Toys, Comics and Transmedia Play: Tracing the connections between multidimensional storytelling and playability
2022; Wiley; Volume: 55; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/jpcu.13168
ISSN1540-5931
Autores Tópico(s)Digital Storytelling and Education
ResumoAn industrially produced toy may not come to existence without a two-dimensional image: Often, a three-dimensional toy character first exists as a two-dimensional sketch or as part of a story-world from other media. On the contrary, a two-dimensional comic come to fruition without any three-dimensional, or ‘toyish’ manifestations. Nevertheless, the historical development of these two narrative and popular media—toys and comics—are entangled in a web of shared meanings and tightly woven intertextual relationships. This theoretical essay explores the similarities and differences between the two-dimensional, juxtaposed and serial image (comics), three-dimensional, material objects (toy), and the interplay between these interwoven, visual, material and fictional universes. The essay expands upon my previous work to explore the toyification of culture.1 ‘the mediation of things and the ‘thingification of media’ (Lash and Lury), the hybrid relations of comics to physical toys with their connections to transmedia, character-based storytelling, and finally, intergenerationally emerging play. As a toy researcher, I aim on the one hand, to form an understanding of the differences and similarities of character-based storytelling inherent in these two types of media. On the other hand, my goal is to open a dialogue between comics, toys–words, images, objects, their hybrid relations–and their potential openness to interpretation, play and interplay in the 21st century. There are parallels in the trajectories of, especially regarding the historical developments of these narrative devices in both their close relationships to stories and employment of characters. In terms of characters, comics and toys share the capability to feed our imaginations, visually and narratively. The starting point for this analysis is the preconception that toys and comics, as vehicles for storytelling, character-based media, and transmedia phenomena—despite their integral differences—still have a lot in common. One commonality is the universal appeal of representations of human and non-human entities, and the sometimes abstract and cartoony characterization of beings that add to the possibilities of the reader or player to see themself in the toys and comics. However, toys and comics are not the same, as the first medium represents a world of three-dimensional and multisensory objects, whereas the other, traditionally, relies on ‘flat’ images. One key difference between comics and toys, then, is their relation to physical manipulation and as artefacts with different relations to playability (see Table 1). Whereas comics are imaginatively flexible, they are not as flexible in their physicality. Writing about familiar characters from anime and manga, Marc Steinberg notes that ‘they cannot be turned around and studied from any angle; they cannot be played with’ (123). For Steinberg, the playability of an object means a physical exploration and manipulation of it. Because 2D images cannot be rotated physically, playful manipulation must happen in the reader's mind. The toyified 3D version of a character offers the player a tangible and articulated interface, and at the same time, some degree of control over an original image. Indeed, our perceptions and experiences of an image and an object may not necessarily follow the same paths. What is the difference between a toy (even images of those very same toys) and comics? This theoretical exploration of the shared worlds of toys and comics begins with a comparison of the early histories of comics and toys with emphases on their various transmedia relations. Let us start by looking at the definition of toys. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a toy as “An object for a child to play with, typically a model or miniature replica of something.” Again, the Oxford English Dictionary defines the most universally known manifestation of comic-style storytelling, the comic strip, as “a sequence of drawings in boxes that tell an amusing story, typically printed in a newspaper or comic book” (Oxford English Dictionary). Art historian David Kunzle lists four characteristics of comics: their sequential, separate images; a preponderance of image over text; a requirement for them to be published in a mass medium; and a moral and topical storyline (Kunzle 2, c.f. in Beaty 32). Earlier research indicates contemporary toys’ capability to function as visual, material, narrative, and communicational artefacts (Heljakka Principles of adult play(fulness) 7). On the one hand, much of this has to do with the visual and material dimensions of playthings and images integrated into these objects. On the other hand, toys may be evaluated based on their physical, functional, fictional, and affective