/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19905664]

Call me an easily impressed normie but I just read this for the first time and found it to be excellent. Are there any other graphic novels worth reading?
Can they count as literature?

[Anonymous No.19905665]

>>19905664
Other Alan Moore

[Anonymous No.19905692]

>>19905664
The Dark Knight Returns
V For Vendetta
From Hell
Maus
Ghost World
Black Hole
Asterios Polyp
Jimmy Corrigan
Palestine
A Contract with God

[Anonymous No.19905698]

Simon Hanselmann

[Anonymous No.19905702]

>>19905698
Cross dressing stoner

[Anonymous No.19905703]

>>19905665
Most people on here will say they don't count as literature. Below are a couple of lectures from a prof who always puts one graphic novel in his first-year literature course.

I haven't read very many graphic novels and the ones I have are usually autobiographical in nature (unlike Watchmen). It seems to me that such is the mainstay of most artists/authors working in graphic novels; it seems to have developed alongside confessionalism in the 70s. A major theme seems to be mental illness (usually depression) as well as nostalgia (inb4 because comics are for kids and the creators are basically children).

>Seth (Clyde Fans; It's a Good Life If You Don't Weaken)
>Chris Ware (Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth)
>Harvey Pekar (Our Cancer Year)

https://youtu.be/mxEUGTvEFEU
https://youtu.be/3gG6rqwGUIA

[Anonymous No.19905704]

>>19905664
Comics are a different medium, so no, they are not literature.

[Anonymous No.19905709]

>>19905704
Plays are a different medium too. We like to talk about playwrights here some.
Unfortunately we discuss philosophy ad nauseam

[Anonymous No.19905717]

>>19905664
P.S. Also check out the documentary Crumb (the Crumb brothers are pretty fucked up people; near the end, Maxon nonchalantly discusses sexually assaulting women in public Robert questions him about how it's similar to rape).

[Anonymous No.19905718]

>>19905709
Comics are sight-based like film. Literarure is audio-based like music.

[Anonymous No.19905722]

>>19905704
That's an autist understanding of what constitutes literature.

[Anonymous No.19905730]

>>19905718
Comics are interactive/active media like novels. Film is a passive media like music. Split hairs.

[Anonymous No.19905731]

>>19905722
No, that's arts classification 101. Comics and Literature are different media.

[Anonymous No.19905732]

>>19905730
You destroyed me. I forgot about hot and cold.

[Anonymous No.19905737]

>>19905731
No, it's a superficial categorization that is incorrect even on a basic semantic level and odds are you'll defend it by smugly alluding to the difference between high and low art.

[Anonymous No.19905745]

>>19905737
No, I never said anything about "high and low art", I said they were two completely different art forms, which is true.

[Anonymous No.19905757]

>>19905745
Not according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica. You're mistakenly forcing an overly literal idea of what constitutes "literature." That's why I said you're an autist.

[Anonymous No.19905763]

>>19905718
SO ARE STAGE PLAYS

[Anonymous No.19905765]

>>19905757
Not him but term "graphic novel" is a cope.

[Anonymous No.19905769]

>>19905765
"Graphic novel" isn't even an accepted term among people who create them (see the first video in >>19905703). Also, it isn't my fault if you can't tell the difference between capeshit and literature and want to regurgitate a tired bias, so don't bore me with your bullshit.

[Anonymous No.19905784]

>>19905757
"Graphic novel" is a marketing term used to give comics some phony and unnecessary credence. Its creators and perpetuators use it in relation to how "serious" or "adult" the content of the comic book is in relation to what they perceive as "literature", not in terms of form. Comics are their own medium distinct from literature and always will be. Storytelling through images is what makes comics their own thing. Text can or cannot exist. There are comics which tell stories completely with images, like those by Jason, Ott, etc. I'm not sure how more clear this is.

[Anonymous No.19905788]

Peak graphic novel /lit/ core is Strongest Man Kurosawa, I'd go as far as to say it's actually better than a few badboys in the canon.

[Anonymous No.19905790]

>>19905788
It's certainly better than Henry James.

[Anonymous No.19905791]

>>19905709
>Plays are a different medium too. We like to talk about playwrights here some.
Not quite. Plays, as in the dramatic text, are literature. Plays, i.e. what you see in the theater, is indeed a different medium and would theoretically deserve a different board.

>>19905718
>>19905730
Is this a competition in stupidity?

>>19905757
The point of classification of art is to aid in interpreting it. As in, you don't look at a painting and analyse the rhyming, because you know it's visual art, while you rather look for rhymes in what is classified as poetry. The visual aspect of comics is completely disruptive to interpreting comic narratives as novels. It's about as meaningful as to call comics a type of painting.
Also, Britannica doesn't actually classify comics as literature (see the article "Comic strip"), it only classifies "graphic novels" that way, and that term is bullshit that even the EB article itself brings into question.

[Anonymous No.19905798]

>>19905784
>odds are you'll defend it by smugly alluding to the difference between high and low art.
Remember when I said that? (>>19905737). Graphic Novels/Comics/Sequential Art Literature/Cartoons (whatever you want to call them) are a form of literature and you have no other argument other than a false semantic one (see pic >>19905757) and a contrived smugness about what constitutes high v. low art. Finished?

[Anonymous No.19905807]

>>19905717
>sexually assaulting women in public
Wait! What does it exactly mean?

[Anonymous No.19905816]

>>19905798
They are not literature. Your definition says literature is about written works. Comics are drawn. This is not "semantics", this is about their very form. I haver literally never said anything about "high v. low art." You literally pulled that out of your asshole and you do not understand what I'm saying at all because you are defensive.

[Anonymous No.19905827]

>>19905791
>The point of classification of art is to aid in interpreting it.
Not entirely.
>you don't look at a painting and analyse the rhyming
Oh really? (pic). You're hiding behind semantics and wasting time.
>The visual aspect of comics is completely disruptive to interpreting comic narratives as novels
Just because they're a hybrid with visual art doesn't make them unrelated to literature. (Aside, comics are also different in that they can express silence/pause whereas novels cannot...but that extra doesn't make them not literature).
>It's about as meaningful as to call comics a type of painting.
No it isn't because paintings don't have to be sequential whereas that's what defines a comic/graphic novel.
>Also, Britannica doesn't actually classify comics as literature (see the article "Comic strip"), it only classifies "graphic novels" that way
We're discussing graphic novels.
> that term is bullshit
See >>19905769.

[Anonymous No.19905841]

>>19905807
He talks about groping women in public and pulling their clothes off (and he laughs about it as he reminisces). It's been a while but I think he says he went to jail for it. They also relate a story about a female friend going to take a bath and Maxon seemingly entering a catatonic trance and barging into the bathroom and forcibly holding the door open when the woman tried to close it (screaming the whole time)--he then had a seizure.

[Anonymous No.19905846]

>>19905827
>Just because they're a hybrid with visual art doesn't make them unrelated to literature
Yes, it does. They are drawn, not written. They work with images. You can make a comic completely textless and there are examples of that. It's a different medium.
>No it isn't because paintings don't have to be sequential whereas that's what defines a comic/graphic novel
And comics don't have to have text.

