SDCC '07: COMICS ARE NOT LITERATURE PANEL

[MattBrady]

by Zack Smith

“I just want to say this is like the smartest audience ever!” enthused novelist Sara Ryan (The Rules for Hearts). Indeed, the “Comics Are Not Literature” panel at San Diego Comic-Con International on Sunday often sounded like an Ivy League debate society.

A group of well-prepared creators whose work encompassed both prose and sequential material met with an equally well-prepared audience for a fast-paced discussion where words like “proselytizing” and “invidious” were regularly bandied about.

Douglas Wolk, author of the recently-published Reading Comics headed up a roundtable that included Ryan, P.L.A.I.N. Janes author and young adult novelist Cecil Castellucci, Dan Nadel of PictureBox Inc., Paul Tobin (Banana Sunday, Spider-Man Family), and novelist Austin Grossman (Soon I Will be Invincible).

As expected, the opinions flew fast and furious at the panel. Here are some highlights.

Wolk explained that the title was intended as a “deliberate provocation” as a response to people calling certain comics “literary.”

“If you’re thinking of comics as a new prose form with words attached, you’re not thinking of the drawing…that’s leaving out half the story,” Wolk said.

Grossman offered a counterargument, offering the image of snobby Muppet Sam the Bald Eagle as a symbol of critics who elevated certain books beyond “just comics.” He further pointed how for some fans and creators of “literary” comics, they felt a degree of judgment that led to self-loathing. He wondered why people bothered to feel that way, and received applause.

Ryan pointed out there have been many forms of art that have not received proper respect, and cited a quote from Richard Lanham’s The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology and the Arts: “The history of criticism in arts and letters has largely been one of arbitrary and invidious distinctions.” (Ryan said this was a condensed version of the full quote, which may be found in context here.

Castellucci pointed out that not all prose books technically qualify as “literature,” and that she and Ryan had both been criticized as primarily “young adult novelists.” Nadel said that there were many examples of “mass-produced” prose books that weren’t literature, but also many examples of books that were. “I don’t think that literature isn’t any more sophisticated than Westerns,” Nadel said. He criticized the small number of museums and library collections for comics, and further criticized the Eisners as not truly representative of the best comics being published.

Tobin, who works at Powell’s Books in Portland, Oregon, pointed out that he saw more and more graphic novels moving out of the “comics” section, and into more literary sections, such as Persepolis being placed in “Memoirs.”

“There’s a really easy conflation to make that comics and books are both bound, and ….” Wolk joked.

An amusing debate then ensued about prose writers being brought in to write comics (“They’re going to suck, people! They’re all going to suck!” Wolk ranted, half-seriously). Tobin pointed out that while artists used to receive more attention than the writers of comics, the playing field had become more equal.

Ryan brought up discussions she’d had with her husband and occasional collaborator, artist Steve Lieber, where he had pointed out that, “the difference between illustrated prose and comics is that in illustrated prose, the pictures illustrate the text, and in comics, the pictures are the text.” She pointed out how many comics rely on a combination of a writer and artist to tell the story.

Wolk criticized comics written by Joss Whedon, saying that, “the artists can’t create great actors on the page,” that is, people who bring extra layers to the characters the way a flesh-and-blood actor could. “You’re just reading a script with a bunch of crappy pictures on it – but it’s a great script,” Wolk said.

Wolk asked Grossman, who had brought some prepared statements, about whether there was anything in the definition of “sophistication” that could be useful to comics.

“One of the downsides of thinking of comics as a ‘low art,’ is that it makes you lazy,” Grossman said. “Let’s raise the game.”

Castellucci and Ryan agreed. “It’s about having a set of critical tools, and what you use the tools on is wherever people are making good stories,” Ryan said.

“Why don’t we just call it art?” Nadel said. “Sometimes cinema is art, sometimes it’s not. Sometimes a Bjork record is art, sometimes it’s not…” Castellucci and Ryan interjected that a Bjork album is always art.

Nadel went on to propose that he didn’t consider comics reading. “Why is that a big deal?” he asked. “Comics is about looking and reading. It’s not just about reading – it’s a dual process. It’s different from reading a novel, and it’s different from watching a movie.”

Ryan disagreed with some aspects of Nadel’s argument. “When you’re reading a prose book, you’re reading something that’s designed to make you ignore that basically, these are white spots on paper,” Ryan said. “You’re going through that to find the story between those dots.”

