FACT. NOT OPINION.

File: 151 KB, 527x717, litlistedit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:01:53 2010 No.1278906 [Reply] [Original]

FACT. NOT OPINION.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 13 07:02:53 2010 No.1278907 Ugh, that fuckin font, man.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:03:53 2010 No.1278909 >He thinks comics are all shit Read your bitch ass some Alan Moore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:05:53 2010 No.1278912 File: 104 KB, 269x300, 55173-lolwut.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1278909 >he thinks Alan Moore is /lit/

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:06:53 2010 No.1278913 >>1278912 >He thinks he isn't. Give me one good reason comics don't count as books.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:08:53 2010 No.1278915 >>1278913 they are books - they have pages, spine etc. They are picture books though, not literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:09:53 2010 No.1278918 There's no such thing as entry level classics as distinct from high tier/shit tier/average tier classics, you fucking moron. The reason classics are classics is because they are superlative examples of their genre and/or era. See also: classical music

Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:10:53 2010 No.1278920

>>1278915

>Illustrated books aren't literature

Seriously, where's the logic? If it's printed on paper and it tells a story, it's literature. Simple as that.

Or is this some "Herp Derp all comics are retarded Silver Age shit" attitude? Because if it is, fuck you're dumb.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:11:53 2010 No.1278922

>>1278918
I don't think you know what entry level means. Separate from issues of quality, entry level may have the very best works in it, but they are the entry level. They are most accessible most popular etc.

You read Shakespeare? What have you read? Only Midsummer Night's Dream. Yeah, that is entry level Shakespeare.

See?

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:12:53 2010 No.1278923 >>1278922 You cannot deny, however, that "Entry level" has negative connotations.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:14:53 2010 No.1278924

>>1278920
>>Illustrated books aren't literature
>Seriously, where's the logic?

Reality proves you wrong:

literature
lit·er·a·ture
/ˈlɪtərətʃər, -ˌtʃʊər, ˈlɪtrə-/ Show Spelled[lit-er-uh-cher, -choor, li-truh-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.

If you take the text from a comic/picture book and paste it onto a blank page, the writing becomes impossible to follow. In works of literature, where you have no pictures to rely upon, the skilled writer can paint those same images in your mind's eye with words alone. That is literature. Divide the pictures from the text and comics are beautiful but meaningless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:14:53 2010 No.1278925 >>1278923 only if you are an anti-mainstream snob.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:14:53 2010 No.1278926 >>1278922 are you implying that anyone can pick up and understand the themes at work in A midsummer nights dream, the context of the writer, and the play format?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:17:53 2010 No.1278929 >>1278926 No, read again, more closely. I am saying that if there is a Shakespeare play that somebody will have the easiest time reading it will be Midsummer Night's Dream.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:17:53 2010 No.1278930 >>1278924 Are plays literature? Because even with stage directions, they don't describe the scenes and events to anywhere near the degree that novels do.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:19:53 2010 No.1278933 >>1278930 Plays are literature.Literature is a pretty broad term that can arguably include things like autobiography.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:19:53 2010 No.1278934 >>1278930 >Are plays literature? Because even with stage directions, they don't describe the scenes and events to anywhere near the degree that novels do. >has never read Beckett.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:19:53 2010 No.1278935 >>1278929 by that do you mean, easiest time via enjoying or easiest time understanding? And why midsummernights dream and not othello or merchant of venice?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:20:53 2010 No.1278936 >>1278920 Comics are for writers who probably have a bunch of great ideas but lack the ability to set a scene using solely good writing. Also >Othello not God Tier

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:20:53 2010 No.1278937 >>1278933 If it's so broad, why not include comics? Once you start including things that aren't novels and short stories, it gets hard to draw the line.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:22:53 2010 No.1278938 >>1278936 >Implying the writer and artist are the same person >Implying that the writer doesn't usually describe the visual scene in minute detail to the artist.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:23:53 2010 No.1278939

>>1278935
>by that do you mean, easiest time via enjoying or easiest time understanding?
Neither. I mean most probable chance of understanding when compared to any other Shakespeare play.

>And why midsummernights dream and not othello or merchant of venice?
Because it is a farce and its structure is familiar to almost everyone.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:24:53 2010 No.1278940

>>1278938

I wasn't implying the writer and the artist are the same person.

I don't give a shit if he describes it to the artist in minute detail, why doesn't he just describe it to the reader with great writing? Oh, because he can only do shitty free-direct speech.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:25:53 2010 No.1278941 The list contains no poetry more recent than Chaucer?