[Anonymous No.19905849]

>>19905816
>Literally makes a semantic argument
>"This is not "'semantics'"
You're retarded bro. You:
> I haver literally never said anything about "high v. low art."
Also you:
>"Its creators and perpetuators use it in relation to how "serious" or "adult" the content of the comic book is in relation to what they perceive as "literature""
Again, you're retarded bro.

[Anonymous No.19905859]

>>19905788
it's cool but I don't like the campy style

[Anonymous No.19905861]

>>19905827
Comics don't have to be sequential. You can have single panel comics.

[Anonymous No.19905883]

>>19905849
>Its creators and perpetuators use it in relation to how "serious" or "adult" the content of the comic book is in relation to what they perceive as "literature"
But what's what Britannica, your beloved source, says. That's how the term came to be in history. Because the industry was looking for a term for the comics with "serious" or "adult" themes that you could find in literature.

[Anonymous No.19905894]

>>19905846
They are a hybrid between written language and visual art. They're categorized as literature because of the manner by which they express themes and ideas through narrative.
>You can make a comic completely textless and there are examples of that.
There are segments in Watchmen that are pictureless--unless you want to count a drawing of several pages of a book as a picture. Comics are a form of literature.

You can also get abstract and go into the history of written language and the relationships it has with visual art. There's a section regarding it in "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud (which is, I'll add, classified as "Literary Criticism").
>>19905861
>Comics don't have to be sequential.
So me a single-panel graphic novel.

[Anonymous No.19905898]

>>19905757
Holy shit your argument started looking like a fucking trainwreck the moment you started posting dictionary definitions and then you doubled down with EB. Are you just lonely and in desperate need of attention or a genuine retard?

[Anonymous No.19905900]

>>19905861
That guy's a retard, don't waste your time. To summarize:
a) Comics are drawn, not written.
b) Comics don't have to have text or dialogues. Wordless, purely pictorial comics exist.
c) Comics don't have to be sequential
d) Comics primarily or solely use images as their main storytelling tool.

Therefore, comics and literature are different art forms. Comics =/= literature. End of discussion.

[Anonymous No.19905910]

>>19905894
You said "that's what defines comics/graphic novels"
>comics/
Here's a "graphic novel" with only single panels anyway.

[Anonymous No.19905915]

>>19905883
I actually said that the term is contentious. However, my point was that you'd allude to it as a way to denigrate the medium because you're semantically incorrect and disingenuous. You can't prove that comics/graphic novels (again, whatever you want to call them) aren't literary and I provided a source so you would stop sliding with semantics that are objectively incorrect.

If you think that the term being contentious proves your actual point, and isn't just a pathetic slide from someone with nowhere to go, please stop wasting my time and fuck off. Retard.

[Anonymous No.19905922]

>>19905898
>no! you can't cite a 250-year-old encyclopedia that defines graphic novels as literature! it's wrong!
You're a retard. Also, I made my own points...I was hoping people wouldn't be stupid enough to slide into semantics after such was posted. (Ad homs are to be expected though so I'll add you're a retard with no point to make and that you aren't even intelligent enough to discuss what I've written let alone refute it). Faggot.

[Anonymous No.19905928]

>>19905915
Those guys who invented the term were the ones denigrating comics. They saw the medium in relation to literature, an older medium, rather than seeing how it is a thing on its own by any metric. The term is controversial for this reason.

Also, I don't give a single minuscule fuck about your "time", you cocksucker. You don't even have any arguments besides quoting rancid dictionaries (Argument from authority).

[Anonymous No.19905932]

>>19905922
>I can argue semantics but you can't, also you can't discuss what I quote

[Anonymous No.19905933]

>>19905664
I loved Hellboy but it’s mostly because I like old horror pulp fictions and Hellboy is heavily inspired by them

[Anonymous No.19905950]

>>19905910
That isn't what I asked for retard. It's a collection of unrelated works that weren't even published so as to have any relation with one another.
>>19905900
a) They're both
b1) Again, so me a graphic novel with no words
b2) The relationship they share with traditional literature has to do with the expression of themes and ideas
c) Sequence is actually one of the key elements of graphic novels (see McCloud for discussion or Ware for (experimental) examples).
d) Comics use both images and words as a means of narrative

Therefore, comics are a form of literature. Further, criticism entails it's own concepts due to elements comics have that traditional literature does not--but there is significant overlap when it comes to tools and concepts related to traditional literary criticism.

BTFO.

[Anonymous No.19905956]

>>19905932
Not what I said faggot. Do you want to actually meet the points or just slide because you're unable to do so (i.e. what I pointed out you were doing in my last post)?

[Anonymous No.19905958]

>>19905922
No, you are an attention-starved wreck of a human being. Get help.

[Anonymous No.19905965]

>>19905910
You could have at least used google you fucking retard. I was hoping you would so I could go more deeply into the hybridization of visual art and literary narrative but you were too retarded to even lead the discussion there.
>>19905958
Sure faggot. Cope.

[Anonymous No.19905979]

>>19905900
kek. You literally had one point (literature doesn't involve drawings) and divided it into 4. I guess illustrated children's literature doesn't count as literature either.
>but it mainly uses words though! A/B/C/D) Literature is about words
Retard.

[Anonymous No.19905984]

Has anybody "read" Lynd Ward ? He seems to be the pioneer of Graphic Novels somehow, and for what I have seen it seems really good.

[Anonymous No.19905987]

>>19905965
Are you too socially retarded to make friends who could give you your sorely needed dose of attention, repulsive freak?

[Anonymous No.19905997]

>>19905950
You literally asked me to show a single panel graphic novel which is what I did.

>>19905965
>You could have at least used google you fucking retard. I was hoping you would so I could go more deeply into the hybridization of visual art and literary narrative but you were too retarded to even lead the discussion there.
What are you talking about? What does searching silent comics on Google have to do with single panel comics?

[Anonymous No.19906000]

>>19905987
>y-you...(You)s! You just want attention!
Fuck off. Stop replying to me if you're not going to have a discussion you useless pathetic faggot. I'm going to ignore your comments (unless they're on-topic); do whatever you need in order to feel like you've had the last word and accomplished something in your sad pathetic life.

What's really sad is you probably didn't even learn anything.

[Anonymous No.19906003]

>>19905997
It isn't a graphic novel. As I said, it's a collection of unrelated works that weren't published to have any relation with one another.
>What does searching silent comics on Google have to do with single panel comics?
Apologies, it's hard to tell one retard from another on an anonymous board. I mixed up your nonsense.

[Anonymous No.19906007]

>>19906003
A graphic novel is any book of comics. They don't have to be connected.

[Anonymous No.19906010]

>>19905664
Oyasumi Punpun. It's one of the few mangas out there that is as good and deep as any novel you can think of. Get ready to cry though.

[Anonymous No.19906037]

>>19906007
No, you're using the term in the broad sense in order to include anthologies of unrelated work. It's as if you want to win an argument based on a semantic technicality (but...anthologies of otherwise unrelated periodicals are in the same section of the bookstore as graphic novels!!) instead of actually meeting the point that was made.