Grossman evoked Scott McCloud’s name, wondering what would happen if all we knew were comics, and then one day a words-only thing called a “novel” suddenly appeared.

“Can we not think of novels as the gutter expanded to fill the page?” Grossman asked.

Castellucci pointed out that not all novels were like that, citing postmodern and absurdist works. “We’re not talking about those pretentious bastards,” Grossman quipped.

After several jokes to the effect of, “get your mind out of the gutter,” Wolk offered the perspective that the difference between prose and comics involved “creating the picture in your head, and the artist creating a specific image on the page.”

Castellucci counter-argued that both the words and pictures were designed to make the reader feel a certain way, and that the effect was “all about what your narrative code is,” i.e. how a reader personally responds to certain types of images.

This inspired a debate about how someone reads and/or watches a comic. “Do you read a movie?” Wolk asked Nadel. Nadel replied in the negative, which prompted Tobin to chime in with, “I don’t read a baseball either.” Grossman proposed that rather than reading or watching, comics deserved, “our own space for a while, where we can just be awesome.”

The “acceptance” of comics in mainstream culture was next addressed. Nadel pointed out that while comics might be more widespread in Europe and Japan, the idea that they’re more highly regarded is a myth. Tobin agreed with this: “They’re more accepted, but that’s not the same as respected.” Nadel said that “there’s actually a smaller underground scene in Japan than in America…way smaller.”

Nadel accused the comics industry of being “the medium’s worst enemy.” He pointed out the lack of institutional funding of comics in America, citing how Canada’s Drawn & Quarterly receives government subsidies. When asked about the Xeric Grant in America, Nadel said it was only a few thousand dollars.

There was an extensive discussion of comics in the classroom, and the idea of comics being taught as though they were prose “literature.” Ryan said she felt that “we’re gradually moving away from the idea that the best kind of reading is just text.”

It was also discussed whether “traditional” art forms, such as painting, have moved away from narrative storytelling. Nadel argued that “I’ve actually found that the fine art culture is far more accepting of comics than literary culture.”

Castellucci wondered, “Why can’t comics be both? It is literature and it is taught in literature, and it is fine art, and is taught in fine art departments.” Ryan agreed: “It’s nice when things aren’t binary, I think.”

Grossman felt that categorizing comics as either literature or art “let comics down slightly,” and cited the unique effect of having both words and pictures. “We may be kind of recovering from a sort of hyper-fetish-zation of the written word that dates back to the nineteenth century…we might be getting over the big splash of the novel, and things are now getting messy again.”

He went on to point out that gothic novels had tons of fanzines in the 18th century. “Fanfic has been around for a while, but the Internet has made it a whole different thing.” There was a debate as to whether such creators as Shakespeare and Homer had been considered literature when they were first published, and how prose novels were initially regarded as low art when they first became popular.

A fan “dropped a stinkbomb” on the panel: “Would you be happy being in the comics industry if there weren’t any superheroes in it?”

Tobin thought that superheroes weren’t the problem, it was the way the industry was set up to produce superhero comics.

Castellucci, who “adores” superheroes, said that the monthly format with serialized storytelling was different from a traditional novel or a continuing graphic novel series. She later said that she found an “incredible amount of freedom” going from prose to a comic book, as a comic script let her take out descriptive passages, enabling her to write a lean story that lets her push the narrative forward. She said would never have written The P.L.A.I.N. Janes as a prose novel.

The panel concluded with a discussion about whether the panelists had any anxiety about the field establishing guidelines for how to mature and how to delineate itself. Nadel said that “I think that’s the big issue coming up,” and again expressed his desire for a different means of awarding quality in comics. Grossman, who also works on video games, said the video game industry looked at comic industry as a model for “how to grow up.”

Ryan said that she felt that there were many conversations going on about whether a particular genre constituted “literature,” such as science fiction and fantasy. “If more people are having these conversations, then maybe their minds will broaden, and we really will be able to figure it out,” Ryan said.

While the panelists never did come to an agreement on whether comics were literature or not, the topic seemed to prove as provocative as Wolk had hoped. The debate is likely to continue in print and on the Internet…and doubtlessly at many more comic conventions to come.