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:25:53 2010 No.1278942

>>1278937
I'd include comics. There's a snobbery around comics, like there used to be a snobbery around fantasy novels (which some people ~20years ago would have argued weren't lit, or at least not REAL lit). Then out of nowhere Harry Potter, and everyone fawns over fantasy.

Fucking Mills & Boon, Chick lit and "War" stories are never contended as being literature. Or Dan Brown.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:26:53 2010 No.1278943

>>1278938
>Implying the writer and artist are the same person
Nobody was implying that. Read better.
>Implying that the writer doesn't usually describe the visual scene in minute detail to the artist.
Nobody implied that either. You are not good at this at all.

If the writer used those descriptions in his comic book text and had no pictures, then some comics might be works of literature. As it is, a comic is no more a work of literature than a television soap opera, which also combines words and pictures to tell a story.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:27:53 2010 No.1278944 >>1278942 My apologies, I thought you were the elitist from earlier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:27:53 2010 No.1278946 >>1278940 The visual art is part of the literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:29:53 2010 No.1278947 >>1278946 >The visual art is part of the literature. ignorance is strength

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:30:53 2010 No.1278949 >>1278943 What about radio plays? What about Tolkien, Blake and the pre-Raphaelites who used images alongside the written word and are considered literature?

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:30:53 2010 No.1278950

>>1278940
>why doesn't he just describe it to the reader with great writing? Oh, because he can only do shitty free-direct speech.

Following the same logic:
Why don't playwrights just write decent prose?
Why don't poets just say what they mean in full, descriptive sentences?
Why don't novelists just state all their underlying messages in clear non-fiction?

Because they're all different modes of writing with their own conventions. You just happen to be privileging novelistic prose above all else.

A comic book writer who wrote his comic books as novels would be a really shit comic book writer.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:31:53 2010 No.1278951 Fun fact for all the "BUT IT'S NOT LITERATURE" crowd: Watchmen is on Time Magazine's 100 best English-Language novels list. The New York Times Book Review is quoted on the back of the TPB.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:31:53 2010 No.1278952 >>1278949 Please give me an example of a comic that uses images alongside words in the same manner and quality that Blake did.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:32:53 2010 No.1278954 >>1278941 >no poetry more recent than Chaucer?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:33:53 2010 No.1278955 >>1278951 >The New York Times Book Review is quoted on the back of the TPB. The Pirate Bay?

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:34:53 2010 No.1278956 >>1278955 Trade Paperback. The collected volume of comics you buy in bookstores.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:37:53 2010 No.1278957 >>1278952 So you concede that the use of images doesn't prevent something from being literature? And no, quality is subjective, find it yourself. Who cares about manner? Next you're going to claim that visual poetry isn't poetry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:38:53 2010 No.1278958 >>1278956 Gotcha. Thanks for confirmation. Also, literary value is entirely arbitrary and subjective. /end thread.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:39:53 2010 No.1278960

>>1278950

The thing with poetry, plays and novels is I don't believe that the best plays, poetry and novels could be better represented through any other medium. With comics/graphic novels however, I can't help but feel they could make a much better play or novel than they could a comic.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:41:53 2010 No.1278961

>>1278949

>What about radio plays? What about Tolkien, Blake and the pre-Raphaelites who used images alongside the written word and are considered literature?

Do those all make sense without the illustrations? Yes. Then the writing is literary. Do comic books make sense without the pictures? No. Therefore they are not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:42:53 2010 No.1278962 >>1278960 You're about thirty years behind. Watchmen was made to use the strengths inherent in the medium of comic books (which in turn makes it impossible to do justice to in other mediums). So go get a copy and read it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:43:53 2010 No.1278964

>>1278957

I never said it prevented it from being literature. With Blake however, if you take away the images, you still have wonderful poetry that stands on it's own. If you take away the images from comics however... the writing doesn't stand on it's own.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:43:53 2010 No.1278965 >>1278962 On the subject of Alan Moore, The Killing Joke uses colour brilliantly. Brian Bolland's fucking good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:43:53 2010 No.1278966 >>1278961 If Blake included pictures with his poetry, that is part of the piece as a whole, and something is lost when that is taken away. They may make some kind of sense, as would a comic book, but they would not be whole.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:45:53 2010 No.1278968 if you want to make a legitimate lit list, please don't put the iliad on anything but the top tier.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:47:53 2010 No.1278972

>>1278962

I've read it, it was good, don't get me wrong. But it wasn't up there with the best poetry, plays and novel's I've read. You can say that's just subjective if you really want, but I don't see how you think it can stand alongside other greats of literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:49:53 2010 No.1278974 >>1278972 The issue is not whether you, personally consider it good literature, no one cares about that, but whether it is literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:53:53 2010 No.1278975 This thread is the reason I hardly ever bother with this board anymore.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 13 07:53:53 2010 No.1278976 more like shiterature am I right