Since you want to be disingenuous--a collection of multiple panels still isn't a single panel so...show me a graphic novel that contains only a single panel. You can't because a graphic novel isn't the same thing as a single-panel gag. Further, even something like Peanuts (which sometimes had a single narrative running over multiple days) doesn't constitute a "graphic novel" (it has more in common with a short story).

[Anonymous No.19906041]

>>19906000
Go get professional help, you ignorant fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.19906054]

>>19905698
based, literally the only good comic writer active today

[Anonymous No.19906106]

Inio asano's stuff

[Anonymous No.19906161]

>>19905664
i really like the Essex County trilogy by Jeff Lemire

https://readcomiconline.li/Comic/Essex-County

[Anonymous No.19906165]

>>19906161
good taste, ghost stories made me cry when i read it (i was in high school and being a faggot)

[Anonymous No.19906178]

>>19906165
yeah that was beautiful, i liked the plot twist. i haven't read any of his other works, though. Is Sweet Tooth good as well?

[Anonymous No.19906182]

>>19906178
havent read, but underwater welder is alright. aside from that i've read some one shot comics he did and then also some of his animal man (not good but probably better than most modern capeshit). mightve read more but can't remember, haven't read a comic in years

[Anonymous No.19906762]

>>19905664
this kino (disregard the series)

[Anonymous No.19906798]

>>19905664
Pynchon

[Anonymous No.19906805]

>>19905702
filtered

[Anonymous No.19907088]

What's great about Watchmen? It's frivolous pomo trash without a single theme worth exploring in greater detail. I think pseuds only like it because it validates their hatred for equally frivolous comic books that they read anyways.

[Anonymous No.19907092]

>>19907088
It's fun

[Anonymous No.19907097]

>>19907092
Okay, so it fits neatly into the category of menial entertainment. Why pretend it's something more than that, though?

[Anonymous No.19907123]

>>19905664
>>>/co/

[Anonymous No.19907142]

>>19907097
who is?

[Anonymous No.19907183]

>>19905722
>>19905737
they are not written works since they are primarily visual works and the words are not a necessary element of the medium.
>>19905757
"literary themes" doesn't mean they are saying it "is literature" in the same way that saying you have "hairy legs" doesn't mean that you "are a piece of hair"
--

'literature' is not some rarefied award you give to 'good works of art'. an academic article is 'literature', so is a novel, so is a philosophical treatise. literature is a word for written works. comics are not literature, because they are not words on a page. they are sequences of images on a page that may or may not have words attached to them.

imagine if we were having the discussion about whether or not 'films can be literature' -- its fucking stupid, they're different mediums. citizen kane isn't considered a great film because it has language to rival shakespeare, its because of the way it conveys a narrative through filmed sequences.

when you start talking about 'comics as literature' you inevitably start prioritizing 'comics that are reminiscent of written works' and cease to view the medium for what it actually is. the best comics become the comics with the 'best prose' or 'the most fitting allegories' or 'the most complex metaphors' rather than being the comics that are best at organizing images sequentially on a page.

you literally shut yourself off to all the best work in the medium and, as we so often see, become obsessed with comics that mimic literary techniques and are basically just second-rate novels.

if you want to go into a new medium and try to treat everything as if its a variant of literature then nobody can stop you. you're just going to be another person who reads watchmen, maus & persepolis and comes away with no wider understanding of or appreciation for other mediums of art. all you will have done is reinforce your existing ideas about what great works of literature look like. alternatively, you could have an amazing time reading classics of the medium like Little Nemo in Slumberland, Krazy Kat; appreciating foundational artists like Eisner, Kirby, Carl Barks; engaging with cult outsiders like Crumb & co., Los Bros Hernandez, Jim Woodring; experiencing all the fantastic work made in this century by people like Chris Ware, Olivier Schrauwen, Michael Deforge, Patrick Kyle.

None of these people ever really attempted to write anything close to 'literature', but they're all regarded as highly significant figures in the medium for reasons that will be obvious if you give any of their work a go without trying to shoehorn it into your mental conception of 'literature'.

2ar2k

[Anonymous No.19907329]

>>19907097
just because its easily appreciated doesnt mean there isnt much to appreciate. its pretty creative, very gripping as a mystery, has lots of thought out details and a great ending. the pomo lens is completely unnecessary. its more your fault for viewing it that way

[Anonymous No.19907334]

>>19905664
you're an easily impressed normie

[Anonymous No.19907347]

Low Moon by Jason
The Death Ray by Daniel Clowes
The Maxx
Cerebus by David Sims
Black hole by Charles Burns

[Anonymous No.19907678]

>>19907088
Most comic artists are influenced by Dave Gibbons' art, paneling, etc. The story by Alan Moore influenced the deconstructed superhero in mainstream media, which I think he hated. Moore says he's quit comics because of the industry, and that Watchmen helped create.

[Anonymous No.19907714]

>>19905950
>b1) Again, so me a graphic novel with no words
presumably the missing word there is "recommend". in which case, pic related

[Anonymous No.19907749]

>>19906037
>show me a graphic novel that contains only a single panel
i can't think of a "novel" in one single panel but there are certainly single panels that could qualify as a short story. pic related for example, the legend of alexandra and rose by jon klassen (author of the classic i want my hat back)

[Anonymous No.19907874]

I tried getting into graphic novels. The ones I ended up enjoying are all-star superman, hellboy, and chronosis. None stacked up to my fav literature but all enjoyable reads. A warning though - avoid 'saga', that is reddit incarnate. I just can't believe it's popularity. High-school tier writing that some good art can't redeem.

[Anonymous No.19908269]

>>19905664
The Incal is great but definitely not literature.

[Anonymous No.19909210]

>>19907183
>they are not written works since they are primarily visual works and the words are not a necessary element of the medium.
As I said, they're hybrids. Saying they're not written works is disingenuous.
>"doesn't mean they are saying it "is literature"
They're saying it's literature (boxed in red).
>'literature' is not some rarefied award you give to 'good works of art'.
Never said it was; strawman.
>literature is a word for written works.
Correct but that's the opposite of what you're arguing. Also, illustrations.
>comics are not literature, because they are not words on a page.
They are.
>they are sequences of images on a page that may or may not have words attached to them.
Correct. They are sequential art that makes use of both visual language and literary tropes--hence why I've said they're hybrids.
>imagine if we were having the discussion about whether or not 'films can be literature'
A film reel looks like a comic strip if you unravel it (a point brought up by McCloud). I'm not arguing film is the same thing as comics/superficial similarities...you're talking about superficial differences.
>when you start talking about 'comics as literature' you inevitably start prioritizing 'comics that are reminiscent of written works' and cease to view the medium for what it actually is.
No, and that's begging the question. Referencing your nonsense above--I can consider a film "literary" while maintaining that it isn't literature just as I can recognize deeper relations regarding criticism that render a graphic novel a work of literature. The point isn't that Jimmy Corrigan is in 100% correspondence to Ulysses; that's the strawman argument you're forcing into your entire post. Graphic novels are a hybridization of traditional literature and visual art--they also contain their own expressive techniques (mainly using visual cues to the same effect as traditional literature uses words alone). Hence, qualifying them as works of literature.
>if you want to go into a new medium and try to treat everything as if its a variant of literature then nobody can stop you
Not what I'm doing and they aren't a new medium.
>you're just going to be another person who reads watchmen, maus & persepolis and comes away with no wider understanding of or appreciation for other mediums of art. all you will have done is reinforce your existing ideas about what great works of literature look like
Literally you. The fact you don't see that final sentence as referencing yourself is indicative of how far up your own ass you are (the rest of that thought is just vapid pretentious drivel).
>without trying to shoehorn it into your mental conception of 'literature'.
Again, you're shoehorning so as not to include a medium that exists as a hybrid of traditional literature and visual art. What's more, the visual aspects of comics are employed in such a way (e.g. "sequential" art) so as to render them closer to narrative as employed by traditional literature.

