reader to fall too deep into the pit that is the all too engaging plot of this story. Everyone’s experience, and mindset are different, but in order to best convey your thoughts on an argument, it is essential to find the best strategy to do so, especially when it comes to such controversial topics.
Works Cited:
– Mattila, Kalle Oskari. “How a ‘Lesbian Suicide Musical’ Was Branded as a Feel-Good Broadway Hit.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 10 May 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/04/branding-queerness-the-curious-case-of-fun-home/479532/.
– Lemberg, Jennifer. “Closing the Gap in Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home.” WSQ: Women’s Studies Quarterly, The Feminist Press, 2 June 2008, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/238093.
Wow! you did a really nice job inserting your quotes to set up a not only a conversation but a flow to your essay as a whole. Like in the third paragraph when you say “In her mind, this marketing shift “has naturally meant downplaying the more controversial elements, such as queerness and suicide.” This really shows how you incorporated Matilla’s voice into your essay making sure that this is her idea and not yours.
Your thesis seems to go on throughout the bottom half of your introduction not having a focus on a specific idea. You start with a point about the “suggestive pictures and colorful language” bring you into the story but then you move into an idea of a controversial/uncomfortable topic without really elaborating on what this topic is. Explaining what exactly this controversial topic is and explaining how it bring you into the story through the pictures and language is way to connect these two points into one thought. Instead of talking about the topic in a vague way you could use your stylistic conversational writing to flow right into specific points from the graphic memoir to apply to your thesis as a great way to have evidence.
Your language is really smooth, and flows well, however it distracts you from the fact that you aren’t really saying anything about your thesis that gives it substance. Your thesis itself is interesting, but not specific enough to be defended clearly by any of the evidence you used. Your usage of quotations is fairly effective, you do a pretty good job of analyzing the quotes after you use them in the quotation sandwich. However, I’m not so sure your evidence necessarily goes hand in hand with your thesis. So in order for your essay to be effective, one of those two should change drastically. In terms of your actual argument, it must be altered to attack a certain aspect of the topic of your thesis. What is the lesson you can learn from “Fun Home?” Is Bechdel’s ability to draw the reader in necessarily a bad thing? Questions like these should be answered fully before your argument gains the substance it requires.
Hey Quentin! Overall, good work as usual. Your writing style reads like the academic work we’ve studied in class: elevated vocabulary and sentence structure, but still understandable. Impressive!
I also like that several times, you seamlessly integrate quotations into your essay. For example, in your first paragraph, your introduction of the Lemberg article is sandwiched by one of your main points in the beginning and ends with a related rhetorical question and your response.
The title of your essay is “Zoom Ins and Pan Outs,” but we don’t see those terms until almost the end of your essay. I would love to see you condense the summaries and cut some clutter words so that you have more space to elaborate on your main point- especially since it’s one I haven’t thought of!
You go into why it’s important, but how would your proposed strategy impact Fun Home? Maybe you could pick a specific panel and rewrite it in your proposed format to give us readers a better understanding of what you mean when you say “zoom ins and pan outs.” Specifically citing Fun Home will better connect your essay to the assignment and give stronger support for your thesis. As of now, your claims feel abstract and generalized since they aren’t connected to specific aspects of Bechdel’s graphic memoir.
I know I’m supposed to focus on your overall ideas, but I do have some quick notes. 1) Make sure to check your citations- the Lemberg article should have page numbers for each quote. 2) Remove “novel” from your essay since Fun Home is autobiographical.