NYT Magazine: Are Comics The New Mainstream Novels?

securitas writes "The New York Times Magazine cover story this week is a (typically) long feature about the rise of comic books and graphic novels into mainstream culture, with writer Charles McGrath (former editor of the Book Review) stating: 'Comic books are what novels used to be -- an accessible, vernacular form with mass appeal ... perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit.' McGrath cites the mid-1980s birth of a movement that began and fizzled with Maus (Art Spiegelman), Love & Rockets (Hernandez Bros.) Watchmen (Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons) and Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (Frank Miller). The current renaissance in graphic novels include non-fiction Palestine (Sacco), non-fiction Persepolis (Satrapi) which has sold 450,000 copies, Ghost World (Clowes), American Splendor (Pekar), Road to Perdition (Collins) and Chris Ware's Jimmy Corrigan: The Smartest Kid on Earth, which won the 2001 Guardian Prize for best first book and has sold 100,000 in hardcover. McGrath interviews Marjane Satrapi, Julie Doucet, Joe Sacco, Art Spiegelman, and Alan Moore, among others. The article also has a multimedia interactive feature with many of the graphic novelists (registration required) in the magazine article."

Comments

Manga?

[CommanderData]

The author of the article barely makes mention of it except to crack a joke. Manga has been mainstream entertainment for people of all ages/social status for years in Japan, and accounts for about 1/3 of all books and magazines published there (and several billion US dollars in sales). Where 'Comic Books' are considered Geeky in the US, Manga is read by everyone from children to housewives to businessmen.

It's about time we started catching up...

Adams

[mfh]

> Are Comics The New Mainstream Novels?

This may be true, although I have a slightly different perspective. I think we just really like the people who make comics, because they are expressive people; these same people could do anything else and we would like it just as much. For example, take Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert. I have been holding out for the next Scott Adams novel (not comic, read: handbook). I was greatly amused, and felt better protected against the weasels in society, after reading "The Way of the Weasel." This was a fantastic read, filled with cynical, yet practical knowledge, to help combat the weasels ruining our workplaces and our private lives. Sure Dilbert comics make an appearances in TWotW, to illustrate concise points, but they only accent the rest of the book and support points raised with classic Dilbert humour. His writing is stunning -- and wholly useful. I can only hope he writes another one of these because I found it totally useful, as I'm sure many of you have.

Dumbed-down

[alnya]

Perfectly suited to our dumbed-down culture and collective attention deficit...

I think that's a bit harsh for novels and graphic novels. Some of the comics cited above are difficult, intelligent stories with involved character development and a good story to tell.
Calling that dumbed-down undersells the artists and the readership.

I'm pretty sure someone was saying that about Dickens in his day.

"dumbed down"

[lovecult]

I'm sure many of we lovers of the medium of comics will object to the "dumbed-down" comment"

Comic reading implies a different kind of literacy.
Not an illiteracy.

We know many people who don't read comics because, as they say, "we don't get it".

I pity the comic-illiterate, for the unique joy that they lose out on.
And I question the implication that comics are "dumb".
Many literary works of great sophistication, not to mention beauty, happen to be comics.

Re:"dumbed down"

[May Kasahara]

Maybe someone should whap the author upside the head with copies of Comics and Sequential Art and Understanding Comics (I know he mentioned the latter in the article, but if the misspelling of Scott McCloud's name is any indication, I have to ask myself if he's really read it).

I'll go ahead and say it...Sandman?

[johnthorensen]

How can you have a post on graphic novels without including Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series? ;)

Seriously, this is some of the most amazing stuff ever to come out, both with respect to storyline and art. Gaiman is a master wordsmith and weaves elements of ancient religion, existential philosophy, and wry british humor into his works. More here, here, and at Gaiman's Blog.

Seriously, check it out. This stuff is awesome :)

-JT

One flaw...

[tverbeek]

The only thing wrong with this theory is one tiny factoid: hardly anybody reads comic books. Their main retail outlet (comics specialty stores) are visited mostly by die-hard fans of the superhero monthlies, and graphic novels are just starting to get some shelf space in bookstores... most of which is dedicated to translations of Japanese manga series, not the books cited by the submitter (many of which have shifted only tens of thousands of copies nationwide).

Don't get me wrong: I'm a lifelong fan and reader of the medium, I've done a little on the creative end of it as well, and continue to do so as an avocation. But it is not (yet) a phenomenon of mainstream media.

Literary Snobbery

[fostware]

I find graphic novels paint a mood in an instant without resorting to pages of descriptive text. In an fleeting moment, you can sum up the scene perfectly. Try doing that in a full page of text.

There is also the fact that the graphic novels are usually serialised, thus keeping the interest from one issue to the next - not a constant build-up and single climax as with most "modern fiction".

It also seems easier to spot reused plots in graphic novels :P

Re:Good Old New York Times

[Otter]

Also, regarding the notion of a poetry->novels->manga devolution:

1) My impression is that the growth of novels was driven by the availability of affordable mass printing, rather than an inability of readers to handle poetry.

2) The ongoing disappearance of poetry is mostly a consequence of poets' writing for each other rather for an audience. The readers haven't gotten dumber; the poems have become inaccessible and ugly.

That said, graphic novels are still dweeb candy. ;-)

Literary bias

[f00zbll]

It sounds like the author of the article has a academic/literary bias against comic books. Although some comics are dumb and stupid, many of the most celebrate comics have writing that is more poetic and of higher quality than traditional non-graphic fiction. If I compare the best comics to the grocery store paperback romance novels, comics blow then away. For a long time, literary critics and academia have taken the attitude that comics books are "not serious literature."

It is about time people like Bendis and Stan Lee get credit for creating the wonderful works. If I compare comics to the numerous trash magazines, I'll take a good comic any day.

"Maus" and "Dumbed-Down?"

[BTWR]

To use "Dumbed-Down" and "Maus" in the same breath is to show both complete ignorance and stupidity.

Maus (which won the PULITZER prize) is one of the most powerful books EVER written about history's worst crime, The Holocaust.

Just because it's a "comic-book" does not mean it is "dumbed-down" or any less than a novel. Is "The Godfather," "Gone with the Wind," "Lord of the Rings" or "Shrek" any less of an art form because it is in motion picture form as opposed to the written word?

Maus is amazing. My dad got it for me in 7th grade and I have re-read it more than any other book is history.