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:55:53 2010 No.1278978

>>1278974

The issue isn't whether it's literature or not, it's whether it's good literature. It's in the same tier as harry potter and computer game novels, no one's actually implying that those aren't literature, they're just implying they're not good literature. You don't see harry potter fans and computer game novels fans jumping up and complaining that they're still literature, just the asspained graphic novel fans who still think their medium has literary merit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:55:53 2010 No.1278979 >>1278974 exactly. and comic books are not /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:55:53 2010 No.1278980 File: 3 KB, 194x159, troll.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OP's face

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:56:53 2010 No.1278981 >>1278978 >no one's actually implying that those aren't literature, They are listed as "not lit", so you are clearly an idiot.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 07:56:53 2010 No.1278982 >>1278978 "Who still think their medium has literary merit." I'm sorry, could you care to give a reason why it doesn't have literary merit that hasn't been refuted here already?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 07:58:53 2010 No.1278983 >LOTR on the same level as The Odyssey/Illiad >slaughterhouse 5 above 1984 and even above the nobel prize winning The old man and the sea Literary criticism, how does it work?

>>	None !WvWWh.l.CE Sat Nov 13 08:00:53 2010 No.1278985 File: 76 KB, 635x625, Novels.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ugh, cant believe you guys moan & complain about me & call me a troll....

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:01:53 2010 No.1278987 >>1278978 In that case then, isn't there potential for a comic book to be a work of great literature? Or for some to consider it as such?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:02:53 2010 No.1278988 File: 13 KB, 240x205, 1258324953244.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1278978 >Using the phrase "literary merit" as though it actually means anything

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:03:53 2010 No.1278990 >>1278983 Obama has a nobel prize your argument is invalid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:03:53 2010 No.1278991 >>1278985 You've still got Hemingway in the wrong tier.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:05:53 2010 No.1278992

>>1278982

Sure, the idea that if you take away the pictures from comics the writing doesn't stand on it's own as being great literature.

>>1278981

Like I said, harry potter NOVELS and computer game NOVELS are also included. Everyone knows they're also actually literature, they just lack literary merit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:05:53 2010 No.1278993 >>1278991 >You've still got Hemingway in the wrong tier. Only if there is a separate Hemingway Tier under the SHIT tier bro....

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:06:53 2010 No.1278994 >>1278990 He deserves it simply for trying to revert the most powerful and destructive nation on eart from it's "us and them" mentality. What now?

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:06:53 2010 No.1278995 >>1278992 If you take the pictures away from comics, you still have a script. If you take the actors away from a play, you still have a script. Why should only one of these be considered literature?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:07:53 2010 No.1278996 any words on why beckett is mid tier and not in the top possible tier?

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:07:53 2010 No.1278997

>>1278992

>Like I said, harry potter NOVELS and computer game NOVELS are also included. Everyone knows they're also actually literature, they just lack literary merit.

Not really. Harry Potter isn't lit neither is Katherine Cookson, Barbara Cartland, Mills and Boon etc. They are not literary as they do not have literary themes.

Fantasy in general is not and can never be literary UNLESS the fantasy is used in an allegorical sense like Lewis Caroll or JRR Tolkien.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:08:53 2010 No.1278999 >>1278996 because he is not as good as the ones above him?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:08:53 2010 No.1279000 >>1278992 See: >>1278966 On top of that, visual poetry uses the placement and delivery of words on the page, and is no longer the same piece if you take away that visual element. And "literary merit". What do you mean?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:08:53 2010 No.1279001 >>1278987 Yeah, there's potential. It's just 76 years after the first one we're still waiting on it. I'm sure it'll come though 76 years isn't a long time really in the art world.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:09:53 2010 No.1279003 >>1278997 >Harry Potter doesn't have literary themes >MFW it's about bigotry, growing up and redemption.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:09:53 2010 No.1279004 >>1279000 they use written words. If you are trying to argue that a full page of illustration is the same thing as arranging stanzas on a page then your head is broke, kid.

