Comics as 20th Century Literature

[Havokasdf]

I am taking a course on 20th Century Literature this semester, and will be teaching a seminar asking the question whether comics can have a place in the canon of 20th Century Literature. As of now I plan on discussing Watchmen, Peanuts, probably some Calvin and Hobbes, Cerebus (edit for correction, damn my hyper spellchecker!), at least one issue of Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Maus (if it was pre-2000) and likely something with Asterix.

Which trades, issues, etc. would you recommend that I include in this?

[Infra-Man]

Hmmm... are you talking about additional comics to discuss or specific issues in those comics listed to discuss literary merit? For Sandman, definitely hit up "The Sound of Her Wings," issue #8, since that was an award-winning story and a done-in-one read that can be tackled with a bare amount of backstory.

There's always the possibility of discussing the comic medium as a place for memoirs and autobiography as a tangent to the discussion of Maus, with stuff like Harvey Pekar's American Splendor and David B.'s Epileptic.

There's also the political angle one can go, with discussion of Doonesbury, This Modern World, the work of Ted Rall, and others.

And, of course, there is the literary graphic novel/comic book as done by the likes of (to name a few) Charles Burns, Daniel Clowes, Adrian Tomine, and Chris Ware.

EDIT:
Oh yeah, and can't forget Love and Rockets by Los Bros Hernandez.

[Karen El]

You might also want to check out Little Nemo, as it was one of the earliest newspaper strips that had a level of quality rarely seen even today.

Also The Spirit.

Maybe some Golden Age comics, too. Look at the way Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman have changed over the 60-odd years they have been published and how these changes reflect society. Or consider why attitudes of the 1960's produced the more character driven style of Marvel comics.

Honestly, there's way more to the history of comics than Peanuts and Sandman. And you can hardly address Watchmen without considering the status quo that it shook up.

And that's Cerebus. Cerberus is the three headed dog that guards the gate to Hell.

[Havokasdf]

What I would intend to show is examples of various literary merits which are comparable to past classics. When story-telling had an oral tradition years of stories told around campfires eventually were conglomerated by someone(s?) to become the Homeric epics for example. The modern conventions are a blend of visual and written, I believe that there are already examples of comics which have demonstrated that they belong as classics, where other stories perhaps are only a seed of what may eventually become an epic story not unlike Homer's. I would look to some of the more mainstream work for that end. However I would like a broader base to work from, and having input from others (which I will credit to you) will help me to examine the question more thoroughly.

Your suggestions can be individual issues, or entire runs, whatever you feel has merit, and was published before the year 2000.

[Infra-Man]

You might also want to check out Little Nemo, as it was one of the earliest newspaper strips that had a level of quality rarely seen even today.

Also The Spirit.

Nemo would be great if full-sized, full-color reproductions of McCay's art could be shown. Perhaps instead of just doing The Spirit, there could be a whole survey of Will Eisner's work and innovations in sequential art.

[DavidAllred]

I am taking a course on 20th Century Literature this semester, and will be teaching a seminar asking the question whether comics can have a place in the canon of 20th Century Literature. As of now I plan on discussing Watchmen, Peanuts, probably some Calvin and Hobbes, Cerberus, at least one issue of Neil Gaiman's Sandman, Maus (if it was pre-2000) and likely something with Asterix.

Which trades, issues, etc. would you recommend that I include in this?


I think one of the most interesting treatments on politics, religion, and violence came in May last year in Action Comics #848 & #849.

http://www.comicbookdb.com/issue.php?ID=91628

They might be in trade, mixed in with some of Kurt's stuff, which was also really good.

Of course for the time, I doubt anyone could get away from O'Neil's GL/GA as breaking major ground in the subjects comics were willing to cover.

Then there's always, V for Vendetta.

Good luck, sounds like fun!

[rick]

Should you really be teaching a seminar about a subject that you clearly are not all that educated about?

[vbartilucci]

I think we need to step back a bit.

Does your course have a definition of "literature"? Like science says that for something to be classified as living it must reproduce, respirate, take in nutrition and eliminate waste, etc. Must literature do certain things to classify, or must it just be "good enough"?

What delineates literature from mere fiction? Is Robert Ludlum literature, or the Mack Bolan series, or Terry Pratchett?

If you have such benchmarks, it might be easier to make suggestions that meet them. Otherwise we're all just gonna point at our favorite stuff.

[Shisho]

I think we need to step back a bit.

Does your course have a definition of "literature"? Like science says that for something to be classified as living it must reproduce, respirate, take in nutrition and eliminate waste, etc. Must literature do certain things to classify, or must it just be "good enough"?

What delineates literature from mere fiction? Is Robert Ludlum literature, or the Mack Bolan series, or Terry Pratchett?

If you have such benchmarks, it might be easier to make suggestions that meet them. Otherwise we're all just gonna point at our favorite stuff.

