|
This is sort of what I meant when I wondered about how "seriously" you're supposed to take certain writing, especially fiction, but I guess I don't think that graphic novels can't be literature (or literary at least, whatever your given definition of that word is) inasmuch as I've never read a graphic novel that was genuinely moving or gripping or any loving good at all I'm not sure if it's because I'm biased against comic books or if it's because so much of the narrative hinges upon subverting the expectations of the regular comic book consumer. "See normally this guy would be your archetypal hero, you know, like Superman, but instead he totally kills pregnant women in Vietnam" does not inherently make something more literary, to me. Also my memory of Watchmen is flawed, but the one depicted thing that stuck with me was the pregnant woman in Vietnam getting shot or blown up by one of the "heroes" - not for being dismaying, but for being just sort of outrageous. e: This isn't to suggest that meta narratives/commentary are inherently bad, just that they're not inherently good, either
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Smoking Crow posted:Trust me, there are people who will remember Sherlock Holmes on their deathbed. They're the people who sent Conan Doyle death threats because he tried to quit writing Sherlock Holmes stories Reason I mentioned Sherlock Holmes specifically is that he has a lot in common with what we see in comic books. He was published in a monthly serial, with illustrations. He had a distinctive costume (deerstalker hat, coat, pipe) that was mostly invented by the illustrator. He fought crime. He had a superpower. He had a sidekick and an arch-nemesis. He "died" and then came back. So on, so forth -- Doyle invented most of the major tropes we see in 20th-centry superhero comics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 13:42
|
|
|
Watchmen and Sandman are both really blegh. They are just good comic books instead of good fiction that happen to be comics Persepolis, Jimmy Corrigan, and Boxers & Saints are also all totes literature Edit: Also anything by the Hernandez brothers particularly Julio's Day. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
FYI it's Kublai khan, not ghengis
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
I still say Blankets is a fantastic exploration of boyhood, brothers, losing your religion, and first love.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I still say Blankets is a fantastic exploration of boyhood, brothers, losing your religion, and first love. Same but the oeuvre of R.E.M.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
here are some more good, literary-to-varying-degrees comics that don't have anything to do with superheros, superpowers, or any kind of scifi/fantasy crap: Peter Kalbercamp - Mea Culpa Joe Sacco - Palstine, Safe Area Gorazde, and The Fixer Jason Lutes - Berlin: City of Stones and Berlin: City of Smoke Jacques Tardi/Jean-Patrick Manchette - West Coast Blues (this is the comic version of Manchette's novel Three to Kill) Jacques Tardi/Jean Claude Forest - You Are There
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
In other news I am finishing the month long project of reading The Brief History of Seven Killings and am debating whether or not my absolute adoration of the writing is a legitimate appreciation of craft or white boy exoticism
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
guts and bolts posted:This is sort of what I meant when I wondered about how "seriously" you're supposed to take certain writing, especially fiction, but I guess I don't think that graphic novels can't be literature (or literary at least, whatever your given definition of that word is) inasmuch as I've never read a graphic novel that was genuinely moving or gripping or any loving good at all Your critique is kind of rear end. It's like saying Northanger Abbey is primarily a parody of romance novels. It's true on one level, but misses a lot. Go back and read chapter 5 of watchmen and look at how the layouts match the themes in the text and art. That's a good example of how it works on a literary level.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Seldom Posts posted:Go back and read chapter 5 of watchmen and look at how the layouts match the themes in the text and art. That's a good example of how it works on a literary level. On the other hand, read everything else
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Stop talking about dumb superheroes...