>>	None !WvWWh.l.CE Sat Nov 13 08:09:53 2010 No.1279005 File: 77 KB, 635x625, Novels.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] OK guise, /thread.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:10:53 2010 No.1279006 >>1279001 Watchmen, dude. It's only been mentioned about 5 times in this thread already.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:10:53 2010 No.1279007 >>1279005 Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:10:53 2010 No.1279008 >>1279003 Harry Potter is about faggotry and selling merch. Soap operas are about growing up, bigotry and redemption, but they are not lit. HP is a written soap opera for kids.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:11:53 2010 No.1279009 >>1279001 Just because you have a dislike for the medium that seems to prevent you from seeing it's qualities doesn't mean no good works have been produced.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:12:53 2010 No.1279010 >>1279006 and 6 times it has been explained why watchmen and all comics are not literary

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:12:53 2010 No.1279011 >>1279009 nobody said about good/bad only whether it is literary. Watchmen may be an amazingly awesome comic book. Great! But that doesn't make it literature.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:13:53 2010 No.1279012 >>1279010 Uh, nope. Didn't you see all the rebuttals of why comics "aren't literature"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:14:53 2010 No.1279013 >>1279001 >implying comic books are only 76 years old >>1279006 >implying watchmen is any good >implying any american comic book is actually good Nope, it's all just superhero fap material for you closet homosexual young adults.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:15:53 2010 No.1279014 >>1279004 If you are trying to argue that visual elements are not now recognised as being an integral part of modern literature then your head is broken, kid. Please try and follow a line of thought.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:15:53 2010 No.1279015 >>1279013 >Implying Watchmen is American.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:15:53 2010 No.1279016 >>1279013 >Implying Watchmen is American

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:18:53 2010 No.1279018

>>1279014
>If you are trying to argue that visual elements are not now recognised as being an integral part of modern literature then your head is broken, kid.

Nobody has said that. You are very bad at reading. Words are a visual medium lol. Literature is words only. Words and pictures? Literature only if the words have the same meaning when the illustrations are removed. Comics without pictures are meaningless streams of detached dialogue.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:18:53 2010 No.1279020

>>1279011
Why is it not literature?
>Because it uses images
But Blake used images as part of his pieces
>But his pieces stand up on their own
But if you take away the images something is lost; the image is integral and it is still literature
>Then comics are not good literature

ad infinitum

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:19:53 2010 No.1279021 >>1279006 Watchmen has a whole load of great ideas, and it's presented in a great manner. But it stands no where near the greats of other mediums of literature. I don't see how you can think otherwise. Also, 1 great work out of how many?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:19:53 2010 No.1279022 >>1279015 >>1279016 Publisher: DC comics DC Comics (founded in 1934 as National Allied Publications[1]) is one of the largest and most successful companies operating in the market for American comic books and related media.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:20:53 2010 No.1279023 >>1279022 There are a lot of publishers in the world publishing a lot of things. However, American publishers don't just publish American things.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:20:53 2010 No.1279024 >>1279018 Before the artist does his work, a comic is a script. You know, like a play is a script. Scripts like Shakespeare and Marlowe wrote.

Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 13 08:20:53 2010 No.1279025

I have always disliked Watchmen because it is such a fucking piece of shit when consider outside the context of its medium- The whole idea of conventional comic books are to present an idealised romance world, I don't need a fucking comic book to tell me that there are still starving africans or whatever. Watchmen purposely defies these romance conventions in order to make itself significant, but then it's not playing by the conventional rules of comic books- it is a sort of critique of the language-game of comic books but it doesn't conduct this critique from within that language-game, it uses a different language-game, which means that no critique can be made. Worse, it doesn't deal with any of the issues it so helpfully reminds us of- it doesn't tell us whether truth for truth's sake is better or misleading, for example. Another thing, the art is 80's shit. The only thing I find redeeming about it is the characterisation; and I'm not saying it's a badly written piece of shit, it's nicely written by all means, but it's stale. It is a sort of grimdark gimmick of the comic book world

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:21:53 2010 No.1279026 >>1279021 It's simply the most well known. Personally, I'd add Transmetropolitan, V For Vendetta and The Sandman to the list, but that just starts another argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:22:53 2010 No.1279027 >>1279020 Blake never intended for his paintings to be anything other than illustrations. Literally: "to add lustre". He did not require the reader to look at his paintings in order to understand what he was writing about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:22:53 2010 No.1279028 >>1279025 You are all that is wrong with the literary world.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:23:53 2010 No.1279029 >>1279022 It's by Alan Moore. Alan Moore who is from Britain.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:23:53 2010 No.1279030 >>1279026 And you think they can stand along side the greats of Poetry, plays and novels?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:23:53 2010 No.1279031 >>1279024 ..and would you be interested in reading these comic-plans? No because they would not work as literature. They work only as a functionary step toward making a comic book.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:24:53 2010 No.1279032 >>1279030 Personally, yes.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:24:53 2010 No.1279033 >>1279031 Just like the script to a play is only a functionary step towards a play. Where's the difference apart from age?

