/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1807528]

So, /lit/ what's your take on comics and graphic novels?

I don't care, hate if you want. Just curious.

[Anonymous No.1807543]

I love graphic novels and comics. Reading Lone Wolf & Cub presently. It's brilliant.

[Anonymous No.1807544]

They're pretty good. Definitely a form of literature (The better ones).

[Anonymous No.1807545]

Graphic novels are picture books for unimaginative and near-illiterate adults.

[Anonymous No.1807547]

i like comics. there's no such thing as a graphic novel though. Calling comics graphic novels is like calling your trashmen sanitary technicians.

[Anonymous No.1807553]

>>1807544
Only the better ones? Does thta exclude bad books from 'literature' as well?

>>1807547
It's just a genre.

[Anonymous No.1807558]

Yea 'graphic novel' sounds pretentious as fuck, but calling something a 'comic' when in is not comical is also kinda wrong.

[Anonymous No.1807560]

>>1807545
whatisthisidonteven.jpg
>>1807547
is a rose not a rose by any other name?

technically, trashmen are sanitary technicians.

>>1807543
good pick, i haven't read that in a long time.

[Anonymous No.1807562]

I hate people that dislikes comics that are into books as it's a 'higher' form of art. I hate people that prefer books to comics on the basis that 'it triggers imagination and thought' and yet watch films. (Not that films are bad, but with films, you are allowed even less 'imagining').

It's a medium, and it'll have its ups and downs like any other medium. The fact that you may connect it with supermen in latex costumes, doesn't mean that there aren't some great fucking works out there.

[sandwiches No.1807593]

what's wrong with calling them comic books?

graphic novels seem like a bs marketing term

inb4 but theyre novels in graphic form. they're not, they're comics. that's like saying a movie is a cinematic novel. it's not. just because it's a text doesn't mean it's a novel

pic related, chris ware is pretty god-tier

[wolfram No.1807594]

>>1807558
>>1807547
>>1807545
My interpretation of Lit TA had a demarcation that I thought was pretty legit. Classify Graphic novels as things that are bounded, like, scott pilgrim, I kill giants and watchmen would be graphic novels, but the entirety of superman would not be a graphic novel.

[Anonymous No.1807604]

>>1807594
why not comic novel? why try and posture with big words?

[wolfram No.1807612]

>>1807604
why not graphic? same number of syllables, and like >>1807558
mentioned earlier, the default isn't comedy. If we get down to arguing over comic vs graphic and accept the novel elements, then it's really just semantics and personal preference.

[Anonymous No.1807614]

There's a continuum between serialized art and "completed" art. Charles Dickens' novels were written and published in serial installments. However, each clearly holds together as a unit. Watchmen is the same. Maus is the same. Jar of Fools is the same. If Oliver Twist deserves to be called a novel, certainly Watchmen deserves to be called a graphic novel.
Golden and silver age Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, etc. were created and published serially, but can't be broken up into large, separate units. 3 issues was a big story arc at that time. Calling something like that a graphic novel is ridiculous.
Nowadays, however, traditionally serial art forms like TV shows and comic book lines are sometimes hard to separate from "completed" art forms. For instance, Babylon 5 was conceived from the beginning as a 5-year series. Many comics companies give their characters to an author to create a continuous story arc that is difficult to distinguish from a graphic novel.

[Anonymous No.1807617]

>>1807594

Watchmen was published as a 12-issue limited series

Tons of Superman issues are bounded as trade paperbacks

Your TA doesn't know shit about shit.

[sandwiches No.1807626]

>>1807614
someone who knows something, finally.

Why not say a television season is a novel? Shit's bounded, it's got a story, herp derp.
Would you say that an episodic "graphic novel," one that doesn't follow any plot/narrative structure because it's so deep and edgy is no longer a "graphic novel?"

They're comic books. Stop buying into the marketing scam, stop feeling bad about reading comic books or taking comic books seriously.

[Anonymous No.1807631]

Graphic Novel is nothing but a desperate marketing ploy to broaden the appeal a bit. Something to reach out into the pretentious man's pocket. "Comics? That's for children innit? I read graphic novels."

I've always preferred the term Comic Book. Not a big fan of people who try to create a difference between the two.

That being said, I love 'em.

[Anonymous No.1807633]

>>1807593

>my face when it's going to be years until the next installment of Rusty Brown

[wolfram No.1807638]

>>1807626
I primarily read web-comics myself, the comics I actually pay for is pretty much just the trade books for atomic robo, I don't think I have any ego to stroke on the distinction between graphic novel and comics, I just thought I'd contribute an idea that I thought was interesting.

[fat lenny No.1807645]

the term "graphic novel" is the reason why people don't take the medium seriously.

they're not like novels, they're not like books and they're not films. when I hear people use that term it seems like people are just ashamed of calling them comic books and when you have a whole fanbase that sounds ashamed of their medium how can you expect people to take it seriously?

[Anonymous No.1807647]

>>1807645
>when I hear people use that term it seems like people are just ashamed of calling them comic books and when you have a whole fanbase that sounds ashamed of their medium how can you expect people to take it seriously?

This. My sentiments exactly.

Since when was a way of conveying a story something to be embarrassed about? They're stories, and without them many lives would be dreary and dull.

[fat lenny No.1807652]

> graphic novella

[Anonymous No.1807654]

Incidentally, has anyone read The Marquis comics? Guy Davis' best work, easily.

[fat lenny No.1807660]

>>1807654
this looks pretty sweet

might read it next time i do mushrooms

[Anonymous No.1807691]

>>1807626
The phrase "comic book" has a lot of connotations, some negative, some positive, and some neutral. Some people feel that "graphic novel" is a more accurate description for something like Watchmen or Jimmy Corrigan.
Conversely, I get the impression that a lot of people who object to using the term "graphic novel" at all just have an unreasonable (elitist?) prejudice against anything associated with comic-book-style art (except when used in an ironic way, like Liechtenstein's paintings, Michael Chabon's novels, etc.). They object to the term "graphic novel" because they want to maintain a terminological separation between text-only novels, which they consider "high" art forms, and works with non-ironic comic-book-style art, which they consider "low" art forms.

