Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
I was using "literature" as a generic term for written non-factual texts, not as a value judgement.
The terminology is problematic here, of course, since some people will restrict "literature" to mean "written non-factual texts with literary merit", but you then get into all sorts of arguments about how you define and measure literary merit, as well as what to call the stuff that has been defined as "not-literature". Personally, I prefer to use the term as I just defined it, and qualify "good literature", "bad literature", and so on.
If you prefer, replace "literature" in my previous post with "texts".
But haven't yet stopped being popular with new generations, and when those people discover the Beatles, they'll probably buy their stuff on iTunes rather than buying CDs. It would be a problem if only the Beatles' original audience wanted their music, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think you're wrong, but I promise not to flame you!
I became a Beatles fan in about 1993, aged 14. My parents weren't big fans, I just somehow got into them, and ended up with all their music, special edition and rare stuff, hundred of books, lots of memorabilia... and so on. While everyone around me was into Kylie Minogue and Take That, I loved the subversiveness of listening to a band who produced everything from crazy crappy pop (Love Me Do) to soulful ballads (This Boy) to psychedelic weirdness (Tomorrow Never Knows), via rock, comedy, ethnic fusion, electro-experimentation... I think that's the key thing about the Beatles. They never stayed in one place for long, so most people who like popular music of any sort like at least some of their stuff. And once you like some of it, it's difficult to resist listening to all of it, because they really are pretty damn good.
This is why the Beatles keep being rediscovered by successive generations. It's rare for non-classical music to become classic, but they seem to have managed it.
Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ooooh... Sacrilege! If you're going to read Beowulf, read the Seamus Heaney translation. It's not that comic book adaptations of literature are necessarily bad, but the Hinds Beowulf is not a very good version of the poem.
Re:It's a serious art form
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 1
You certainly could read Gibson without knowing the other stuff, but I think you'd miss out on a lot - in fact, precisely the fact that he's so different can only be appreciated if you know what he's different from. I think his difference from the tradition is a key part of how good he is. Nonetheless, you're right, Watchmen suffers a lot more from not being contextualised than Gibson does.
"Astronauts bound for orbit this week will dabble in science fiction..."
Erm... What does this mean? Surely robots have been around for quite a while now, and aren't confined to the realm of sci-fi? Or maybe I misread, and the robot's job is to teach the astronauts how to write like Asmiov!
Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"For a comic to be "real literature" I feel it must transcend its genre (kind of self-evident really, as literature is a different genre)."
That's absolutely right. But I think you're wrong to say that this is a "problem" with works like Watchmen. If we keep trying to compare graphic novels with written literature, they're going to suffer from the comparison. This isn't because they have less merit, but because they have different merit. A comic will never be "real literature", but if you turn that statement on its head and say "A novel will never be a good comic", the absurdity of the comparison becomes clear. Of course a novel can't be a good comic, unless you add pictures and cut out a lot of narration. At which point, it isn't a novel anymore.
Graphic novels rely on more than just words for their merit. Literature relies on words and words alone. I would far prefer to see graphic novels judged by the same criteria as movies (although even that wouldn't do them proper justice) because at least a movie isn't judged solely by its use of words.
I think you're right - perhaps we should also ask the reverse question: Why aren't more gamers using Linux?
Anyone who started out on Linux (and there are probably incredibly few of them) probably never became a gamer (at least, not using thir computer). Anyone who started out on Windows won't want the hassles of moving their gaming over to Linux. If gaming is something you do a lot, then you're going to use the most convenient platform for it.
Personally, I have a dual-boot. I play games and use photoshop on Windows, and I do most other things on Linux. The whole point of playing games is that it's relaxing; getting them to work on Linux kinda spoils that!
Don't read it as though it's a book. Watch it, as though it's a film. Your eyes are the camera - they take in one scene at a time, and put them together into a linear narrative. Panels with dialogue will usually have conventions which help you know what to read first - in Western comics/graphic novels. it's left-right, top-bottom. If it doesn't work that way, consider that there's an intention to confuse you, just like having two people talking over each other in a movie, or a train passing by just as a key phrase is spoken. I can't emphasise this enough - the linearity which is forced on narrative and dialogue by conventional writing is optional in a graphic novel. It does take a little bit of practice, but I think it's worth it.
"A History of Modern Computing" by Paul E. Ceruzzi. It's not bad at all, though it assumes a little bit more knowledge than I have (being an academic working in medieval studies.) So I have to keep looking things up on Wikipedia, like how a transistor works! In contrast, it might well be a little too basic for the average slashdotter.
