An Entreaty:

[wolven7]

Is it really that much to ask that some serious news agency, somewhere, do an honest investigation, without prejudice, of comics as Media?

Specifically, with the fast approaching Watchmen movie, and the many deep political, philosophical, religious issues to be found in monthly commics, as a whole, why is there still a stigma attached to actually and honestly approaching comics as a form of literature?

Anyone who's ever talked to me about Calvin & Hobbes knows that I only ever really disagreed with Bill Watterson on one thing, and that was his opnion of comic books. He thought of them as juvenile drivel. I can't find the exact quote, and if anyone can, I'd be appreciative. I thought it was in the 10th anniversary edition, but I can't find it....

Anyway. Comics can present real stories, deep questions, important issues. They've been doing so, for years. They can also present drivel, propaganda, and juvenalia. But so can novels, television, movies, and paintings. Media are not always messages.

Just one honest approach. Please.

[Edit:2.57pm: "You can make your hero a psychopath, you can draw gut-splattering violence, and you can call it a 'graphic novel,' but comic books are still incredibly stupid." - Bill Watterson, The Calvin and Hobbes Tenth Anniversary Book, pg 171.]

Comments

[mendori.livejournal.com]

We've HAD this talk.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yes we have, but that was the How, the underlying mechanism by which it Has become stigmatized. My question, now, is why are we allowing it to Remain So?

[halafax.livejournal.com]

V for Vendetta anyone?

this is a talk Ive had on and off with many ppl. Depends on the book, the era and the publisher.

Considering The Watchmen series is the only graphic novel to get recognized for its writing thats says something.

But most people will always see comics as something for little kids.

Good luck with that, hunt down a good english major, maybe you can convince them to write a paper arguing the comics are a viable form of media. Not just something to line the bird cage with.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That's why this is titled "An Entreaty." Hopefully someone who is taken more seriously than I will see it, and start quickening the process of changing it :\

[halafax.livejournal.com]

Im just saying find someone you know who is an english major, or anything of that sort.

I figure one day someone will actually recognize comics as literature and media instead of just funny books.

Then again you could just get a space time continuum gun and fix it too...

**sigh**

[arcstone.livejournal.com]

Comics as Media is being done, and been done wonderfully for the past 10-15 years.

While not mainstream at all, there are MANY books which discuss comics as media intelligently. Like McCloud's Understanding Comics for instance.

There's also this book (http://www.amazon.com/Our-Gods-Wear-Spandex-History/dp/1578634067/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I32E20LFGNDFZF&colid=2RI3IKZJIDNQS) that I've been meaning to pick up for a while now.

The reason why the stigma is still well in place is that it was only 7 years (yep, just 7) that the last of the two major publishers gave up on the Comics Code Authority. And only 15 years ago since DC published select titles without the CCA consistently under their Vertigo imprint. You need to have patience and understanding and allow our current generation to begin to root down, as comics' reneissance has been a relatively recent development.

With any maturity of media, it takes at least 20-30 yrs. before you see its acceptance. Seeing as this boomer generation will never say die, I'd give it another decade or two.

Re: **sigh**

[wolven.livejournal.com]

"Comic books are for children, and they can't honestly aid in cultural dialogue or bring new and interesting perspectives to light. At best they provide an 'Idiot's Guide' insight into certain very basic philosophical issues."

"And what comics have you read, to have retained that impression?"

"Why would I read comic books? Those are for children. Watch/Read my news outlet!"

"Why? It's obviously for closed-minded, under-educated fools who lack the ability to think critically and in a non-prejudicial fashion about anything outside of their accepted norm."

If enough people would respond in the latter vein, more clearly and forcefully, without degenerating into fannish rabble, we could probably speed the process.

Re: **sigh**

[arcstone.livejournal.com]

Patience young grasshopper. Rome wasn't built in a day. ;-)

Re: **sigh**

[wolven.livejournal.com]

True, but Rome also didn't have nanotubes and the Internet. :)

[(Anonymous)]

graphic novels are being recognized as literature and used in universities. persepolis.

[zombiebear.livejournal.com]

i don't know why i showed up as anonymous there...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Me either. That's really weird.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

That's true. There's even an entire course taught at a major university about comics and myth, using Neil Gaiman's Sandman series as a jumping point. These are, unfortunately, little known exceptions. They are unknown by CNN and, when they Become known, the reaction is "isn't that Cute?"

