I am primarily a DC reader due to the fact that DC characters are often portrayed as being capable of both Earth-related protection and larger galactic issues, and I really appreciate that this is combined with the gritty noir-realism of the Bat-family, which gives a much needed sense of balance of variety. Too often I will read a Marvel comic and get mildly irritated by the fact that certain characters seem to have fallen out of a Saved by the Bell episode and into some overly-tight spandex. Now, all you haters take note of what I am about to say: I enjoy Marvel, I just don't love it as much as DC.
Comics are appealing to me because of the way they combine neo-mythic stories of conflict with visually stimulating art and often sharp and insightful writing. It is no coincidence that the most worn-out book on my shelves is the Odyssey by Homer (Ares in Dark Avengers is the main reason I got into Marvel in the first place). I do not read comics to follow characters that are stuck in a pubescent rut where they have relationship issues, with a bit of crimefighting in the middle to mix it up. I want to see things I cannot fathom; I want to see insane evil beings threaten a universe; I want to see characters that take human endurance to the limit and defeat Gods (again, back to Homer and Odysseus - a great parallel can be found in Batman VS Darkseid in Final Crisis/Return of Bruce Wayne).
I will continue to read Marvel and enjoy that universe. But give me DC's insane cosmic mess any day of the week.
" There was a Graphic Literature section in my last Literature textbook, so sure. "
Well, there we go. Discussion over. "
"
What? Cos someone wrote a text book? Well hooray for them, but just because they said it doesnt mean it's true. Text books do not have a defacto hold over intellectual debate or truth. Think with your own mind, not someone else's.
You say that certain forms of fiction are denied the classification 'literature' due to a deficiency in artistic merit. Fair enough, but I'd say you have missed my argument as to why comics are not literature. That is, they are two distinct forms and should be appreciated as such.
The reason that the works you described cannot be described as 'literary works' is that they do not compare favorably to the high standards set by the leading works in each genre. A chick-lit romance novel cannot hope to match the poise and grace of a Victorian Romantic novel, whereas a cheap thriller or detective story cannot compete with a Chandler novel. The cheap literature is denied the classification of literature purely because it does not compare to the standards of leading literary fiction.
Comics books use devices and techniques that are incomparable to that of standard written fiction and therefore should be appreciated on their own merits and based upon their own collective history. Consider the following points:
Art/Direction: A comic book is defined, inevitably, by its art. That is not to diminish the writer one bit. There are excellent writers in comics that can transcend the limitations of a poor artist. But the vast majority do not fit that category and instead depend on a marriage of art and words. Compare that to the novellist who has words alone. The effect of art on the reader is undeniable. This is not possible in literary fiction and therefore provides a big distinction between the two.
Collaboration/Editing/Corporate Structure: Comics are at their core the result of collaboration. Yes there are many examples of singular talents, but only the most pedantic fool in the world would deny the importance of a great collaborative team. At the big publishers - which lest we forget still produce some of the best comics out there - there will be tremendous amounts of red tape and blockages to creativity. The lone writer creates a world and characters of their choosing. Neither one is superior to the other. Neither is preffered. Rather they are two distinct forms of art that should be appreciated by the recognition of the tools of each's craft.
Timelines: Comics are a young art form. Although there are scattered examples in cinema such as Citizen Kane, the medium of film has only come into its own since the 1970s and only recently has a vibrant critical discourse emerged. Comics are entering that phase. The works of Frank Miller and Alan Moore (and a whole group of other influential writers and artists) are gaining traction in the minds of the leading voices in the arts. Think about it - people that grew up in the 80s and read those comics are now in positions of power and influence. This will only increase with time and the result will be a wider appreciation of comics as its own art form.
Crucially, once comics are accepted as their own valid medium by the mainstream, comic readers won't feel the need to compare their interest to literature. They are two different things. Love the things that makes comics great and enjoy them and appreciate them on their own merits. They are not poetry or the next Great American Novel. They are comics and readers out to be proud of that and celebrate it,
I think the very question of whether characters should be gay is in itself a bit of an insult to the gay community. Why use the word should? That implies that if the result of the argument is that they shouldn't, then there would never be any gay comic book characters. And that would be a particularly sad place for the art form to be.
If a creator has a story that involves a gay character then it should be included. I see absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be. And if you are are offended by it by reason of religion then you have a great get-out-clause - DONT BUY IT! You see the beauty is in choice. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I hate reality tv, so I don't watch it. And therefore it doesnt bother me. If gays get you so hot and bothered then avoid the comics with homosexual characters.
And to address the point about disliking storylines that use gay characters for the sake of it - I agree. It is used as a gimmick, but one that can offend gay people (as well as the up-in-arms homophpbes).
I disagree that comics are literature. That is not to say that comics are not art; rather that they are their own form of art. Literature is something altogether different.
Comics as an art form relies on the marriage of art and script. There are scattered examples of influential writer/artists but not enough for that to be a defining trend. Compare this to literature - the literary arts - which is populated by textual works that are the endeavour of the individual alone. A novel unillustrated must rely upon form, structure, diction, allegory, characters and dialogue in a way that is purely textual. A comic can depict a pivotal moment in a stark illustration, whereas a novel must approach these events in an entirely different manner.
That is not to say that the affects are any less valid. Movies are - as an example - not a lesser art form for being different to literature. It's just different.
Comics ought to celebrate what it is that makes the artform unique. The best recent example I can think of this is in the opening chase in Batman and Robin 1 where frank quietly draws the BOOMPOW sound effects into the explosions. It brings back the exuberance of the golden age of Batman whilst complementing the contemporary action. No other art form has that kind of device - celebrate it, indulge in it. And if that's not for you maybe celebrate the violent comics, the fairytale ones or the alpha-male slugfest rags. It is all good and it all part of the artform.
Ultimately it is not worth comparing comics to another artform. All kinds of art are different and that is what makes them unique and worth appreciating. The true value comes in digging the things you love about comics and pursuing that interest.
I love the idea of a Flash film, but I can't see it being a big commercial success along the lines of the Batman or Spiderman films. For all of Flash's greatness, the character isn't innately cool.
I think the Cambridge lady is actually trying to insult comic books in her quote. Read this section closely:
"we can offer something that addresses the same needs but also deals with the themes in a critical and ethical way"
She's essentially saying that comics are generally unethical and that the main reason to study them is so they can work out why kids read them and then take out the bits they don't like.
Log in to comment