Comic Books...An Element of Literary History or just "Funny Books?

[djpinkpanther67]

Submitted for your perusal

(I searched for any old posts on this topic & found none....if this is a repeat of what someone else has posted, I sincerely apologize...)

 

I remeber growing up as a child, and learning to read by reading comic books. I started at age 4 (1971) reading Richie Rich, Fantastic Fours and Spiderman....by age 6 I had read all the Beverly Cleary, Walt Morey, Roald Dahl and EB White books...by age 7, Watership Down by Richard Adams, The Hobbit and LOTR trilogy. By age 8 I was a SERIOUS comic collector and various odd jobs to support my hobby. In school, I knew what an "Ultimate Nullifier" was before an adverb....I knew that with great power comes great responsibility before I could identify a prepositional phrase...

 

Comics opened me up to the world of literature, fed my incessant hunger to read a story and see it happening in my mind, to gain knowledge of the world simply by reading everything I could get my grubby hands on...by age 10, I was reading AND UNDERSTANDING college freshman literature. I learned perspective in art and drawing, and learned to appreciate legendary works of art at an early age.

 

Should comic books be recognized as great works of literature? Maybe not in the same vein as Shakespeare, Poe or Steinbeck, but recognized nonetheless? Should comics' influence during WW2 and the morale it gave our soldiers be added as a footnote in American History? Should Action Comics #1 or Amazing Fantasy #15 be considered great works of American Literature? I believe Comic History is an elective in some Universities (I wouldn't know I have 6 college credits to my name)... Should comic books or at least a little of their history be shared as a part of public school curriculum?

 

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS maintains originals of every important American Literary Benchmark & has an archived copy of nearly EVERY important comic book ever made! That tells me the LOC recognizes comics as literature...How many a scientist, or computer engineer, professor, or even politician has been spawned as a result of simply growing up reading Superman or even Archie...

 

Thoughts? Opinions? This is merely something that has crossed my mind a couple of times over the years, and thought it might be an interesting topic of discussion....

[joe_collector]

Should comic books be recognized as great works of literature?

 

Ummmm... no.

[KingOfRulers]

I definitely consider comic books a very important form of literature. They are just another form of it--another way of communitcating ideas and concepts. Just like some novels, magazines, pulps, poems, short stories and more can be considered literature, comic books are included.

[joe_collector]

Remember, he said "great works of literature", and IMO, there is absolutely nothing in the comic field that is equivalent to even the Top 1000 novels ever written.

 

And as for the LoC, the term "expansive" doesn't even come close to describing it, and celebrated classics like "Goldilocks - Baby Piggy's Dream

Starring the Muppet Babies" and "I Can Dress Myself" are also there.

[Karma23]

Gotta agree with JC here...not great lterature, great entertainment yes, pop art definitely, but it can't be elevated to the status of great literature

[djpinkpanther67]

Should comic books be recognized as great works of literature?

 

Ummmm... no.

KNEW you'd show up!! Thanks for your unabashed opinion!!!

 

 

 

Remember, he said "great works of literature", and IMO, there is absolutely nothing in the comic field that is equivalent to even the Top 1000 novels ever written.

 

And as for the LoC, the term "expansive" doesn't even come close to describing it, and celebrated classics like "Goldilocks - Baby Piggy's Dream

Starring the Muppet Babies" and "I Can Dress Myself" are also there.

"The Grapes of Wrath' and "Of Mice and Men" are there as well...Comic books ARE a form of literature...just as comic art (which certain pieces now sell in six figures) are most certainly recognized as WORKS of art, and are gaining more and more respect in the upper echelon art collecting. Look at the Comics Code. It was established in lieu of the great purported INFLUENCE comics were having in our Society. The Government sure recognized them enough in THAT respect.

[Wally's Comics]

Gotta agree with JC here...not great lterature, great entertainment yes, pop art definitely, but it can't be elevated to the status of great literature

 

But in consideration of the future, and the dumbing down

of America reports that we've been hearing...

 

 

It could be.

 

 

 

[KingOfRulers]

I think comics are just different then other forms of even "great" literature. By saying that comics cannot be considered "great" literature is pretty much saying that literature can only be great if it is complex, which I do not agree with. I think comics can be "great" and so can others forms of literature. I just don't think they can be compared with each other. Its the apples and oranges comparison. There are great novels and great comics. But just because the comic is not as complex as the novel, doesn't make it any less great. Its just a different form of telling a story. I think the greatness of a story in general is largely how well the story is conveyed, not how complex the story is itself.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying either one is better then the other. They are simply different forms of telling stories which cannot be fairly compared.