People are still astonished and shocked that comics can contain "real literary merit," and that's precisely why they are undersold and undervalued. :\

[nancyblue.livejournal.com]

Agreed with arcstone. There are many, many academic and other "serious" approaches to comics and graphic novels out there. Cultural Studies, Media Studies and Popular Culture Studies frequently cover them, and English/Lit departments are moving into them as well.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Again, they exist, and are, in many cases, absolutely wonderful treatments. But.

If I were to tell you about the most recent treatments and studies in religious sacrifice as communion, rather than commerce, and name to you several wonderful, well-written books, you'd be one of a relatively small group of people to know what I was talking about.

The difference between that situation and the one you and arcstone mentioned is this: A vast majority of people would still concede the possibility of inherent and instrumental value in the ritual and religious studies texts, even if they never felt the need to read them, personally.

Though comics have shown, time and again, an ability to handle a wide range of serious and important issues, a "person-on-the-street" poll would still likely find it regarded as something to be derided, if one must notice it at all. If I'm wrong about that, I'm really glad, but I don't think I am.

And, again, it's happening, yes, but very slowly, with no discernible Need for that slowness...

Re:

[nancyblue.livejournal.com]

But I think this is true for many areas of Humanistic and Social Scientific inquiry. A "person-on-the-street" poll would probably reveal that most people believe many topics studied by academics, particularly in media studies and literature, are completely useless.

To be perfectly honest with you, although I agree with you about the quality and critical dimensions of comics, the expressive range of their subject matter, potential for commentary, historicity and artistry, I almost feel as though there is too much academic focus on them by younger scholars. I've seen a lot of papers and sessions devoted to them at several conferences I've attended and programs I've seen advertised. I have also seen a number of excellent books and collections (or perhaps only attempted collections) promoted. This may just be a result of the fact that there are just too many Humanities scholars being generated, however, because I feel the same way about a number of topics about which I perceive a scholarly glut (James, Joyce, tourism, I could go on).

More about that in my LJ, eventually, however.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

If http://ignatz.brinkster.net/cheapening.html is any indication, you're probably misattributing that quote. I especially agree with the "recycled jokes" bit; Archie had "Red China" jokes three times in three different parts of one of their digests.

Ahh... unless it was an out-of-context pickup of the following sentence: "Somehow, I can't shake the idea that this isn't how cartooning is supposed to be... and that cartooning will never be more than a cheap, brainless commodity until it's published differently.", nine paragraphs up from the bottom.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

"Consider for a moment that there may well be a market for comic books that has never been tapped simply because comic books have traditionally been an even sloppier; dumber, and more exploitive market than newspaper comics."

That quote, in the edit? Direct from the book. He hates comic BOOKS, and love comic Strips, and he is VERY keen on the difference. :\

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Blargh, you're right. I still have hope that that's a bad generalization rather than the sum total of his beliefs, but that's rather disappointing.

He does present conflicting views, though; in the talk I linked above, he explicitly mentions the opportunities inherent in comic books.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

True, but he may mean as reformatted containers and delivery methods for newspaper strips.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

And why not? That's what they were in the first place...

its the nature of the beast

[momentai.livejournal.com]

My comments are too long for here, so i wrote an essay and posted in my journal if you want to read it. Here is my sort of abstract.

1. Is it really that much to ask that some serious news agency, somewhere, do an honest investigation, without prejudice, of comics as Media?
--Yes, it is. A modern news agency is not in the business of reporting news. They are in the BUSINESS of making money by presenting random stories and yelling
"Pay Attention! I need you to follow the bouncing ball!"
In order to make their money off these loud and obnoxious exclamations, they must present them fast and repetiviely. This means the people involved cannot be bothered to research anything. They cannot be bothered to ask questions or to look at a point from a different perspective. This matters b/c comic books already have a label and that is a quaint form of mindless entertainment. News agencies are not rushing to provide a new label b/c that involves work and working does not generate profit in the entertainment business.

2.Comics can present real stories, deep questions, important issues. They've been doing so, for years. They can also present drivel, propaganda, and juvenalia. But so can novels, television, movies, and paintings. Media are not always messages

--Yes, comic books can be used to tell deep, penetrating stories that seek to analyze the human condition just like a novel by Burroughs or Faulker, but the majority do not do this. The majority seek to entertain the masses by appealing to the lowest common denominator. Those people want Spider Man and The Justice League. They are not interested in Hellblazer or Road to Perdition.