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:26:53 2010 No.1279034

>>1279027
You have not refuted any points there. With comic books, generally the meaning comes from the word, while the context comes from the illustration. This is kinda similar to the Ancient Greek plays where the context was there own culture and oral traditions (everyone who saw a play in ancient Greece would know the story, and you need to know the story before going to see one).

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:27:53 2010 No.1279035 >>1279029 >implying a brit can't write american shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:28:53 2010 No.1279036 >>1279033 You can read the play through and the words alone provide the meaning. Read a comic through without the drawings and you get nothing.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:28:53 2010 No.1279037 >>1279035 You must be joking. If an American wrote a book about China, would that be a Chinese book?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:29:53 2010 No.1279038 >>1279034 you can read blake and understand it without illustrations. If you read a comic without the pictures, you get meaningless swill.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:29:53 2010 No.1279039 >>1279036 If you read the script to a comic, you get exactly the same result as reading the script to a play. Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:29:53 2010 No.1279041 >>1279037 if the book smelt of soy sauce and cabbage, then Yes.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:30:53 2010 No.1279042

>>1279032

So let me get this straight. You think, that Transmetropolitan, V For Vendetta, Watchmen and The Sandman is as good as...

Shakespeare, Dickens, Woolf, Hemingway, Tennessee Williams, Homer, Dostoevsky, Betjeman, Blake, Chekhov, Brecht?

REALLY?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:30:53 2010 No.1279043 >>1279039 >script to a comic You need to prove that these are even published first.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:31:53 2010 No.1279044 >>1279042 In my opinion, yes. Well, Dostoyevsky was better than Moore and Gaiman. But apart from him.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:32:53 2010 No.1279046 >>1279043 They are often included in Trade Paperbacks. For example, IIRC The Sandman and Hellblazer include scripts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:32:53 2010 No.1279047 >>1279044 You can say 'In my opinion' all you want, you've gone full fucking retard.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 13 08:32:53 2010 No.1279049 >>1279028 cool complaint brah, I am of course not saying that very fruitful works haven't been produced through the subversion of genre conventions, just that Watchmen is not one of these.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:33:53 2010 No.1279050

>>1279037
No I'm not kidding at all.

>He was subsequently picked up by the American DC Comics, and as "the first comics writer living in Britain to do prominent work in America"

Watchmen is about america, marketed towards americans, in a trashy american medium, written by a brit.

Welcome to the 80's bro, you don't have to live in a country anymore to partake in it's cultural development.

>>	Harashaw !!WbZAoG5fpOX Sat Nov 13 08:33:53 2010 No.1279052 >>1279047 >Anyone with different tastes to me must be wrong. You are everything that is wrong with /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:35:53 2010 No.1279053 >>1279046 "if I recall" =/= proof

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:35:53 2010 No.1279054 >>1279044 I love your use of "in my opinion" Shows your weakness, if you were actually convinced you'd just straight out say YES, we know it's your opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:36:53 2010 No.1279056 >>1279052 Nope, and I'm taking this to /co/, I want to see if anyone agrees with you.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:38:53 2010 No.1279057

>>1279050
i sort of agree actually. I am a brit, I have read Watchmen, and I would agree that it is an example of a foreign culture. The voice is not representative of British media whatsoever. I didn't even know it was written by brits until after I'd read it and I was surprised.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:38:53 2010 No.1279059

>>1279036
That's just not true. Example:

I used to hate writing assignments, but I enjoy them now. I realised that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure reasoning and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can become an intimidating and impenetrable fog! Wanna see my book report?

£The dynamics of interbeing and monological imperatives in Dick and Jane: a study in psychic transrelational gender modes."

Academia here I come!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:40:53 2010 No.1279060 >>1279059 draw a picture you'll make more sense, comics-boy.

>>	None !WvWWh.l.CE Sat Nov 13 08:41:53 2010 No.1279062 Jesus Christ, you guys are like the people on /v/ that say 'yes some vidya is as emotionally rich as _ (beethiven, etc)'. Why do you need it to be considered so highly to enjoy it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:42:53 2010 No.1279063 >>1279062 All we want is for these faggots to take their comicbooks to /co/, you can follow them and do us all a favour.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:44:53 2010 No.1279065 >>1279060 Why did Blake, Tolkien, Dickens etc. include pictures in their works? To make sense or to make MORE sense?

