Yes, I see what you are saying regarding how a specific genre such as superhero might be perceived as being the draw for non-literary elements into the comic field, but I also agree with the others as to the charge that this may also not be necessarily true.

As to this; “How so? I really don’t understand your argument here. You seem to be saying that if a person has the goal of creating a comic, they cannot also have the goal of creating a literary work at the same time. And that doesn’t make any sense.”

No, I am just saying that BEcause a person creates a comic they DO NOT have to have the intention of creating something that would be considered a literary work and I think that in itself is not something that lowers this art form.

Canons do matter somewhat: one of the ways that a canon is identified is by looking at what works are included in anthologies — and these anthologies are a way of getting the work out to people who can read them and be inspired. The more signs that quality work is out there – like discussions of canons / anthologies - the more people will be made aware of the possibilities of the medium.

I think this is generally right, thought there’s no easy dividing line between the two. A good reviewer will provide some kind of analysis to back up his/her claims; and many kinds of literary criticism are often very judgmental, even if they don’t say so explicitly – feminist criticism, post-colonial, etc . . .

There are not many outlets for detailed literary criticism beyond academic journals, and who reads those other than academics? And there has been a lot more of this kind of criticism in the past 5 years than in the 10 before that. The Web is really the best place for a criticism that can reach people who are interested (and there are some online academic journals like ImageText). Most magazines, newspapers, etc . . . don’t publish critical essays on novels, either.

And I agree with those who say that there are a lot of ‘literary’ comics being published. The Pope essay that Jennifer mentions overlooks dozens of contemporary cartoonists whose work falls into this category.

Possible reasons that there are not more comics of this type:
The corporate comics model (the dominate model) often works against quality.
Literary comics has a shorter history than other literary forms.
There are many more examples of successful writers than successful literary cartoonists for people to follow.
Students are exposed to many more novels, and short stories than literary comics.
There are likely 500 MFA fiction writers (a guess) for every student in a comics program.
{What role does the quality of art instruction in school play? I’ve heard that art is one of the first things to be cut in a budget crisis.}
Comics requires a larger set of skills than does other kinds of literature.

When I first started teaching comics in my college classes a decade ago as a grad student, none of my peers did. Now many of them do.

http://blogflumer.blogspot.com/

“Who says I did? I mentioned the literary accolades received by comics in the column. I am simply calling for more of the same. Is that something to disagree with?”

Only in assuming that there are that many artcomics that deserve literary accolades.

The column is aimed at a general audience; it is not interaction with a specific person. An exchange of comments IS personal interaction. I believe that calls for a difference in tone. I admit my tone in the following will express frustration and annoyance because I cannot abide when people argue from a dishonest point of view and allow their perception of someone else’s argument to cloud what that person actually said or wrote. More on that at the end.

Especially if you’re setting it not by the amount of literariness in comics, but the level of literary recognition they receive.

My argument is that people who could become interested in creating literary comics might take more interest if comics received more quality literary and artistic attention. That pretty much answers all of the “I don’t care what THEY think of me” arguments you put forth.

Bringing up a problem is complaining.

That is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t think most rational people would me to explain why.

So, again, I wonder how you could have missed it.

Who says I did? I mentioned the literary accolades received by comics in the column. I am simply calling for more of the same. Is that something to disagree with?

Prose has been around for centuries. Comics are seventy years old.

I know this. But this does not mean that there is no reason to start working toward quality criticism of comics.

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that there is a dearth of good comics criticism, and that that dearth is responsible for a low opinion of comics in literary circles, and that a high opinion in such circles is a necessary thing, then the conclusion of “It’s the fault of superhero fans that things are like this” is still fallacious and self-serving reasoning.

Sure, but that wasn’t my reasoning; that’s your perception of my reasoning–you are putting your own purposes into my words. You’ve demonstrated this throughout your comments, actually — like how I supposedly don’t care if a book is good or not, so long as it’s in the canon, which my opening paragraph is outright at odds with or saying that I “missed it” when it is right there in my column that I recognize the accolades comics like Maus and American Born Chinese have gotten. You say you are arguing rationally, but in fact you are arguing dishonestly, and it makes communication almost pointless.

The conclusion I came to isn’t that it’s THEIR fault; the conclusion I came to is that people who want to improve the literary perception of comics need to start doing some hard work. I ended my column on that positive note. My point was that the work we do today will shape what might someday be a comics canon.

And the part about me being all about the canon was a bit of making fun of myself. Jeezus.

Well said, Michael. I’m not sure I totally agree, but I do remember thinking “who cares if there is a canon” when I read the original article. Canons, schools of thought shift often, why the rush to assemble one? The prevailing “canons”at museums in the late 60s were very different than today, and often, it’s laughable what was considered essential to museum goers back then.

