Animal Subjects of the Graphic Novel / Michael A. Chaney [해외논문]

 

 Animal Subjects of the Graphic Novel
Michael A. Chaney
College Literature, Volume 38, Number 3, Summer 2011, pp. 129-149
(Article)
Published by West Chester University
DOI: 10.1353/lit.2011.0024

 

 

그래픽 노블의 동물 주체

 

 

animal-human
preoccupations선취, 열중, 몰두

 of superheroes like
Spiderman and Batman to webcomics variations
on the ‘funny animal’ genre in Kean
Soo’s “Jellaby” and Chris Baldwin’s “Little
Dee”

 

>>동물 표현의 스펙트럼

 

 

 

American Born Chinese by Gene Luen
Yang and Epileptic by David B. access identity
through very different national, cultural, and
ethno-racial contexts but each does so by way of an animal identity crisis endemic[어떤 지방에] 특유[고유]한[in,  to the comics form and indicative
of its rich tradition of asking a question that many theorists in the humanities
pose today:“why is it that our ideas of the animal—perhaps more than
any other set of ideas—are the ones which enable us to frame and express
ideas about human identity?” (Baker 1993, 6).1

 

 

animetaphor

 

>>우와우~~ 이런 개념도 있어? 애니메타포!! 각주2

 

 

 

All of this manifests나타나다, 승객 명단, 분명하게 하다, 매니페스트

 at the level of the story, that is, in
terms of character and plot, but it also occurs at the visual level, where any
of the panels of such a comic could be seen individually as representing an
animal-human hybridity.

 

 

 

 shape-shifting animals as part of a pantheistic범신론의 ideology for
instance, but that they are more like the primitive who would have seen him
or herself as occupying a more proximate position to the animal as well.

 

 

 

The animal-human hybridizations
prevalent in graphic novels today, in fact, tend to assume a self-conscious air
about their visual infractions위반, 침해, 침범  against the serious (anthropomorphic), wryly얼굴을 찡그려; 비꼬는 식으로,
combining the animal and the human visually in such a way as to ultimately
(and desultorily만연히, 산만하게 in many cases) re-post the human as the undisputed명백한, 당연한  subject
of authority권한, 권위, 당국.

 

>>이 부분 참고 할만하다. 인간을 재-위치 시킨다. 필인용?

 

 

 

The animal in such comics always functions as mask
or costume, beneath which lies the human, whose universality is reaffirmed재확인하다
and reified구체화하다 in the process.

 

>>아하~ 근데 그래픽 노블에 나오는 동물들은 마스크나 코스튬으로 기능함. 그 밑으로는 인간을 가지고 있고~

 

 

the Monkey King operates less as an
allegorical animal than as a metaphorical minority.

 

 

American Born Chinese foregrounds animality and race (or animality as
race) in its psychic splittings정신적인 파편.

 

>>'동물성'이란 말이 종종 나오네.. 애니멀리티

 

 

 

the fact that so much of the doubling turns on the figure of
the animal exhibits another layer of “psychological disowning의절하다, …을 자기 것이라고 인정하지 않다, …과 관계 있음을 부인하다

 

 

 

>>자크 데리다 : 맨과 애니멀을 구분할 수 있는 최종? 기준은 아무런 의식 없이 naked 될 수 있냐 없냐

 

 

For no matter how funny its hypostatizations of anti-Asian sentiments
past and present, nor how profound its vehicle for accomplishing parody
and parable in the animal, there is yet a danger in the animal metaphor.

 

 

p.140

 

Like American Born Chinese, David B.’s Epileptic demands that readers
experience an ontological change.

 

독자들은 존재론적인 변화/전환을 경험한다.

 

 

I want to focus on one of the text’s pictorial and animal
anomalies예외, 이형, 파격.

 

 

Epileptic discloses the dark underside of an otherwise jubilant surrealism of
animal figures seen only by the author-protagonist.

 

>>동물이 프로타고스트로 하는 경우가 많다는 건가?

 

 

he is the only animalized character shown interacting with others

 

 

And given our prior lessons in animal pedagogy교육학,

 

 

animal is always the emblem of something else, from the child-protagonist’s
embrace of Anubis

 

the animal becomes the grotesque icon of the terrible becoming of
the human, its proliferating증식, 번식 transpirations and expirations.

 

 

As Katalin Orbán contends, the hybrid animal-human body of the
comics is “a body that does not settle what is and is not human but keeps
asking this question—quietly but constantly” (2007, 68).

 

>>뭔가 좋은 부분 같은데 완전히 이해가 안간다!!

 

And even as physiognomy
haunts the human in such comics with monstrous excesses, it also
produces the body as a horizon of infinite translatability, capacious in symbolization,
halting in its unreadability. Indeed, like the oblivion of the animal’s face as recounted in theoretical speculations, the stylizations of the normative
human in the comics is never too far removed from the cartoon animal’s
prevarications얼버무림, 핑계, 기만 of it.And yet, it remains for us to ask, even as the comics
relentlessly prod us to the question, what does the comic animal think and
what, in thinking it, are we permitted to see in ourselves?

 

표준적인 인간은 카툰 동물의 기만으로부터 완전히 제거되지 않는다. 그러면서 계속 남아서 우리에게 질문을.. 생각하게끔..

 

 

 

 

<<이야 이 논문은 확실히 어휘가 어렵다. 뭔가 좋은? 논문집에서 출판된 것인듯