>>	None !WvWWh.l.CE Sat Nov 13 08:44:53 2010 No.1279066 >>1279063 >implying reading comprehension Way to let the side down bro, or was 'tripfag, tripfag, tripfag' blocking your thinking?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:48:53 2010 No.1279069 >>1279030 Yeah they can stand alongside. Literature isn't even about being as good, or potentially as good. You might as well be asking if the Mona Lisa can stand alongside Robinson Crusoe.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:54:53 2010 No.1279072

>>1279065
to illustrate them - literally "to add lustre". Not to "make meaning". You cannot say that drawings in comic books are only there to make the pages look nice - they are central to the meaning.

Comic fags: your comics are narrative art, not literature. Or what - are you saying that the Bayeux Tapestry is literature now? LOL.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 08:56:53 2010 No.1279074 >>1279052 >>1279052 Hey, even /co/ thinks you're a retard. >>>/co/21185898

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:02:53 2010 No.1279075 >>1279072 Tolkien's art doesn't "add lustre" it adds meaning. Dickens illustration doesn't add lustre either, and adds a kind of realism. Blake's artwork adds extra depth. Your definition of illustration is narrow. Also:>>1279059 >>1279034

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:06:53 2010 No.1279078

>>1279075

>Tolkien's art doesn't "add lustre" it adds meaning.

BULLSHIT. Stop wasting my time trying to score weak semantic points that you even fail to make properly. The big giveaway is that all of your examples have editions which contain no illustrations at all. Go find me a comic that has no illustrations in it, or concede that you entire postion is fatally flawed at the most basic level.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:14:53 2010 No.1279081

>>1279078
Someone's butthurt. I haven't given any specific examples, just authors who have made use of images, one way or another. Unillustrated editions may exist of some of their usually illustrated works, but if you're reading those you might as well be reading abridged works.

>>	The Book Thief Ellie Sat Nov 13 09:17:28 2010 No.1279085 File: 42 KB, 318x500, bookthief.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] How fucking amazing is this book?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:18:53 2010 No.1279086 I didn't want to believe that /lit/ had turned into a bunch of 16-years-old mindlessly parroting something whatever they thought would make them sound cultured, but it's true, it's fucking true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:18:53 2010 No.1279087 >>1279081 butthurt? i don't think so. every time you reply you have nothing to say. your points have been refuted absolutely.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:20:53 2010 No.1279090

>>1279086
the mindless parrots are those who think that "aall opinions are valid, however poorly informed", and that "comics can be literature if they are done well", as though literature were a barometer of quality as opposed to a set of forms and technique.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:23:53 2010 No.1279091 ITT: pretentious teens and neckbeard teens duking it out, neither of whom know shit from shinola

herp Sat Nov 13 09:23:53 2010 No.1279092

>>1278994
Except he didn't do that. He had been in office for less than a year. At the time, he was a war president who did not even close Guantanamo.
>>1278990
The Nobel Peace Prize is indeed a joke, but it isn't on the same level as the Nobel Prize in Literature.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:24:53 2010 No.1279093 >>1279087 Those points have not been refuted at all. The ultimate claim that you are making, that literature cannot have any visual image in it, has been refuted and no good counterargument has been presented.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:26:53 2010 No.1279096

>>1279093
>The ultimate claim that you are making, that literature cannot have any visual image in it

Nobody claimed that. you fail at reading. The point which defeated you, and the only one being made, was that literature does not rely on anything but written words to make meaning and resonate with the reader. You failed to challenge this point so you built a straw man that nobody ever mentioned other than yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:26:53 2010 No.1279097 >>1279092 All I read: Name field: herp Comment field: derp

>>	not OP Sat Nov 13 09:27:53 2010 No.1279098 >>1279091 >ITT: two groups of people who are equally inferior to me partake in activities that I won't bother getting involved in so that I can maintain my sense of superiority

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:39:53 2010 No.1279113

>>1279096
>literature does not rely on anything but written words to make meaning and resonate with the reader
I'll answer this on your terms first; if you go and see an Anicent Greek play, you must first know the story, culture and history surrounding the play for it to make sense. The playwrights assumed knowledge of these things, and the plays generally don't make much sense without this knowledge. This is an extreme example, but illustrates that literature MUST rely on something else, such as culture, not just of words, to give meaning, context and resonance.

HOWEVER, that is not literature. Example: Nabokov does not want to resonate with his readers; he wants to challenge them and make them think, specifically not to resonate with them. James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake is not attempting to give you meaning or resonance either. If anything it confounds any sense of meaning as it goes on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:44:53 2010 No.1279118 >>1279098 in comics things happen for the sake of plot and action in lit things happen for sake of symbolism and for some reason action is considered bad because it's realistic. End of discussion

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:47:53 2010 No.1279122 >>1279118 sry i meant unrealistic and that post shouldnt have been a response to anyone. That was also accidental

not OP Sat Nov 13 09:50:45 2010 No.1279126 [DELETED]

>>1279118
Fantastic. I like how you're trying to bait me into an argument because I called you out on your attempt at asserting your superiority which you're trying to salvage now by beating me in an argument because you assume that I would disagree with you. Sorry, I just can't let people get away with things like that. GG.