dimensions (Paavilainen and Heljakka 17). This conceptual map of toys’ dimensions, functions as a basis for the comparison between toys and comics in the following section. Whereas both toys and comics are visual media, their materiality is different. When considering the connections between the 2D format of comics and 3D toys, it is important to address their relations to physical space and their dependence on material realities. A comic strip consists of very few panels. The panel is the only unit of encapsulation, its layout is normally rigid, and its composition is usually simple. A comic book, consists of many panels and the units of encapsulation include the panel, the page, the two-page spread, and inset panels. The layout of a comic book can be creative, and its composition can be complex (Duncan and Smith 6). In his book, The Comics (1947), Colton Waugh lists three elements of narrative content on the comic strip: a continuing character who becomes a reader's friend, and a sequence of pictures and speech included in “balloon lines” (Waugh 14). The most universal character toys, meaning toys “with a face” and personalities, such as dolls, action figures, figurines, and various plush (or soft toys), are the simplest in terms of their physical forms. Simplicity guides many comic artists in ways that it intrigue toy designers. On the contrary, the flatness of a character (such as Hello Kitty) may work well in the 2D format, but less so as a 3D toy. In order for a flat character to become a toy, its materiality needs to take a form that invites multisensory manipulation—it needs to be plumped up, made bulky and poseable, or at least ‘huggable’ (Heljakka Principles of adult play(fulness)). In addition to the similarities between comic characters and toy characters, these storytelling media share other features. Functionality entails the use and suitability for a particular activity. In the most simple terms, the function of toys is to be playable, and for comics to be readable. These aspects will be discussed in more detail later in the essay. However, it is also necessary to consider a common functional trait of toys and comics, their collectability. As noted by Beaty, “in the comics field, one of the most rudimentary levels of participation is collecting” (Beaty 155). In the visual arts, collectors tend to organize their purchases around different logics (Beaty 157). Fans of toys and comics also engage in similar practices that include collecting, competition, and community. Comics present endless possibilities for collectability, as do toys. The allure of serial images is indisputable in both realms. Comics fans are interested in owning volumes or a series of works by a specific artist. For fans of toys, collecting printed items, such as trading cards and toy figures, is a common goal. Many companies work to create a collecting craze, at times even communicating it in marketing campaigns, such as the infamous case of the Pokémon trading cards that originated in the 1990s. Bandai, the company behind the Pokémon universe, showed great insight in choosing their slogan, “Gotta catch'em all!” (Blom). Collecting is appealing to fans of many ages. The adult as a toy collector is also an industry formulated approach used to target mature fans (see e.g., Heljakka Principles of adult play(fulness)). Generally speaking, collectors are interested in the hunt for, the ownership and displaying of objects, and the admiration for the designers and artists responsible for creating the characters and the fantastic universes in which they reside. The relationship of toys to narrativity is multidimensional. Jones (2017) notes that the fascination with toys has led us to breathe life into them across many different media. Toys, and character toys in particular, have the capability to function as vehicles for storytelling, and they have a connection to narratives through backstories. In narrative terms, toys are a powerful media, which make them lucrative characters in stories other than paratexts.2 In some cases, toys are at the core of storytelling, representing the main text as part of toy tropes. “Toy tropes were first established in early toy narratives, invariably children's books, and by the 21st century had solidified for audiences through picture books, comic strips, and films” (Gorman O'Neill 22). One key aspect of both comic characters and toy “personalities” is their ability to function as reflections of us. Scott McCloud writes about the universality of cartoon imagery, explaining, the more cartoony a face, the more actual people it describes (30). Duncan and Smith discuss the role of generalization in creating characters: “Since everything in comic books, including character, is reduced to two-dimensional images, the use of stereotypes is prevalent. A stereotype is a recognizable generalization of a type” (Duncan and Smith 135). Importantly, since the end of the 20th century, comics have become more expressive, both in terms of their visuality and narrativity, which