/lit/ - Literature

I was actually looking for an obscure quote, but here's just a random snippet from "Circles". Which I consider his most "greek" essay

>>5541828
Are you confused or something ? What is "/co"'s

>/co/-cartoon and comics

definition of deep supposed to be ? Spaz out somewhere else , hat tipper.

>>5541980
Using their metric, this would be the deepest cartoon to ever exist.

Anyone remember that big "Let's discuss the literary merits of Homestuck" thread? fun times.

Comics may be art but that doesn't mean therere is a single one worth reading.
Prove me wrong (you probably can, but still)

>>5542093
In the event of an extra-terrestrial invasion, or some sort of phenomenon resulting in a very small quantity of beings...being capable of super-human feats, it will be those who have read comics/mythology that will have a head-start in the field.

So, worth reading? Making a single argument was easy enough...who knows.

>>5542093
>enjoyment/pleasure is not a worthy goal

>>5542111
These people don't speak philosophy, Anon...but I'm sure he has a nice desktop, and he's looking forward to making 80k a year straight out of college.

>>5542111
>pleb cartoons are enjoyable

>>5542114
>comic books are philosophical
Yes, you "speak philosophy" better than me, I'm sure.

Krazy Kat is on some serious modernist shit and def has some artistic merit especially compared to other comics

>>5541828
Promethea, for a comparison. Isn't very deep but Watchmen isn't deep at all.

>>5541828
It's good for introducing people to various philosphies, has mature themes and content handled in a (mildly) respectable manner, doesn't have a traditionally happy ending and the art was ground breaking for the time.

When you consider what /co/ generally has to deal with, that's pretty fucking deep.

>>5542243
>I only read Japanese comics.

>>5542494
>krazy kat
>japanese

>>5542497
>you failed to get my point

>>5542517
>you failed to clearly express your point

>>5542471
Mmm, still not deep. At most it's comic books at their best. Even though it has a decent narrative Watchmen isn't really uniquely profound.

>>5542521
>i'm weebuu
>i will not elaborate further

>>5542523
You expressed nothing but your opinion here. There were literally no arguments for your case.

>>5542525
What the fuck are you on about? Just say it.

What's wrong with Watchmen? I thought it was well crafted and interesting to read. There's a lot of love for the details, you can find something new in almost every panel.

>>5542243
Krazy Kat is one of my favorite things. Just sublime. Calvin & Hobbes and Peanuts are also great.

Cerebus is a howling mess, but is interesting for its scope and how it reflects the mind of the author. Jimmy Corrigan is a worthwhile read also.

Too bad /co/ only wants to discuss capeshit.

Speaking of "deep", /a/ is worse.

>>5542614
It's like they didn't even see the show.

>>5541828
Nigga, /co/ mocks Watchmen for being pleb-tier constantly.

>>5542093
Asterios Polyp.
Or Understanding Comics if you want a comic to explain to you why comics are worth reading.

>>5542555
He's saying that by thinking Krazy Kat has "artistic merit especially compared to other comics", you're just demonstrating that you have a limited knowledge of comics.
Krazy Kat is good, but there are A LOT of good comics out there.

>>5542563
There have been some excellent Cerebus threads. But you're right, there isn't enough indie discussion on /co/

>>5542559
The issue is not with Watchmen, but with people who always bring these comic series up whenever talking about "deep" in the comics medium.
And with people who think "deep" in the said medium is also profound in a broader sense.

>>5542125
Apparently being a faggot is enjoyable

>>5542559
This is another reason I'd call it deep.

>>5542614
Evangelion is deep for similar reasons.

You can't just judge a partly visual medium on the story itself, you have to include artwork, colours and motifs. In both cases the stories aren't the most well thought out but the motifs, imagery and character exploration/development in each is very well executed, compared to the rest of their medium.

>>5541828
So stop browsing /co/ and stop posting about it on /lit/

>>5541828
>I'm sick of /co/'s definition of deep.
Don't go to /co/

>>5542658
>stop browsing /co/ during the day
FTFY
/co/ at night is the nicest place on the internet, and discusses all the obscure comics that never get discussed during the day.