Get it?

[Anonymous No.19909226]

>>19907714
See >>19905965. Also, "mainly using visual cues to the same effect as traditional literature uses words alone" from >>19909210.
>>19907749
See >>19906037.

[Anonymous No.19909290]

>>19907183
P.S. You're argument boils down to the idea that "literature" only constitutes works that use written language by itself, graphic novels use pictures (never mind how they employ visual cues) so they aren't literature. Hence, my initial calling out of how that overly restrictive idea is autistic (i.e. painfully literal). The point I'm making isn't superficial in the sense that graphic novels can be "literary" nor that is it that they don't contain their own unique methods for construing ideas. The point is that they check all the boxes of what constitutes "literature" proper, and the idea that "literature" has to be written language alone is shallow.

The end.

[Anonymous No.19909361]

>>19907183
You're such a retard. There are plenty of graphic novels that dismantle your entire argument. The tail end of Cerebus was heavily criticised for being mostly just text with small images interspersed throughout. By that logic a lot of William H.Gass's work is a graphic novel.

Read more you pseud cunt.

Now give me the classic midwit bray
>It's the exception that proves the rule

[Anonymous No.19909387]

>>19907097
Everything is entertainment underread retard.

[Anonymous No.19909398]

>>19908269
The Metabarons is awesome too. I think the Incal is literature... the art is amazing and the story is crazy. Psychomagic my nigga

[Anonymous No.19909573]

>>19905950
>Again, so me a graphic novel with no words
Frank by Jim Woording, Shhh! by Jason, etc
>b2) The relationship they share with traditional literature has to do with the expression of themes and ideas
Same could be said about muh mature films yet they're not literature.
>d) Comics use both images and words as a means of narrative
Not necessarily, as seen from the examples above.

[Anonymous No.19909585]

>>19909398
Comics are not literature.

[Anonymous No.19909613]

>>19909573
See >>19909226 and >>19909361. I'm only going to reply within the context of the previous conversation; dealing with disingenuous retards has lost its fun and the debate is already won. Add new thoughts or don't expect a reply.

[Anonymous No.19909617]

>>19909613
Opps, I meant see >>19909226 and >>19909290. This >>19909361 wasn't me but I understand his frustration and share his sentiment.

[Anonymous No.19909629]

>>19909613
>I have no arguments! I won!
Whatever you say, you delusional faggot lmao comics are not literature and you will never ever be a woman :D

[Anonymous No.19909653]

>>19909226
anons asked questions
i provided answers
go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.19909688]

>>19909629
What genre of autism is this

[Anonymous No.19909696]

>>19909629
You do realise there are books that could be called graphic novels under your definition and vice versa? You haven't read enough pseud.

[Anonymous No.19909701]

>>19909573
God you are such a fag, but you do have good taste in comics.

[Anonymous No.19909719]

>>19905664
watchmen and lone wolf and cub are the best comics ever penned, imo.

calvin and hobbes also worthwhile but the format makes it clearly different.

[Anonymous No.19909732]

>>19909719
I guess if you're only just starting with graphic novels. There are way better ones out there. Beverley for example.

[Anonymous No.19909760]

>>19909210
>As I said, they're hybrids. Saying they're not written works is disingenuous.
you can make a comic without writing any words. so it is not disingenuous at all.
>they also contain their own expressive techniques (mainly using visual cues to the same effect as traditional literature uses words alone)
meaning what exactly? are you gesturing towards the concept of narratives? which existed in music and painting perhaps before oral storytelling and certainly before the invention of modern comics.
>the visual aspects of comics are employed in such a way (e.g. "sequential" art) so as to render them closer to narrative as employed by traditional literature.
and yet there are comics that don't have "narrative as employed by traditional literature" -- you are once again using comics as a mirror in which you "reinforce your existing ideas about what great works of literature look like". What on earth does Richard McGuire take from literary narratives in his work? What does Victor Moscoso take? (ill reply with a pic of his work)
>>19909290
if you wanted to talk about "narrative" then why not say "narrative" instead of "literature"? the narratives in many comics are simply not literary because there are ways of conveying sequential information with images that just are not possible with words. your hybrid medium idea only fucking works if you're not familiar with the range of things that have been done on a comic book page, and only familiar with the ones that conform to your ideas about what is literary (which you have taken from what you call "traditional literature" and projected onto comics).

[Anonymous No.19909762]

>>19909760
You can make a book without any written words as well brainlet.

[Anonymous No.19909765]

>>19909762
which would by definition not be a "written work"

[Anonymous No.19909772]

>>19909765
But it would still be literature.

[Anonymous No.19909773]

>>19909760
Here's Moscoso's work, I have no idea what you think it takes from "traditional literature"

[Anonymous No.19909784]

>>19909629
I made my arguments multiple times. The retarded anons were unable to answer them. I answered their arguments.

Also, a discussion isn't something to be won but since these idiots turned it into a debate...yeah, I did win. The only way to use now is to entertain disingenuousness or reiterate myself endlessly because they refuse to actually address my points. As long as this is entertaining I'll continue but it is an actual waste of time (i.e. they're retards) so I don't know how long I'll bother.

[Anonymous No.19909788]

>>19909772
No. Literature means written work, not just anything made out of fucking paper, retard.

[Anonymous No.19909793]

>>19909784
You haven't really answered half the shit people said here. You just continue to quote someone else.

[Anonymous No.19909794]

>>19909772
you could view it as literature since it's similar to other things we call literature, but you could just as easily say it is actually conceptual art, or some kind of sculpture.

[Anonymous No.19909801]

>>19909762
dude that's called a notepad or summat
>>19909784
>since these idiots turned it into a debate...yeah, I did win
lol you're a twat

[Anonymous No.19909802]

>>19909772
Based.
>>19909760
BTFO

[Anonymous No.19909806]

>>19909760
>your hybrid medium idea only fucking works if you're not familiar with the range of things that have been done on a comic book page, and only familiar with the ones that conform to your ideas about what is literary (which you have taken from what you call "traditional literature" and projected onto comics).
Pretty much this. But he's too retarded to realize it.

