McCloud also talks about the way in which figures are represented in comics, and one of his points that I find particularly intriguing is his claim about the difference between realistic and iconic styles of representation. He writes:
..the face you see in your mind is not the same as others see! When two people interact , they usually look directly at one another, seeing their partner's features in vivid detail. Each one also sustains a constant awareness of his or her own face, but this mind-picture is not nearly so vivid; just a sketchy arrangement...a sense of shape...a sense of general placement.
Something as simple and as basic--as a cartoon.
Thus, when you look at a photo or realistic drawing of a face--you see it as the face of another. But when you enter the world of the cartoon--you see yourself.
In other words, a style of drawing that is less realistic, more iconic makes it easier for the reader to imagine herself as that character, and thus, it becomes easier to become immersed in the story.
Many critics talk about the story of Bone as what makes it most appealing--Andrew D. Arnold at Time, for example, writes, "Cute little guys yearning for home, lost royalty, evil entities, magical creatures and massive armies battling it out for the future of humanity. Sounds familiar, right? Yes, the central plot seems lifted directly from Tolkein's fantasy masterpiece, but Smith has enough talent and imagination to remake it into something entirely his own."
Yes, Smith makes the story his own, but his art allows readers to make it their own, putting themselves in the shoes of Fone Bone and going on adventures that are filled with friends, danger, love, and just a little silliness. For a comic that is aimed at readers of all ages, this is a masterful achievement, and one that has the potential to introduce many new, young readers to the amazing power of comics.