has led to the creation of more serious, complex and ambiguous personalities, and story worlds. The development is similar with dolls, action figures, and plush toys, which are understood here as character toys. Today, perhaps more than ever, toy characters may express a two-way development through either their cuteness or because of their twisted, even uncanny appearances, their proneness to reality, or because of the fantastic ways they speak to their players and afford various possibilities to identify with them. In this way, toy characters or character toys, become personalities in playful interaction as they are anthropomorphised due to the fact that they are seen as companions and confidants, even mirrors, and avatarial extensions to project our human identities on to (Heljakka Principles of adult play(fulness)). […] the pictures do not merely depict characters and events in a story; the pictures also add meaning – significance – to a story. The pictures are thus as much a part of the story as the plot line. No serious consideration of the art of the comics can overlook the narrative functions of pictures. (Harvey 3) As demonstrated, the stories of comics and toys unfold largely by visual means, but written texts also play a crucial part in how these media operate. For example, it is possible to find comics without words, but currently, it is almost impossible to think of toys without them. Character toys such as dolls, action figures, and various kinds of soft toys may, in their material appearances, communicate meanings derived from aesthetic approaches ranging from cute to uncanny that sometimes may seem hard to describe. Due to their relationships to transmedia and the “entertainment supersystem” (Kinder), contemporary toy characters originating from the 20th century onwards, come intertwined with written messages of sorts. This includes backstories provided by the toy makers, marketing messages spread across different media, and visual, textual, and verbal communications shared by toy fans of different ages on social media. Backstories expand upon the personalities and emotional states of toys in ways, which alone would be impossible for a static, three-dimensional object to convey. In the same way, as their “universes” motivate the reason for a toy character, the sidekick characters, accessories, buildings, and vehicles as both visually stimulating and otherwise narrativized elements, emphasize their characteristics in context. For followers and fans, these clues provide a launching pad for developing the toy stories further as part of imaginative play. In this way, narrativization of toys is a phenomenon that interests not only the designers and companies manufacturing and marketing toys, but also their users or players. This brings us to the last of the four categories: the affective dimension of the experiental space shared by comics and toys. An affective bond between users of both toys and comics is formed when these cultural products work well in terms of physicality, functionality, and fictionality. A comic “is not only an art of fragments, of scattering, of distribution; it is also an art of conjunction, of repetition, of linking together”’ (Groensteen 22). R.C. Harvey explains that comics are not a “simple coupling of the verbal and the visual, but a blend, a true mixture” (Harvey 9, c.f. in Beaty 32). This blending of two categories or mixtures is what scholars refer to as hybridity. Comics are clearly a hybrid medium, resulting from the merging of words and images. History reveals that comics have been a hybrid medium from the start in that they are a unique combination of visual and textual narratives. Images, texts, characters, and plots have diversified in comics through their history as a result of artistry and experimental modes of execution. As Duncan and Smith point out, genres in comics have emerged from experimentation with hybrid forms (Duncan and Smith 217). For example, Beaty labels what comic artist, Gary Panter, has done for the medium, “anything comics” (151). The hybridity between comics and toys, again, is due to their transmedia relations, or sharing of similar content. “One important fact about hybrid art forms is that they are often recognized as particularly complex works that unite disparate elements, thereby accruing values attached to each” (Beaty 21). Moreover, the connection between toys and comics manifests in a communicational web built around licensed characters and mash-ups of them. More recently, comics have not only been influenced by developments of other storytelling media, but also digitalization. Today, comics are not only printed in books and newspapers, but also presented as webcomics or in gallery spaces in still images, or for example, enhanced with gif-animations–partial movement or sound effects. In the 21st century, hybrid media increasingly entail movement between the physical and the digital. A notable example is the digitally animated, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic comics. Hybridization between other forms of entertainment media has also interested scholars of various playthings, both digital and physical. As will be demonstrated further, considering comics and toys together presents interesting possibilities to re-interpret actions of the reader/player. In other words, and in contrast to traditional thought, playability relates to both comics and toys. Table 2 includes a summary of traditional toys and comics and their hybrid forms. Three-dimensional, multisensory medium Seriality: Part of a series of toys Readable Fiddle-factor (Turning the pages) Playable (e.g., poseable, collectable) Fiddle-factor (exploring the toys’ multisensory affordances) Playable/ Readable (Exploring the toys’ multisensory affordances/ turning or scrolling the pages) Chris Ware's Building Stories Book-in-a-Box (Pantheon Books, 2012) Example of toyification Fictional dimension (narrative) Original narrative/ transmedia relation Seriality: Serial images/storytelling Backstory = original narrative Visual and material seriality Affective dimension (Human reader/player/fan relationship) As Beaty explains, comics have long been thought of as an entertainment engine (96). Increasingly, comics publishers are considered as “character and concept factories” (Smith and Duncan 147). For example, Beaty highlights Peanuts as a multiplatform media property that earned that status when it transitioned to television (Beaty 93). As Duncan and Smith note, “the idea of licensing comic book characters for use in other media has gained increased momentum” (Duncan and Smith 105), because many comics based on characters are intrinsically toyetic in nature. According to Dan Fleming, author of Powerplay: Toys as Popular Culture (1996), “toyetic” is the suitability of a media property, such as a movie, for merchandising spin-off lines of licensed toys, games, and novelties. Scholars have long developed ideas around images and their media circulation. Recently, the interest has turned to the communication capability of things. Steinberg discusses things’ increasingly important role as a communication medium (87). “The materiality of the toy must accommodate the material properties of the […] image for them to connect” (Steinberg 91). The communicative capacity of the toy-object as a medium, is in many cases, affected by and sometimes dependent on merchandising. However, how do characters come to existence before they see the daylight as toyified objects? Contemporary toys are created as a result of developments in other realms of culture. In 1896, William Randolph Hearst published the first issue of the American Humorist, which featured the first modern comic strip, Richard F. Outcault's, The Yellow Kid (Van Lente and Dunlavey 7). In approximately 1896, the Yellow Kid mechanical tipping hat toy became available for purchase. According to the Liveauctioneers website, in January 2015, one of the classic toys sold at auction for $2,214. Today, many popular toys are initially conceived on the drawing board. Before a toy materializes into a 3D plaything a designer must sketch and sculpt it. A globally recognized toy brand such as My Little Pony (MLP) was first a series of toys that later evolved into other entertainment media products. MLP, a series of character toys developed by Bonnie Zacherle, Charles Muenchinger, and Steve D'Aguanno, and marketed from 1982 onwards by Hasbro, has experienced an upswing in interest with the introduction of the 2010, My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic animated television series, created by Lauren Faust. Due to the success of the MPL franchise, physical and digital versions of the comics, in addition to toys, are now sold in various commercial outlets. Contemporary story-worlds are also crossing over in many other ways. Another classic example of an ‘epic’ transmedia connection, are the original Star Wars films and the comics and toys related to that universe. The “comicfication” of Star Wars developed in parallel with the toyification of George Lucas's Star Wars. With over 300 million Star Wars action figures sold between 1978–1985, toy manufacturer, Kenner, produced one of the most successful transmedia toy launches in history. As Van Lente and Dunlavey demonstrate, the Star Wars transmedia merchandising was actually incredibly beneficial to the films. However, the immense sums of money generated from the sale of comics is not discussed nearly as often. “The comic Star Wars #1 came out before the movie and became the first newsstand comic since the 1940s to sell more than one million copies per issue” (Van Lente and Dunlavey 150). According to Gorman, toy tropes are developed and reinforced throughout mid-20thcentury by picture books (3). Written and illustrated narratives, both fictive and fact-based, have had an undeniable impact on the emergence of character toys. According to Steinberg, character goods allow for inter or intragenerational human communication (90). Character toys, in particular, often