The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Comics as literature?
Zeromus
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I think we've all dealt with those people, the ones who clutch desperately to their new copy of whatever bishoujo crap is big right now, shouting "This is not a comic, it is a graphic novel." I guess these people want to believe that anything they read needs to somehow be validated as high art.
Allow me to preface this by saying that I believe that comic books obviously have a priority to entertain. They are disposable magazines about men in tights who blow things up, manufactured ad nauseum for a mass audience. I do not believe, outside of the debatable ramifications as super heroes as our "modern mythology," that most comic books have a great amount of depth or literary merit.
But many do. Certain writers in particular seem able to inject their stories with layers. As much as it's bashed, Marvel's "Civil War" is one of these "deeper" stories, I'd say. Similarly, "Identity Crisis" is often held in such regard, as are "Kingdom Come," "Marvels," "Arkham Asylum," and a vast array of other such books. Hell, I can even find meaningful subtext in things that Garth Ennis writes, notably the second major arc of Punisher MAX, "Kitchen Irish."
To this extent, I think that literature is evolving in some way. If you look back to comics 30 years ago, a lot of this depth was absent. What do you guys think about depth in the stories of comic books, or whether or not they're "literature" in the most meaningful sense of the word? Does it even matter? Should pulp entertainment strive to be anything but that?
Allow me to preface this by saying that I believe that comic books obviously have a priority to entertain. They are disposable magazines about men in tights who blow things up, manufactured ad nauseum for a mass audience. I do not believe, outside of the debatable ramifications as super heroes as our "modern mythology," that most comic books have a great amount of depth or literary merit.
But many do. Certain writers in particular seem able to inject their stories with layers. As much as it's bashed, Marvel's "Civil War" is one of these "deeper" stories, I'd say. Similarly, "Identity Crisis" is often held in such regard, as are "Kingdom Come," "Marvels," "Arkham Asylum," and a vast array of other such books. Hell, I can even find meaningful subtext in things that Garth Ennis writes, notably the second major arc of Punisher MAX, "Kitchen Irish."
To this extent, I think that literature is evolving in some way. If you look back to comics 30 years ago, a lot of this depth was absent. What do you guys think about depth in the stories of comic books, or whether or not they're "literature" in the most meaningful sense of the word? Does it even matter? Should pulp entertainment strive to be anything but that?
Zeromus on
0
Posts
also, kitchen irish was by far the dumbest of all the punisher max arcs. check out the slavers if you want something that's actually good
edit- god, identity crisis? really? that's held up as a bastion of literature?
If someone put a gun to my head and said "Show me comics that would be considered literature!", I'd point them towards Astro City, Starman, and Fables. Singular visions (in the sense that each comic is put together by either the same creators throughout the entire run, or (in the case of Starman), the same writer gets to maintain his vision throughout the series). Starman is probably the best at this, since it has definite payoffs in the last twelve issues for those that stuck with the series from the beginning.
The purpose of that thread would be to talk about what we like better, something "literary" like Watchmen that is a huge investment to read, or stupid fun like the Ultimates, of which you can burn through six issues in a half hour.
I guess I just get upset when people justify someone's writing ability by the format they write in. It like saying the writing a newspaper is better than say writing a magazine.
PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast! Satan look here!
How do you respond to a question like that when the media in question, comic books, is not homogenous?
You could no more speak of the depth in film or novels, or even of people.
Some are good, and some aren't. Some have depth, some don't. Some transcend norms, and some adhere to them or sink even lower.
Beyond that, all you can do is list what you like.
I do agree that the apparent distinction between "graphic novels" and comic books is idiotic, and employed largely because people want to grant worth to their favorites without actually explaining why they like them. "It's a graphic novel," is as much of a cop out as, "It's art."
I do read comics that don't feature men in tights, Kitchen Irish was amazing, and Identity Crisis, while perhaps not a "bastion of literature," did have depth to it, I'd say. Then again, most people here seem not to like it so much, but hey.
And while some comics may qualify as "literature", I wouldn't hold my breath on seeing them as required reading in grade schools.
t jkylefulton: I'm kind of on the fence about Stan Lee's writing. I'd say it did have emotional subtext, but the fact of the matter is, on the surface level it was pure cheese. Writing in comics has definitely matured as of late, and that's kind of what this thread was getting at, I suppose. There's no way something like Identity Crisis could've come out 30 years ago, and that, to me, signals that comics are becoming valid "literature."
