EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

If I could ask Joe Sacco any question, I would ask him why the journalist, who I interpreted to be representing Sacco himself, did not have eyes. Yes, I know he was wearing glasses, but it seems like we should have been able to see his eyes through his glasses. It made me think that he was hiding something or that by covering his eyes the reader would not be able to interpret his emotions. I was also thinking about "looking through rose-colored glasses" and was wondering if maybe there is some hidden meaning behing the journalist's missing eyes. Maybe the journalist doesn't have eyes because the reader is not supposed to relate to him, but just hear the story and focus on the refugees? Maybe I am looking into this more than it needs to be, but I would ask Sacco just to make sure.

I thought Sacco's portrayal of himself, although sparse, was profoundly moving. To me, it showed how unexpected reality is. You get the idea that Sacco is very well educated on the Palestinian conflict and that he feels like he has personal stake in it. However, when he actually sees the faces behind the stories, he is a bit overwhelmed. At the end of the chapter we were assigned, he retreats to Edward Said's essay suggesting that intellectualism and knowledge does not prepare a person for the grim nature of the real world. Sacco may know all there is to know about Palestine from a political angle (I'm assuming this), but his perception is significantly altered as soon as individuals become a part of his life. Perhaps Sacco is suggesting that journalism is by nature, or at least at first, a superficial trade?

Sacco’s style in the pictures is a lot more detailed and expressive than Satrapi’s graphic novel. The art in this story shows more expression and needs slightly more understanding and explanation to them. One of the main differences that I noticed was the gray tones added to the pictures to give it more depth and life. A similarity that hit me was the way that the pictures are brought to life by the words and how as Satrapi did, Sacco portrays certain characters in certain fashions. For instance, the American journalist is portrayed as an absorber of information and doesn’t really empathize with this culture at all. (He is very happy to be back in his friend’s modernized home only after a couple of days in the camp.)

Sacco seem s to have lots of big pictures, big ideas, with very specific and particular drawings to match. Satrapi had a very simplistic style while Sacco has a very intricate one. He portrays the journalist as a bystander in many of the pictures and dialogue. You find him sitting in the back in many of the pictures. The tone of the book seems to be gloomy and stark. I touched on this issue in my exploratory essay comparing Persepolis and Palestine. But I think that since we are viewing the Palestinian conflict from an older man’s eyes we are subject to much deeper and darker things than in Perspepolis.

Sacco uses a lot of detail and lines to emphasize his characters’ faces and expressions. The lack of white space on EVERY page gives the novel a very dreary, sympathy-welcoming feel. Like Satrapi, Sacco uses black and grey to show misery or “bad.” Sacco is much more removed from the novel as a narrator than Satrapi though. In Palestine, we see more of the whole picture whereas in Persepolis we only see what Satrapi knows/thinks as a 14-year-old. It’s most definitely interesting to compare the two pieces.

I really would like to ask him: why he keeps himself so mysterious and almost distorted in the novel? Why is he so much less expressive than all the other characters? Also, does he have some sort of significance making himself a journalist in the novel? For instance, since he found it difficult to feel effective as a journalist in real life, is he trying to emphasize the significance of his narrator to the novel by making him a journalist?

first i might like to ask why he is paranoid abou t having his picture taken. that's wierd.

I think this discussion about art or journalism is interesting. I feelthat journalism shares some similar functions as art. there is a process of presentation that is inevitable, or so it seems, that will present info in a certain way. journalism is like an intermediary, it can be interprative and influenced by trends like art. I don't think journalism should ever be considered a final form. It's function is not to be final, it is a tranfer, a media (italicize), a modular way of transfering and bringing information from A to B and vice versa. It is not the same as other acedemic disciplines yet it utilizes information from them. but I feel that it is more prone to bias than most, say history writing becuase it operates or is practised under different ethical standards and journalists are not necessarily trained in these modus operandi. often they have very different motives for their work.
So art and journalism share some things and journalism is itself not meant to be a final form, it is a messenger but the message needs to be examined further, always, and critically.
In palestine there really seems to be this element in there in the way that sacco seems to detatch himself, yet as we discussed today, he seems to have a vested interest in the palestinian point of view. havind Ed Said write an intro reveals a lot too.

On page 171 (it's one of the first few pages of the book titled 'tomatoes') there are two different slides. The first one has VERY disproportional. The tomatoes he is holding are HUGE and his face seems to be rather large as well. One of the text boxes describes the damage to the water. It is dangerous to drink and bad for crops. The tomatoes are made to look huge, and often bigger is better (to a certaind extent) for this crop. This is showing that the Palestinans are still really proud of their tomatoe growing skils. The man with the really large head in this pictures is the one trying to show off his capabilities at growing tomatoes. He looks unsure of himself, possible Sacco highlighted his facial expressions to prove that they were proud of their skills, but were still unsure about how the crops would do.