It might also help explain which canon you're talking about. I think Sandman represents the best comics have to offer, but I'm not sure it would hold it's own against many of the books already considered canon. (Although it blows quite a few of them out of the water.) A few of the stories found in the Sandman can be taught in short story classes, though. Can you be a little more specific about your criteria?

Also, welcome to YABS newcomers! :)

[Shisho]

Oh, and if you're talking about comics as epic lit, you might also want to include Manga, although that can get messy. Blade of the Immortal is some fine work, though.

[Havokasdf]

Part of the issue does in fact involve the question as to what literature is or is not. Questions of genre, and aesthetics certainly are a part of it. The best benchmark which I know is how a document lasts within the consciousness of humanity. Shakespeare was not even considered the premier playwrite in his day, yet today most people would find the suggestion that another Elizabethan playwrite exceeds him. This project is part prognostication. Anything which can compare favourably with a past touchstone (like epics, or Chaucer, Milton, Austen and others of 19th century literature, etc.) or contains commentary on society or philosophy would be easier to guess on. I do not mind people just mentioning their favourite books if they feel that it could be a legitimate piece which one day would be studied in academic circles.

I had been planing to write my exit thesis on the topic, but my program has changed and I no longer have the opportunity. I've slowly been reading and weighing this idea since 2002. I would rather not however place too much of my opinion here yet because I think that you will give me your best answers the more open I leave this.

Edit: The canon is partially up in the air presently. Harold Bloom has written a great deal on it, but it might better be defined as that body of literature which survives its era to be studied later. All scholars would agree that Shakespeare belongs, though many might argue whether John Updike does or does not belong.

[AC Chris]

I love it when this subject comes up.

I've wrestled with the "comics as literature" for a long time. I finally settled on comics are not literature for a couple reasons. Comics are their own medium, separate from novels, plays, TV and film. I know a lot of comics fans want to see the medium raised in the eyes of critics and such so the argument of comics as literature comes up quite a bit. I never refer to a great movie as literature, so why should I refer to a comic that way? Because it's on the printed page? OK, I guess so, but it's still a different medium. Why take away what the artists bring to this amazing union of words and images.
I know I'm coming off like I'm standing on a soapbox, but I'm just fine with comics being what they are. Comics. I love them and I don't need somebody else to validate them as being more than they are when I already see the medium as unique and able to stand on it's own merits.
Now a class on the landmark works in comics history is something I would be interested in.

[Shisho]

Part of the issue does in fact involve the question as to what literature is or is not. Questions of genre, and aesthetics certainly are a part of it. The best benchmark which I know is how a document lasts within the consciousness of humanity. Shakespeare was not even considered the premier playwrite in his day, yet today most people would find the suggestion that another Elizabethan playwrite exceeds him. This project is part prognostication. Anything which can compare favourably with a past touchstone (like epics, or Chaucer, Milton, Austen and others of 19th century literature, etc.) or contains commentary on society or philosophy would be easier to guess on. I do not mind people just mentioning their favourite books if they feel that it could be a legitimate piece which one day would be studied in academic circles.

I had been planing to write my exit thesis on the topic, but my program has changed and I no longer have the opportunity. I've slowly been reading and weighing this idea since 2002. I would rather not however place too much of my opinion here yet because I think that you will give me your best answers the more open I leave this.

Edit: The canon is partially up in the air presently. Harold Bloom has written a great deal on it, but it might better be defined as that body of literature which survives its era to be studied later. All scholars would agree that Shakespeare belongs, though many might argue whether John Updike does or does not belong.

I like Bloom, but I sometimes find him a little closed-minded and stodgey when it comes to canon. I'm wondering if the whole thing just needs to be re-examined from the ground up. I guess that's what you're going for with the comic thing. Good luck! I'm sticking with Blade of the Immortal as my suggestion. Lots of Campbell-like archtypes to play with.

[Infra-Man]

Maybe one thing that can help with suggestions is to provide your reasons for specific including Watchmen, Peanuts, Calvin and Hobbes, Cerebus, Sandman, Maus, Asterix as things you want to cover.

As for Updike belonging in the canon or not, is that a legitimate question to be asking now? I mean, yeah, a five-decade-longish career is a long frame of time, but it seems premature to anoint Updike and place him up on the hallowed shelf. Are there similar discussions about Philip Roth?

[Shisho]

I love it when this subject comes up.

I've wrestled with the "comics as literature" for a long time. I finally settled on comics are not literature for a couple reasons. Comics are their own medium, separate from novels, plays, TV and film. I know a lot of comics fans want to see the medium raised in the eyes of critics and such so the argument of comics as literature comes up quite a bit. I never refer to a great movie as literature, so why should I refer to a comic that way? Because it's on the printed page? OK, I guess so, but it's still a different medium. Why take away what the artists bring to this amazing union of words and images.
I know I'm coming off like I'm standing on a soapbox, but I'm just fine with comics being what they are. Comics. I love them and I don't need somebody else to validate them as being more than they are when I already see the medium as unique and able to stand on it's own merits.
Now a class on the landmark works in comics history is something I would be interested in.

I both agree and disagree. When it comes to comics, I can see an argument for both sides. Part of the fun in academics, however (and this is the nerd in me coming out) is to re-examine tradition and kick it a few times to see if it still holds up. I don't see anything wrong with examining the place of any medium in order to show others that it can be relevant to them if given half a chance. If it does, great. If it doesn't, then at least it was a good discussion.

[Havokasdf]

The list I provided is actually aimed more to give examples and discuss rather than something concrete. I believe that most people would almost immediately answer with Maus and Watchmen, so I mentioned them. Other things like Peanuts and Calvin and Hobbes are included because they have long runs and are very philosophical, thus I believe ought to be considered. I will not be able to include everything, but the wider the net I cast when preparing the better.

I mention Updike because Bloom has already asserted that he ought to be in the canon, the debate on him does indeed revolve around whether it is too early or not. I would have to go get a few books out of boxes or look to a couple of journals to appropraitely answer about Roth.

Bloom is known for being stodgy, yet he is an excellent new critic who has a much more wholistic approach to reading than many people who are respected at his level, thus despite his faults I find that he is one of the best sources to look to. Kenneth Fish would certainly be another.

[AC Chris]

I both agree and disagree. When it comes to comics, I can see an argument for both sides. Part of the fun in academics, however (and this is the nerd in me coming out) is to re-examine tradition and kick it a few times to see if it still holds up. I don't see anything wrong with examining the place of any medium in order to show others that it can be relevant to them if given half a chance. If it does, great. If it doesn't, then at least it was a good discussion.

You're spot on. It does provide great discussion and debate.

My great fear is that "if" comics became recognized as a form of literature by most literary critics they would simply view them as being on the lower rung. If you remember the episode of the Simpsons when they found Homer lost in the forest and the scientist described him as being either a highly evolved ape or a very stupid human? I don't want comics to be viewed that way by people that don't really understand the medium. I don't want to think of comics as "stepping up" into the world of literature.

[Infra-Man]

The scope of this is wide open, so narrowing it down to a specific point of focus is going to be tough, especially if we're talking about the comic book canon and if that can be considered literature (which itself is like obscenity/pornography to the Supreme Court, "I know it when I see it").

Karen mentioned going back to Golden Age comics and Silver Age comics, which is a good idea, since a lot of wartime and post-war sentiments are reflected in those stories. You'll definitely want to visit some of the seminal DC and Marvel titles of the Golden and Silver Ages if you're even going to scratch the surface of Watchmen, and it may be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the Charlton characters on which the Watchmen characters were based.

The underground comic of the 60s are worth delving into since that delves directly into that era's counterculture movement.

In addition to Asterix, you'll probably also want to look into Tintin and Carl Barks' Uncle Scrooge for other keen adventure stories. And even then, I don't know how that'd fit into the presentation.

[Paul McEnery]

You're spot on. It does provide great discussion and debate.

My great fear is that "if" comics became recognized as a form of literature by most literary critics they would simply view them as being on the lower rung. If you remember the episode of the Simpsons when they found Homer lost in the forest and the scientist described him as being either a highly evolved ape or a very stupid human? I don't want comics to be viewed that way by people that don't really understand the medium. I don't want to think of comics as "stepping up" into the world of literature.

Given that I'd rather read a Liefeld comic than a novel by John Updike, I'm with you.

A certain Alex Cox of this parish argues forcefully that comics are better than all other media. I certainly spend more time reading comics than reading books or watching movies, and would do more of it if there were more good comics.

As to the seminar question:

You can't do this without considering Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, and considering the issues of form. The semiosis of a comic book, a comic strip, a single panel, or a graphic novel are all different things. The single panel, for instance, is not literature, but rather relates back to the iconography of medieval painting, where you'd jam a saint's entire life into a single image. The punchline's usually funnier, though. Or compare Family Circus to Hogarth.

Then there's the connection between the serial form of the collected graphic novel and magazine novels. Dickens and Hardy wrote for the serial form, for instance, with the expectation that you'd get a collection at the end. Wait for the trade! So both write with cliffhangers at the end of the chapter, a form continued now in, say, Iain Bank's Crow Road, or any comic book series.

Then there's the history of novel publishing in general, and the Original Graphic Novel; and form busting novels like Ulysses compared with, say, The Invisibles. The concern in Ulysses (among other things) is to mess with style as a way of demonstrating the relationship of language to consciousness. To what extent do the formal concerns in The Invisibles -- and the lack of authorial control over the illustrator -- communicate the same idea?

And for that matter, illustrated literature in general. To what extent do John Tenniel's illustrations for Alice form our view of the novels?

And then there's the issue of movie adaptations of novels. What is lost, what is gained? Classics Illustrated -- does it illuminate, does it even succeed as comics or literature? If not, why not? How does Joyce's story The Dead differ from Huston's movie in communicative strategies? What communicative strategies do we see at work in comics that would succeed better or fail harder?

And then there's the Einstein issue of time and space. Linear time in the novel -- is it ever defeated? Do flashback issues in novels simply recapitulate linear time? What about movies? Is splitscreen the same as multiple panels in a comic? Are Burroughs' innovations to defeat linear narrative successful? How do they differ from the ending of the movie Don't Look Now? Does the simultaneity on the page of a comic book alter this? And what about the beats of a comic strip -- three panels of set up and the punchline, versus the Doonesbury technique of dropping the punchline in panel three, and then allowing a bathetic commentary in the fourth panel? And how does that semiosis impact our view of the human condition?

There's some thoughts for you.

[Havokasdf]

Wow, lots of ideas there. Thanks. I'll definately be getting a copy of McCloud's book, and have found another book by Rocco Versaci which I think will be a huge help if I can get my hands on a copy.

[Gothos]

What I would intend to show is examples of various literary merits which are comparable to past classics. When story-telling had an oral tradition years of stories told around campfires eventually were conglomerated by someone(s?) to become the Homeric epics for example. The modern conventions are a blend of visual and written, I believe that there are already examples of comics which have demonstrated that they belong as classics, where other stories perhaps are only a seed of what may eventually become an epic story not unlike Homer's. I would look to some of the more mainstream work for that end. However I would like a broader base to work from, and having input from others (which I will credit to you) will help me to examine the question more thoroughly.

Your suggestions can be individual issues, or entire runs, whatever you feel has merit, and was published before the year 2000.

Re: YCR looking to the mainstream work for the "seed" of the "epic tradition"--

With some of the more long-running characters, it's possible to view them structurally as very folkloristic creations, even though we know things about the creators of the stories. This isn't usually the case with real folklore, though on occasion some stories become generally accepted as folklore even when we do know of particular authors ("Three Little Bears," "Beauty and the Beast," all the Andersen stuff).

A character like Batman or Captain Marvel, for instance, might be traced in this way-- or perhaps, to put it more finely, some particular motif within a mythos. What do storytellers of different eras do with the Joker in a Bat-tale? First he's a stone killer; then he's a clown; then he's a killer again, but one whose insanity approaches cosmic proportions at times.

Of course I've no idea how one might approach this in the practical terms of teaching a class, except to choose three or four examples for comparison and contrast. This is at least easier than it used to be thanks to the prevalence of reprint collections.

And then there's the daunting question as to how, if at all, folklore fits in with literature proper...

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Also The Spirit.

Or at least Eisner. Can't discuss the topic without Eisner.

Me, I don't think of comics as literature..... not because I don't think they can be artistically on par, but I think that the form is different enough that it requires its own language, and calling it literature is really bastardizing the term. After all, only part of the language of comics is printed word, and sometimes none at all. Comics is it's own form.

[Gothos]

Or at least Eisner. Can't discuss the topic without Eisner.

Me, I don't think of comics as literature..... not because I don't think they can be artistically on par, but I think that the form is different enough that it requires its own language, and calling it literature is really bastardizing the term. After all, only part of the language of comics is printed word, and sometimes none at all. Comics is it's own form.

"Art" rather than "literature" is a better catch-all, since it would take in not only forms that typically have no "literary" aspects (painting, orchestral music) but also the aforementioned "folklore." But then "art" makes people think of painting and sculpture, so that puts you right back where you started.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

"Art" rather than "literature" is a better catch-all, since it would take in not only forms that typically have no "literary" aspects (painting, orchestral music) but also the aforementioned "folklore." But then "art" makes people think of painting and sculpture, so that puts you right back where you started.

Not really. Almost everyone who gives a plug nickel about art knows there's a variety of media. However, to make it less confusing, perhaps it could be put under the aegis of 'The Arts'.

[Agent Helix]

Literature is part of 'The Arts'.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Literature is part of 'The Arts'.

Exactly, and anyone who's discussing comics in an academic manner will know what is meant by 'art' and 'the arts'.

[Agent Helix]

Exactly, and anyone who's discussing comics in an academic manner will know what is meant by 'art' and 'the arts'.

I dunno, the OP doesn't really instill a sense of confidence.

[stealthwise]

FROM HELL
PROMETHEA

... you know what, maybe checking out the "25 Best Comics of all Time" thread in the Community forum would be a great start. They've already got most of the ones named in this thread, but the discussion there lists a lot of other great suggestions.

Btw, what is the purpose of your study? What about comics are you intending to show or examine?