I mean, who fucking cares if you guys liked Identity Crisis or Civil War, consider them from an idealogical stance.
If any comic were to be considered literature, it would be Sandman.
Saying this in a completely non-hostile way, I'd suggest that you expand your horizons a bit (again, this is hard for me to say, because I really don't know the breadth of what you've read).
Honestly, not a ton. I've read a lot of his work on Spider-Man. It feels tacky, especially when Spidey is shouting "If that rubble hits those people, they'll all die!" as a building is clearly crumbling in the foreground. There is obviously reason to praise Lee, but the most subtle writer he is not.
kitchen irish was at best exploitive and at worst, sub-marvel knights physical comedy based much around a wacky disfigured antagonist which, of course, is often par for the course with ennis. i strongly suggest checking out the slavers, war stories, hitman, or even preacher, all of which are far better examples of ennis writing engaging characters and stories with real depth. if you want a better example of the punisher tackling irish issues, even, i suggest volume three of the marvel knights series, wherein frank actually goes to belfast and sees how violence and destruction affect a real city with real consequences.
the bonus is that nobody writes 'cunts' on a brick of c-4
'no way', eh? you might want to check out the hard-travelin' heroes stories with green arrow and green lantern before you start on that argument
no you won't
because we will ban you
Personally, I liked Identity Crisis. Sue me.
Perhaps you could expound on your thoughts, Mai-Kero.
His earlier works, important though they may be, don't carry much appeal for me either. However, I'd sooner attribute the apparent disparity in quality between older comics and present books to the fact that the writers are targeting entirely different audiences, both in terms of whatever tastes were present at the time and the actual age of the readers. A book that's aimed at myself isn't automatically better than one that isn't, even if I prefer the former.
I suppose that's a pretty good point. As an audience matures, I guess it only makes sense that the subject matter would, as well.
I have all of the MAX trades, and I think they're all very good, save perhaps for the fourth volume.
I liked Kitchen Irish because it really got to who the Punisher is as a character and what he represents, which was all set very nicely against the whole issue of the IRA and the idea of "never-ending conflict." Maybe we were looking for different things. Preacher is also quite good, but I don't think it's as tight as Ennis' work on Punisher.
And could someone explain to me why whenever this topic is brought up, everyone gets incredibly defensive and seems to take things personally? Seriously, guys, relax.
it's funny that we disagree this way, because i actually feel like 'up is down and black is white' is a much better examination of the character and his motives and doesn't feel exploitive to me since it doesn't set the sort of goofy cartoon characters ennis sometimes creates up against a real conflict.
and it's not so much defensive as it is trying to point out all of the much better books you neglected to consider when asking if comics were 'literature'
Is graphic novel the highest accolade you could grant to Pride of Baghdad?
I hate the idea of people referring to things as "mere comics" as opposed to "average comics". The former implies there's something wrong with the medium itself, even though I see no reason to believe that it's worth less than others. Yes most comics are unremarkable, but that's the case with everything.
No, if you do a post search of my posts with "Pride of Baghdad" or "Brian K. Vaughn" as keywords you'll turn up all sorts of gushy fanboy shit.
But it's irrelevant, as the issue here is comics without literary merit vrs. graphic novels which posess said trait.
Both of those comics feature men in tights.
Although the way some people use it is just as a subjective term to distance it from what they view as inferior mainstream stuff.
yeah, that's what i'd say. graphic novel=pride of baghdad (eg), tpb=y the last man vol. 3 (eg)
But why does it matter if something was published in issue format? A year later, when the individual issues are out of print and the most readily available format for the story is a trade paperback that is indistinguishable from that of a graphic novel, there's really no difference.
And nobody acts like there's a difference between the serialized novels of Charles Dickens and novels that are released in their entirety.
To me, calling comics graphic novels is like calling porn "erotica".
I'll give Marvel this much - from a purely business standpoint, it's done very well, so good for them. But a quality story? No, I don't think so.
it's not like anyone alive today read bleak house when it was originally serialized though