Now, I know someone has a same type of thread going over on Zanatarni, so I thought I would make one here.

Now, I am one to think that comics can be literature. Aside from the fact that comic books have pictures, most the time extremely beautiful artwork, what makes them not to be considered literature?

Yes, there is dredge and crap among the wonderfulness of comics, but it is te same with books. Would one consider a trashy romance novel on the same level as Dante's "The Divine Comedy"? I would think not. Just because one is written and in paper book form does not make it literature.

Now, I can always use the 3 main comics books that is used in a comic book as literature arguements. "Maus" by Art Speiglman, winner of a 1992 Pulitizer Prize, simply put the book i about his father who surived Nazi Germany. Over all, it is far more than that. One of the most beautiful books I have ever written.

"The Watchmen" by Allen Moore, forgetting the artist right now. Winner of Hugo Awards, and countless others. Simply put, the book is set in an altertive world where Super Heroes are real, and in the 1950's there was a super hero regrestration act (sounds like a current Marvel comic line) And takes place in the 80's where one of the main members, The Comedian, was killed, and it about finding out his killer. TI honestly have not read this comic.

"Sandman" by Neil Gaiman illustrated by countless artist. Book 4 contains the only comic book winner of the "World Fantasy award for Prose" Gaiman started writing Sandman at the time when DC was making it's super heroes less poweful because of the idea that powerful creatures could not be good characters. Hence fourth came Sandman. Which has 10 books in it's main line, 3 death spin off's, and many other books about it.
As said in the foreward of book 9, "The Kindely Ones" "If this is not literature, then wht is?"

Then there are ones such as Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns" A book about Batman, set in the future where Batman is older, in his 50's about. Batman has been retired, ever since that day his second Robin got killed. Gotham has fallen worse than it ever has before, and in so muh dispair, with being attacked by a grusemen gangs of mutants. Batman chooses to make his return, throwing the world into chaos, taking on a female Robin, and having crazies follow him.

There is "Road to predition" bet you didn;t know that was originally a comic, because most people do not. Would of been bad for sales to say it was a comic. "History of Violence", "V for Vendeta" "Fell", "30 days of Night", "Sin City" and countless others that are just as beautifully written as drawn.

Even with the Eastern side you have books Such as "Ghost in the Shell", "Akira" and " Battle Angel Alita" to namea few. These stories arebesides being well written, beauitfullly drawn, and bring so many wonderful ideas. They just also get looked over because of the dredge we are now getting from Japan.

Ok, now, for you. Why or why not do you consider Comic books literature?
What makes a comic no literature but a wordy book one?
and I would like not to see answers like "comics suk" or "they are not literature because"
Let's get some good following ideas here.

Im one to think that comics and manga arent crap and they do count as reading, so i guess i agree

But not all comics are equal and some are crap over all, and some are fantastics pieces of work.
just like all books are not created equally.
Mainly, why?
I want to actually et a discussion around this.

There's a booklisting website that clearly lists comics as books and literature.

I think the same thing goes for comics that goes for all books: some stuff is entertainment, some stuff is art, some is junk.

My favourite ones, and I would definitely consider them (by now classic) literature are the Duck stories by Carl Barks and the Asterix books by Uderzo and Goscinny.

hmm, I'll have to check those out.
With both comics and books, i tend to be a very slow reader.
I actually just let a friend borrow Maus. she's a huge reader, and never knew them as pulitzer prize winners.
You have the link? When I was researching for a speach a while back, I never came accross anything good.

Comics are books & literature... otherwise they wouldn't stock 'em at bookstores. :lol:

Originally Posted by AkashaHeartilly

But not all comics are equal and some are crap over all, and some are fantastics pieces of work.
just like all books are not created equally.
Mainly, why?
I want to actually et a discussion around this.

Well some have no point, I think the ones that you can learn stuff from are > than the ones in teh newspaper taht you laugh at

Originally Posted by Lilithia

Comics are books & literature... otherwise they wouldn't stock 'em at bookstores. :lol:

But they also stock trashy romance novels at books stores, cook books and other not literature books. That is not a good analogy. That is like saying because because a store stocks pants, all the items there must be pants.

Yes a bookstore sells both books and comics, does not mean they are one and the same.

me, i already think of comics as literature, but not all comics being equal.