Re:It's a serious art form
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I think there's a difference between saying that they're "the best of contemporary literature" and that they're a valid art form, which is what the original poster said. As I've mentioned in a previous comment, it's very difficult to judge a graphic novel against non-graphic literature. I think that it needs to be judged as an art form in its own right. If anything, it's closer to a movie than a novel, since it is made up of visuals plus dialogue. Reading a graphic novel (like appreciating any form of art) means appreciating the conventions of the genre - its ancestry is what allows you to decide whether something is parody or cliche, innovative or redundant, and so on. Just as you shouldn't judge William Gibson without first knowing Asimov or Heinlein, so you shouldn't judge Watchmen without first knowing The Mighty Thor and Grendel. When you read graphic novels in their proper context, you can see that there really are some masterpieces that do unexpected things with their chosen form - I would suggest Alan Moore's "From Hell" as being one of them.
I guess the difference is that McDonalds and Coca Cola's products haven't become almost-essential tools for a wide variety of people. I'd have trouble getting a job if I didn't know how to use a computer, and so would a vast number of other people. Knowing the difference between a Big Mac and a Bacon Cheeseburger is less likely to be a feature of my CV. Using a computer is a priority for people, so Microsoft not only has a massive share of the market, it also has a relatively captive audience. Because most computers come with Windows pre-installed, and because Windows is so well-known, that is what most people will use in their workplaces. This encourages them to use Windows at home, too. In contrast, the fact that there's a Coke vending machine in your office doesn't mean that you won't drink Pepsi at home - the choice of drink has no impact on your work efficiency and employability.
I don't know whether there's an answer to this. Different OSs will always work differently, and most people will learn to use the one that they will encounter more frequently. Getting employers to shift to Linux will never be easy, and until they do, employees will favour Windows as the OS to learn. Microsoft is lucky that, despite the fact that it now faces controls, it managed to manoeuvre itself into a position where people will choose Windows regardless of the fact that there are other free and more efficient options. Isn't legislating against Microsoft now like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted?
Re:Comics as real literature
on
Reading Comics
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Hmmm... That's a difficult one. I loved Watchmen, though I'm not sure I'd put it up there with the literary greats. Will Eisner is very good, as is Harvey Pekar. "From Hell" by Alan Moore is worth a read, and I use it in classes on literary language (I'm an English prof.) If you want to sample a variety of authors, try "An Anthology of Graphic Fiction" ed. by Ivan Brunetti.
The thing you have to remember when reading graphic novels is that we're used to judging literature by a lot more than just dialogue. Classic literature has lots of characterisation, landscape desription, narratorial thoughts... A graphic novelist generally writes very little but dialogue. You have to try to "read" the pictures as taking the place of the narratorial/authorial description, and then see how well the dialogue works in that context. But I have to say I'd find it hard to make meaningful comparisons between graphic and non-graphic novels.
I sort of agree with you, except that t seems to me that most places you buy computers sell them with Microsoft software pre-installed. (Unless they're selling Macs, obv.) So a) the average computer user thinks that Windows is the best option (otherwise why would computer manufacturers always ship with it), b) the average computer user gets used to using Windows, and c) the average computer user pays extra for their system because they think they need Windows with it.
If computers were sold without an OS, and the customer given the choice of buying Windows or having a Linux distro on a free CD, especially if they were buying from one of these places that'll come to your house and set it all up for you, I think Linux would be doing much better. And the consumers would get a better deal.
But of course there are favouritisms! Apart from anything else, this is a commercial product and Apple wants your money. But more than that, the average iPod user isn't going to be very computer-savvy and is likely to screw up their new toy if they try to play around with it. Providing a single software interface for it and making it very difficult to use anything else cuts down on the number of people who are going to brick their iPods. Personally, I'm happy with iTunes. It's generally better than anything open source I've found. And, if I remember correctly, it's free to download to manage your music collection even if you don't own an iPod. (Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong).
As I've already pointed out, this article is only someone's impression of what Zittrain said in his talk. I like the guy's work, I respect a lot of what he does, and I think you might be better off looking at what he himself says rather than someone else's version of it. If you still don't like it, then's the time to call him an idiot.
This is something that struck me. I don't know much about this topic, and I wondered why it's so wrong if the Microsoft OS works better with its own software? Is it that Microsoft is deliberately making 3rd-party software work less well? Or just that they don't support it as well as they support their own? (N.B. I'm not a particular Microsoft supporter - I mainly use various flavours of Linux and much prefer them.)
And, as an aside, did anyone else read the post title and think that Bill Gates had mutated?
