Why the "classics" don't suck

[Hyena Dandy]

I still don't see someone getting the same scope of the graphic novel as compared to the original novel. Next you'll be saying that we should skip written abbreviations of a work altogether and wait for the movie

Sorry, but I would expect students to be able to pay attention to a book without pictures. *Are people's attention spans really that bad?

*Don't be snarky w/ ADD comments. You can take meds for that.

I write comics*. Not professionally, but I do. I don't like it when people say that what I write isn't intelligent because it has pictures in addition to words. The size and spacing of panels can make the reader feel boxed in, or they can feel like they're dealing with a wide expanse. They can feel ordered, or chaotic. You can give two people's idea on something at once, cuing visually who is thinking, without bogging down the reader in change of perspective. A comic can flow, or it can be pressed together. You can hide something in a comic which hints to the whole story in ways you can't in a novel.

Being a good comic book writer is just as difficult, and just as worthy a goal, as being a good prose writer. And being good at one does not mean you have skill at the other. A good comic writer thinks visually, and helps the reader feel what the character feels by picking up on visual clues rather than written ones. A good comic writer can guide a person through a story just as well as a good prose writer can, but they have to do it differently. Its a whole different, and very, very difficult art form.

The comic book (or as the pretentious types would put it, the 'graphic novel') is a genre. It is not inherently superior or inferior to prose, or to films, or to television. And good comics are better in their original forms, just as good prose is, just as good films are. If I want to read Huckleberry Finn, I read the book, I don't watch the movie or read an adaptation. If I want to watch Star Wars, I don't read the licensed books, or the novelizations. And if I want to read Fables, or Sandman, I'm going to read it in comic form, because those stories are written for the medium, and are no better or worse than a good novel or a good film.

But, despite what I just said, I don't want English teachers teaching comic books. They're a perfectly good medium, but English Lit classes teach English Literature. Not films or comic books.

And if the goal of English Literature classes are to give the student a grounding in the literature that makes up our modern culture, then they should be teaching the classics. They should be teaching old books, because new books have not had the time to make the impact.

My only qualm with this (and one I have no remedy to) is that Shakespeare is taught by many, though not all, the same way they teach prose. Shakespeare wrote for theatre. And what seems boring and awkward on paper becomes beautiful when a good actor breathes life into it.

Take the well-known phrase "Brevity is the soul of wit." Most people don't know the entirety of the bit it was said in.

This business is well ended.
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad:
Mad call I it; for, to define true madness,
What is't but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go...

It goes on.

It looks silly on paper, and many of the people in my English class didn't realize that's because it was supposed to be silly.

But I will stop now.

After all, brevity is the soul of wit.




*Yes, I write comics, not graphic novels. No need to be ashamed of the medium.

[muses_nightmare]

still don't see someone getting the same scope of the graphic novel as compared to the original novel. Next you'll be saying that we should skip written abbreviations of a work altogether and wait for the movie

Sorry, but I would expect students to be able to pay attention to a book without pictures. *Are people's attention spans really that bad?

*Don't be snarky w/ ADD comments. You can take meds for that.

1) I've never had ADD, I realize this probably wasn't directed specifically at me, but I want to clarify that.

2) I never said that comics should or could replace what is read in school.

3) You seem like you've never read anything more than the Sunday funnies. Which would explain your view on the subject.

4) Comics are an art form, they aren't just "picture books". They can have intelligent well thought out storylines. You can actually get the scope of a novel through graphic novels.

Comics have a broad range of subject matter, there's more to them than Archie and Garfield , which seems to be what your opinion of the matter is. Don't assume that I don't read, or that I'd suggest anyone shouldn't read, it just shows your ignorance. Comic books are reading for that matter, and they can be just as challenging as a novel. Why don't you head to your local library and actually open one before condemning an art form to something reserved only for slackers and children.

[Hobbs]

1) I've never had ADD, I realize this probably wasn't directed specifically at me, but I want to clarify that.

2) I never said that comics should or could replace what is read in school.

3) You seem like you've never read anything more than the Sunday funnies. Which would explain your view on the subject.

4) Comics are an art form, they aren't just "picture books". They can have intelligent well thought out storylines. You can actually get the scope of a novel through graphic novels.

