Multiframe fever: Comics as archive

References

1. Ahmed, M. and Crucifix, B. (2018), ‘Introduction: Untaming comics memory’, in M. Ahmed and B. Crucifix (eds), Comics Memory: Archives and Styles, Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–12.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bateman, J. A. and Wildfeuer, J. (2014), ‘Defining units of analysis for the systematic analysis of comics: A discourse-based approach’, Studies in Comics, 5:2, pp. 373–403, https://doi.org/10.1386/stic.5.2.373_1.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bell, J. (2018), ‘Sources of law’, The Cambridge Law Journal, 77:1, pp. 40–71.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bruner, J. (2002), Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life, Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bukatman, S. (2014), ‘Sculpture, stasis, the comics, and hellboy’, Critical Inquiry, 40, pp. 104–17.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Chute, H. (2011), ‘Comics form and narrating lives’, Profession, pp. 107–17.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Cohn, N. (2014), ‘Building a better “comic theory”: Shortcomings of theoretical research on comics and how to overcome them’, Studies in Comics, 5:1, pp. 57–75.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Cover, R. M. (1983), ‘Foreword: Nomos and narrative’, Harvard Law Review, 97:1, pp. 1–68.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Davies, P. F. (2018), ‘Goffman’s frame analysis, modality and comics’, Studies in Comics, 9:2, pp. 279–95, https://doi.org/10.1386/stic.9.2.279_1.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Davies, P. F. (2020), ‘The nested text’, in T. Giddens (ed.), Critical Directions in Comics Studies, Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, pp. 215–19.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Derrida, J. (1974), Of Grammatology, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Derrida, J. (1990), ‘Force of law: The “mystical foundation of authority”’, Cardozo Law Review, 11:5–6, pp. 920–1045.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Derrida, J. and Eric, P. (1995), ‘Archive fever: A Freudian impression’, Diacritics, 25:2, p. 9, https://doi.org/10.2307/465144.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Dorsett, S. (2002), ‘“Since time immemorial”: A story of common law jurisdiction, native title and the case of tanistry’, Melbourne University Law Review, 26, pp. 32–59.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Gardner, J. (2012), Projections: Comics and the History of Twenty-First-Century Storytelling, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Gavaler, C. (2017), ‘Refining the comics form’, European Comic Art, 10:2, pp. 1–23, https://doi.org/10.3167/eca.2017.100202.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Gibson, H. (2018), ‘Reopening the archive: From hypomnesis to the ontology of law’, in T. Zartaloudis (ed.), Law and Philosophical Theory: Critical Intersections, London: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 63–80.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Giddens, T. (2018), On Comics and Legal Aesthetics: Multimodality and the Haunted Mask of Knowing, Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Giddens, T. (2020), ‘Institution and abyss’, Law, Technology and Humans, 2:2, pp. 150–71, https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.1646.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Giddens, T. (2022), Judgment: New Trajectories in Law, Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Giddens, T. (2024), ‘Scribbling on the moon: The melancholia of luna nullius’, in K. Crawley, T. Giddens and T. D. Peters (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Cultural Legal Studies, Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Goodrich, P. (2018), ‘Heretical archives: Heterotopic institutions and fictive records’, Law Text Culture, 22, pp. 53–66.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Gray, M. (2020), ‘The freedom of the press: Comics, labor, and value in the Birmingham Arts Lab’, in T. Giddens (ed.), Critical Directions in Comics Studies, Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, pp. 107–33.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Groensteen, T. (2007), The System of Comics, Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Kress, G. (2000), ‘Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language’, TESOL Quarterly, 34:2, p. 337, https://doi.org/10.2307/3587959.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Kress, G. (2010), Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication, Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Kress, G. (2015), ‘Semiotic work: Applied linguistics and a social semiotic account of multimodality’, AILA Review, 28:1, pp. 49–71, https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.28.03kre.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Legendre, P. (2019), God in the Mirror: A Study of the Institution of Images (Lessons III) (trans. P. G. Young), Abingdon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Lyotard, J.-F. (2010), Discourse, Figure, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press (Book, Whole).
    [Google Scholar]
30. Martel, J. (2018), ‘Why does the state keep coming back? Neoliberalism, the state and the archeon’, Law and Critique, 29:3, pp. 359–75.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Mawani, R. (2012), ‘Law’s archive’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 8:1, pp. 337–65.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Miodrag, H. (2013), Comics and Language: Reimagining Critical Discourse on the Form, Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Mitchell, W. J. T. (1986), Iconology: Image, Text, Ideology, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Nancy, J.-L. (2008), Corpus (trans. R. A. Rand), New York: Fordham University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Nancy, J.-L. (2013), The Pleasure in Drawing (trans. P. Armstrong), New York: Fordham University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (2013), ‘The world without outside’, Angelaki, 18:4, pp. 165–77.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Pizzino, C. (2020), ‘On violation: Comic books, delinquency, phenomenology’, in T. Giddens (ed.), Critical Directions in Comics Studies, Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi, pp. 13–34.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Steedman, C. (2001), Dust, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Vismann, C. (1996), ‘Cancels: On the making of law in chanceries’, Law and Critique, 7:2, pp. 131–51.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Wyatt, C. S. and DeVoss, D. N. (eds) (2018), Type Matters: The Rhetoricity of Letterforms, Anderson, SC: Parlour Press.
    [Google Scholar]