[Anonymous No.1807693]

i love comics in all forms

[Anonymous No.1807696]

>>1807691

> used in an ironic way
>Michael Chabon

NOPE

[Anonymous No.1807706]

>>1807696
seriously

lichtenstein had contempt for the comics he appropriated. iirc chabon literally cried reading a legion of super-heroes comic as an adult

[Anonymous No.1807714]

>>1807528
I've never read a really good one, I've not read many and I'm not saying it can't be done. But the format doesn't have much appeal to me.

I don't like picture books, I find the art style that dominates the medium uninteresting, and in general I think you can do more with words.

[Anonymous No.1807718]

>>1807696
>>1807706
Hmm. Well, I've only read one of them (Kavalier & Clay) and I felt that he was mostly using the comic book development setting to contrast it to a "more realistic" New York period-piece war-and-family drama. YMMV.

[Anonymous No.1807722]

>>1807714
Have you read Jimmy Corrigan? I think that's the best example of what the images can do to carry the story.
Like you read a page and then you're like "uh, wait a minute, let me read that again and actually pay attention to the exact expressions on their faces because I just realized that that conveys a huge amount on this page".

[Anonymous No.1807723]

>>1807718

He was in the sense that he was using the one to more clearly demonstrate some of the latent emotions/thoughts/etc. of the characters being sublimated into art, but not in an ironic sense

[fat lenny No.1807725]

>>1807691
Sure, whatever you say, bro.

"That pompous phrase (graphic novel) was thought up by some idiot in the marketing department of DC. I prefer to call them Big Expensive Comics."
- Alan Moore, arguably the greatest "graphic novelist"

COME AT ME

[Anonymous No.1807734]

>>1807553
>Only the better ones? Does thta exclude bad books from 'literature' as well?

imo yes. the harry potter series for instance i don't consider literature.

[Anonymous No.1807736]

>>1807725
>implying Moore is the final authority on English usage
>implying Moore is not frequently an argumentative prima donna

[Anonymous No.1807738]

>>1807734
Get the fuck out.

[Anonymous No.1807744]

>>1807736
>implying who gives a shit?
comic books, graphic novels, Captioned-Pictobook, whatever. Who cares what you call it doesn't change what it is.

People who insist it be called one thing or the other are just fucking tools either trying too hard to legitimate/undercut them.

That being said they are pretty lame.

[Anonymous No.1807745]

>>1807734
i don't get the point of this, creating a subjective classification that pretty much seems to mean "good"

even if there is a difference between "literature" and...what, trash, schlock, pulp? beyond a simple "good" vs. "shit sucked," do you base this on whether the book seems to have higher aspirations than simple entertainment or if it actually achieves them? if 'the room' were a book, would it be literature because tommy wiseau saw it as an infinitely deep psychodrama?

[Anonymous No.1807747]

>>1807718
They actually did an Escapist comic which is kind of a long way to go for a winking literary device. Apparently the editor-in-chief of Marvel Comics almost got him to do a run on Fantastic Four, too.

[Anonymous No.1807748]

>>1807745
You can base it on both. Its a social labeling scheme, not a gas-chromatograph. It doesn't give you absolutely clear cut answers, but that doesn't mean the labels aren't useful.

[Anonymous No.1807755]

Reading The Unwritten as of right now. Nice change of pace after the excessive mindfuck called Gravity's Rainbow.

I am also somewhat addicted to Willingham's Fables.

[Anonymous No.1807761]

Uncles Sam is a comic-book superhero, but is this a superhero comic?
The number of quotes from the famous makes for an enjoyable literary read alone, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.1807765]

[the /co/m/mu/ter No.1807774]

Love them. Something about immersing yourself in a story through visual and textual immersion has always had an appeal to me that books, while obviously being able to rival or overtake, have never really compared to in the same way. There are a lot of things you can get from a comic book story that go unnoticed in books. The inverse is true too but I think that just furthers the idea that the two mediums are just too different to fairly compare.

But, I can understand what people can find distracting or unappealing about them. These people have tastes different to my own and I have no problem with them.

Having said that, I reached the conclusion a long time ago that anyone that sweeps all comic books together as inherently juvenile or without literary merit are ignorant morons no better than people that say they "can't read LOL" on facebook or turn their noses at masters like Vonnegut or Heinlen for reasons as superficial as setting and theme.

As an aside, I never understood the problem people have with the term "graphic novel". A distinction between something like From Hell and any old Green Lantern trade is a necessary one and not something to trivialize.

If you want to get into a discussion about whether one is "better" than the other, than thats a different story.

[Virginia W00F !!GThm5VqxqDi No.1807790]

Yeah comics are cool

[Anonymous No.1807795]

I only just started reading comics/graphic novels.

In fact, I'm only reading one and it's Preacher. I don't neccessarily read it for the literary merit, but for the seedy exploitation of it. The violence, the dark humor and the gritty nihilism it gleefully expounds is something of a guilty pleasure, but I don't feel guilty, so perhaps I'd call it a vice.

[Sherlock Holmes Guy No.1807796]

I thought that 'graphic novel' implied that it is a work with a definite beginning and end (like Watchmen), whereas a 'comic book' is just anything produced using the particular style/technique of illustrations + words (like Watchmen, but also like Batman). You've got to admit, there are comics that are churned out serially with no definite end in mind, just to sell the paper, and there are comics which are a labor of love and have a well thought out plot to them. I think the ability to distinguish between developed stories from serialized pulp is useful when discussing comics. The way I see it, if you don't like saying 'graphic novel', 'comic book' would still be correct, just less specific. Ain't no thang.

The use of graphic art in the comic is not always a mere "visual aid" for the reader. A good comic will take full advantage of the medium and use the art to become an important element of the storytelling process. What are words, but intricately combined symbols that rearrange themselves to create a picture in the mind? What is so inferior about a pictograph, or an actual illustration, then? A piece of graphic art may be able to capture something in a way that is unique. Perhaps the storyteller wants the reader to see something directly and receive their impression of it from what they 'see', not from what is described. Perhaps the storyteller wishes to insert subtle symbolism that can be sought after not in the words but in the actual images...I think my point is well made by now.

I like comics and I am a /co/mrade. I liked Watchmen alot. I've yet to read any comics that truly blew my mind, though. To me they are indeed mostly just cheap entertainment and bad art, lol

[Anonymous No.1807797]

I hear there's someone who hasn't heard of The Unwritten, and I mean to track him down.

[Anonymous No.1807802]

[Anonymous No.1807805]

>>1807795
>>1807796
>>1807797

I think it's fair to say that Vertigo is far and away the best brand of comics.

[Anonymous No.1807806]

[Anonymous No.1807814]

>>1807796
watchmen was serialized initially - so was from hell, so was maus, so was ghost world. a lot of, you know, batman storylines had as much of a planned beginning and end as any of these did. i don't see any more need to distinguish between them than i do for different words to describe an alexander payne movie vs. a brett ratner joint

[Anonymous No.1807815]

>>1807796
Sound like you've never heard of Perry Rhodan...novels without end.
http://www.perry-rhodan-usa.com/web1998/sersumm.htm

[Anonymous No.1807816]

>>1807774
Great post.
>A distinction between something like From Hell and any old Green Lantern trade is a necessary one and not something to trivialize.
True. And I don't really care about the exact label they put on it either, but I do suppose they could've found something better.

>>1807796
>I thought that 'graphic novel' implied that it is a work with a definite beginning and end
This is my thought exactly. It's pretty logical. Although people tend to stick it to whatever they perceive to be 'smart comics' or 'comics for grownups'.

[Anonymous No.1807817]

>>1807805
fantagraphics and drawn & quarterly called, they said you smell like poop

[Anonymous No.1807819]

>>1807797
>>1807806
>>1807802

You are a gentleman and a scholar and I implore that you continue.

Many thanks

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807822]

Okay here's the deal:

>are graphic novels a form of literature?
the literary texts of graphic novels are what is literature; the graphic novels themselves are not literature

>does a graphic novel have great literary merit?
this just means asking whether the text in question a great text. It's not an evaluation of a graphic novel or a comic book. I think it's a pretty safe bet that textually, the majority of graphic novels don't hold a candle to most of the greatest works of literature.

So, really, asking whether comic books are literature with a capital L is really just a demonstration of ignorance with regard to textuality and textual evaluation.

Basically there are only two relevant means of evaluating a graphic novel or a comic book: on the basis of its emergent literary text or the basis of its graphic art. Both are ultimately separate.

[Anonymous No.1807835]

>>1807819
Okey Dokey

[Anonymous No.1807840]

>>1807822
Thanks D&E, way to answer a question by appealing to semi-arbitrary redefinitions of words in pointless field, and thus completely fail to address the actual questions in the first place. Way to go.

[Anonymous No.1807841]

Of course /rs/ may have these in proper collectable form

[Anonymous No.1807845]

>>1807822
But the media itself relies on the combination of the two.

If you were to flip through a graphic novel devoid of text or devoid of pictures it would not be as enjoyable or worthwhile.

Perhaps the text itself, mostly dialogue, would not hold up to the text of a recognized great book, but with the pictures included it could leave as much of an impact on the reader.

I agree that in its strictest sense a novel would have superior text to a graphic novel, but it would be comparing apples and oranges: a graphic novel is meant to be weighed on its graphic merits as well as its written ones.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807847]

>>1807840
Hi Behemoth!

Actually anon, you'll find that none of this requires arbitrary definition and fits with commonplace ideas about textuality. Even if this was a matter of word definition I would still be putting forward extremely productive work because most people need their problematic concepts such as textuality clarified for them, which is what I've done (or at least, what I've done for people who are intelligent enough in the first to understand the very simple yet not necessarily intuitive things I am saying). As I said, it's mainly down to ignorance that people don't know how to properly evaluate texts, in this case comic books.

[Anonymous No.1807848]

[Anonymous No.1807851]

[Anonymous No.1807853]

>>1807822
>the majority of graphic novels don't hold a candle to most of the greatest works of literature.
the majority of novels don't hold a candle to most of the greatest works of literature either.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807859]

>>1807845
>But the media itself relies on the combination of the two.
I never said it didn't.

>If you were to flip through a graphic novel devoid of text or devoid of pictures it would not be as enjoyable or worthwhile.
Probably not, but I never said anything about graphic novels having to be devoid of text or pictures or vice versa. Do you understanding how I'm using the concept of text here? (I feel kind of embarrassed for both of us in having to ask this)

>Perhaps the text itself, mostly dialogue, would not hold up to the text of a recognized great book, but with the pictures included it could leave as much of an impact on the reader.
Sure, just like a video game with text and pictures could leave a huge impact on you, as much as ulysses can. Of course, that doesn't make the text of the video-game or the graphic novel as literarily masterful as the text of ulysses, because literary mastery is not in and of itself determined by the extent it impacts upon you. Of course, lol, everyone knows that.

>a graphic novel is meant to be weighed on its graphic merits as well as its written ones.
Of course, I never said that graphic novels aren't evaluated on multiple aspects, but of course, none of the aspects are the same as each other and are to be evaluated accordingly. That doesn't mean they can't all be taken into account to some extent.

[Anonymous No.1807867]

>>1807847
>none of this requires arbitrary definition and fits with commonplace ideas about textuality
That's just it though, the concept of textuality as it exists in literary theory is artifice, reductionist artifice. It is arbitrary, and represents a discontinuity in use of the word text, a redefinition without merit.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807877]

>>1807867
that's a nice way of saying that you think the concept of text in literary theory is useless. You're going to have to substantiate it if you want to be taken seriously though.

[Anonymous No.1807879]

[Anonymous No.1807881]

>>1807845

>If you were to flip through a graphic novel devoid of text ... it would not be as enjoyable or worthwhile.

What a stupid and ignorant thing to say

[Anonymous No.1807888]

[Anonymous No.1807889]

>>1807859
>(I feel kind of embarrassed for both of us in having to ask this)
>Of course, lol, everyone knows that.
Fuck off with your stupid suppression techniques and stop arguing like a politician, you stupid fucking narcissist.

[Anonymous No.1807895]

>>1807889

>suppression techniques

lol

[Anonymous No.1807896]

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807897]

>>1807889
Wow man, sorry for treating you like an equal. If you didn't understand some of the things I'd said then maybe you shouldn't have responded as if you did?

[Anonymous No.1807902]

>>1807881
>wordless comic
>implying that would fit the parameters of a graphic /novel/

Obviously if the work was created without text originally then the lack of the text which never existed would not be a problem. I was referring to graphic novels with text, which would not be the same without it.

>>1807859
I apologize, I was under the impression that you thought a graphic novel had to be evaluated on its text and artwork seperately.

[Anonymous No.1807906]

>>1807881

Word. Not to mention Lewis Trondheim's The Fly. I don't expect anyone to have read it in here, but it's one of Trondheim's greatest works. Not to mention Trondheim's Mr. O, and his Mr. I. The man's a genius.

[Anonymous No.1807913]

>>1807902

it would, though, because graphic novel doesn't actually mean anything and is just a marketing term, and the arrival was marketed as a graphic novel.

deal with it.

[Anonymous No.1807914]

[Anonymous No.1807915]

>>1807897
Also, that wasn't me, this is:

>>1807902
>>1807845

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807918]

>>1807902
>you thought a graphic novel had to be evaluated on its text and artwork seperately.
No, the basic point I am making is that evaluating a graphic novel is not the same as evaluating the literary text of a graphic novel, which is not evaluating the graphic novel, it is evaluating the text of the graphic novel, and so anyone who asks whether a graphic novel is a great work of literature is asking a misguided question.

[Anonymous No.1807921]

>>1807913
Clearly we disagree on the definition of the word then. However I'd like to point out that the way it is marketed does not change what it actually is, and as far as I can tell a graphic /novel/ would have to contain text and pictures, otherwise it would not fall under that categorization.

[Anonymous No.1807923]

A fav issue

[Anonymous No.1807924]

>>1807897

It's not about that. It's about you asserting the opinion of the superior in the conversation on the basis of ridicule. Which is a fucking savage thing to do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques
Furthermore, you abstract your language unnecessarily, which is another thing politicians do in conversations to a) guise their intentions and b) assess own superiority based on a seemingly complex language. It's a stupid habit if done unintentionally, and you're a fucking prick if done intentionally.

[Anonymous No.1807925]

I haven't read many graphic novels and only the most popular ones. I really liked From Hell and The Sandman.

[Anonymous No.1807926]

>>1807918
Got it, no qualms here then.

[Anonymous No.1807928]

>>1807921

Comic books aren't necessarily "comic", semantic analysis only takes you so far my friend, and "graphic novel" as it is actually used doesn't mean what you want it to mean

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807929]

>>1807924
>It's about you asserting the opinion of the superior in the conversation on the basis of ridicule
holy shit guy, I never said anything about my opinion being superior (it is, but like, I never said it was). maybe you are just, like, really defensive?

>you abstract your language unnecessarily
It's not abstract to me or anyone else who's done at least one course on English Literature in college. Sorry man, maybe it's just you, a few tripfag haters and people who never studied literature? I hate it when people do this man, "I don't understand what you're talking about, so it must be obscure and you must be doing it on purpose". Guys, is there a wikipedia entry on that sort of thing?

[Anonymous No.1807942]

>>1807929
>holy shit guy, I never said anything about my opinion being superior
Obviously not directly, and that wasn't my point anyway. Which I thought would be obvious to any flat-faced monkey with an IQ of 32. Hahaha, are you fucking thick?!

That was a parody. And so I'll ask you, did I NOT express my supposed superiority with that sentence?

Read this thing and do yourself a favour: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807952]

>>1807942
>that wasn't my point anyway
What was your point again? That you don't understand me. I've already read Orwell's essay, more than a year ago. I'd like you to point out to me how it applies to anything I've said. If you're incapable of doing that it's probably just your appeal to a literary author showing how people obscure language. All good and well but you actually have to demonstrate how that is happening.

[♥ !Rrxa7zePwI No.1807953]

if it's good it's good

[Anonymous No.1807958]

>>1807923

Mr Bun eventually escapes from the 'adult-ness'...

[Anonymous No.1807959]

>>1807877
Well ultimately the concept of text in terms of an arrangement of symbols is bizarre it takes these "texts" which are themselves dynamic quanta of discourse and tries to break them apart into individual motes of meaning, but the meaning and value must be taken holistically. The symbols themselves are nothing fixed nothing meaningful outside of the discourse, so I fail to see the purpose in the abstraction to them. The "text" in its entirety serves as a symbol, and just as the text may be cryptic and possessing multiple meanings so to do the individual symbols that compose it, why is the abstraction called for? A symbol and a "text" are ultimately identical in nature, a theory concerned with texts by means of symbols is a waste.

[Anonymous No.1807960]

>>1807929
Furthermore, I don't think you contribute anything worthwhile in this thread about comics.
>Sure, just like a video game with text and pictures could leave a huge impact on you, as much as ulysses can. Of course, that doesn't make the text of the video-game or the graphic novel as literarily masterful as the text of ulysses, because literary mastery is not in and of itself determined by the extent it impacts upon you.
Many great works and mediums of art was once in history looked down upon. Ulysses met vivid friction, yet you can't manage to see the narrow sights of these opposing conventionalists, and you admit to the same mistake yourself. I'm certain that comics will, within the next 100 years or so, rise to be regarded with the same status as other mediums such as film, music and literature.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807968]

>>1807959
>tries to break them apart into individual motes of meaning
I guess if you're a structuralist or someone from the early twentieth century. Why are you assuming an antiquated, synchronic conception of 'text' when anyone in the last 40 years knows better?

>the meaning and value must be taken holistically
Of course, but that doesn't at all limit us to discourse that 'must be taken holistically', in any area of life whatsoever. I guess you maybe you suffer from some sort of theoretical anal retention and an inability to make use of convention or assuming sufficient conditions for understanding or the grasping of sense. No-one takes any text at all holistically, as we are demonstrating right now. It is upon you to demonstrate how we "must".

>I fail to see the purpose in the abstraction to them
And yet you're doing it right now. What a load of hypocritical horse shit.

>The "text" in its entirety serves as a symbol
sure to some degree

>just as the text may be cryptic and possessing multiple meanings so to do the individual symbols that compose it
who gives a shit about meaning

>why is the abstraction called for?
I don't know, maybe people want to get things done in language, theory and practice, in their lifetime. You're kind of oblivious aren't you

[Anonymous No.1807969]

>>1807952
It wasn't my point that you SAID you were superior, my point was that it obviously showed in the text that you thought yourself.

Orwell's essay point to the abstractness of language used as a convincive mean. And while I'll agree that that isn't your worse quality, as your use of ridicule and your egomanical attitude are much worse, Orwell's message spans these fields as well: Don't use language for manipulative, suppressive means.

I've come to realize what a fucking jerk you are though. You seem unable to reflect over anything concerning yourself... Which is clear seeing how much critique you've received on this forum and yet don't seem to show any will of progress as you commit the same mistakes over and over again. I don't know if this is due to your being egomanical or just stupid, but I highly recommend you take a look at yourself and reflect, instead of simply shrugging all and everything off as 'insuperior' or 'internet flame' or whatever you tend to do.

I will not reply to an eventual reply.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807972]

>>1807960
>Furthermore, I don't think you contribute anything worthwhile in this thread about comics.
NO SHIT RETARD, BECAUSE I DON'T CARE ABOUT COmICS, I CARE ABOUT TEXT AND TEXTUAL EVALUATION

>Many great works and mediums of art was once in history looked down upon. Ulysses met vivid friction, yet you can't manage to see the narrow sights of these opposing conventionalists, and you admit to the same mistake yourself. I'm certain that comics will, within the next 100 years or so, rise to be regarded with the same status as other mediums such as film, music and literature.
JESUS CHRIST YOU ImBECILE, I DIDN'T SAY COmICS WOULD'NT GET THE SAmE STATUS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T EVEN FUCKING CARE

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1807974]

>>1807969
>Don't use language for manipulative, suppressive means.
I'm sorry if you feel you're being manipulated or suppressed, but that's not my fault buddy. maybe you and orwell should grow a pair of balls, you bunch of fucking pussies!

>I will not reply to an eventual reply.
don't let the door hit you on the way out you spineless fuckwit

[Anonymous No.1807978]

ITTL D&E using caps for the first time ever.

[Anonymous No.1807986]

>>>/b/330779499

[Anonymous No.1807987]

>So, /lit/ what's your take on comics and graphic novels?

I dont mind them. They are like books for people who can't be bothered to read.

[Anonymous No.1807988]

>>1807968
>No-one takes any text at all holistically, as we are demonstrating right now.
that's not what we're demonstrating at all, we conceptualize in terms of subjective symbols, but the discourse itself cannot possess them, what we're demonstrating is the exchange of 'texts' in their entirety. Each of our posts are discrete units of meaning, we create new posts that have pictorial similarity to previous posts, but when we quote a previous post we're not truly breaking the previous post apart, instead we're taking a given set of lines and as the seed of a new picture. Their meaning is made afresh by their context.

[Anonymous No.1807991]

>>1807974
I said I wouldn't reply, but this is just unbelievable.
>I'm sorry if you feel you're being manipulated or suppressed
That is not my point. My point is that your language aims at it, and that it's a fucking bad way to conversate. I can't believe you managed to twist my critique of you towards ME feeling manipulated. And I figure, since you flamed me and didn't seem to take notice of my constructive critique, I guess this critique, too, will go right through you. I wish I could say that it's worst for yourself, but I fear that the 'ignorance is bliss' saying remains true, and that if anyone is to get hurt by your ignorance and egomanical attitude, it is others and not yourself.

This time I'm off good. Need to grow that spine, y'know.

[Anonymous No.1807992]

>>1807986
fail

[Anonymous No.1807998]

>>1807978

I must say, I take some certain pride in having enraged him.

[Anonymous No.1808004]

The best of all.

[Anonymous No.1808005]

>>1808004
Lucifer topped it.

[Anonymous No.1808012]

>>1808005

As a complete arc it did, but the bulk of Lucifer was complete shit.

[Anonymous No.1808014]

>>1808005

Seriously? I liked Lucifer, but it was several notches below The Sandman. The only GREAT book was the first one.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1808017]

>>1807988
>that's not what we're demonstrating at all
I'm afraid it is

>we conceptualize in terms of subjective symbols
What's subjective about them? And that's quite the remarkable question-begging claim about conceptual structure.

>Each of our posts are discrete units of meaning, we create new posts that have pictorial similarity to previous posts, but when we quote a previous post we're not truly breaking the previous post apart, instead we're taking a given set of lines and as the seed of a new picture
That's quite the abstract account of posts, which are themselves constituted of words which have their own "discrete units of meaning". You're basically just agreeing with everything I've said already about how you're "abstracting".

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1808022]

>>1807991
>>1807991
>My point is that your language aims at it, and that it's a fucking bad way to conversate
My language doesn't aim at anything beyond conveying a point I'm afraid, and it's a perfect good way to "conversate" if you're not a lilylivered milksop who can hold his own. Then again, you could have just not responded to me in the first place if you didn't understand me.

>my constructive critique, I guess this critique, too, will go right through you.
When did butthurt frustration suddenly turn into a critique. Okay buddy, how about I give YOU a critique:

Don't fucking engage with my arguments if you don't know what I'm talking about. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can always ask me to explain myself. But because you just saunter in with your shitty lack of knowledge and totally fail to appreciate what I'm saying, I'm going to ridicule you for being so obnoxious and presumptuous. Just because this is English Literature, a seemingly nebulous pursuit to the ignorant, does not mean you get to share your uneducated opinion as equal to others. It would be like walking into a thread about quantum physics in /sci/ without knowing anything about it and expecting to be treated as an equal even though you're not humble enough to admit you don't know anything. You deserve the abuse you get from me for wasting my time until you either acknowledge that other people know more about a subject than you and it's not your place to dispute it with them or you start doing your own reading enough to legimitately argue something with them.