Yeah x.x;; *Goes to Gnaw on Manga Book*

I don't know, comics are more or less experiences. It's very difficult to think of them as literature because the most acclaimed are mere children when it comes to dialogue and such. We're pretty much getting crumbs.

Originally Posted by Guivre

I don't know, comics are more or less experiences. It's very difficult to think of them as literature because the most acclaimed are mere children when it comes to dialogue and such. We're pretty much getting crumbs.

Well, as said, there are some aimed at kids, and that has been the general thought about comics since the comic code came about in the 50's/60's to make so called "kids" things innocent, happy and frindly as possible. Was not tell the 80's were you got writers and artist like Frank Miller and Allen Moore who massively worked around it, and changed.

Some dialouge is for kids, others is not. Such as "Maus", simplistic, yet heart tugging. or "The Watchmen" which is more or less a very thick novel with pretty pictures attached to it.

Also, depends on which side of the pacific you looking at when it comes to terms of dialouge. American comics rely heavily on dialouge and you reading and interupting what is happening, while japanese comics relies heavily on visuals for you to see what is happening.

i like a good slice-of-life graphic novel series
Strangers In Paradise by Terry Moore and Minimum Wage by Bob Fingerman are my two most favorite <33

and then there's books like Transmetropolitan, and V For Vendetta, and Preacher, and Sandman that i also love. i get sucked in by a good comic and if there's enough material, like in a big compilation or just a big stack of backlogged issues, i can sit happily for hours


and literature, yes, but a graphic novel is also an art form. on so many levels

Oh, I'm not dennying that comics are not an art form, or art in any way. I believe they are fantaical pieces of art.

I started this because there is the idea in, mostly, american cultural, that comics are things meant for children and no way be for adults or even literature.

Sp yes hey are both beauitful pieces of art an literature, at least I think soo.

I believe reading of any type of literature is good for you.

the "comics are only for kids" stigma is so ridculous XD

spewed by people who really don't know anything about anything

Totally agrees with her. *points to post immediately above me* :D

Originally Posted by Icksel

the "comics are only for kids" stigma is so ridculous XD

spewed by people who really don't know anything about anything

True, ture, but it's soo ingrained in the culture. This idea that certain things are for kids, such as Comics, Animation and Video Games have become soo ingrained and it takes alot to change the opinion.

Most of these have far stricter regulations than the rest of the entertainment media in american, especially video games.

The idea of comics for kids came from the Comic Code that was inact in the 60's. That all the horror, romance and so fourth comics were corrupting the youth and making them do bad things. When it was adults mostly reading those. So pretty much only super hero comics was able to surive, with the having to be in happy worlds, colourful, no violence of any sort, nothing sexual and that the good guy always had to win.

I think that comic books could be considered literature. In fact, sometimes they're even better than books, because not only do they have compelling characters and interesting plots, but they have amazing artwork. People who can write a good story, and illustrate it, and lay it out in a captivating way are totally amazing.

Plenty of comics/graphic novels/whatever you want to call them are beautifully done and have a good plot.
I think Watchmen received a Nobel Prize or something along those lines; it was the first graphic novel to do so.
The Beast in X-Men quotes Shakespeare. That ought to count for something.
People say comics are only for kids, but more adults and college kids read them than anyone else.

