You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
In a 2017 New York Times article, Jonah Bromwich asks the question: “Why are all of our words in bubbles?” Pointing to the decision by Apple, Facebook, and Twitter to put all messages in the comics form of bubbles, he notes how the rounded edges convey a softer, more receptive graphic format in which to receive information. So, Bromwich consults comics expert Scott McCloud, who explains the psychology of such a graphic design decision: “bubbles created a consistent amount of negative space around words, which was desirable from a graphic standpoint.” Bromwich then suggests, “The rounded edges of text bubbles also gave messages a soft, friendly connotation. That's an element especially useful in texted communication, where tone and body language are absent” (2017). Such negative space in the text bubble cushions the ambiguity or other anxious effects of uncontained text, softening the sharp edges of letters by friendly, rounded shapes.
The rounded shapes of a Facebook Messenger or iMessage text derive from the comics page; the rounded shapes of thought bubbles and speech balloons draw forth “tone and body language.” Yet the thought bubble and the speech balloon are quite distinct devices and serve very different functions in the comics medium. My discussion of the vicissitudes of thought bubbles pivots on the uniqueness of this comics convention. As I take up the particularly embattled fate of the thought bubble in contemporary comics, my claim will be that the current, demonstrable trend in mainstream comics publishing to banish this friendly and familiar vehicle of expression in comics not only limits the expressive range of comics as a medium, but also, from a psychoanalytic standpoint, reveals a reaction against and a purging of affect and thought itself from the comics page. I will conclude by gathering up a few