[Dalarsco]

First off, of course comics can be literature! Shakespearian theater was considered crass entertainment for the peasantry, not true art until long after his death. The novels of the 19th century were also seen as worthless serialized garbage to be read by the masses. Sound familiar? The only thing stopping good comics from being literature is a narrow minded intellectual elite.
Second off, superheroes are an ancient archetype, not a genre. They tend to exist in action/sci-fi/fantasy genres because that gives the writer more room to have the powers believable, but a superhero is any figure with abilities beyond what is normally possible who uses those skills for good. The one thing I hate about Scott McCloud (who, BTW, was INVOKED, not EVOKED) is what appears to be an attitude that superheroes automatically lower a book and make it no longer a piece of literature. Morpheus in Sandman is a kind of superhero, and The Death of a Dream is one of the greatest stories I've ever read.

[CitC]

Anyone know who published Wolk's "Reading Comics"? I can't find it anywhere.

[pogofan]

After getting halfway through this synopsis and still not seeing any references to anyone giving a DEFINITION of "literature", I gave up. Is there one (or more) in the part I didn't finish? If not, I hope it's just because whatever definitions were offered at the session just didn't make it into Zack Smith's notes, because I can't imagine how a panel (and roomful) of intelligent people could address the question raised by the session's title without a definition.

[spiderrob8]

Sounds like a snoozefest

[prolix]

Ok, I can be literary: "Once you label me, you negate me" - Kierkegaard

As soon as an art (or literary) form is categorized, it becomes suspect in the eyes of its audience. Pre-Tolkien, fantasy was just another way of telling a story. Once it became a genre people questioned its validity.
As far as the medium, it ISN'T the message. There are good books and bad - and good comics and bad.

Every fanboy grows up learning to hide, justify or ignore his love of comics. Perhaps it's egotism but why should we even care if the world at large considers this literature - or art?

[Devster]

This reminds me of the ongoing debate about whether computer/video games are 'art' (in the news lately due to Roger Ebert's stand that they are not).

[Nakedmanatee]

I think people use the term "literature" in two main ways. One is in a general sense--kind of a catch-all for all things printed... A quick look-see in my American Heritage Dictionary says: 1.A body of writings in prose or verse. 2. Imaginative or creative writing...and on and on. My favorite is 5. Printed material of any kind, as for a political or advertising campaign. Which really lowers the bar on critical standards for literature. Which brings me to the second way that people use the term literature, in the sense that it is used as a critical grouping--in other words, Great Literature the kind of stuff they make you read in high school or college--the canon. Y'know, Moby Dick, The Republic, yadda, yadda, yadda.

With such a wide definition, the question becomes what isn't literature? The backs of cereal boxes? lol As the above poster said, some definitions would be nice...THEN we could agree or disagree one way or the other.

Incidentally, I do think comics are literature, just maybe not in the strictest sense that the people on the panel were arguing against. I think the point was that the artwork somehow introduced a different set of critical skills that varied from the types of standards we use to evaluate the written word. Fine, sure, but still...what is text still can be judged in the same way we'd evaluate other forms of literature. You don't want to get stuck on the format. Words are symbols and there are many ways of arranging them and different mediums for doing that. If I read Watchmen or The Great Gatsby on print or on a computer or, yes, on a back of a cereal box (Great Gatsby-O's) it's still literature. If I take away the pictures from Watchmen and just read the script--it's still literature. If I have Dave Gibbons contribute beautiful, thoughtful, impactful images to The Great Gatsby, it's still literature. I may just evaluate the art in a different way. The words have value in and of themselves (and so does the art). I can read Shakespeare and call it great literature & I can also see a production of The Tempest and call it great theater. The fact that actors and set designers and a director are ADDING their own individual artistic contributions to the words doesn't change the inherent value of those words. They rock regardless.

Anyhoo.

yr. buddy,

David

[Gladiator X]

Originally Posted by prolix

Every fanboy grows up learning to hide, justify or ignore his love of comics. Perhaps it's egotism but why should we even care if the world at large considers this literature - or art?

Not this one.

I don't recall ever being embarrassed or ashamed that I read and collect superhero comics.

I could give a rat's ass about what the world thinks.

[Vacuumboy9]

I don't think McCloud has ever spoken out against the idea of superheroes as literature, just against their stranglehold on the industry,

Wolk's book, which I'm about finished with and is quite good, is published by Da Capo Press, which is a member of the Perseus Books Group. Its ISBN is 0306815095 in case you want to special order it at your local bookstore or use Amazon, but I've seen it in most Barnes and Noble and Borders stores I've visited in the past month or two.