>>5542543
Okay. The reason Watchmen is called deep is because the antagonist isn't just evil. He has motivations that are arguably justifiable. To oversimplify it, the ending of the story is a utilitarian bad-guy vs. deontological good-guys.

Something that might be considered deep would be something that offers a new way of looking at something like Synecdoche, New York did. While it wasn't a perfect movie and borderline pretentious, it was an examination of what it means to be human.

Watchmen does a pretty good job of rehashing an ethical dilemma but that's just it: a rehashing (not that that's bad). Something that's rehashed isn't deep, it's derivative. And I think that one aspect of "deepness" is originality. You aren't being deep if you copy something; you're imitating deepness.

>>5542663
At night where?

>>5542667
Burgerland of course. Around 2-3 in the morning on the east coast.

>>5542666
>All these discussions of Watchmen's depth focusing solely on plot and characters

Dude, the reason Watchmen is good isn't just what happens in it, but how the conventions of comic books are manipulated to interplay with the themes.

I mean, if one is unfamiliar with comic-book storytelling, one won't notice what's going on with the panel work, and what it means.

Watchmen is hailed because it's a good example of form and content reinforcing each other. It's not just another story whose medium is arbitrary, that could be told in an identical fashion in film or prose or. If you're just looking at plot and character ("the character's are grey instead of good and evil and Moore is the first comic-book guy to ever do that so that's why it's deep lol!"), you won't realize this.

>>5542781
I totally agree and that's why I said it's comic books at their best. Deepness has more to do with the message than the mastery of the medium.

>>5541828
Deep

>>5542093
Sandman is worth reading, though.

>>5543044

>>5543056
sandman is the worst comic book mentioned so far in this thread

>>5543062
is like faust with little girls.

fuckin /co/ some of them have /lit/ drawn as a shy bookish girl

>>5542093
daytripper.

Going to /co/ for comics is almost worse than going to /pol/ for political debate. Some amazing work has been done by smaller publishers.

From Hell is the superior Alan Moore.

>>5543747
/co/ is good for cbrs, that's about it
hard to see a jodorowsky or AD2000 thread there

manga > western comics

>>5543025
>Deepness has more to do with the message than the mastery of the medium.

The medium is the message.

Comics are for children.

>>5543965
How cool and mature of you, isn't it fun being a senior in high school? :^)

Holy shit, I thought this was /tv/ all along.
I didn't know /lit/ had these kind of shitposting threads aswell, I didn't know /lit/ had fucking mudshits willing to defend Islam.

>>5543986
Why are you here, manchild? Were the rules insufficiently antiproliferative to keep you in your containment board?

>>5543986
>he genuinely believes comic books are readable beyond childhood
HAHAHAHA

>>5543961
That makes no sense.

>The medium is the message.
>Film is the message.
>Books are the message.
>Comic books are the message.

Unless you were trying to say that the deepness is derived from the mastery of the medium in which case the message is still not deep even though the creator has shown mastery of the medium.

>>5544191
>That makes no sense.

Read more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

>>5544170
>>5544132
They are no different than books, both are simply entertainment for passing the time

>>5544196
I just read more and I don't know if you fully understand the scope of what you're saying in context of Watchmen's deepness. When McLuhan said that the medium is the message, he was saying that the form of the medium is more important than the content and even went as far as to say that the content of the medium did not matter whatsoever. So if you're going to advocate McLuhan's view then you are really removing the ability to say whether or not something is deep or has meaningful content in any traditional sense. Keep in mind that "the medium is the message" isn't necessarily a true statement. It's an interesting theory and was created to study the influence of media on society.

And then there's the issue that the book he wrote that introduced the idea of "the media is the message" has been critiqued to death for numerous reasons. You can check the wiki article I linked about that under by scrolling down to "Critiques of Understanding Media".

Try harder.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#Understanding_Media_.281964.29

>>5544353
>thinks he understands books he hasn't read

>>5544373
Then explain to me how "the medium is the message" applies to Watchmen and how that makes it deep

>>5544378
Read some of McLuhan's stuff.

I don't even care about Watchmen I was just making a statement.

>>5544286
Except no
They are very different mediums which require two very different methods of comprehension, different themes and different demographics.

>>5541828
ITT: plebs that have never read Chippendale, CF, or anything out of Fort Thunder