Joe Sacco's artistic style is very different from Satrapi's. In Palestine, the artwork is so overpowering in that there is so much happening in the scenes. Satrapi's characters look 2D and the scenery is almost nonexistant in Persepolis. The way that the authors portray themselves is also interesting to note because it affects the voice of the story as well as the view points seen by the reader. Sacco's own character is horribly misshapen, and he is almost never the center of a scene whereas Satrapi's character is definitely the center of attention. The reader interprets these differently in that they are able to see the other characters in Palestine in the same way that Sacco is seeing them, but in Persepolis, the reader interprets the other characters from Satrapi's perceptions of them.

Joe Sacco's artistic style is very detailed with a flare for a grim depressive tone. Satrapi's artistic style is vague but does vary in human expression, their is not much density to picture frames, the frames are 1-dimensional.

Sacco is very successful at connecting words with pictures. On page 157 it is very clear that the men are sitting around the fire barrel with not much to say and the mood is depressing. The men are looking into the fire with a blank expression and hunched over body language. The up-side-down smiles on everyone's face make it clear of the repressed life the Palestine's live.

I'd like to ask Sacco why he chose such a cynical tone throughout the text. When Sacco is using the outhouse and complains about the condition of the walls, he sounds somewhat sarcastic. This tone really creates a dark feeling, which is enhanced by the artistic style. I also enjoyed the way he drew the clouds. Aside from chapter 9, he kept the skies grey and dark. The tone and unique style sets the book apart from other graphic novels. It really makes the book interesting, but raw.

I also noticed that Sacco's work is much more detailed and busy. His pictures contain way more information that Satrapi's pictures. Sacco's pictures don't need text to go along with them, while Satrapi's pictures are based on what she writes. We also noticed in class that Satrapi doesn't use gray, but Sacco's pictures are based around the color gray. Does he feel that it adds more detail or adds to the story? His figures are so large, and some of the headings above the pictures are quite long, taking away from the picture.

Sacco's story is much more detailed about political and the government more than Satrapi, because Satrapi's story is based off of the views of a child. The images and text between the two stories is differnet because of that reason.

On pg. 161, Sacco shows the images of an innocent person being burned on a hotplate. The facial expression of the victim is so vivid, and the facial expression fits the impression of a torturer. In Satrapi's book, facial expressions change by a smile or a frown. Very litle detail in the face is included.

I kind of found it interesting that most of his street characters i.e the general people in the background have very hostile facial expressions. It is as if they don't want us looking around their neighborhood or something of that sort. His pictures, though detailed, are very much jumbled up. They writings seem like random newspaper articles cut out of a newspaper and hung on to a bulletin board. The story being told from an adult's point of view and the use of gray is something which strikes out when one compares it to Satrapi's novel. A child sees everything as either good or bad, white or black but here in this case, an adult is seeing things with a gray tint too. It's considering the middle path too, not just the two extremes of black and white. Overall i find a depressing tone running throughout his narrative highlighted by the gloomy clouds and the dark backgrounds.

Comparing Satrapi and Sacco's artistic portrayals of event, one can relate more to Sacco's point of views. Through his images and ways of portraying an environment that seems "real," we as the readers can sympathesize with the characters in the drawings. For example, in the pictures in which some of the characters are being tortured, you can picture their pain they are experiencing be looking at their facial expressions and the expressions by the other characters. Also, Sacco's comic seems to be more "attractive." For example, the pictures are much bigger which doesn't intimidate the readers to believe that there are hidden things in the pictures. In Satrapi's Persopolis, I always thought that a big event would happen the further I read, but it didn't. Also, it seems that Sacco focused on one storyline, while Persopolis didn't many storylines.

Sacco has a very different artistic style than Satrapi. He uses many variations of black and white in his drawings that make the issues seem unclear. Satrapi's illustrations are clear cut black and white and not cluttered with any in-between. The narration of these two novels was very different. Sacco was more removed from the stories than Satrapi. At the beginning of each chapter Joe is seen in bold with his face away from the reader and the background is drawn in a lighter shade. This removed perspective is contrasted to Satrapi's narration through the eyes of a child. From the first frame of Persepolis, Marji is seen looking directly at the reader and the second frame shows how she looks exactly like all of the other girls. Satrapi puts herself right within the scene and it almost makes her seem more trustworthy. For these reasons, the stories read very differently

I think Sacco’s graphic novel is much more than just the pictures. Yes the pictures do say a lot but the history and the words that the people say are equally just as important. It’s strange to me to think of a comic as being so sad and depressing. I usually think of comics as happy and funny as most are like that here in America. I thought it was very interesting and even educational to a wide variety of people including young people. I agree that this should not be our only source of educating ourselves but it can definitely benefit. It is an easy read and it gives personal experiences to something that goes on today around the world. Yea it is only one side and even only one person’s view but it makes a huge impact and gives us a new understanding. It is so complex that it is not a problem that can be fixed overnight in any healthy way that is best for all people. Just like America is still struggling to have equality among all people (particularly blacks and whites) so it would take generations to fix and heal the nation of Palestine too. I read on a little bit in chapter 9 so I got to see a little bit of the other side of the story too.

Sacco's overall use of detail in this novel is excellent. He seems to portray aspects of the war so vivdly that one thinks s/he is there. I like how on some pages he uses no words, the pictures speak for themselves. The most obvious example of this is the Refugeeland picture. There is so much going on here; the kids huddled around a fire, the rain, the mud on the ground, every person walking around is dressed differently with a unique facial expression. I think Sacco uses this detail to draw the reader in, and with the combination of detailed graphics and words, he accomplishes it well.

Sacco presents himself as journalist in the midsts of the side not often covered by western media, let alone recognized. It is clear that he is there to shed light on a situation that may often be overlook for whatever reason. I think the side however he displays and manner in which he displays it says a lot about what his views and stance is on the issue.

The tone of the book is very serious contrary to Persepolis, and it very dark in its dipictions of Palestine. There are no breaks for humor and there is no sympathy from the side of Israel presented anywhere in his book. However the Israeli territory is shed in a much brighter and happier light, where it is not cloudy and rainy, there is no threat of soldiers ramsacking anywhere, children throwing stones, or unfamilar culture. Even the Israeli caracters don't feel one bit bad about the situation but choose to say they are for peace even though they may know the circumstances of the occupation.

The style of Joe Sacco is shockingly different from that of Satrapi. His illustrations include much more detail, more attention to facial expressions and background occurances, and the faces of the people tend to pop out and seem real at times. The coloring in Satrapi's work is either black or white, but in Sacco's work, there is black and white AND every shade of gray in between. This use of black, white, and gray creates depth. The illustrations are more 3D than those of Satrapi. They look more like intense art, rather than sketches. The two things that i was wondering while i was reading Palestine, were why we never see Sacco's eyes, and why every scene in chapter 6 includes a rainy/cloudy/gloomy sky?

The artistic style Sacco used was very detailed. He made very busy and full pictures and was successfully able to describe many people by his use of great detail. One striking feature of his style for me was that his face was much more out of proportion than the other peoples. Most of the other people were not much out of proportion, but when looking at Sacco he had most notably disproportionate huge lips. This feature may have been used to highlight that Sacco was not one of the people but an outsider who was reporting everyone else’s story. Sacco’s style differs substantially from Satrapi’s because Satrapi’s style was much simpler. These differences could highlight who is telling the story, Satrapi a child and Sacco an adult.

Sacco's artistic style was a definite contrast to Satrapi's style. Not only in the vast separation of details but also what their different styles represent. Her simplistic approach to Palestine indicates that she was portraying, through the drawings, the thought process of a child therefore I feel that Sacco's style indicates the complexity of the situation and how an adult sees it. So although they both represented different things they both were using the effect to emphasize the narrator's age and background.
Well as someone brought up in class that his eyes were never drawn in the book. That made me think of how a journalist has to, to some degree, be indifferent to the story. They can't impose what they think. In the graphic novel, he doesn't even voice his opinion the majority of the time.

Sacco is most certainly gritty in his style. His text is very busy, and not very clean cut. The text, matched by the involved pictures, makes you feel as if you are watching a documentary. Whereas in Persepolis, you feel the narrator's voice very strongly, Joe Sacco's style is very present but the way he deliberately erases himself from the pictures gives the voice of narration a sort of muffled quality. Reading Palestine was like listening to a foggy radio program. You're being given some very specific sensations, but there still remains an omnipresent wall between you and this voice.

I really didn't know how to feel about this, especially because Satrapi was so open in her emotional and personal frames. Was Sacco really that guarded? Or was there some kind of intent behind keeping himself so vague and understated? It seems more deliberate to me, like he is trying to counter or point at the fallacies of western journalism...

Hmm...

Sacco’s artistic style is a very detailed one, especially when compared with Satrapi’s. There’s so much going on in every picture that it’s almost hard to concentrate. The first time I read this story the dialogue pulled me through and made me not want to stop reading, so I didn’t really get a chance to look at the pictures and I had to go back and look at them. It took me longer to just study the pictures then it did to read the story and I realized that the pictures almost mean more than the dialogue, and I think that was the intention and Sacco’s reasoning for using so much detail. My favorite picture has to be the one on page 257 in chapter 9 where Sacco and his Israeli friend are in a market in the Moslem quarter. The detail is extraordinary; he has sketched in the ceilings, the food, the clothing of every character, even the wires on the walls. In this picture the Moslem’s expressions are all pretty bland as they go about their business, making it just another day at the market, but Naomi has her head down and Sacco has a worried expression which made them stick out and really gave the scene a different meaning. It doesn’t seem like they have any reason to be nervous, because no one even pays attention to them ar seems to notice that they aren’t Moslem and if they do, they don’t really care; this just made their uncomfortable ness seem irrational and prejudiced.