>>	oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U Sat Nov 13 09:50:53 2010 No.1279125 classical lit major detected set phasers to kill

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 09:52:53 2010 No.1279127 People with knowledge of books like that should know better than to troll a board like /lit/. Really. Think it over OP. I suppose I could add FACT, NOT OPINION in screaming all caps.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:00:53 2010 No.1279137

Fuck you OP, if Comics aren't literature then you can't have Plays either. Play scripts are not complete peices of work in themselves but meant to be the basis for live performances, if you read a Play you're only really getting one side of it.
>>1278978
Well, about 90% of them are to be fair, but then 90% of everything is shit. As for the other 10% if you think its all at the same level as Harry fucking potter you're either a troll or pig-fucking ignorant.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:01:53 2010 No.1279138

>>1279113
>I'll answer this on your terms first; if you go and see an Anicent Greek play, you must first know the story, culture and history surrounding the play for it to make sense. The playwrights assumed knowledge of these things, and the plays generally don't make much sense without this knowledge. This is an extreme example, but illustrates that literature MUST rely on something else, such as culture, not just of words, to give meaning, context and resonance.

more straw men - you are now trying to argue that language and culture must be universal and not ideals.

>HOWEVER, that is not literature. Example: Nabokov does not want to resonate with his readers; he wants to challenge them and make them think, specifically not to resonate with them. James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake is not attempting to give you meaning or resonance either. If anything it confounds any sense of meaning as it goes on.

Challenging expectation is a way of making text resonate.

Joyce is the single greatest proponent of universality in text as he makes every reader approach on the equal footing of having never read such stylised prose before.

Comics aren't literature because they require drawings to make any sense. Is the Bayeux Tapestry literature now? LOL.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 13 10:08:53 2010 No.1279148 does no-one in this thread know what the word 'text' is?

>>	Grant Moronson !3NgN41.cUQ Sat Nov 13 10:11:53 2010 No.1279151 File: 55 KB, 512x384, 128934925434.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >MFW The Canterbury Tales isn't god-tier

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:11:53 2010 No.1279152 >>1279138 >Comics aren't literature because they require drawings to make any sense non sequitour

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:13:53 2010 No.1279158

>>1279138
>accusations of strawman
>you are now trying to argue that language and culture must be universal and not ideals.
>that's not at all what was being said, but is totally a strawman

Oh look, more:
>Challenging expectation is a way of making text resonate.
That is not what was said on Nabokov at all. Nabokov wants the reader to find a higher aesthetic, not to resonate with the characters, situations or text. And that's really quite specific.

>Joyce is the single greatest proponent of universality...
Joyce's Finnegan's Wake is terse and very difficult to read. It's not about stylised prose or whatever you're like to believe, he's trying to obscure meaning with the writing, more so than expanding it.

>>	Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ Sat Nov 13 10:18:53 2010 No.1279165 >>1279151 dat andrew hussie

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:22:53 2010 No.1279170 THIS THREAD IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:33:53 2010 No.1279185 CLOCKWORK ORANGE ON BOTTOM TEIR? IMPOSSIBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:33:53 2010 No.1279186

>>1279030
I'd put V and Transmet at entry level. Sandman at Low tier, books that really use the medium, Mark Millar's Chosen, Maus, Watchmen, most of Will Eisners work (Contract With God for starters), Most of R. Crumb and some Clowes at Mid Tier, high tier would be From Hell and Promethea, and possibly Jimmy Corrigan, Smartest kid In The World.

Comics as a medium have been shit on for decades and infantilised by historical circumstances in the west, the 'Moral Panic' that happened around comics in the 1950s had a lot to do with how the medium has developed and is viewed today. People that think Comics aren't literature because they aren't good enough doesn't understand art. There is nothing inherent in a medium that makes it good or bad, just because most of the films that come out these days are infantile regurgitated shit doesn't mean Cinema is an inherently flawed or childish medium.