[Anonymous No.1808026]

>>1808017
No, I didn't mean that symbols are subjective, I meant subjective-symbols, our own internal subjectivity, in which we have ideas and concepts that are present to us subjectively, and those symbols ultimately hold the "meaning" for us, or really they hold the keys of the mechanistics of call and response, but sort of the same thing.

[Sherlock Holmes Guy No.1808027]

>>1807814
>watchmen was serialized initially - so was from hell, so was maus, so was ghost world. a lot of, you know, batman storylines had as much of a planned beginning and end as any of these did.

Ah yes sir, I'm aware of that. But I think you understood what I meant, yes?

>i don't see any more need to distinguish between them

okey doke, then don't. Other people are still gonna!

>>1807815
Ooooo

[Anonymous No.1808030]

I enjoy books and comics and read a good deal of both, and imo the best comic writing exceeds mediocre book writing, but I don't think the best comic writing is entirely on par with the best literature. A "Graphic Novel" I would consider more to be an illustrated short story or novella at the most. From Hell is probably the only "graphic novel" that I've read and would give serious consideration as a major literary work in comics. Even then, still just consideration.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1808032]

>>1808026
>our own internal subjectivity
What is this, where is it located, and what's subjective about it?

>present to us subjectively
what exactly do you mean by 'subjectively'?

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.1808041]

Moore is a Shit comic book writer.

[Anonymous No.1808045]

>>1808032
>What is this, where is it located, and what's subjective about it?
In the pineal gland of course.
Seriously though, they're epiphenomena, they possess no location.

>what exactly do you mean by 'subjectively'?
Present only to individuals as subjects, not available when a you take a person as an object.
That is, the consciousness which we are tautologically conscious of, but that we must simply assume on behalf of others.

[Anonymous No.1808053]

>>1808041

Have you read From Hell?

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.1808055]

>>1808032
This guys refuses to get tired of bullshit ;).

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.1808056]

>>1808053
Have you read Sin City: That yellow bastard?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1808057]

>>1808045
>they're epiphenomena, they possess no location.
ha HA HA oh WOW it's like we're talking about nothing at all!

>Present only to individuals as subjects
people as arbitrary linguistic labels then. sounds good

>the consciousness which we are tautologically conscious of
nice way of saying 'self-consciousness' bro, but what's subjective about that

Running out of patience here bro, better make the next response good or I'm gone.

[Anonymous No.1808066]

>>1808057
>Running out of patience here bro, better make the next response good or I'm gone.
Oh NO D&E will leave whatever will I do.

U mad cuz I stylin' on you? yeah you are.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1808068]

>>1808066
I'm not mad, I'm just going to go post in some other threads or maybe do some reading, whatever

[Anonymous No.1808076]

>>1808068
Nigger, you mad.

[Anonymous No.1808094]

>read Watchmen
>okay, this is pretty cool. Not "one of the best 100 novels of the century" good, but it is good.
>pick up a random Batman comic because I like Batman and the villain
>the dialog reads horribly (melodramatic, stilted, it reads like bad action movie/porno dialog)
>the storytelling is horrible (skips over important parts of the story in favor of exposition, kills off characters a page after they're introduced and I'm expected to care about their death, etc)
>the art isn't even that good
>there's a full page, full color "Back to School" advertisement in the middle of the fucking story with a grinning elementary school idiot triumphantly holding up a box of crayola markers (I wish I was making this part up)
>it tries very hard to be dark and mature by being overly violent and shocking-- instead it comes across as trying too hard

Never read a comic again.

[Anonymous No.1808098]

>>1808094

You should pick comics based on their authors, not the characters in the comic.

[Anonymous No.1808171]

>>1808094
I don't see the point of this. It's like saying you read Dostoevsky and thought it good, then you picked up Twilight and you thought it sucked.

[Anonymous No.1808185]

Love 'em.
But a vast majority of them are crap.

Get a good writer, good artist together? Shit yes. Have them do an epic storyline? Even better.

Then it's retconned away in a year, and dead characters are brought back to life for whatever passes for ratings and worthless crossovers get good ongoings cancelled.

[Anonymous No.1808189]

>>1808171
the point is to troll

Anyway, why don't you guys try reading something from a publisher that doesn't even do superhero comics sometimes. It's like nobody here ever even tries Chris Ware or Dan Clowes who are totally mainstream, entry-level (and awesome!) Serious Grownup Comics For Serious Grownup Dudes

[Anonymous No.1808203]

>>1808189

I dislike Ghost World, but I suppose I should give Clowes another shot. Chris Ware is great.

Comics are one of my greatest interests. You should check into some french stuff if you haven't. Marjane Satrapi has become really well-known lately, but there are lots of great stuff coming from France. Lewis Trondheim is my favorite, as well as David B, Joann Sfar, Manu Larcenet, Christopher Blain and others. Highly recommended.

[Anonymous No.1808214]

>>1808203
I really love Joann Sfar, sometimes I get the feeling his translators aren't the best but it just makes me happy to look at his art

[Anonymous No.1808225]

>>1808203

Since I'm from Norway I also read a lot of norwegian comics, and although most of it is shit, there are a few that are astoundingly great. Jason is well-known, but Lars Fiske and Steffen Kverneland, that works together on their best work, are some of my favorite artists in any medium. I wish someone'd publish it in english. They do crazy, semi-autobiographical (they depict themselves travelling enthusiastically around gathering sources etc.) biographies on artists such as Munch, Kurt Schwitters and Olaf Gulbransson. They draw some pages each, and the art is wonderful. Fiske's seem to be directly influenced by George Grosz, while Kverneland tends towards caricature.

Pic. related, it's a Fiske-drawing depicting the two.