3. Why are we allowing it to Remain So?
--Because superheroes remain. As much as Warren Ellise claims he wants to swear to the contrary, superheroes are comic books. They are not simply a genre of a medium, they are the medium. They have been since the beginning and they will continue to be so for decades. This is b/c there has never been in a "medium" in the eyes of the Masses. That is b/c of the inherent flaws in the presentation of the medium.

They were never told they should appreciate comic books as a way to tell many kinds of stories. They were told that they should look at comic books as THE vehicle to tell Superman's story. That is what they were instructed to do and they do it smashingly. Now, a very small number of dissidents want to stand in the square and shout at them, telling them it is okay to think of comic books in a different way. That's fine, but the problem is not having permission to go against a century of doctrine. The problem is the masses have no incentive to think differently about comic books. Not many people want to do things differently from what they usually do. That includes thinking of comic books as more than a disposable way to waste 20 minutes.

Re: its the nature of the beast

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except the very last point. I think that even in superheroes there exists the capacity for deep investigation of moral, existential, and practical issues. The Civil War "event," though sandwiched between several other rather meaningless story-arcs, approached serious issues, especially Spider-Man's near-continual crisis of conscience.

Kingdom Come, Identity Crisis, that Superman story arc where he basically forced everyone to be good and moral. All of these used precise the superhero condition to tell those stories.

They may be the exception, but they don't have to be, and it could easily be otherwise.

Re: its the nature of the beast

[momentai.livejournal.com]

I can see that, but by saying there is no such thing as a good superhero story I mean that the fact the message is being conveyed thru superheroes detracts and distracts from it by the traditional nature of them. The way they have been abused by corporate interests makes them poor vehilces and allows people to ignore the message.

The stories fail to be good not b/c of their merit but b/c of the prejudice and I just don't see that bias being erased. So in order to save the medium we need to kill the genre.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

Just give it time. Rome wasn't built in a day. The more Sin City's and V for Vendettas and League Of Extroardinary Gentlemen make it to the big screen, the more people will treat it like everything else: A genre that is 99% garbage with some brilliant shining examples.

I'd say it's comporable to black metal. There's only one Opeth, and about a billion "Children Of Bodom" to make them look bad.

The mainstream media is for morons, and all we can do is try to make more smart people to balance it out. If we just try to push something on the mainstream, they'll just rape the shit out of it until it's "The Fantastic Four" movie and "Cradle Of Filth".

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

And I didn't mean that 99% of comics SPECIFICALLY are garbage, just that the majority of most genres are stuff we tend to throw away. That's all subjective.

I like comics. I just don't have any because I'm poor.

[jerem-morrow.livejournal.com]

Hear fucking hear!

Watterson just disappointed me for the first time ever. Drat.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

So I totally agree with Watterson's point, which is that the work that Moore, Miller et al. did in the 90s didn't elevate the intelligence level of English language comic books at all. All it succeeded at was making them darker and more violent but no less stupid (and, in many cases, considerably more stupid.)

Frankly, I think that Moore would agree with Watterson as well, as evidenced by Moore's rejection of a lot of his 90s work (and what came out of it) and his continual struggle with the stupid history of English-language comics (see Tom Strong.)

And Miller can fuck off.

yrs--
--Ben

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I still think that Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and Promethea were all extremely important comics, which raised the level of comic worth and discourse. Even The Killing Joke, to a lesser extent.

[benlehman.livejournal.com]

Important comics, yes, but Watchmen did not escape the comics stupid.

Watchmen is an intelligent comic, but it's also about comics and their history and how stupid they are. It's a call to wake up (which, by and large, was not heard by its audience). It's not, in and of itself, particularly great. It's great because it points out the stupidity of superhero comics.

V is stupid adolescent fantasy. It's stupid adolescent political fantasy, but it doesn't approach anything near the political insight of, say, to pick a vaguely political novel, The Telling, let alone, say, Water Margin.

Promethea was published well after Watterson was writing (which was 1995) and also it struggles to escape the stupid of English-language superhero comics.

This is not to say that there aren't great, literary, worthwhile things going on in English-language comic books (for instance, Andi Watson, who has probably contributed more to the literary advancement of comics than Alan Moore could dream of), or even that there weren't thirteen years ago, but Watterson's critiques are pretty clearly not directed at those comic books: they are directed at the school of thought which says "darker and more violent and more psychopathic = more adult." And they are as true, valid, and cogent today as they were then.

yrs--
--Ben