You're right, this kind of bullying is awful and very harmful. In the days before internet, I used to have various school"friends" ring up my house - once, for example, they impersonated my headteacher, and asked to talk to my parents because I'd done something bad. Sounds stupid, I know, but I was a kid and I believed them and it was really distressing.
There's an obvious answer to this, of course - don't let your kids pick up the phone. Answer it first (since it's just as likely to be a call for you anyway) and pass it on to them if it's a genuine call for them. Similarly, online, keep control over what your kids are doing. Allow them to specify trusted email addresses to receive mail from - anything that isn't "trusted", you get to read first. Block sites where their bullies write posts.
Parents need to realise that the internet is not simply a tool. The internet is like the real world. If you wouldn't let your kid out into the real world without knowing where they are and what they'll be doing, then don't let them on the internet without some controls either. When they're old enough to go out on their own without parental checks, then they're old enough to use the internet alone too.
It's not just that, though, is it? Under this bill you'd have to give/. your contact details, and you'd only be able to post using your real name. So usernames are also out. Posting using anything other than the name on your official documents gets the website a big fine.
The point is not that doctors aren't paid, but that their services are free at point of use for everyone. Prescriptions are all charged at a flat rate - around $13 at the moment - regardless of their actual cost. If you live in Wales, prescriptions are free. Anywhere else in the country, you can apply for help with prescription costs or free prescriptions if you're on a low income.
Our taxes go to support this system. Taxes aren't outrageous, and it means that anybody has access to available medical treatments. So, yes, I guess that we are paying something towards this. But people on low incomes, the unemployed, young children, all of these people still have access to treatment, regardless of how much or how little tax money they've contributed to it.
Hi, Tony... This is vaguely embarrassing, since I seem to have run down your article:) In fact, I enjoyed it - but I think there are probably a few things in it that have given the wrong impression. Thanks for your generous response to what I've said here.
Oh, and should I be flattered or insulted that you assume I'm a man?;)
Sorry - maybe trash-talking was too strong a term. But you do seem to be criticising Zittrain based on what the author of the article has said, and I've given my reasons why I think the article's unlikely to be a good interpretation.
You're right, I do sound a bit PR-ish. Wonder if I can put this on my CV...
Slashdot Mirror
I was using "literature" as a generic term for written non-factual texts, not as a value judgement.
The terminology is problematic here, of course, since some people will restrict "literature" to mean "written non-factual texts with literary merit", but you then get into all sorts of arguments about how you define and measure literary merit, as well as what to call the stuff that has been defined as "not-literature". Personally, I prefer to use the term as I just defined it, and qualify "good literature", "bad literature", and so on.
If you prefer, replace "literature" in my previous post with "texts".
Doesn't work with this beta. Anyone know of any fixes for this?
But haven't yet stopped being popular with new generations, and when those people discover the Beatles, they'll probably buy their stuff on iTunes rather than buying CDs. It would be a problem if only the Beatles' original audience wanted their music, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
I think you're wrong, but I promise not to flame you!
I became a Beatles fan in about 1993, aged 14. My parents weren't big fans, I just somehow got into them, and ended up with all their music, special edition and rare stuff, hundred of books, lots of memorabilia... and so on. While everyone around me was into Kylie Minogue and Take That, I loved the subversiveness of listening to a band who produced everything from crazy crappy pop (Love Me Do) to soulful ballads (This Boy) to psychedelic weirdness (Tomorrow Never Knows), via rock, comedy, ethnic fusion, electro-experimentation... I think that's the key thing about the Beatles. They never stayed in one place for long, so most people who like popular music of any sort like at least some of their stuff. And once you like some of it, it's difficult to resist listening to all of it, because they really are pretty damn good.
This is why the Beatles keep being rediscovered by successive generations. It's rare for non-classical music to become classic, but they seem to have managed it.
Ooooh... Sacrilege! If you're going to read Beowulf, read the Seamus Heaney translation. It's not that comic book adaptations of literature are necessarily bad, but the Hinds Beowulf is not a very good version of the poem.
You certainly could read Gibson without knowing the other stuff, but I think you'd miss out on a lot - in fact, precisely the fact that he's so different can only be appreciated if you know what he's different from. I think his difference from the tradition is a key part of how good he is. Nonetheless, you're right, Watchmen suffers a lot more from not being contextualised than Gibson does.
"Astronauts bound for orbit this week will dabble in science fiction..."
Erm... What does this mean? Surely robots have been around for quite a while now, and aren't confined to the realm of sci-fi? Or maybe I misread, and the robot's job is to teach the astronauts how to write like Asmiov!