[Anonymous No.1808234]

>>1808214

Yeah, I think I agree with this. I love his stories, and I like how they are so unpredictable and... I don't know, I find them very great and strange. But I get the feeling that they're better fit to read in french. I'm trying to teach myself french (so that I'll be able to read untranslated french comics and literature), so hopefully I'll be able to test that hypothesis in not too long.

[Anonymous No.1808307]

>>1808203
Ghost World isn't one of my favorites either, but I'm hesitant to make a recommendation because I'm kind of an uncritical fangirl. If the...I don't know what the phrase I'm looking for is, surly humor? in Ghost World wasn't what turned you off, try the 20th Century Eightball collection - it's a bunch of his "earlier, funnier stuff" (© Woody Allen) and I feel like it's hard to really hate unless you're just never gonna like the guy, so maybe a good litmus test? But like I said, I'm a total mark so WHO KNOWS

[Anonymous No.1808316]

>>1808185
Wildly exaggerated

Often the case with the inexperienced comic book reader.

[Anonymous No.1808340]

What about Manga? Like Akira and Ghost in the Shell?

[Anonymous No.1808343]

>>1808340

There is no difference between manga and comics.

[Anonymous No.1808387]

>>1808343
I'd say the difference between manga and comics is the difference between anime and cartoons

[Anonymous No.1808392]

>>1808387

There is no difference between anime and cartoons, either.

[Anonymous No.1808400]

I freakin' love comic books and anyone who lets their 'upper class' sensibilities get in the way of reading them is missing out on a shitload of good stuff.

With a comic you can get away with a lot more stupid shit than in a novel. Your wacky plot twist can be a lot more wacky. Granted, that age is coming to an end with the grimdark and 'realism' of the fucking Batman [does anyone else just want to go back to the Burton movies?] so you don't have as much freedom as before, but there is still a lot more leeway than novels.

My favourites:
Sandman
Amory Wars
Jhonen
The Watchmen
Kill Audio
Anything Mike Mignola or Ben Templesmith even tangentially have anything to do with.

[Anonymous No.1808405]

>>1808392
>>1808343
No. There are several major stylistic differences, not to mention cultural that are obvious even to a casual observer.

Do you see any difference between eastern and western literature?

[Anonymous No.1808409]

>>1808405
sure, but they're all still books

[Anonymous No.1808413]

>>1808405

It's more like saying there is a difference between literature and whatever the ching chong sashimi pureez term for literature

[Anonymous No.1808414]

>>1808405
The stylistic differences aren't rigid, and have diffused both ways blurring stylistic lines.

As for culture, doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.1808417]

>>1808405

It's more like saying there is a difference between literature and whatever the ching chong sashimi pureez term for literature is, which would be stupid and wrong

[Anonymous No.1808420]

>>1808340
Depends on the genre. seinen's for the good stories - slice of life stories are even better within that genre - Mushishi, YKK, dorohedero. Hate most josei and shoujo stuff but love FLAT, Natsume Yuujincho, ouran high and some really pretty ones. Love shounen like ao no exorcist and fairy tail. Really liking anohana, yondemasu, steins;gate, ao no ex this season.

[Anonymous No.1808695]

Watchmen is nice. I actually like the ending of the movie better.

I usually dislike action-through-the-drawing comics, but WE3 does it so marvelously well that it's a personal favorite.

Also, I liked Fables and Walking Dead, in a far distant past long before it reached issue 30

Marvel Zombies was nice even though my knowledge of regular marvel universe is very. very limited

[Anonymous No.1808713]

>>1808420
Ano hana is the only good thing this season. And I have no idea why you like fucking fairy tail. Never mind

[Anonymous No.1808716]

>>1808695
>I actually like the ending of the movie better.

[Anonymous No.1808718]

>>1808695
I also have some Eisner's works and they're delightful

To everyone saying comics/graphic novels/whatever you call them are for 'lazy people who can't be bothered to read':

you are saying so out of a childish misconception, ignorance or will to insult.

Whatever is your reason, you are not appearing to be highly intellectual. Those of us who know acutally perceive the contraty.

[Anonymous No.1808720]

>>1808695
>I usually dislike action-through-the-drawing comics

whaaaaa, what's the point of even reading comics if you don't like looking at the pictures

[Anonymous No.1808722]

>>1808718
I :3'd really hard at this

[Anonymous No.1808726]

Graphic novels have a lot of potential as an art form but have to overcome a past that is tied to simplistic action stories for adolescent boys and people who think like adolescent boys. For example above poster can't judge Marvel Zombies outside of the context of the Marvel Universe, which is made up of stories by thousands of different writers over decades on tight deadlines who were not always trying to be consistent with what had been written before them.
They are just coming into thier own as an art form, whereas other artforms from the same era have surapssed them.

[Anonymous No.1808727]

>>1808716
Yes, and I am not ashamed to say so at all
(I'm not sure how spoilers work (don't hang out here too often) but I assume they'll work)
because:
I think that making mankind afraid of a superhuman uncaring god is a lot more credible than making it afraid of 'OTHER DIMENSION ALIENS'

Also, it seems a lot more possible to me that Adrian's company was mimicking Dr. Manhattan's powers, and not trying to figure out creature summoning

[Anonymous No.1808731]

>>1808727
>implying watchmen is decent without outrageous silver age bullshit at the end

[Anonymous No.1808738]

>>1808720
I'm not sure I expressed myself correctly
I don't like long sequences of action without any wording. Like pages and pages long of people punching themselves meaninglessly in super hero comics; action that could be summarized in a couple of panels and contribute almost nothing to the story

I think I am being trolled, though

[Anonymous No.1808739]

[Anonymous No.1808748]

>>1808738
did you hate the first half of wall-e, too?

[basedyouth !!1f01/LlEgn9 No.1808753]

Chris Ware is top tier.

Too lazy to get into much else but you guys have to realize that if you're into graphic novels there's no reason not to read some manga. I particularly recommend Inio Asano for fans of Ware.