[Anonymous No.19909810]

>>19909793
I've made my points with reference to other people's ideas (for the purpose of further study on any interested parties part and not as an appeal to authority). I've also clarified and distilled my general point while specifically referencing why find the basis of their argument incorrect (e.g. >>19909290).

Work on your reading comprehension you disingenuous retarded faggot. :)

[Anonymous No.19909817]

>>19909801
>you're a twat
Yeah. But that's better than being a retarded cunt. Cope faggot.

[Anonymous No.19909827]

>>19909762
Book=/=literature

[Anonymous No.19909835]

>>19905664
Berserk
Devilman (it gets better over time)
Akira
Uzumaki

[Anonymous No.19909839]

>>19909810
>(for the purpose of further study on any interested parties part and not as an appeal to authority)
No, you didn't use your sources like that. You used them as some gotcha, debate-terminating, ultimate and fixed facts. You first quoted google dictionary and the definition doesn't apply to a lot of comics, you were refuted right there and you still haven't answered that.

[Anonymous No.19909844]

>>19905791
The amount of importance put upon plays as literature, especially when they were written purely to be acted out, is whack.

[Anonymous No.19909855]

>>19909760
>it is not disingenuous at all.
It's disingenuous because you're broadly applying a restriction and ignoring how visual language is actually used.
>meaning what
There are a lot of them (closure is an example, which shares similarities to subtext in written language).
>yet there are comics that don't have "narrative as employed by traditional literature"
No, see the argument regarding the manner by which visual language is employed.
>you are once again using comics as a mirror in which you "reinforce your existing ideas about what great works of literature look like"
Literally you. You're literally projecting what literature has to look like and using that as a means to derive what is a very basic and shallow understanding.
>if you wanted to talk about "narrative" then why not say "narrative" instead of "literature"
"Blah blah blah...literature can only use words." Begging the question again.

Do you actually have a point to make or are you just going to beg the question and ignore the fact that >>19909290 restates the basis of your argument and you have to deflect away from it?

[Anonymous No.19909885]

>>19909839
No, I used sources like McCloud and was nice enough to post a couple of videos. Regarding the Brittanica entry--that demonstrates that graphic novels are accepted as a form of literature while denigrating any attempt to bog the discussion down in semantics (which is what you're now doing again). You're cherrypicking the "literature" definition out of context--which was in regard to the assertion that "literature" is restricted to a means of classification devoid of other ideas. Further, I do accept the idea of "traditional literature" as a means of classification but I've argued as to why the term isn't restricted to only works involving "written language." A comic or graphic novel is a written work and you've done nothing to show why it is not...only say there are comics without words (which was responded to with reference to things like illustrations, illumination, history of language (e.g. heiroglyphics), and general symbolic representation).

Cope.

[Anonymous No.19909894]

>>19909855
>literature can only use words
Literally yes. The moment you use images, it's another medium, a visual medium.

[Anonymous No.19909897]

>>19909855
>There are a lot of them (closure is an example, which shares similarities to subtext in written language).
Subtext also exists in paintings, yet most people do not claim that paintings are literature. Implied chords exist in music, but most people do not cite this as evidence for music being literature.

The similarity between subtext and closure is that both involve the audience doing mental work to fill in things not explicitly portrayed in the work of art. People also do this on a daily basis when they assume what is at the corners of their vision, or when they apply scientific ideas about evolution to plants that they can see, or when they perceive that someone is lying to them. I don't think that you would claim that daily human experiences qualify as literature though.

>The point is that they check all the boxes of what constitutes "literature" proper

All we've heard about so far are narratives and closure/subtext from you. One is clearly very different between mediums (narratives) and the other is so universal that it doesn't even require any kind of art object to exist. Are there any more examples you had in mind?

[Anonymous No.19909929]

>>19909897
I also think subtext and closure are really very different, since closure is classically about connecting a 'before' and 'after' image by filling in time to create an action, while subtext is classically about things like picking up on repeated hints within a narrative and using your social knowledge to connect them into a broader theme or a piece of hidden narrative information. The former is completely explicit and crucial to the work, while the latter is inherently non-explicit and usually splits the experience of reading the work into at least two types of understanding (picking up on the subtext vs not picking up on the subtext).

[Anonymous No.19909945]

>>19909894
Images constitute visual language.
>>19909897
>Subtext also exists in paintings
You're sliding. The point isn't that something having subtext constitutes it being classified as literature.
>The similarity between subtext and closure is that both involve the audience doing mental work to fill in things not explicitly portrayed in the work of art.
Correct. But again, this is a slide and not the point.
> People also do this on a daily basis when they assume what is at the corners of their vision, or when they apply scientific ideas about evolution to plants that they can see, or when they perceive that someone is lying to them.
This is ironically an example of overgeneralization which you're trying to attribute to me when it comes to classifying graphic novels as literature.
>I don't think that you would claim that daily human experiences qualify as literature though.
Do you honestly not see how this is a deflection of the actual point being made and also a strawman?

[Anonymous No.19909949]

>>19909945
the point being?

[Anonymous No.19909955]

>>19909945
>Images constitute visual language.
Correct, visual language, not written language.

[Anonymous No.19909989]

>>19909945
let me lay my argument out more clearly for you: the production and reception of any piece of art (no matter the medium) takes some basis in elements of daily human experience. some things (such as making mental connections to contextualize the information in front of our senses) are so universal that we find them in literally every medium of art. so i do not accept that closure 'having some similarities with subtext' is evidence that comics are a hybrid form of literature and visual art. i think that closure and subtext are two expressions, in different mediums, of a universal thing that humans do (with examples available in other mediums such as music and painting). there is, as far as I can tell, nothing specific to subtext and closure that cannot also be said of implied chords or subtext in painting. so all the similarity shows, to me, is that they are two different mediums of art.

[Anonymous No.19910007]

>>19909949
>The point being
The main point is >>19909290. Specifically however, closure was brought up because you asked for an example of something that is specific to comics. Your point would be proving that aspect proves it isn't literature but I invited you to work on the analogy hoping you'd learn something. My point isn't that graphic novels and traditional literature share a complete 1:1 correspondence and your insistence that they must in order to classify comics as literature is shallow.
>>19909955
So comics aren't written works? The examples of experimental literature other anons have pointed out aren't literature because they use pictures? Something with illustrations integral to the story is no longer literature? Something like illumination is entirely separate from the ideas being represented in the text and is divorced?

Are you starting to get the point now? I'm going to go eat. I'll respond to your restated nonsense later if the thread is still up.

[Anonymous No.19910012]

>>19909989
This >>19910007. That literally wasn't the point of closure being brought up retard. I'll read the rest later. Dinner time.

[Anonymous No.19910034]

>>19910007
based on what common features are you classifying comics as literature? how are you defining literature? I've tried to engage with the features you've presented ("the audience doing mental work to fill in things not explicitly portrayed in the work of art" + "narratives"), but both of these features clearly do not manage to exclude other mediums of art. So either your category of literature is overly broad, or you have not yet told us how you are using it.