[djpinkpanther67]

Gotta agree with JC here...not great lterature, great entertainment yes, pop art definitely, but it can't be elevated to the status of great literature

 

But in consideration of the future, and the dumbing down

of America reports that we've been hearing...

 

 

It could be.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, but how many kids (or adults) nowadays would rather be playing Halo than reading? The advent of technological entertainment is the culprit...remember the phrase "Opiate of the Masses" as ordained to Television? Not everyone had a TV when comic books were thriving

[TiQuinn]

I think some of them are great works of pop culture, particularly books like Action Comics #1 or Amazing Fantasy #15, but they are not great works of literature. They are important as a piece of history and Americana, but few are heralded for their stories alone. Perhaps the closest would be Maus, and I'm sure there are several others that are great stories on their own, but your garden variety Archie or Superman don't qualify in my opinion.

[djpinkpanther67]

I think comics are just different then other forms of even "great" literature. By saying that comics cannot be considered "great" literature is pretty much saying that literature can only be great if it is complex, which I do not agree with. I think comics can be "great" and so can others forms of literature. I just don't think they can be compared with each other. Its the apples and oranges comparison. There are great novels and great comics. But just because the comic is not as complex as the novel, doesn't make it any less great. Its just a different form of telling a story. I think the greatness of a story in general is largely how well the story is conveyed, not how complex the story is itself.

 

Like I said, I'm not saying either one is better then the other. They are simply different forms of telling stories which cannot be fairly compared.

Nice point!

[shadroch]

Comics are absolutely a part of Americas literary history.

Should they be considered GREAT examples of literature?Pehaps. If not yet,then soon. While Action #1 and AF #15 will never qualify as such,I can see someone expanding on creations like Watchman and Sandman and coming up with a work that can qualify as GREAT.

Comics,in America are still in their youth.Only in the last few years are authors who grew up reading the second generation books getting a chance to write their visions. Who knows what the next generation of writers,who read mature comics from jump street,can create.Look at the quality leap in one generation-From Stan to Roy,then to Moore and Gaiman.Why isn't it safe to assume books thirty years from now will be much deeper and better than todays.Who can say they won't be the classics of their day?

[joe_collector]

Perhaps the closest would be Maus

 

Maus isn't even close to the greatest comic book story, it's just got hype due to that bizarro "Honorary Pulitzer" given to the writer.

[joe_collector]

just as comic art (which certain pieces now sell in six figures) are most certainly recognized as WORKS of art

 

[seank]

Illustrated narrative, aka the comic book form, can be great literature. The superhero genre, which has taken over American funnybooks in a bad way, is never likely to be great enough in the literary sense to be considered literature, more or less great literature. "Watchmen" may come close, could be considered literature, but it's no "Gravity's Rainbow."

 

If I wanted to show someone that the comic form could be literature, I'd look to Maus or other small press books that aren't limited by genre restrictions and the limiting nature of serialization.

[TiQuinn]

Maus isn't even close to the greatest comic book story, it's just got hype due to that bizarro "Honorary Pulitzer" given to the writer.

 

To each their own. I thought it was extremely well done, and that the Pulitzer it won was deserved.

[djpinkpanther67]

I think some of them are great works of pop culture, particularly books like Action Comics #1 or Amazing Fantasy #15, but they are not great works of literature. They are important as a piece of history and Americana, but few are heralded for their stories alone. Perhaps the closest would be Maus, and I'm sure there are several others that are great stories on their own, but you're garden variety Archie or Superman don't qualify in my opinion.

I agree, just as not ALL novels are considered as such...I'm not saying every comic should be in this classification...but shouldn't creators (Stan Lee, Bob Kane, etc) be recognized as legitimate authors, and if so, their greatest works be considered classics?

[djpinkpanther67]

Maus isn't even close to the greatest comic book story, it's just got hype due to that bizarro "Honorary Pulitzer" given to the writer.

 

To each their own. I thought it was extremely well done, and that the Pulitzer it won was deserved.

Pulitzer.....hmmmmmm isn't that given out for Literary Excellence?

[joe_collector]

To each their own. I thought it was extremely well done, and that the Pulitzer it won was deserved.

 

But that's the thing, it never actually won a Pulitzer. It was a special citation, and one that the officials got hammered for giving out.

 

I believe someone (Del?) posted that the Pulitzer official word was "that this would never happen again".

[joe_collector]

Pulitzer.....hmmmmmm isn't that given out for Literary Excellence?

 

Once again, it never won a Pulitzer for any known category - only a special citation.

 

Am I the only read person in here?