emerge from literature, visual arts, graphic design, comics, movies, and the fashion industry, and inspire consumers to use various types of storytelling to take these narratives further. A contemporary character toy almost always comes with a brand, a name and a personality of which the backstory gives clues. Nevertheless, when considering, for example, the Uglydolls plush toy characters, the sketch for the toy that came before the transmedia story-world, not an appearance in a comic book or movie. The backstory of the Uglydolls toys launched in 2001, and later expanded in comics with the launch of the Goin’ Places comic book in 2013. …many of the new wave generation of American cartoonists affiliated with RAW, the most traditional highbrow comics magazine ever published in the United States, have crossed over to the production of art toys, including Ware, Kaz, Charles Burns (with Sony Creative Products), and, of course, Gary Panter. (Beaty 150) Designer toys present much wider possibilities for storytelling than traditional, mass-produced, character toys. Consequently, designer toys are sometimes more akin to art objects than action figures. Nevertheless, as playthings, designer toys are not only sculptural display-items, but at best, provoke playful dialogues and action in the hands and imaginations of their players. On the other hand, displaying is also a form of playing in which toy objects are posed and arranged in dioramas or room boxes, with or without other (play)things. Beaty makes a distinction between traditional comics toys (such as action figures based on e.g. Marvel's characters) and comics art toys. These two categories differ in terms of their distribution systems. Traditional comic toys are mostly sold in comic book stores, whereas the latter may be found in more specialized art stores and galleries (Beaty 149). “Licensed toys afford a material version of transmedia storytelling, and their relationship to the creation in meaning in transmedia franchises cannot be underestimated” (Harvey 161). Often, toys operate as playthings that allow players to physically engage with the fantasy (Geraghty Back to that Special Time). A transmedia fantasy may have its beginnings in various media (Jenkins). Today, perhaps more than ever, 3D toys are created because of trends occurring in visual media, fashion, and popular culture. On the other hand, toys inspire many artists and creators who conceive of their own characters and story worlds in either their physical or digital manifestations. Both comics and toys exist within a universe of transmedia storytelling that constitutes one area of the ecology of the supersystem of play. According to Henry Jenkins, a “transmedia story unfolds across multiple media platforms, with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole” (Jenkins 97–98). Indeed, toys inspire comic artists, but perhaps more importantly, enable new toys to enter the market when comic characters are toyified. The discussion concerning the relationship between comics and toys seems to be particularly relevant in times when the devaluation of comics as a cultural form is slowly decreasing, and juxtaposed, serial images as comic stories are receiving more recognition as an art form, and not only as children's literature (Beaty 38–39). Previously, as comics scholar Thierry Groensteen has observed, comics have suffered from a number of “handicaps.” First, they have been understood as a ‘bastard genre’ between text and image. Second, they are intrinsically infantile and have been consumed by adults wishing to prolong their adolescence. Third, comics have been associated with caricature, a degraded branch of visual arts. Fourth, they have not been integrated in the development of visual arts throughout the 20th century. Finally, comic images are (often) presented in tiny formats, and do not command attention because of their multiplicity (Lawson 255 c.f. in Beaty 19–20). Scott McCloud noted in 1993 that comics suffer from low self-esteem (McCloud 18). According to Van Lente and Dunlavey, the comics industry has stigmatized itself as mere “kiddie fare” for decades (92). Nevertheless, according to Geraghty, toy companies are keen to cash in on this rejuvenilization of media fan culture by embracing the playful adult consumer (Reconstructing Childhood Memories). The historical development of toys and comics is similarities beyond the obvious, and somewhat misleading, notion that both belong exclusively to children's culture and lowbrow art, a misconception that is more persistent with toys. In the age of the ludic turn, discussed by Brian Sutton-Smith (1997), and an era in time, in which play is gaining more paidic features associated with open-ended and creative directions in the first decennia of the 21st century, adults are showing increased interest in the toyish and playful products and of popular culture that no longer belong solely to the infantile, but rather, potential players of all ages (Heljakka Principles of adult play (fulness)). Consequently, toys