[Anonymous No.19910047]

>>19910007
Your google definition quite literally says literature refers to WRITTEN works. Wordless comics exist... I'm not sure why you keep talking. Something like V for Vendetta reads completely different from something like War & Peace, why? Because comics are their own medium, different from literature in terms of form and many comic artists have proven this. It's like saying photographs are actually movies because both can be made using film just like comics and literature can be made using paper.

[Anonymous No.19910097]

>>19910047
>WRITTEN works
Not written language retard. Again, stop trying to bog the discussion down in semantics because you want to beg the question and strawman me into the idea that traditional literature and comics share a 1:1 correspondence and not the overlap I myself have demonstrated above multiple times over now.
>It's like saying photographs are actually movies because both can be made using film
See what I mean by strawmanning now?
>>19910034
>based on what common features are you classifying comics as literature?
This has been plainly stated above multiple times.
>I've tried to engage with the features you've presented
The fact you had to ask the question above proves you haven't.
>("the audience doing mental work to fill in things not explicitly portrayed in the work of art" + "narratives"), but both of these features clearly do not manage to exclude other mediums of art
Again, that's not why that (specific) example was brought up. >>19910007. I never said it's exclusive but rather argued the opposite (i.e. it's a specific mechanic of comics that traditional literature does not have, although it can be said to share characteristics with something like subtext--which means it's doing something differently than traditional literature).
>So either your category of literature is overly broad, or you have not yet told us how you are using it.
The exact opposite. I've made my points several times already and they have gone unanswered while you haven't proven why your classification of literature as only containing written language isn't overly narrow.

[Anonymous No.19910142]

>>19910097
>This has been plainly stated above multiple times.
quote it then

>you haven't proven why your classification of literature as only containing written language isn't overly narrow.
it defines a medium based on the actual MEDIUM through which it is communicated (written language). it is specific enough to avoid categorizing things like the sistine chapel (which I guess you would consider a work of literature?) while also being broad enough to contain literal millions of documents across a range of genres and purposes.

[Anonymous No.19910161]

can you retards just stfu

[Anonymous No.19910166]

>>19910097
What does 'semantics' even mean to you? If we're defining something, we ought to use meaning. You didn't even know wordless comics existed until like a few hours ago. There's a reason why comics have their own board and are considered a different art form: they are not literature, or cinema, or music, but rather they are their own thing and you are yet to produce evidence they're not.

[Anonymous No.19910171]

>>19910161
>>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.19910188]

>>19910142
>quote it then
No. I've already referenced the relevant posts for you and I'm done talking in circles. Reread the comments yourself or fuck off.
>it defines a medium based on the actual MEDIUM through which it is communicated
See >>19910007.
>sistine chapel (which I guess you would consider a work of literature?)
No. Stop being retarded please.

Again, you didn't prove shit. You just stated a semantically based definition and strawmaned the points I made as if I'm depending on superficial and overly broad similarities.

>>19910161
Good idea.

[Anonymous No.19910199]

Okay, this guy >>19909989 BTFO the retard. In short, comics are not literature. Everyone can go home now.

[Anonymous No.19910207]

>>19910188
How's the Sistine Chapel not literature?

[Anonymous No.19910214]

>>19910188
your amazing post that you keep redirecting me to is this >>19909290
where you say
"The point is that they check all the boxes of what constitutes "literature" proper, and the idea that "literature" has to be written language alone is shallow."
are you aiming for an apophatic account of literature or what ? just tell us what it is

[Anonymous No.19910222]

>Dude, drawings are literature lmao

[Anonymous No.19910230]

open the spoiler to read my favourite work of literature

[Anonymous No.19910237]

>>19910230
kek

[Anonymous No.19910248]

>>19910166
>What does 'semantics' even mean to you?
In the present context, it means relying on the technical definition of a word rather than the context and the ideas it represents. I've pointed out Brittanica classifies graphic novels as literature so relying on a restrictive definition of what constitutes literature (i.e. "it's only written language and nothing else!") is disingenuous and not even a point that can be made (i.e. graphic novels have been semantically classified as literature). Your argument is entirely semantic which is why you cannot answer the points I've made and are too retarded to even communicate with them.
>You didn't even know wordless comics existed until like a few hours ago
I did. >>19905965. Doesn't matter to the points I've made anyway though. Cope.
>There's a reason why comics have their own board
Never said there wasn't a reason autist.
>are considered a different art form
You haven't proven they're not literature.
Again, you rely on an overly restrictive and fully semantic definition of "literature" and this betrays the fact you don't actually have a point to make as to why graphic novels cannot be considered as such Further, I didn't say they're the exact same as traditional literature.
> they are not literature, or cinema, or music
They are literature.
>you are yet to produce evidence they're not.
I have. Stop being such a filtered retard.

Anyway, what I'll say now is with reference to Scott McCloud. He presents an interesting treatment of how written language and visual art were more connected throughout history and diverged more and more from one another (peaking in the early 20th century). He views graphic novels/comics as the reemergence of the previous unification that existed and that the medium will perhaps develop in unforeseeable ways to become more and more its own artform. However, the relationship between comics and traditional literature is a foundational aspect of its constitution--comics will not stop being literature but will continue to develop their own language with which to express ideas (be they literary or otherwise).

Goodnight retard.

[Anonymous No.19910270]

>>19910207
How is that not a strawman argument?
>>19910207
Because I thought it would be my last post but I became reengaged. I've given evidence of why comics/graphic novels constitute literature and you've been unable to answer them. You can get a firm idea of what I consider literature to be within the posts I've already made--you can answer to that. You're the one defining literature as only having to do with written language and it's your job to prove why that is so without merely stating a semantic definition that has already been refuted. (You only want me to give a definition of literature because you're retard and can't answer the points I've made...so you want me to define something so you can tell me why it's incorrect as if it reflects on the earlier points. That's a waste of time and I'm not going to do it; fuck off).

[Anonymous No.19910275]

>>19909894
That discounts so many books from the canon brainlet. Appolinaire for one. I think Gass was also mentioned

[Anonymous No.19910287]

>>19910248
>Doesn't matter to the points I've made anyway though.
It does matter because you said comics "check all the boxes of what constitutes "literature" proper, and the idea that "literature" has to be written language alone is shallow." There's nothing stopping painting or photography to also be literature in your bizarre view of things.

You have your own subjective definition on what literature is and it doesn't reflect the reality. You're not thinking objectively.
>You haven't proven they're not literature.
I already did, along with all the people with brains ITT. You have your own weird definition so it doesn't matter what people say, you will say no because it doesn't fit your criteria.
>They are literature.
No, they comics, the 9th art. Not, literature, the 3rd art.

[Anonymous No.19910291]

>>19910270
>How is that not a strawman argument?
It's not a straw man argument. I'm asking you to explain how The Sistine Chapel is not literature. It checks all the boxes just as a comic to be considered so.
>>19910275
Gass is not canonical.

[Anonymous No.19910296]

>>19905664
Graphic novels are a wonderful midpoint between literature and movies. Like a comic, but with a beginning and end.
Read John David Ebert’s Giant Humans,Tiny Worlds
It goes into very odd perspectives from Ebert’s enlightening and well understood knowledge of some interesting philosophers and it creates a pretty good reading list. Ronin is my favorite.