"For a comic to be "real literature" I feel it must transcend its genre (kind of self-evident really, as literature is a different genre)."
That's absolutely right. But I think you're wrong to say that this is a "problem" with works like Watchmen. If we keep trying to compare graphic novels with written literature, they're going to suffer from the comparison. This isn't because they have less merit, but because they have different merit. A comic will never be "real literature", but if you turn that statement on its head and say "A novel will never be a good comic", the absurdity of the comparison becomes clear. Of course a novel can't be a good comic, unless you add pictures and cut out a lot of narration. At which point, it isn't a novel anymore.
Graphic novels rely on more than just words for their merit. Literature relies on words and words alone. I would far prefer to see graphic novels judged by the same criteria as movies (although even that wouldn't do them proper justice) because at least a movie isn't judged solely by its use of words.
I think you're right - perhaps we should also ask the reverse question: Why aren't more gamers using Linux?
Anyone who started out on Linux (and there are probably incredibly few of them) probably never became a gamer (at least, not using thir computer). Anyone who started out on Windows won't want the hassles of moving their gaming over to Linux. If gaming is something you do a lot, then you're going to use the most convenient platform for it.
Personally, I have a dual-boot. I play games and use photoshop on Windows, and I do most other things on Linux. The whole point of playing games is that it's relaxing; getting them to work on Linux kinda spoils that!
Don't read it as though it's a book. Watch it, as though it's a film. Your eyes are the camera - they take in one scene at a time, and put them together into a linear narrative. Panels with dialogue will usually have conventions which help you know what to read first - in Western comics/graphic novels. it's left-right, top-bottom. If it doesn't work that way, consider that there's an intention to confuse you, just like having two people talking over each other in a movie, or a train passing by just as a key phrase is spoken. I can't emphasise this enough - the linearity which is forced on narrative and dialogue by conventional writing is optional in a graphic novel. It does take a little bit of practice, but I think it's worth it.
"A History of Modern Computing" by Paul E. Ceruzzi. It's not bad at all, though it assumes a little bit more knowledge than I have (being an academic working in medieval studies.) So I have to keep looking things up on Wikipedia, like how a transistor works! In contrast, it might well be a little too basic for the average slashdotter.
I think there's a difference between saying that they're "the best of contemporary literature" and that they're a valid art form, which is what the original poster said. As I've mentioned in a previous comment, it's very difficult to judge a graphic novel against non-graphic literature. I think that it needs to be judged as an art form in its own right. If anything, it's closer to a movie than a novel, since it is made up of visuals plus dialogue. Reading a graphic novel (like appreciating any form of art) means appreciating the conventions of the genre - its ancestry is what allows you to decide whether something is parody or cliche, innovative or redundant, and so on. Just as you shouldn't judge William Gibson without first knowing Asimov or Heinlein, so you shouldn't judge Watchmen without first knowing The Mighty Thor and Grendel. When you read graphic novels in their proper context, you can see that there really are some masterpieces that do unexpected things with their chosen form - I would suggest Alan Moore's "From Hell" as being one of them.
I guess the difference is that McDonalds and Coca Cola's products haven't become almost-essential tools for a wide variety of people. I'd have trouble getting a job if I didn't know how to use a computer, and so would a vast number of other people. Knowing the difference between a Big Mac and a Bacon Cheeseburger is less likely to be a feature of my CV. Using a computer is a priority for people, so Microsoft not only has a massive share of the market, it also has a relatively captive audience. Because most computers come with Windows pre-installed, and because Windows is so well-known, that is what most people will use in their workplaces. This encourages them to use Windows at home, too. In contrast, the fact that there's a Coke vending machine in your office doesn't mean that you won't drink Pepsi at home - the choice of drink has no impact on your work efficiency and employability.
I don't know whether there's an answer to this. Different OSs will always work differently, and most people will learn to use the one that they will encounter more frequently. Getting employers to shift to Linux will never be easy, and until they do, employees will favour Windows as the OS to learn. Microsoft is lucky that, despite the fact that it now faces controls, it managed to manoeuvre itself into a position where people will choose Windows regardless of the fact that there are other free and more efficient options. Isn't legislating against Microsoft now like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted?
Hmmm... That's a difficult one. I loved Watchmen, though I'm not sure I'd put it up there with the literary greats. Will Eisner is very good, as is Harvey Pekar. "From Hell" by Alan Moore is worth a read, and I use it in classes on literary language (I'm an English prof.) If you want to sample a variety of authors, try "An Anthology of Graphic Fiction" ed. by Ivan Brunetti.
The thing you have to remember when reading graphic novels is that we're used to judging literature by a lot more than just dialogue. Classic literature has lots of characterisation, landscape desription, narratorial thoughts... A graphic novelist generally writes very little but dialogue. You have to try to "read" the pictures as taking the place of the narratorial/authorial description, and then see how well the dialogue works in that context. But I have to say I'd find it hard to make meaningful comparisons between graphic and non-graphic novels.
I sort of agree with you, except that t seems to me that most places you buy computers sell them with Microsoft software pre-installed. (Unless they're selling Macs, obv.) So a) the average computer user thinks that Windows is the best option (otherwise why would computer manufacturers always ship with it), b) the average computer user gets used to using Windows, and c) the average computer user pays extra for their system because they think they need Windows with it.
If computers were sold without an OS, and the customer given the choice of buying Windows or having a Linux distro on a free CD, especially if they were buying from one of these places that'll come to your house and set it all up for you, I think Linux would be doing much better. And the consumers would get a better deal.
Thanks - I wasn't aware of the history. (I'm reading a history of computing at the moment, but am currently up to the development of FORTRAN!)
But of course there are favouritisms! Apart from anything else, this is a commercial product and Apple wants your money. But more than that, the average iPod user isn't going to be very computer-savvy and is likely to screw up their new toy if they try to play around with it. Providing a single software interface for it and making it very difficult to use anything else cuts down on the number of people who are going to brick their iPods. Personally, I'm happy with iTunes. It's generally better than anything open source I've found. And, if I remember correctly, it's free to download to manage your music collection even if you don't own an iPod. (Someone correct me on that if I'm wrong).
As I've already pointed out, this article is only someone's impression of what Zittrain said in his talk. I like the guy's work, I respect a lot of what he does, and I think you might be better off looking at what he himself says rather than someone else's version of it. If you still don't like it, then's the time to call him an idiot.
This is something that struck me. I don't know much about this topic, and I wondered why it's so wrong if the Microsoft OS works better with its own software? Is it that Microsoft is deliberately making 3rd-party software work less well? Or just that they don't support it as well as they support their own? (N.B. I'm not a particular Microsoft supporter - I mainly use various flavours of Linux and much prefer them.)
And, as an aside, did anyone else read the post title and think that Bill Gates had mutated?
You're right, this kind of bullying is awful and very harmful. In the days before internet, I used to have various school"friends" ring up my house - once, for example, they impersonated my headteacher, and asked to talk to my parents because I'd done something bad. Sounds stupid, I know, but I was a kid and I believed them and it was really distressing.
There's an obvious answer to this, of course - don't let your kids pick up the phone. Answer it first (since it's just as likely to be a call for you anyway) and pass it on to them if it's a genuine call for them. Similarly, online, keep control over what your kids are doing. Allow them to specify trusted email addresses to receive mail from - anything that isn't "trusted", you get to read first. Block sites where their bullies write posts.
Parents need to realise that the internet is not simply a tool. The internet is like the real world. If you wouldn't let your kid out into the real world without knowing where they are and what they'll be doing, then don't let them on the internet without some controls either. When they're old enough to go out on their own without parental checks, then they're old enough to use the internet alone too.
It's not just that, though, is it? Under this bill you'd have to give /. your contact details, and you'd only be able to post using your real name. So usernames are also out. Posting using anything other than the name on your official documents gets the website a big fine.
The point is not that doctors aren't paid, but that their services are free at point of use for everyone. Prescriptions are all charged at a flat rate - around $13 at the moment - regardless of their actual cost. If you live in Wales, prescriptions are free. Anywhere else in the country, you can apply for help with prescription costs or free prescriptions if you're on a low income.
Our taxes go to support this system. Taxes aren't outrageous, and it means that anybody has access to available medical treatments. So, yes, I guess that we are paying something towards this. But people on low incomes, the unemployed, young children, all of these people still have access to treatment, regardless of how much or how little tax money they've contributed to it.
You lose, I'm afraid... I even wear skirts sometimes!
Hi, Tony... :) In fact, I enjoyed it - but I think there are probably a few things in it that have given the wrong impression. Thanks for your generous response to what I've said here.
;)
This is vaguely embarrassing, since I seem to have run down your article
Oh, and should I be flattered or insulted that you assume I'm a man?
Sorry - maybe trash-talking was too strong a term. But you do seem to be criticising Zittrain based on what the author of the article has said, and I've given my reasons why I think the article's unlikely to be a good interpretation.
You're right, I do sound a bit PR-ish. Wonder if I can put this on my CV...