Comics have a broad range of subject matter, there's more to them than Archie and Garfield , which seems to be what your opinion of the matter is. Don't assume that I don't read, or that I'd suggest anyone shouldn't read, it just shows your ignorance. Comic books are reading for that matter, and they can be just as challenging as a novel. Why don't you head to your local library and actually open one before condemning an art form to something reserved only for slackers and children.

1) I was being somewhat facetious in that I mentioned attention spans and someone would likely bring up ADD or a similar problem to defend my comment..

2) I wasn't even talking to you or referencing anything you said.

3) I actually read manga quite frequently, although I try to even out my reading between manga and novels. I am also a manga-ka, of sorts, one which I hope to be with Hyena Dandy's help.

4) What I said was, "I still don't see someone getting the same scope of the graphic novel as compared to the original novel." Don't assume that I don't read comics because I believe the comic version of a classical work of literature isn't as good as the original.

[ArenaBoy]

The classics suck because they are overwrought, over taught (I learned about "Romeo and Juliet" in middle school, now I have to learn it in high school? That's crap.), and to me; boring. I don't care for "Hamlet", I thought "Catcher in the Rye" was garbage and think it's overrated, and "Great Gatsby" was monotonous. Taking classes that are based in a certain field is understandable though.

I'm sick of this notion that the books that high schoolers have to read should be books that contain thou, thy, prithee, and to be or not to be. I had more fun when I read H.G. Wells for classes. I enjoyed reading more when I read "Dracula" for class and not Shakespeare.

Literature should be about appreciating a plot, characters, setting, and theme. Shakespeare is meant for theater, not a book. "Boys from Brazil" has an interesting plot, why is that not more advocated?

There's more to it than challenging vocabulary and there's a whole big area between the classics and Twilight. The point is not to placate to their basest wants and let them read comic books and riff-raff

Comics taught me most of my vocabulary when I was growing up. Especially Calvin and Hobbes. Comics were how I learned of Kafka. Comics were how I first learned of Marx's famous quote about religion.

Do yourself a favor and pick up "100 Bullets." The basic premise is that you are given a gun with 100 bullets and have a chance to exact revenge on someone and not get in trouble with the authorities. It's a comic, well written, well drawn, and enjoyable. Get "Transmetropolitan," it's an enjoyable read and was written by the awesome Warren Ellis.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I guess the real question is what kind of gun and what kind of bullets because that would make a big difference.

I'm the last person to say that any art form or even the basic sub-sections thereof are incapable or most likely not to be thoughtful, intelligent or insightful. Rather, that I know from very recent experience that 90% or more of the people I went to school with would, if given the choice to read a comic book, would not choose something serious and insightful but rather reach for the straight entertainment.

I'd say that you're average novel is more insightful than you're average comic book but this is more to do with the general intent of the people who produce those art forms (same goes with television and movies/novels, or whatever, really) In the end, though, it all comes down to the case-by-case basis as most things do and probably should.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd say that you're average novel is more insightful than you're average comic book but this is more to do with the general intent of the people who produce those art forms (same goes with television and movies/novels, or whatever, really) In the end, though, it all comes down to the case-by-case basis as most things do and probably should.

I'd disagree. The difference is, I think, that there are more novels, and they're better reviewed. Its much easier for me to choose a good novel if I'm looking for one.

90% of comics are crap. Even a lot of popular comics are crap. But 90% of novels are just as bad, and you only have to look at Twilight to see popularity doesn't equal well-written.

And most students would choose a bad comic book, but most students would choose a bad novel too.

The general intent of a comic book writer is the same as the general intent of a novelist. That is, it can be anything.

Comics are no better, or worse, than any other art form. There are more good novels than good comics, but comics haven't even been around for a century yet. And after the invention of the CCA, they sorta were no good for a couple decades, because the only way to get out on the street was to write an almost completely thoughtless book.




But the main problem I have with your post has nothing to do with comics. You can think comics are a crap medium if you want to, and while I disagree (very, very passionately) I'll accept that as your opinion, even if I do want to change it.



But the MAIN problem, I'd say, is something which I'm sure you don't feel, but a lot of people seem to think, which is that you said that people would pick entertainment over insight. And the thing is, there are SO many people out there who don't think insightful things and classics CAN be entertaining. There are even those who don't think that they SHOULD be entertaining.

And that's just sad.

Comics have a broad range of subject matter, there's more to them than Archie and Garfield , which seems to be what your opinion of the matter is. Don't assume that I don't read, or that I'd suggest anyone shouldn't read, it just shows your ignorance. Comic books are reading for that matter, and they can be just as challenging as a novel. Why don't you head to your local library and actually open one before condemning an art form to something reserved only for slackers and children.

I believe Hobbs wasn't saying comics aren't art, I think what he was saying was that reading the comic book is no substitute for reading the real thing.

[Rageaholic]

Hyena beat me to it.

As I said, art is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What I get from many posting here is that anything meant to be entertaining is lesser than the novels that were trying to make some point. I got this same stuff from a film instructer in college who thought that just because you "like" a movie, doesn't mean it's a good movie. She was the type who liked the foreign films that most people in the class didn't get. I say bollocks, it may not be a good movie for some people, but if it has the right kind of action and memerable quotes, than it works for me.

I'm sick of the stereotype that people who like action movies or comic books are lesser than those who like the in depth stuff.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'm sick of the stereotype that people who like action movies or comic books are lesser than those who like the in depth stuff.

Additionally, comics CAN be pretty damn in-depth.

And its possible to have an action movie that's pretty deep as well. Entertaining doesn't mean that its worse, but it also doesn't mean it can't be in-depth.

[Hobbs]

I believe Hobbs wasn't saying comics aren't art, I think what he was saying was that reading the comic book is no substitute for reading the real thing.

Exactly this. If I was teaching Pride and Prejudice, for example, I would expect students to read the actual novel. However, if one student wanted to compare the graphic novelization and compare it to the original work, then I would support it.

[Rageaholic]

That's another thing. I'm sick of people thinking that entertainment = trash, but more importantly, everything that's boring and hard to understand is sacred art that no one appreciates. It's like a huge sin against the art gods if you just want to be entertained and don't want to watch or read anything that's boring to you. It's bad enough we have religious, acedemic, and political elitests, but now watching movies and reading books has to turn into a contest of who can understand what.

I can understand wanting children to try new things to introduce them to stuff beyond what they are familular with, but in school, it's not always as simple as trying something and being allowed to say "No, I don't like this". Even in college, there's still 50 - 60 hours of general education bullshit that you'd think learning this stuff in school would be enough. When does all this end?

[Hobbs]

You don't like it in college? Okay then; don't go. They'll happily teach someone who wants to take the classes then someone who bitches about it all damn day.

[Hyena Dandy]

Exactly this. If I was teaching Pride and Prejudice, for example, I would expect students to read the actual novel. However, if one student wanted to compare the graphic novelization and compare it to the original work, then I would support it.

Would you allow Pride and Prejudice with Zombies?


The entire original text of the novel is intact. *innocentface*

[KnitShoni]

Even in college, there's still 50 - 60 hours of general education bullshit that you'd think learning this stuff in school would be enough. When does all this end?

Well, considering a lot of people don't know history, geography, or how to put a sentence together, I'm thinking it's not going to end. The problem is that colleges are having to teach stuff the kids should have already learned, but didn't, for whatever reason.

[Hobbs]

Would you allow Pride and Prejudice with Zombies?


The entire original text of the novel is intact. *innocentface*

Of course. As long as they maintained my curriculum, I so no problem with a student expanding their knowledge. But they would have to do the same work as the other students. If their studies in the original subject began to lack, I would ask that they concentrate on that and on peripheral studies.

[joe hx]

That's another thing. I'm sick of people thinking that entertainment = trash.

Actually, it's more like people think new entertainment is trash. Take music for example. My grandmother would swoon over Sinatra - even though her father would never let her listen to it. My grandmother, in turn, thought "the end of America" began with the arrival of the Beatles - a band my mother listened to when she was a teen in the 60s and 70s. My mother in turn, while not as die-hard against it as her mother and grandfather were, does not appreciate rap music. Hell, it's gotten to the point where I think a lot of the new music is crap, and not as good as 90s music that I grew up with.

It's not only music. In Shakespeare's time, theater was not thought to be a high art. From what I remember from high school, Shakespeare had to seek royalty to sponsor him to stay in business - eventually having the favor of King James. Most of Shakespeare's plays weren't published until after his death.

I tried to see if Dickens and other so-called "classics" were considered "riff-raff" material in his time, but my quick googling couldn't find evidence either way.