I find that certain comics can be counted as literature because they provide the same thing that all great pieces of literature do: a story that resonates throughout decades, possibly centuries (we'll have to wait and see) because of either groundbreaking content that it covers, or how it moves a generation. For instance, The Watchmen was the first comic to give us a look at what real costumed heroes would be like in real life. What would a real 'meta-human' do to the world? It also gave insight into the workings of society at that time. It changed how we looked at these icons. The first comic book heroes (in America anyway) were created to be national symbols during war times. Superman was created to help uplift American ideals during the first World War, Captain America during WWII. Iron Man was created for the Cold War. Captain America's sidekick 'Bucky Barnes' was the first kid to die in a comic (despite being resurrected a few decades later). Batman's story A Death in the Family completely changed an age of comics with the death of a Robin - Jason Todd - at the hands of the Joker; showing that the good guys don't always win and there are serious consequences to having a super hero career (also despite being resurrected). Not to mention how Jason Todd was killed off in a phone-in poll; the readers got to decided whether Robin lived or died!
Comics are a great way to get a closer look into studies of the human condition: the Women's Rights movement, along with any number of ethnicities' struggles to become accepted as part of this nation as a whole; even people of different sexual orientation are now breaking ground in comics (Northstar in Marvel was one of the firsts and the Rawhide Kid before him in 1955). It also provides an interesting look into the human mind. What greater chance to examine complex human pathologies than those of Batman or Iron Man? What about the mental dynamics of Superman and Martian Manhunter being aliens who are the last of their races? Classic novel literature does all these things. Despite not being in long, epic page format (like War and Peace) the imagery provided in comics does fascinating things for stories. Alan Moore's Watchmen and V for Vendetta both have heavy symbolism in the panels that help foreshadow what is to come and play upon the reader's very psyches.
Comics can be great literature, it is merely a different medium than the traditional. Now not all comics, just like not all books, can be considered literature. It takes these extra miles for a story to really communicate to an audience, to articulate a message that will have people examining it for a long time to come.

@Rowan
Not only do I agree with everything you said, I would also like to say that I have never read something about comic books quite as profound as what you wrote. Having just read Watchmen for the first time, I was moved by it to an extent most books don't do. And, although I do agree it is no doubt literature, I felt silly for feeling so strongly about it.
So thank you for making me not feel silly.

To add on to the actual discussion:
Good comics even use symbolism present in classic literature that modern books do. Take Watchmen for example, much of the artwork for the city (and often environment as a whole) had shades of yellow that didn't quite fit with the natural color scheme of the world. While it's never actually mentioned, I took this to be the same use of the color yellow (to represent decay) that was used in Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment.

I feel like I should have more to say, but I'm still a little awed by Rowan's post there. Hehe.

"and what is the use of a book...without pictures or conversations?" - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

Comics and graphic novels are indeed too often cast off as useless fluff; since they seem to consist primarily of illustrations rather than words, they're undervalued. Perhaps the dubbing of 'comics' is a word that needs changed before this opinion can die, but I digress. Simply because images have taken the place of imagery to portray scenery, people, and actions doesn't mean that comics don't have the same potential as conventional literature. There are plenty of novels that are lacking in imagery but convey story, actions, and philosophy quite well; and similarly there are novels that are heavy in imagery so that it pushes along the story, but doesn't convey many strong points or values. These novels aren't degraded as literature, and yet even the most profound stories and topics conveyed with heavy imagery through the medium of comics are pushed away from the foreground of literature.

Character development, philosophical values, panoramas of societal conditions, capacity to create and hold an empathetic bond from the reader (As Nolori experienced with Watchmen), captivating stories, an escape from what is real: These are all other things that are valued in literature, and that have been used strongly in comics. As much as 70% of comics consist of illustration, but this does not mean that it isn't literature; it is a strong effect when the illustration can work seamlessly with other literary devices. This is certainly a condition dependant on the mental capacity of the author(s), but literature can fall victim to this as well.

Fantastic thread by the way; I'm actually going to be taking a special interests course of Comics as Literature this semester : ). I'm a bit embarrassed to say though, I've read more japanese manga than american comics; I never bought into the whole 'super human' spiel growing up and that tainted my view of what american comics could be. Although I know better now, I've just not invested enough time into them. You've given me a great place to start to further prepare for the course though Akasha, thank you.

I think comics are a great read, and honestly, I prefer them to regular novels. I like having the art there as I read, I don't really know why, guess I'm just a visual person. There are quite a few comics out there that are practically a novel with pictures they have so many words shoved into the word balloons (like Sandman and Fables). Strangers in Paradise has quite a few parts that are actually novel format.

But even without having lots of words to read, quite a few comics have deep and interesting plots and bring up viewpoints on all kinds of topics. Surrogates is one comic that I felt really makes you think about society, as well as Y the Last Man raising the question, what if all the men died or what if you were the last man alive?

I was made to read Perseopolis in English Class, which pretty much for me proves that comics and literature are not mutually exclusive. A lot of comic books can and do actually have an excellent grasp of storytelling techniques. Fables and the Jack tales, especially the Jack tales actually personify nearly every literary convention. Other comics, like Identity Crisis, make use of innovative time and setting control to focus a story in a way you truly do not expect from a comic book.