I’ve written a rebuttal to Ms. de Guzman, “Proving You Have the Stuff,” here:

http://arche-arc.blogspot.com/2008/02/proving-you-have-stuff.html

Key sentence:

“Paraphrasing Shakespeare, I would say that the fault lies not with the critics, but with the creators.”

Again, responding in kind. Or was “glorifying the comics of their childhood and adolescence (sic)” meant in the nicest possible way?

Snark aside, I’m actually trying to be quite rational about this. If I were being hostile, I’d have taken the obvious shot.

“My column is in response to a question Paul Pope recently asked at the First:Second blog about why there is not more literary quality in comics. If this is a question that has been around for thirty years and still seems unanswered–and I think it has–then it is worthy of discussing.”

See, I think it has been answered: There is more. More than there was 30 years ago, more than 25 years ago, more than 20, and on and on and on. There is nothing keeping comics from reaching whatever amount you’re setting other than the passage of time. Especially if you’re setting it not by the amount of literariness in comics, but the level of literary recognition they receive. Which is shifting the goalposts away from Pope’s question.

“Working in comics for the past eight years and going to university as an English major and MFA grad student at the same time.”

Good for you, and I mean that. I’ve been doing the university thing, working in publishing, and reading vast numbers of comics, and seeing quite a bit of literary quality. So, again, I wonder how you could have missed it.

“I’ve been in both worlds. I have plenty of anecdotes to match yours. I think comics are making great strides, but I think they’re still in the stage where people say, “Oh, gee, I didn’t know comics could be like that!””

We don’t actually differ on this point, just on how relevant it is (and the cause of it, but more on that later). I don’t really care what some nebulous majority demographic thinks about whether or not comics are art. I already *know* comics are art. The opinion of the Times Review of Books, doesn’t really figure into it for me.

“The examples you bring up reinforce my perception of the situation. Whole books are written by individual prose authors’ work, but comics are still in the stage where the public needs a critical primer of them to introduce them to the medium, such as Reading Comics.”

Prose has been around for centuries. Comics are seventy years old. As George Carlin said, “Evolution is slow. Smallpox is fast.”

“It’s not the critics I’m referring to; it’s the public — people who do not immerse themselves in comics.”

Well, see, I thought that “We don’t see more literary quality in comics being published today because too few critics treat comics as serious literature and art, critically reading and judging them without reference to non-literary works who happen to share the same format” meant you were referring to the critics.

“Did you read my column? I hate to insinuate that you didn’t, but I’d prefer not to have to re-explain something I’ve already written about.”

I read it, but the professor didn’t mention there’d be a quiz. Although I do have to admit amusement at the whole “literary canon” fetish you describe, since it sounds verbatim like the arguments given me when I ask people why they care so much about Marvel and DC continuity to the exclusion of caring about whether the stories are good or not.

“Actually, I think that means that the comics world has not sufficiently broken through to get their attention and show them comics that attract them.”

Again, why do we need their attention? Why do we need them to write a canon for us? Canon is largely the work of critics, assembled after-the-fact. It’s nice to have, can foster some good discussion, and makes it easier to teach in public schools, but in terms of creation, its assembly matters about as much as the compilation of the stats on the back of baseball cards does to determining who wins the World Series.

“I simply think that comics in culture needs to do a better job of getting through to these kind of people: outreach is essential.”

The 64 million dollar question: Why? What, other than the admittedly desirable increase in the flow of money to the coffers of those who make them, is the upside of the literary establishment coming out in favor of comics? Or, more to the point: Is it important that comics are legitimate, or that they are called legitimate?

“And I am not “complaining.” I REALLY hate it when someone brings up a subject that s/he feel is a problem, suggests a solution, and people call it “complaining.” That is so disrespectful.”

Bringing up a problem is complaining. But that’s neither here nor there; the “complaining” I was referring to was your “solution,” which was the tired old nag of “I would have gotten away with it, if it weren’t for those blasted superhero fans!”

If, for the sake of argument, we accept that there is a dearth of good comics criticism, and that that dearth is responsible for a low opinion of comics in literary circles, and that a high opinion in such circles is a necessary thing, then the conclusion of “It’s the fault of superhero fans that things are like this” is still fallacious and self-serving reasoning. It’s passing the buck on to the “other” (something you ironically decry, even as you simply redefine the “other” to mean a certain type of comics rather than all of them) to avoid examining the issue in any detail. “Everything would be great if it weren’t for that guy over there.” Easy to rally around, until the other guy goes away and the problem is still there. Which would be the case if we all woke up tomorrow and found out the Scarlet Witch had said “No more superheroes.”

The canon shall come. It’s probably already there, waiting only for someone to come along and leatherbind it. In the meantime, we’ve got great comics going on across the board, and it looks like we’re only going to get more of them, and in greater proportion. What more do we need?

I meant Reading Comics. Damned gerunds.

Other Michael, why you are taking such a hostile tone? My column is in response to a question Paul Pope recently asked at the First:Second blog about why there is not more literary quality in comics. If this is a question that has been around for thirty years and still seems unanswered–and I think it has–then it is worthy of discussing.

First of all, where’ve you been?

Working in comics for the past eight years and going to university as an English major and MFA grad student at the same time. I’ve been in both worlds. I have plenty of anecdotes to match yours. I think comics are making great strides, but I think they’re still in the stage where people say, “Oh, gee, I didn’t know comics could be like that!” The examples you bring up reinforce my perception of the situation. Whole books are written by individual prose authors’ work, but comics are still in the stage where the public needs a critical primer of them to introduce them to the medium, such as Understanding Comics.

I don’t think there’s anyone who calls themselves a comics critic who thinks comics = superheroes.

It’s not the critics I’m referring to; it’s the public — people who do not immerse themselves in comics. Did you read my column? I hate to insinuate that you didn’t, but I’d prefer not to have to re-explain something I’ve already written about.

And if they’re not or they don’t, then they’re schmucks who don’t deserve the respect they get, so who needs them?

Actually, I think that means that the comics world has not sufficiently broken through to get their attention and show them comics that attract them. I admit that English professors can be pretty clueless when it comes to some popular culture (I had to explain Suicide Girls to one of my thesis readers), but there are plenty who take note of new literary work. I simply think that comics in culture needs to do a better job of getting through to these kind of people: outreach is essential.

And I am not “complaining.” I REALLY hate it when someone brings up a subject that s/he feel is a problem, suggests a solution, and people call it “complaining.” That is so disrespectful.

I tend to feel like one of the hurdles is the culture of Wednesday. So many people write reviews rather than criticism because they want to get their opinions about this week’s books out right away and I’m sure there’s some pressure to be among the first to do so. This is conducive neither to taking the time to really think about a book or to writing about books that you can reasonably assume many people have already read.

So far, a commitment to mulling over works that are more than a week old and thinking about them in more analytical terms seems to be largely restricted to people writing books rather than blogging. While I disagreed with a lot of Doug Wolk’s ideas in Reading Comics, I did appreciate that he took time to analyze at length a lot of things that I had read already, giving me the opportunity to think more about them myself as I agreed or disagreed with his analysis.

My own fumblings toward analysis have tended more to the review side of the equation than the criticism side, but I try to get in at least a few thoughts beyond, “this worked, this didn’t,” and am occasionally proud of what I feel like is a step toward deeper analysis (things like the implications of extensive thought balloon use rather than captions in Concrete). I don’t pretend I’m there yet, but I make it a goal.

“I am, however, saying that superhero comics do not attract literary-and-art-minded people to the medium, and by constantly identifying comics with this one genre, we marginalize ourselves and perhaps do not get the talent we might otherwise.”

First of all, where’ve you been? I don’t think there’s anyone who calls themselves a comics critic who thinks comics = superheroes. I seem to recall “Reading Comics” devoting a chapter each to the Hernandez brothers, among other distinctly non-capes creators. And didn’t Time Magazine vote Fun Home their book of the year, or was that just the drugs (that I don’t do) talking?

Heck, I’d defy you to find one person, critic or no, who is taken seriously in the Great Comics Discussion happening around us right now who thinks comics = superheroes. If the other michael is strawmanning, he’s merely responding in kind.

Secondly, who says superhero comics don’t attract literary- and art-minded people to comics? I’m literary and art-minded, and they attracted me. Granted, when I was 9, but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that I grew up to be a literary and art-minded person who reads all types of comics, including superheroes. And that’s how most of the literary and art-minded people in the GCD today got in as well. The great comics critic of tomorrow is probably reading books like Immortal Iron Fist and Blue Beetle right now.

If you instead mean “the literary and art establishment aren’t attracted to comics by superheroes,” then that’s true. But who cares? If they’re smart, and if they pay attention at all to the culture around them (not always a given with any type of establishment, but I’ll be optimistic), then they know there’s more to comics than that single genre. And if they’re not or they don’t, then they’re schmucks who don’t deserve the respect they get, so who needs them?

I really think you’re complaining about a problem that’s become less and less relevant with each passing year since it was first brought up. Which was, incidentally, thirty or so years ago.