SubscribeAs promised, I returned to a certain beloved graphic novel series as my recuperation from a certain piece of classic literature. And again, I’m flashing back to the various English teachers in my life, rolled into one Platonic ideal: a chain-smoking, cynical middle-aged man in a paisley vest, grumbling startlingly insightful comments in a gravely voice.
My brother bought comic books when we were kids. I always liked words better than pictures but I read them when he wasn’t looking: Spawn, Witchblade, Spiderman, X-Men, Superman. Not high literature, but a willing & available avenue of escape during stress. And thus were my thoughts about comics for years to come.
So then, when confronted with a graphic novel masterpiece like Sandman, or Watchmen, or The Dark Knight Returns– part of my brain still can’t process this. I’ll read a stirring masterpiece in this form and I hear myself wondering why I’m taking it seriously. It’s that old prejudice that serious books don’t have pictures. And that terrible phrase ‘graphic novel’ smacks of PCism and euphenism. Oh– you mean a COMIC BOOK? You know, like ARCHIE and BEETLE BAILEY?
But the authors who deal in this genre see it coming, and in the introduction to Sandman, one of the writers notes that it will be years before academia recognizes the genius and intricacy behind the series, one equal to that found in a Faulkner or Joyce work. And when that happens, he writes, the dissertations will come in, the critical commentary, the articles in peer-reviewed journals.
Read a good graphic novel. See what I mean. Fight the urge to discount a work because of the novelty of its format (we forget that the novel was disregarded as a frivolous format in the nineteenth century, fit for entertainment, certainly not serious literature). Literary genius can be just as strong combined with thoughtful artwork, enhancing and complicating the work instead of rendering it laughable.
Leave a Reply