Threads grow so fast in this place before I ever have time to respond! Haha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertgrandma
I knew commenting on 'graphic novels' was skating toward the edge. 
I've never thought of them as "Books", more like "Comic Books for Adults".....okay, put your sticks away.
Was discussing this with my daughter, 3rd grade teacher. Seems she has "Maus" and I'll be reading it as a soon as she finds it....something without this thread I would never even have thought of. She needed it for a class she took once.
Again.....my main concern/bias here is the possible lack of imagination (brainwork) needed to truly "read".
But see.......does that put me in the same class as the author of that article? Am I being a 'lit snob'?
Question. Is a graphic novel literature? |
I think it's really great that you're willing to give Maus a try, whether you come out loving it or not.
I love trying to get people into comics by showing them content that they might have not considered would be covered in such a medium. Most people still think of comics as all capes and tights.
But I'm a comic geek and I love to get out the word. I also have respect for anyone willing to give something new a try. I remember trying to get my step-mom to watch Grave of the Fireflies, an anime movie about Japan during WWII. She's very much into WWII history but apparently has a deep-seated bias against animated movies that aren't of the Disney ilk (humorous kids movies). She doesn't see it as an appropriate medium for serious story-telling and refused to watch it at the time. I think her bias has been broken down a bit since then but I was a little sad that I couldn't get her to take a chance on it at the time. Haha. But she'll read about WWII history like nobody's business!
At any rate, I'm glad this thread introduced you to Maus and hope you can read it with an open mind. You may be pleasantly surprised.
Did your daughter go to ASU? I just got out of the navy a few months ago and started up school there this semester. When buying my books I noticed that there are actually a couple classes that require Maus. I thought that was kind of cool.
Concerning the terms graphic novel vs comic book (yes, I know I'm getting off topic on my own thread!), the meanings most of us comic geeks have adopted concerns length. While your typical monthly 22-page (or so) magazine is called a comic book, the longer works like Maus are referred to as graphic novels. Comic books, in this instance, would be more appropriately referred to as graphic novellas or graphic short stories.
Sometimes a complete, cohesive work made up of several comic books will come to be known as a graphic novel. Alan Moore's Watchmen, for example, is often referred to and sold as a single graphic novel even though it was originally published as 12 separate comic books. Time Magazine even included Watchmen in its list of the 100 greatest novels of all time. Such a placement on that list is very debatable (I'd probably debate it myself even though I LOVE Watchmen), but the very fact that it was included in such a list made for novels is pretty amazing.
I guess that brings up the question again: are graphic novels literature? Time would probably say yes. As I mentioned before, Alan Moore does tend to be more "literary" in his style. He tends to be more verbose in his comics, though I would argue that it adds so much to the experience. If we just want to argue semantics here, then literature does imply some written word so I don't know if a comic with no words can be appropriately referred to as literature. Doesn't make it less of an art form, just not literature by definition.
To respond to some of dmaul1114's complaints, I'll start off by saying it wasn't my intention to insult anyone. I did say there's room for criticism if someone ONLY reads a specific genre and I stick to that. I think there is inherent value in dynamic reading, probably value you can't see until you experience it. I'm NOT saying you're stupid if you don't read a lot but you miss out on a lot. Depending on the kind of job you want to get into, reading a lot of varied literature may give an advantage. I'm a journalism major so there are two very important things I gain from reading pertaining to (what will hopefully be) my future career: style and substance. If what the article in the main post argues is correct (and in my experience, it most certainly is), then I will imitate what I read in my writing style, at least to some extent. I also don't think it's true to say you can gain the same amount of knowledge through other media. Maybe with an immense amount of time put in. Otherwise, you're going to gain so much more knowledge in one fair-sized book (let's say 300+ pages) about any subject than a documentary on that same subject. Other media are also more known for exaggeration (not all the time, but frequently) because they have more money to recoup and grabbing the attention of viewers from early on is very important. Even in fiction, I believe literature is more immersive than other media simply because of all the extra information that can be provided (the main criticism of film adaptations is due to things that have to be modified or left out because there simply isn't time to fit it all in). That last one does have a lot to do with personal preference, though.
I most certainly do think fiction can shape one's opinion, though. Even if you don't realize it, themes and values are communicated through fiction and the audience must reject or accept those themes at least on an unconscious level. That fictional story (whether it be film, book, or otherwise) then educates the audience about those themes or values. The view of the author or director becomes part of how you think about such values, even if you vehemently disagree with the portrayal. So I most certainly think the kids of fiction a person enjoys is important and this may be part of how people discern "junk" from "quality."
I would like to reiterate, though, that I am most certainly not slighting anyone's intelligence here. I'm not saying, "I read The Economist, so I'm smarter and better than you." I would never say that out loud! No, I'm kidding. I'm not so pompous as to believe intelligence hinges on your reading material but I do think that knowledge does (these two are not one in the same). I have seen this in my own life. I read more than most of my peers at Arizona State (perhaps not a big surprise) and am frequently stunned at the amount of misinformation and misuse of words that I come across. There can certainly be other factors at play here but I think reading has a big part to do with it. Likewise, many of my friends read more than I do and they are chock-fully of knowledge about stuff I've never heard of. It's kind of humbling, actually, and really inspires a guy to read more! Perhaps you think there's not much value in bulk knowledge but I would argue otherwise, especially as the workforce becomes more competitive (more people today have bachelor's and master's degrees than ever before and the numbers are not going to decrease). Knowledge can give a person a competitive edge and can really help someone be more creative and innovative in ways people would never consider just by looking at the topic of the material they're learning. This is why elective credits exist in college. They want you to learn things that are outside your concentration. It's important. And I would argue that reading IS knowledge and knowledge is power. Or maybe you take the more pessimistic Dilbert view:
Oh, Dilbert...
And while different generations may, in large, have different views on reading, it's not just an age thing. I'm 23. I love reading. I love all sorts of tech gadgets, even my e-ink reader (I have now owned 3--the PRS-500, Kindle 1, and Kindle 2). I would never trade my Kindle 2 in for something like an (ugh!) iPad. But going back to biases, I have a big one against Apple.
So I think a love and appreciation for reading has much more to do with how a person is raised than age itself. My generation did not solely influence my habits. Again, not claiming superiority here. This is not about being "better" or "worse" or "smarter" or "dumber." I'm just making the same argument that so many before me have made: there is inherent value in reading and what you choose to read is important.