[Anonymous No.19910302]

>Little Lulu is literature
Do angloids really...?

[Anonymous No.19910309]

>>19910230
My favorite literary masterpiece is Little Lulu.

[Anonymous No.19910331]

>>19910287
>There's nothing stopping painting or photography to also be literature in your bizarre view of things.
Prove it.
>You have your own subjective definition on what literature is and it doesn't reflect the reality.
Prove it.
>You're not thinking objectively.
Prove it.
>I already did, along with all the people with brains ITT
You haven't so please do so (i.e. prove it).
>You have your own weird definition
Apparently, the writers and editors of a 250 years old encyclopedia share what is supposedly "my own and weird definition." Explain how it is only my own and how it is weird.
>it doesn't matter what people say
What matters is you have nothing to say.
>>19910291
>'m asking you to explain how The Sistine Chapel is not literature. It checks all the boxes just as a comic to be considered so.
Explain. It's not my job.

Go ahead. Explain yourself and prove your point. You can't.

[Anonymous No.19910347]

>>19910291
>Construct a strawman argument for me so I can slide
kek. What a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.19910375]

>>19910331
>There's nothing stopping painting or photography to also be literature in your bizarre view of things.
>Prove it.
Painting: it's pictorial (visual), it can tell a story (narrative), it can be sequential (e.g. Remedios Varo's trilogy), it can or can't include text, it can be printed in a book. Just like a comic.
>You have your own subjective definition on what literature is and it doesn't reflect the reality.
>Prove it.
Your definition includes comics, which are different art form, and you haven't even explained what you mean literature.
>You're not thinking objectively.
>Prove it.
You quote things and then you say people should be focused on semantics. You define things in bizarre ways that make no sense. You ignore evidence and brushed it off if it doesn't meet your criteria.
>You have your own weird definition
>Apparently, the writers and editors of a 250 years old encyclopedia share what is supposedly "my own and weird definition." Explain how it is only my own and how it is weird.
Nice appeal to authority and semantics but unfortunately, the term graphic novel comes from the 1980s. It's completely contemporary and the only relationship between them according to Britannica is 'adult' themes, not form.
>>it doesn't matter what people say
>What matters is you have nothing to say.
Which is funny which is all you've been doing this entire thread.
>>19910331
>Go ahead. Explain yourself and prove your point. You can't.
See my point on painting above.

[Anonymous No.19910384]

>>19910375
>what you mean literature.
what you mean by
>should be focused on semantics
should not be*

[Anonymous No.19910506]

>>19910291
Okay. Now address apollinaire.

[Anonymous No.19910563]

>>19905692
This is all very pedestrian normie-tier stuff, but good enough I suppose. The highest art in comics I've come across is Forming (read free online here: http://jessemoynihan.com/?p=11)), Nameless by Grant Morrison, and pic related. While not original works, Gou Tanabe's adaptations of Lovecraft are masterful too.

[Anonymous No.19910626]

>>19910375
>Paintings
How does what I've written qualify paintings as literature? You can't explicitly say because you're begging the question. You've prove nothing.
>Your definition includes comics
Not just "my" definition. Again, haven't proven I'm being overly subjective.
>which are different art form
Prove it (don't state it).
>you haven't even explained what you mean literature
Yes, I have.
>You quote things and then you say people should be focused on semantics.
Where? I've given the rationale behind everything I've quoted and explained fully what I mean by a semantic argument. Again, proven nothing (just statements).
>You define things in bizarre ways that make no sense.
You're putting words in my mouth and then claiming those make no sense. Either you're a filtered retard are just a disingenuous asshole.
As far as 'bizarre,' if it's in line with the standing description contained in an encyclopedia that's been around for a quarter of a millennia and has been a cultural reference point beyond living memory--the idea it's "bizarre" is something you're going to have to prove. You haven't.
>You ignore evidence and brushed it off if it doesn't meet your criteria.
Such as? I've pointed out what you've ignored. You can't do the same because I have met your points clearly and clarified and reiterated my points when necessary (to the point that I refuse to do so and guide you to my posts because you've been repeatedly disingenuous).
>Nice appeal to authority
It's an appeal to authority if I say "Brittanica says it is so" and don't do anything other than that to make my point retard. Further, bringing up Brittanica was to establish that I'm not making a point based on my own personal definition of what constitutes literature. You can't have it both ways retard.
>semantics
That wasn't semantical retard. Again, semantics in this context is "a word is technically defined in this way therefore only concepts I have named may apply to it." My point is that the word isn't even technically defined as being exclusive to literature AND your entire argument is based on the idea that there is a technical definition that precludes the inclusion of graphic novel. Again, you ignore the actual point and deflect the issue without proving anything.
>comes from the 80s
So? I've also stated it's a contested term while incorporating the idea that the art form is evolving and developing unique ways to express its content. You've stated such precludes it from being literature without giving any specific reason why...just "it's different though." Why do I have to argue that they are completely the same when my entire point is the overlap is what constitutes graphic novels as literature without denying that they have unique attributes?
>the only relationship between them according to Britannica is 'adult' themes
Who's making an appeal to authority now? Besides, I've already stated (multiple fucking times) why Brittanica...

1/2

[Anonymous No.19910634]

>>19910375
Re: >>19910626
why Brittanica was brought into the discussion so reread the above. I'm not going to continue to restate the same argument again and again.
>hich is funny which is all you've been doing this entire thread
So you say. But at least my point doesn't boil down to repeating "they're just different ok" and making up disingenuous strawmen argumennts because I don't actually have a real point to make.
>See my point on painting above.
See my point regarding why that was retarded above. Also, this guy was right >>19910347.

[Anonymous No.19910663]

>>19910563
>pedestrian
shut the fuck up pretentious neet pseud. scholars often give those examples as the height of the medium. also NTA

[Anonymous No.19910668]

>>19910663
Scholar here. No they don't. That's year one bachelor degree shit. Even then it's optional.

[Anonymous No.19910670]

>>19910663
Upvote

[Anonymous No.19910676]

>>19910668
God here. You're a homo

[Anonymous No.19910677]

>>19905664
i don't really understand why graphic novels/comics have earned recognition as serious art but animation is still looked down upon

[Anonymous No.19910684]

>>19910663
I don't know if you've noticed, by academia has been completely subverted by jews and trannies.