Also,
>FACT. NOT OPINION

LOL. OP is a giant galloping cock-loving faggot. Fact. Not opinion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 10:42:53 2010 No.1279193 >>1279185 Haha, no, that sounds about right to me.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:05:53 2010 No.1279226
File: 869 KB, 1680x1050, afremov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1279148

I think you may be right there.
If I were to say, for example:
>a combination of words and pictures are still text

I doubt the truth of such a statement would be understood. In comprehending this point, the whole "comics are/aren't literature" debate pretty much answers itself, don't you think?

One last thing, this time to the comic fans:
Please stop jabbering about "Watchmen" anytime someone attacks your favourite medium. Yes, it's on Time's 100 best novels list, but that means very little when put in context (specifically the business aspect at play). If you actually look at the list, you'll find "Watchmen" is not the only graphic novel on there. I would've thought if you were trying to contend that graphic novels can have literary merit the obvious choice would be "The Sandman", not least because quite a bit of serious academic work has already been done on this very subject.
But don't let reason stand in the way of a nerd-fight, by all means continue.

I'm far too used to seeing Deep&Edgy trolling the shit out of you guys, but for once I think he may be just as perplexed by your bullshit as I am.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:09:53 2010 No.1279238 >>1279226 >Bitches don't know Watchmen was written specifically to take advantage of the medium, and so is often mentioned in these kind of debates This was one of the reasons Alan Moore gave for deriding the movie without seeing it.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:22:53 2010 No.1279257
File: 230 KB, 792x1078, wild_cat_leonid_afremov.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1279238

I never contended Moore's intent with "Watchmen". What I'm saying is "Watchmen" is by no means the masterpiece it is made out to be. Moore's lesser-known "Marvelman" does everything Watchmen is credited with, only it is done a lot better and, if this is of any importance to you, done earlier.
But then, you may ask, why is Watchmen championed and Marvelman almost completely unknown? The answer is quite simply that the rights to one of these books is owned by Time Warner and one is not. Can you guess which?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:24:53 2010 No.1279261 ITT: bigots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:27:53 2010 No.1279266 >>1279257 Nobody cares. Not even Alan Moore.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:29:53 2010 No.1279268

>>1279257

>"Marvelman" does everything Watchmen is credited with, only it is done a lot better

Oh, HELL no.

I mean, far be it from me to diss Marvelman (or Miracleman), but awesome as it in fact is, it's nowhere near as well structured, focused and polished as Watchmen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:33:53 2010 No.1279272 >>1279226 Totally off topic, but when I saw that painting for the first time tears honestly came to my eyes. It's just his use of colour, it's so beautiful.

Anonymous Sat Nov 13 11:41:53 2010 No.1279284

>>1279272

Afremov tends to have that effect. You should see one of his paintings in real life, they're glorious.

>>1279268
>facts and opinions.jpg

I'm not going to bother getting into this, but I'll just say the reason I favour Marvelman is because of Moore's (in my opinion) superior use of pastiche. The thing is basically Postmodernism: the superhero book

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 12:28:53 2010 No.1279328 What's this? An art form that hasn't been around very long and it's not getting any academic respect? I've never seen this happen before!

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 13 12:49:53 2010 No.1279358 Oh my god, the "if comics aren't literature then plays aren't either" guy is back Anyway, let me put my trollface on and say Flex Mentallo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Watchmen

>>	Iavater !fdZ5l9Xna2 Sat Nov 13 17:17:53 2010 No.1280041 some of my favourite books are based on video games fuck you

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 14 00:57:53 2010 No.1281094 Don Quixote is fucking shit "oh look he is an old man and he is mad. something normal happens but he is mad so he thinks it's something else. repeat ad nauseum for 10 million chaptures."

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 14 00:59:53 2010 No.1281096 >>1281094 agreed

>>	White People Anonymous Sun Nov 14 01:05:53 2010 No.1281108 White People books. This is the shit White People (mostly) wrote. Read it and you'll get a White Man's education. And you can work for White People.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 14 01:10:53 2010 No.1281115 I love LOTR but there is no way it's better than Kafka

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 14 01:14:53 2010 No.1281124 Where is this obsession of Kafka coming from? Is it because of Lolita? Are you guys going to tell me American Psycho is God tier too?

>>	Ralph Wiggum !!RbKRCS+NEzU Sun Nov 14 01:23:53 2010 No.1281136 >>1281124 You're confusing Kafka with Vladimir Nabokov, who wrote Lolita; both authors are excellent. Why would we tell you that American Psycho is god-tier? I'm not sure I understand your post much at all, to be honest.

>>	yukio !otnRSDkuZA Sun Nov 14 02:14:53 2010 No.1281210 WHAT

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 14 11:13:53 2010 No.1281864 File: 35 KB, 407x742, uncontrollable laug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1278985 LOL Wilde on shit tier

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature