Ao's week 2 & 3

What does Baetons (2001) mean by ‘monstration’, ‘graphiation’ and the ‘graphiateur’’?

According to Baetons, in order to distinguish the types of enunciations and enunciators, he uses Marion’s term “graphiation” and “graphiateur”. The simple definition or explanation of “graphiation” which he wrote is “the graphic and narrative enunciation of the comics”. We can see that the feature of “graphiation” is enunciation of the comics. Furthermore, “graphiation” is like a “draft” of drawing, which I mean it didn’t be edited by some “agent”. And “graphiation” is describing the enunciation itself. On the other way, “graphiateur” is an “agent responsible for it”. Let’s say, the enunciators and the enunciative act are two main features of “graphiateur”. Clearly, the comics are like a huge construction, we need original material and different steps to finish it. “graphiateur” is more like the dress agent. They fill the words and colours etc. and they are responsible for the “products”.

To find a new way to make distinction between story and narrator in such a modern society, Gaudreault uses the term “monstration” to call the narrative instance of a film as hierarchical combination of narration. More specifically, Marion argues that “Monstration” in the comics need to add some feature, which is based on “the monstration in comics is far from having the same figurative transparency as in film.” I like to say, on this point, I am a little confused by the words that Marion used, “it creates on the contrary a kind of persisting opacity and prevents the act of monstration.” My understanding of “monstration” is something behind the “production” like transparency.

Baetons, J.(2001) Revealing Traces: A new theory of graphic annunciation. In Varnum, R & Gibbons, C, (ed). The Language of Comics: word and image. (PP. 145-155). Jackson: UP of Mississipi

How is science fiction different from fantasy, according to Le Guinn

Guinn pointed out that science fiction is a branch of realism. Most science fiction assumes that future had happened or had been happening, which avoid the present time. She also mentioned that in general science fiction follows the rule of real world which is to say that the characters have generally acts of people. She wrote “Realism and science fiction both employ plausibility to win the reader’s consent to fiction.”

She disagrees with the view, which is science fiction is the modern myth. The reason is that she believed that writers used the elements of myth or some fairy consciously or unconsciously. However the fiction they wrote is not myth or someone called “modern myth.” She implied that fantasy is such a kind of myth. She said fantasy doesn’t need to pretend that the story happened or might happen. Fantasy is founded on its own world. The only thing should be noticed in fantasy is that how to make the good relations between real world and wonderland in reader’s view. The characters in fantasy may be not human or don’t have human behaviours.

I like the last sentence in her article, “fantasy is an exercise of what may be our most divine and certainly is our most human capacity, the imagination.”

Le Guinn, U K. (2005) Plausability Revisited: Wha Hoppen and What Didn’t Retrieved from http://www.ursulakleguin.com/PlausibilityRevisited.html