[prolix]

"I don't recall ever being embarrassed or ashamed that I read and collect superhero comics.

I could give a rat's ass about what the world thinks."[/quote]

I stand corrected and yet, you make my point nicely. We SHOULDN'T care OR categorize. More fans like you would make the panel unnecessary.

[jmyoung]

Originally Posted by pogofan

After getting halfway through this synopsis and still not seeing any references to anyone giving a DEFINITION of "literature", I gave up. Is there one (or more) in the part I didn't finish? If not, I hope it's just because whatever definitions were offered at the session just didn't make it into Zack Smith's notes, because I can't imagine how a panel (and roomful) of intelligent people could address the question raised by the session's title without a definition.

I believe a definition of literature may be similar to a definition of art, hard to arrive at a definition everyone agrees upon.

However, and pertinent to the topic of this panel, literature generally refers to written texts. Implying that great comics are literature may be interpreted as saying that they are as good as novels, and there are a lot of crap novels out there.

[Xheight]

First off - thank you Newsarama for this coverage! This was one the reasons I was sad that I was not able to attend this year. This and CAC are NEEDED parts of the Con.

“One of the downsides of thinking of comics as a ‘low art,’ is that it makes you lazy,” Grossman said. “Let’s raise the game.”

100% agreement here as art is the bigger category than literature to be considered. In comment to Dalarsco here are we to consider the play as bound as a book or more than that? I think any comic fan will agree that words are vital but not the whole of the work. What does art do but transmit ideas and for us as humans words have been mostly the bearer of such but not the only means of such. Comics unlike a number of arts makes the interaction between text and the visual evident and discernable thus opening up our thoughts about how we value such distinctions.

I think it is great to be questioning the "hyper-fetish-zation of the written word" an on into the mess.

[jmyoung]

Originally Posted by Dalarsco

First off, of course comics can be literature! Shakespearian theater was considered crass entertainment for the peasantry, not true art until long after his death. The novels of the 19th century were also seen as worthless serialized garbage to be read by the masses. Sound familiar? The only thing stopping good comics from being literature is a narrow minded intellectual elite.
Second off, superheroes are an ancient archetype, not a genre. They tend to exist in action/sci-fi/fantasy genres because that gives the writer more room to have the powers believable, but a superhero is any figure with abilities beyond what is normally possible who uses those skills for good. The one thing I hate about Scott McCloud (who, BTW, was INVOKED, not EVOKED) is what appears to be an attitude that superheroes automatically lower a book and make it no longer a piece of literature. Morpheus in Sandman is a kind of superhero, and The Death of a Dream is one of the greatest stories I've ever read.

OK, now that we have heard from the nerd patrol...

Just kidding. I believe McCloud is primarily concerned with the dominance of the one genre of comics and the major companies attempts to maintain the dominance of that genre.

If 95% of movies released were Westerns, I would generally have a negative image of westerns.

EC comics, before DC pushed through the comics code to shut them down, had (very successful) War comics, crime comics, horror comics, humor comics, (romance comics? - I forget) Many critics of superhero comics are not opposed to them per se, just their prevalence in the marketplace.

[Xheight]

Originally Posted by jmyoung

If 95% of movies released were Westerns, I would generally have a negative image of westerns.

This I don't understand. Aside from a n obvious joke about 'then all we would have is western lit.' how is that a genre is a reflection on art except on what a society is preoccupied with? or a sub-set of that society?

[vbartilucci]

The issue here is very similar in this "are comics literature" discussion and Ebert's "Videogames can never be (high) art" standing: the definition of the terms are highly elastic. Until there is a universally accepted series of measurements that renders "art" (or "literature") quantifiable, there will be no way to decide what is or is not "art".

Not everyone considers Warhol's work art, nor the works of the Dada school, or even Grandma Moses, and just as many people claim they are the pinnacle of the form. Alan Moore is the DaVinci of comics for some, a pompous creator of wordy nothings by others. Look at the recent rediscovery of Fletcher Hanks - some view him as a master, others see him as a hack. Some maintain that nothing created for money can ever be art, forgetting that almost everything the great masters painted were, in fact, paid for.

Another problem is that each medium requires a different process to view and enjoy it. A painting need only be looked at. A movie must be watched, a novel must be read, and a comic book must be both read and looked at simultaneously. A game (video or otherswise) must be physically interacted with, and a series of precise and correct actions performed for the narrative of the game is revealed. That narrative can be on par with many great stories and films. I'd have to mention the Final Fantasy series as an example of that. But again, if you don't experience the whole thing, it's hard to get across the point that there's "true art" there. If you just play the cinematics, you lose the art of the gameplay. If you don't play the game long enough, you don't see the plot evolve. That may be more than some people are willing to do to experience them, and so to them, they cannot be art.


It really all falls back on "I don't know art but I now what I like".

[Baka baka]

This is a debate that will never end as long as comics are in existence. Staunch fans of the genre will uphold it as being just as much literature as the great classics, while those who think of comics as kiddie books will never agree to give comics equal footing.

I am reminded of Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics. I believe there is a bit of an argument over this very subject in that monumental book.

[johnchrist]

Comics, as any other art form, are what you make of it. You can have a profound novel, movie, and painting but you can also have a fun or action packed version of each of these media. Look, the Die Hard series are some of my favorite movies of all time, but does that mean I expect them to be considered monumental accomplishments in the cinematic field? Not quite. At the same time, there are comics, like 'Ground Zero' by Brian Wood which I DO considered a work of powerful social commentary akin to the novel '1984'
I guess the real answer is that comics, like all other forms of art, have their important and they fun, their good and their bad. Just because the fun side of comics is currently the most profitable is not a commentary on the medium, no more so than "Harry Potter" being the biggest money maker in the literary field has anything to do with the written word's potential for poignant prose, plot, themes, and characters.

[Bugaboo-X]

Heck of a panel discussion. A lot of pointing out, with a few quippings and proposings scattered throughout. I noted some joking, explaining and at least one wondering. The counter-arguing was very dynamic. But by the end of the event, they seemed to be overcome with fatigue and resorted to simply saying stuff. Very dynamic (I observed).

[sniperboy65]

Comics not literature? Read "The Death of Captain Marvel" by Jim Starlin and get back to me...

[SageShini]

Originally Posted by vbartilucci

It really all falls back on "I don't know art but I know what I like".

There we go. That describes my opinion on it all in a nutshell. If I enjoy something (and this should go for everyone, really), what does it matter if someone else thinks its "art" or utter crap? Are comics literature? Possibly. The REAL question is do I want fans who think that to start reading comics. There are enough people who hate "cape comics" as it is...this would just invite more, I think.

[sobrown]

This is exactly the what I was talking about in my column on Comic Book Resources last year. If you want some more insight on the "comics as literature" argument, go take a look. I've linked all five parts below...

http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...em.cgi?id=9008
http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...em.cgi?id=9018
http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...em.cgi?id=9034
http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...em.cgi?id=9047
http://www.comicbookresources.com/ne...em.cgi?id=9057

This the just the kind of arguement we'll be having until someone looks back 200 years from now and tells us we were all full of it.

--
Scott O. Brown, Man of Comics (tm)
http://sobstories.blogspot.com/

NIGHTFALL in stores now!

http://www.amazon.com/Nightfall-Scott-O-Brown/dp/1934220191/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4630037-5224145?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184644068&sr=8-1">

[Sambo253]

I was at the panel and Dan Nadel brought up something I've been thinking about ever since.

He said "I don't think we 'read' comics." And he pointed out that the art catches the eye before the text. I would add that it is possible to have comics without words, but I've never seen a complete comic without art.

So I thought it might be fun to come up with a new verb to describe the comic book experience. You watch a movie, look at a painting, read a novel, but you _____ a comic.

Anyone game?

[Nat Gertler]

Originally Posted by Dalarsco

The one thing I hate about Scott McCloud (who, BTW, was INVOKED, not EVOKED) is what appears to be an attitude that superheroes automatically lower a book and make it no longer a piece of literature.

I've known Scott for quite a while, and I think you're misreading the attitude of the creator of such superhero works as Zot! and Destroy!.

[DJ Sloofus]

Originally Posted by Sambo253

I would add that it is possible to have comics without words, but I've never seen a complete comic without art.

Check out "Longshot Comics" by (I think) Shane Simmons. That might not be his name.. it's been about 10 years since I've read them; they were published in the US by Slave Labor, I believe. The entire two issues were done with no art, unless you count periods or dots as 'art.' They're great, and never seem to get mentioned amongst the hoighty-toighty. I wonder what he's up to nowadays.