[Anonymous No.1808764]

>>1808748
You see, now I'm sure I'm being trolled because
1- it's not a comic
2- it's not negligible to the story (the first half of the movie)
3- it does not involve souless characters throwing punches/things exploding/cliched stereotypes in battles for longer than necessary to the story exposition

[Anonymous No.1808766]

[Anonymous No.1808774]

[Anonymous No.1808776]

[Anonymous No.1808794]

>>1807633
misery loves company

this was that mopey peanutheaded fuck's master plan all along

>>1807747
bums me out that this fell through but at the same time he doesn't really have the ideal skill set for a comic book writer. god tier prose stylist, meh tier plotter

[Anonymous No.1808850]

ITT:
People who don't understand that the term "graphic novel" refers not to content or artistic legitimacy, but to a format decision made by the person selling the comic to a publisher.

A serial is a set of comics sold to a publisher as the rights to a character or premise IP with the assumption being made that the series will continue as long as it remains profitable, and no guarantee that the original writer or artist will remain in creative control.
A graphic novel is a set of comics sold to the publisher as a predetermined story arc, or occasionally, a set of comics forming an overall story arc which have been later collected and resold as one volume.
It's like the difference between selling a TV pilot and selling a movie script.

[Anonymous No.1808867]

>/lit/
>people discussing comics
>no Tintin
What the fuck is wrong with you people?

[Anonymous No.1808880]

>>1808867
it's too depressing to think about that weird mo-cap movie

[Anonymous No.1808919]

>>1808880
>Haven't heard about that yet.
>Google it.
>CGI
>Directed by Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg
>Andy Serkis as Captain Haddock
>mffw

[Anonymous No.1808923]

>>1808919
it's that creepy dead-eyed polar express mo-cap technology, too, not whatever they used for avatar. i mean i'm a late-period spielbergo defender, even, but i'm not expecting much out of this

[Anonymous No.1808925]

>>1808867
it's because tin tin is bor-rin

[sandwiches No.1808928]

>>1808919
ALL OF MY RAGE

ALL OF MY HATE

I hope Belgium goes fucking apeshit over this because they should.

[Anonymous No.1808959]

>>1808867
it's because tin tin is bor-rin

[Anonymous No.1809576]

Any fans of Jason in here?

[Anonymous No.1809593]

Have any of you read this? It tries to explain why comics are a respectable medium in there own right, rather than a combination of art and literature?

[CoolGuy1309 No.1809743]

Comics are what got me into reading.Specifically Calvin And Hobbes

[Anonymous No.1811199]

>>1808713
if i don't read something mindlessly fun i kind of go mad. the heavy series i read need to be balanced out by the happier ones. i'm also following tiger&bunny [fujoshi glasses on]. i don't usually mention to polite society i like BL but hate to be associated with shit like junjou romantica if i do say i like it. so many good ones and the bitches like junjou romantica [but that rant's more suited for /y/ than /lit/ haha!]

[Anonymous No.1811233]

While we're on the subject, are there any good japanese manga style "graphic novels" that someone could recommend?

[Anonymous No.1811242]

>>1807528
Alan Moore.
Watchemen and V for Vendetta are a pinnacle of graphic novel. Well, for me at least.
I also like majority of Gaiman&McKean books.

[Anonymous No.1811251]

I have something preety meaningful to say about this, but I just got to the thread and I'm fucking lazy to make a point right now. But I love/hate comics and I feel like I have something new to say about it, so it will be the subject of my major.

Watchmen is underrated. I mean it, underrated.
Read Asterios Polyp, you guys.
Yeah, Chris Ware is good.

I have nothing to say.

[Anonymous No.1811256]

>>1811251
Personaly, I think that "V for Vendetta" is severly underrated.

[Anonymous No.1811257]

>>1811233
Manga is mostly about batshit craziness and pushing the limit, and then seemingly delaying the conclusion of a series for as long as possible. It's difficult to compare any of it to graphic novels.

However, you should consider reading Monster.

[Anonymous No.1811261]

>>1811242

You really need to read more graphic novels asside from what has been made into movies.

Alan Moore`s best work is called Marvelman/Miracleman. Its better than those two by far.

[Anonymous No.1811271]

From Hell is probably his 'best' but my favorites will always be the fun stuff he did when I was a kid

[Anonymous No.1811283]

>>1811261
Well, I will read them if they are good.

But don't get me wrong, I didn't read those because of the movies. Actually I absolutely despise V for Vendetta movie. It killed or reduced into generic shit every element and moment of the book that I loved. Seriously for me, this movie is a butchering at the level of "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"
I was amazed by the Watchmen movie though.

[Anonymous No.1811308]

>>1811233
try Nijigahara Holograph. i'm assuming you want one volume manga? er not sure what a manga-like graphical novel is. or natsume ono's 'not simple'.

[danky_danks !trdDG5AD.s No.1811316]

love the artwork
love some of the movies made from them
still can't really get all the way into any

[Anonymous No.1811326]

The form of exposing ideas isn't bad. The panel + text is a very nice thing, but 90% of comics are bullshit.
Same thing goes to videogames, if they were used properly, things would get real.

[Anonymous No.1811340]

>>1811326
To be fair, the same could be said about books.

[Anonymous No.1811355]

[Anonymous No.1811361]

>>1811340
Actually, it can't. Because books actually have a lot of meaningful material, even if there are a lot of shit. Comics and videogames don't.

[Anonymous No.1811371]

>>1811361
But you (or he, if not the same) didn't say anything about the meaningfulness of the medium. Just that the form is a good idea, but 90% of the product is shit. I'll stand behind the estimation that 90% of published books are shit.

[COCKBLOCKER No.1811372]

FER SRSZ?

[Anonymous No.1811394]

Ok, let me reformulate: 100% of videogames are shit (from a metaphysical approach) and 99,5% of comic books are shit. Books remain with 90%.

[Anonymous No.1811450]

>>1808867
Its right Tintin is god-tier Comic book.

I recommend also Persepolis, Maus and also Uncle Scrooge by Carl Barks AND Keno Don Rosa.

[Anonymous No.1812004]

>>1811394
Well, every now and then there comes out something like Planescape: Torment or Bioshock, I wouldn't say there wasn't a good game ever in history.

[Anonymous No.1812148]

>>1811257
Try this