are increasingly identified as objects of adult fandom (Geraghty Cult collectors). Similarly, in recent times, comics have increasingly become acknowledged as a transgenerational genre of sequential art. The “not just for kids anymore” rhetoric in relation to comics culture, is addressed in the ensuing discussion of ‘kidults’ (adult consumers and players) in contemporary toy cultures.3 Artists such as Lynda Barry and Scott McCloud have pondered the nature of play. Barry asks, “What is playing?,” and states: “At the center of everything we call ‘the arts,’ and children call ‘play,’ is something which seems somehow alive” (11). For Barry, playing is inherently about not knowing. In other words, playing presents an activity where one is predisposed to expect the unexpected. She contends, play is “one of the oldest, most complex, and most tightly integrated of all ecosystems” (11), which should not only be viewed as fun. Adults often combine playing and entertainment, fun or happiness. However, as Barry explains, there can be a kind of amnesia about the seriousness of playing (51). Indeed, engaging in fantasy play is often connected solely to childhood. Familiar texts from childhood, such as character toys and comics, are recycled, re-imagined and re-appropriated by adults as they rediscover their favorite cartoons, series, and films (Geraghty Back to that special time). However, adults’ urge to play cannot only be attributed to nostalgia for their past or a form of regression, but also with a curiosity and progressive enthusiasm to discover what playing offers adults in the present. McCloud considers play as a lifelong project, as a matter of fact, a lifestyle. He contends, “Kids don't have a monopoly on the ability to play. This phenomenon is as much about attitude as about age” (McCloud 145). Thus, playfulness is more of an attitude, whereas playing relates to an activity (Ibid.). It is not only about play being interactive, but the tendency of toys and comics to function as springboards for imaginative minds across generations. The playfulness of seriality and images, in one way, comes across in the use of imagination in the reading, mental manipulation, and interpretation of the stories. In practice, this refers to a reader's potential to put their imagination in play when interpreting what is depicted and written in the panels, and also what is left unwritten in the in-between space of the gutter. “What is an image? It's the pull-toy that pulls you, takes you from one place to another,” (Barry 122). Through playing, we may bring something to life. The object of playing, then, should first and foremost, be playable. The extrinsic play value of a toy can be understood in terms of its playability. The intrinsic play value again refers to how the toy can be played with. Danziger-Russell compares comics with picture books by arguing that when reading comics, one must negotiate between what is shown in images and what is expressed textually. Additionally, one has to “grapple with the concept of time and movement represented in the visual narrative” (Danziger-Russell 39). These qualities are often accentuated when discussing imaginative play of the mind. Comic panels fracture both time and space, offering a jagged, staccato rhythm of unconnected moments. But closure allows us to connect these moments and mentally construct a continuous, unified reality. If visual iconography is the vocabulary of comics, closure is its grammar and since our definition of comics hinges on the arrangement of elements – then in a very real sense, comics is closure. (McCloud 67) Contemporary artist, Gary Panter, has said, “I make the rules of the game that becomes my art” (in Beaty orig. in Nadal). The question of rules becomes more intriguing when considering cultural products designed and created for the purpose of playing. Comics readers are also conditioned by other media and a very linear progression, “Just a straight line from point A to point B,” writes McCloud (106). This rule can either be followed, or challenged. In games rules establish novel frameworks for action and agency (Flanagan 206). In some sense, she writes, “all games are performative, requiring some negotiation of action―thinking, guessing, running, or tossing―for play” (149). As Flanagan further notes, play implies action (115). Manifold dimensions of storytelling are not entirely tied to the physical and three-dimensional dimensions: The “reading” of toys happens through both physical and mental manipulation. But the “rules” of the engagement with playthings through the use of imagination are limitless. As McCloud describes, as popular characters both in comics and action toys, superheroes are “first and foremost about role-playing – becoming the character” (118). Previously, most of the local toy industry was selling props for role-playing in order for the player to pretend to be a character. Interestingly, as Steinberg points out, during the 1960s, in Japan, children went from bein
Referência(s)