[Anonymous No.19910736]

>>19910626
>How does what I've written qualify paintings as literature?
Everything I mentioned is a thing you have mentioned earlier. Everything you said about comics perfectly applies to painting as well. I will repeat it because you seem to be a bit slow in the head and quite dishonest: It's pictorial (visual), it can tell a story (narrative), it can be sequential (e.g. that Remedios Varos' trilogy), it can or can't include text, it can be printed in a book. Just like a comic. Tell me with a straight face you didn't say any of those features are what makes a comic. If you include comics as literature, you can, by the same characteristics, include painting.
>Prove it (don't state it).
Already did >>19905900 (your answer to this was pathetic and you didn't even know wordless comics existed, which proves you're a retard and a fraud, likely both).
>contained in an encyclopedia that's been around for a quarter of a millennia and has been a cultural reference point beyond living memory
You're being dishonest. Appeal to tradition won't save you. The encyclopedia's age is irrelevant when one considers the term is contemporary. Again, you're being a dishonest fuck. "Dude, I will quote Britannica, but I actually I just put it there for discussion but ACTUALLY I *am* using it as a source for all my arguments but AAAAACTUALLLY no I'm not, but actu..." You just go back and forth with this like a bitch , depending on where the argument is at a given moment.
>Such as? I've pointed out what you've ignored. You can't do the same because I have met your points clearly and clarified and reiterated my points when necessary (to the point that I refuse to do so and guide you to my posts because you've been repeatedly disingenuous).
No you haven't. Half the shit you reference doesn't adequately address the points in the replies from everyone here that you get, which is why you keep getting replies, you retard.
>So?
So if it's a modern term, there's no need to appeal to tradition for le ancient anglopedia.
>I've also stated it's a contested term while incorporating the idea that the art form is evolving and developing unique ways to express its content.
It doesn't matter. It is fundamentally a different art form. See above.

>You've stated such precludes it from being literature without giving any specific reason why...just "it's different though."
Define what literature is first. Your definition is bizarre and subjective.

>Why do I have to argue that they are completely the same when my entire point is the overlap is what constitutes graphic novels as literature without denying that they have unique attributes?
Because so-called overlaps also happen with other art forms yet a thinking person wouldn't say that a movie is music and the so-called overlap between comics and literature (text) is not even necessary as there are wordless comics (something an ignorant baboon like yourself didn't know until a few hours ago).

[Anonymous No.19910746]

>>19910677
I don't think graphic novels have attained that recognition yet (although one was nominated for the Booker). Also, some animated films have attained pretty high esteem (Beauty and the Beast was nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award, albeit a long time ago now); works from Ghibli have received worldwide praise (so has Pixar shit but, if we're being honest. those ones get it with express regard to the fact they're kids movies with ideas). I've never been a fan of animation but I'd have to agree that there's an unfair bias against it; less so in Russia or Japan though and I honestly think the praise/recognition is well deserved for specific works (things like Yuri Norstein and The Tale of Princess Kaguya specifically come to mind).

Disclaimer: I'm not saying the Booker or the Academy Awards are a standard of quality. Just that they're a metric for broad recognition.

[Anonymous No.19910773]

>>19910746
Oh man I haven’t thought about hedgehog and the fog in years thanks for that mate.

[Anonymous No.19910807]

>>19910736
I never said paintings are comics. I said they exist as hybridization between visual language and written language. You're making a strawman out of my point. Also, other anons gave you exemplars of experimental literature that don't contain written language. Sperging out about semantics is a slide and I'm tired of it. Fuck off.

I specifically answered your retarded post (>>19905900). Also, someone else pointed out you were basically just making the same point 4 separate times for some reason (i.e. comics aren't strictly written language therefore they're not literature). You're a retard who keeps repeating that basic idea while not actually meeting the criticisms of it raised by myself and other anons. Fuck off.

I knew there are graphic novels that don't contain words. I also knew that they don't diminish the point I was making. The purpose was to bring up experimental literature (which someone did) and get into a discussion about the similarities between visual language and written language. You were too retarded for that discussion and ignored any points being made regarding such so I let it drop. Cope. Fuck off.

I'm not making an appeal to tradition. Once again you're projecting by making an appeal to traditional literature as the only thing constituting a definition of literature. I haven't relied on Brittanica to make my point for me. Again, you're disingenuously making a strawman and ignoring the specific context/rationale (which I've written multiple times). You're a retard. Fuck off.

I have specifically referenced the points brought up. So far no one has been able to answer the criticism that the general argument being made is a semantic one dependent on a restriction that isn't even semantically justified. Instead, it's the same strawman over and over.

You haven't proven it's a fundamentally different artform. I myself brought up differences between traditional literature and graphic novels while you disingenuously ignored any of the overlaps which constitute the basis of my argument. You're either a filtered retard or a disingenuous faggot or both. Fuck off.

It's your job to define literature as something that doesn't include graphic novels. That's your onus and you've failed. Again, you only want a definition so you can focus on its shortcomings and/or broadly construe its parts to other artforms--you are incapable of actually doing the work of your side of the argument. Ironically, you'll use the fact the constitution of the definition of literature is nebulous to your advantage while being too retarded to realize it's actually part of my point. Fuck off.

Overlaps do happen between other artforms. No fucking shit retard. However, equating the idea that all similarities are of the same character should be recognized by you as self-defeating to the point you're trying to make. You've been filtered by how to characterize them. Fuck off.

>>19910773
Np. Check out Kaguya if you haven't seen it.

[Anonymous No.19910909]

>>19910807
>I never said paintings are comics.
You didn't explicitly say it but your definition of what makes a comic part of literature can apply to paintings as well. That's the point. Visual, sequential, narrative, text(less). All of that can be found in a painting or a series of paintings. Your concept of literature is too broad so as to include comics. Funnily enough, in this >>19906037 reply you were accusing someone of using some term in the broad sense, which is exactly what you're doing with literature. IMAX tier projection (no, cinema is also not literature, sit down).

> I said they exist as hybridization between visual language and written language.
Sure, that's what you said but it's not necessarily true, as it happens, there are comics which do not make use of text. They do not overlap with literature in anyway in terms of form because they are fundamentally a different art form. You need an artist (draughtsman/illustrator) to make a comic. You can or cannot have a writer. But an artist you need. You do not need an artist to make literature, all you need is a writer. The moment you need a person from a different artistic field in order to execute a work of art, you're already talking about another art form.
>I knew there are graphic novels that don't contain words.
You didn't. Which is why in >>19905950
you said "Again, s[h]o[w] me a graphic novel with no words." If you truly knew this, you wouldn't have asked for examples (which were given and you ignored, anyway).
>I also knew that they don't diminish the point I was making.
Yes, they do. Because you say the so-called overlap between literature and comics is text but that's not necessarily true.
>I'm not making an appeal to tradition.
Yes, you are. You're proudly saying how this old institution has been a point of cultural reference for 250 years or whatever.
>Once again you're projecting by making an appeal to traditional literature as the only thing constituting a definition of literature.
I'm simply mentioning how a different medium is a different medium. If you have a writer, you can write literature but you don't need a draughtsman (at all). If you have a draughtsman you can draw a comic, but you do not need a writer necessarily. Music is not cinema either. You don't necessarily need a musician in order to make a movie.
> The purpose was to bring up experimental literature (which someone did) and get into a discussion about the similarities between visual language and written language.
There are similarities and overlaps across all the arts. Doesn't mean they're all the same shit, categorically speaking.
> Fuck off. Fuck off. Fuck off. Fuck off.
What's this bitchy screeching? Are you on your period? Just kidding, you will never be a woman just like comics will never be literature.

[Anonymous No.19910922]

>>19905664
read manga, it's vastly superior to American comics

[Anonymous No.19910927]