I heard this morning on NPR news ....

[dfloyd]

that a comioc book, 1938 first Suoerman issue, sold at auction for one million dollars US. Let's hear how you feel about this. Are comic books literature? Are comic books fine art? If you were that wealthy, would you prefer a 1938 Superman to a Fitzgerald or Hemingway first edition? Don't hold back. What are your true feelings?

[Vautrin]

Are comic books literature? No

Are comic books fine art? No

If you were that wealthy, would you prefer a 1938 Superman to a Fitzgerald or Hemingway first edition? Even if I was Bill Gates wealthy, I would never spend that kind of money on anything without a front door and a lawn.

What are your true feelings? That's between me and the voices in my head. :crazy:


I would elaborate more on the first two questions, but I'm too busy reading this comic book I recently purchased entitled, "Apples & Oranges."

[keilj]

that a comioc book, 1938 first Suoerman issue, sold at auction for one million dollars US. Let's hear how you feel about this. Are comic books literature? Are comic books fine art? If you were that wealthy, would you prefer a 1938 Superman to a Fitzgerald or Hemingway first edition? Don't hold back. What are your true feelings?

Comics books probably cannot be classified as "literature" - but there are certainly some comics that are VERY well-written and have strong subject matter (Winter Men is one example).

Fine art - maybe not, but there is a unique and significant combination of writing and pictures that can only be found in comics. And there are some amazing artists, and very talented writers producing some very good comic work. In fact, it could be argued that the comic medium does a better job of going out and finding unique and untapped talent than the book business

And yes, a Hulk #1 would be a better investment than most first edition novels. Although, whether it be a comic or a book, it would probably be a treasure to own and mean a lot to the person who was buying it, regardless of its investment value


Overall, most comics probably do not measure up to literature - but there are certainly many comics out there that are much better than your average romance novel, spy book, or teen goth book :smilewinkgrin:

[Katy North]

I'd say that comic books have a potential to be literature; certainly the comic book Maus came close, though I'm not sure if it really touched it. Again, I think that the comic book is a fairly new medium, and it's potential is still untapped.

If I had tons of money, I'd probably buy one or two first editions or near first editions that were near and dear to my heart... probably books that I loved as a child. Since I've never really got into comic books I can't say I'd spend that kind of money on superman, though.

[BienvenuJDC]

Stan Lee is a master in his craft.
As far as the money...not when there are people out there who need food and shelter...

[blp]

Comics are the first things I ever appreciated as art. Almost from the start of their history, there have been examples of the medium attaining high standards visually e.g. Little Nemo in Slumberland, The Kin-der Kids, Krazy Kat, White Boy, and some, including the latter two in that list, have also had marked literary qualities. It's obviously different writing for comics from writing novels, so you can't perhaps apply quite the same standards, but both White Boy and Krazy Kat show that a sort of poetics is possible at least. Considerable literary analysis has been devoted to the relationship between Krazy Kat, his tiny antagonist Ignatz Mouse and the various other characters who live with them on the Enchanted Mesa, as well as to author George Herriman's distinctive writing and drawing style.

In my early teens I became interested in certain 'adult' comic book artists, Moebius in particular, but also Ribera, Caza, Dick Matena and someone who called himself Rod Kierkegaard Jr., which I always assumed was a jokey pseudonym. Up to that point I'd read Marvel comics and was beginning also to develop an interest in fantasy stuff. My general notion of what would constitute great art in comics, an attitude which is also prevalent today, is that it would be something like Marvel comics, but with even more elaborate imagery, perhaps rendered in oil paint or airbrush. The mostly foreign artists in the list above kicked out this naive attitude for good (even if Kierkegaard did use an airbrush). I had that always good experience of art of hating it at first, but being obsessed by it, needing to revisit it until you find you actually love it. It was full of irony and drollery and its imagery, even when violent, was devoid of machismo – so much so that it almost, in some cases, especially that of Moebius, looked fey. I was shocked by all this in a very good and liberating way. It showed me that a great deal was possible beyond the very limited conventions I'd grown up with.

Sadly, all these artists seem to have almost completely disappeared now (though I find on the net that Kierkegaard Jr. has a successful career in Hollywood and Moebius, too, has worked on major motion pictures including Dune and The 5th Element). All, in their day, produced long works before the term 'graphic novel' was really even in use, but none of them seem to be in print now despite, in my view, being eons ahead of supposedly path-breaking works like the risible Watchmen. In particular, Moebius' The Airtight Garage, Ribera (and Christian Godard's) The Vagabond of Limbo and Kierkegaard's Rock Opera deserve, in my view, to be regarded as classics of comic art.

[keilj]

there are still some great artists working in comics. RM Guera is one example

I think in every art form, whether it be music, prose, comic books, TV - there are always a few creators in there that are pushing the art from and doing amazing things

[Drkshadow03]

Comic books are literature. Now whether they are good literature or not is another story.

[blp]

Looked up Guéra, keilj, but to me this is still in the same basic territory as Marvel comics, still within a pretty limited set of conventions. None of the artists I listed did work that looked anything like this except possibly Ribera, who seemed to me to undermine the conventions from within. A great deal of individualism has simply disappeared in comics, just as it has in film.

[The Comedian]

The Superman comic that was purchased for a million bucks is more than just the first Superman comic; "Action Comics #1" is widely credited with being the first "comic book" (stand alone serialized original content) in the US.

Here's what it looks like:

http://1979semifinalist.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/053-joe-shuster.jpg

So an original of this this work represents more than just the first edition of a literary work; this work is, as noted, the start of a genre.

As for the question of whether comics are literature -- I say "yes and no."

No -- if you consider literature as a word-only genre. It's sort of like asking if movies are literature. In comics art doesn't just illustrate a narrated scene; the art is read and as a result forwards the story just as much as the verbal components forward the story. Film uses music, voice, and other techniques move a story along.

Yes -- if you classify literature more broadly as "books". Comic books and graphic novels are books. Some are created for children (Action #1 was); some are created for adults; some are created for diversion; some are created for study and reflection. My experience has been that people who want to chastise comics do so from a very limited perspective: they tend to think of comics as DC and Marvel superhero stories. But comics are much more than that: they are political non-fiction (Palestine); auto-biography (Persepolis), literary fiction (Blankets) and much more.

So thinking of the world of comics as issues of Spiderman and X-Men in a drug store is no different than thinking of "books" as the romance and horror paperbacks that line the "impulse buy" section of the supermarket checkout line (just below the gum,lip balm, Doritos, and nail clippers).

[blp]

Comedian, I was sure your post was going to take issue with my view of Watchmen. Not that I'm trying to pick a fight or anything.

Thanks for the Action Comics cover. A thing of beauty really.

[The Comedian]

Comedian, I was sure your post was going to take issue with my view of Watchmen. Not that I'm trying to pick a fight or anything.

Thanks for the Action Comics cover. A thing of beauty really.

:) <-- if only I could get a little blood splatter on that, now that would be an emoticon that I could appreciate!

Oh, I know a lot of comics readers who think that Alan Moore is over-hyped, and to an extent, I agree with them. Watchmen is hyped an awful lot; it's a great book, but maybe not as great as the fanfare it receives. Regardless, I still like it a lot.

No problem posting the cover. It is a thing a beauty.

[Helga]

I think comics can be literature and art definitely. I think Maus was really good and is literature to me on other comics I have only read X-men and the graphics are great and I know one Icelandic artist who is probably the best known painter we have and his paintings are set up in the same way as comic book pics are.... Maus was literature and art mainly because of the pictures not the dialogues. the mice and dogs and cats I think it was a very good book.