We consider comics and graphic novels less intellectual than books without pictures because we always tie them to children’s literature, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all books with pictures are not mature or powerful.
Traditional thinking holds that truly great works of literature and art are best appreciated when viewed separately. “Words and pictures together are considered a diversion for the masses, and a product of commercialism” (McCloud 808). The idea that combining words and pictures is somehow “basic or simplistic” is something that I don’t really agree with at all. I believe that comics would be more highly respected if people did not have this attitude toward combining the two art forms. Novels aren’t the only kind of literature out there. Short stories, poetry, and plays are all considered literature, but somehow comics are not. Technically speaking, the definition of literature is “a written work,” so even a news story about a fire in a building could be considered literature.
We usually see comics as something that young children read; like Batman or Superman, but then we are judging an entire genre on two examples. There are comic books and graphic novels that are beautifully crafted and have a high level of artistic quality— those with meaning. Some comics are mostly text and include parts that are ONLY text. Comics like Watchmen are about 25% or more text, often mostly text on most pages, and Maus, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize, which certainly is no Spiderman. Unfortunately, it is merely just a matter of ignorance or lack of knowledge from this issue.
I really liked how you argued and presented your point by including facts and examples. Also I completely agree with you when you stated that if we change our perspective on comics then we wouldn't only see them as children's literature.
ReplyDelete