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Seldom Posts posted:Go back and read chapter 5 of watchmen and look at how the layouts match the themes in the text and art. That's a good example of how it works on a literary level. Okay, here's a video of me reading Watchmen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StmbrLfGC-8
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
So these Ferrante books are exploding http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21662488-four-volume-feminist-novel-naples-has-become-unlikely-global-hit-ties-bind
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
If you think about it Aeneas is the first superhero *shits own pants* thehomemaster posted:So these Ferrante books are exploding Yeah Ferrante and Knausgard are the two multivolume "must read" authors I have been hearing a lot about. Will probably try to do the whole series for Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Shibawanko posted:I don't understand the mind who writes posts like yours and then decides he wants to post more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
gently caress all of you
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
I would honestly rather this thread go back to saying stuff like Mishima is an aesthetic fascist or that they don't like 2666 than read another post about where to draw the literature line which is always retarded as hell
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:Yeah Ferrante and Knausgard are the two multivolume "must read" authors I have been hearing a lot about. Will probably try to do the whole series for Christmas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:37
|
|
|
this thread by its definition draws the Literature line so deciding what stays and what goes it practically the point of this. which I agree is probably agonizing but I think the point here was to provide a refuge from genre fiction that the rest of this forum is obsessed with, which while I'll concede aren't necessarily Not Literature needs distinction from what we're talking about. It's inevitable that we're going to have this discussion at least a little. I'm still reading Borges which is interesting but not exciting, and Calvino's Castle of Crossed destinies which so far is neither. I think I'll switch to cosmicomics when I come across it and leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If you think about it Aeneas is the first superhero um, gilgamesh?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 07:40
|
|
|
Books are really good. Here's some really great sentences I have recently read in books and other places: "When Fritz was about 6 years old, Siegfried remarried, to Hedwig Hamburger. " -wikipedia page "These analogies hold true only for those who lacked fervor-- always the greatest number; but all knew that to fail in care about one's soul meant perdition." -Barzun, From Dawn To Decadence "But it needs it in a very different form, because the state needs to subordinate hydraulic force to conduits, pipes, embankments which prevent turbulence, which constrain movement to go from one point to another, and space itself to be striated and measured, which makes the fluid depend on the solid, and flows proceed by parallel, laminar layers. The hydraulic model of nomad science and the war machine, on the other hand, consists in being distributed by turbulence across a smooth space, in producing a movement that holds space and simultaneously affects all of its points, instead of being held in space in a local movement from one specified point to another" -Deleuze/Guattari, Nomadology "'My fingers are long and beautiful, as, it has been well been documented, are various other parts of my body," Trump said.' -AP report "I said again I thought it was hopeless and no good going on, and she agreed, without opening her eyes. (Pause.) I asked her to look at me and after a few moments--(pause)--after a few moments she did, but the eyes just slits, because of the glare. I bent over her to get them in the shadow and they opened. (Pause. Low.) Let me in. (Pause.) We drifted in among the flags and stuck. The way they went down, sighing, before the stem! (Pause.) I lay down across her with my face in her breasts and my hand on her. We lay there without moving. But under us all moved, and moved us, gently, up and down, and from side to side." -Beckett "Dennis had a couple of microwaved Lean Cuisines for supper, both chicken but different, and came out on the porch to look through a few Enquirers." -Elmore Leonard, Tishomingo Blues Words kick so much rear end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Stravinsky posted:I would honestly rather this thread go back to saying stuff like Mishima is an aesthetic fascist or that they don't like 2666 than read another post about where to draw the literature line which is always retarded as hell Actually it's good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
Zesty Mordant posted:this thread by its definition draws the Literature line so deciding what stays and what goes it practically the point of this. which I agree is probably agonizing but I think the point here was to provide a refuge from genre fiction that the rest of this forum is obsessed with, which while I'll concede aren't necessarily Not Literature needs distinction from what we're talking about. It's inevitable that we're going to have this discussion at least a little. The point of this thread is to troll gullible idiots into thinking that there are people that read and like books that don't have a cool story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
The only problem with the "What is Literature" debate is that it is literally impossible to resolve
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 13:48
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The only problem with the "What is Literature" debate is that it is literally impossible to resolve Things I like are literature and things I don't aren't
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:The only problem with the "What is Literature" debate is that it is literally impossible to resolve Isn't that true for a lot of things that often gets debated? I don't think politics and ethics are going to be resolved either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
The issue is that the "what is literature" debate is not just that it is unsolvable - it's that the debate itself is generally a rather useless discussion, especially now that it's already been hashed over multiple times in the thread. Like if we are going to talk about comics it's cool if people want to discuss books they think are good and why they think those books are good, because that might at least result in people having some cool new books to try out - but getting into "where exactly do we draw the line" for the millionth time isn't all that interesting. Zesty Mordant posted:this thread by its definition draws the Literature line so deciding what stays and what goes it practically the point of this. That doesn't make any sense though because nothing at all is going to "stay or go" as a result of any discussion we have here. Honestly, aside from the "what is literature" debate the main value I see in this thread is that it seems to be one of a very small handful of threads in this forum where people can actually talk about books that are not scifi or fantasy. Which is of course not a valid definition of literature at all, but IMO it's still a better way to spend time. Earwicker fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Honestly, aside from the dumb "what is literature" debate the main value I see in this thread is that it seems to be one of a very small handful of threads in this forum where people can actually talk about books that are not scifi or fantasy. Which is of course not a valid definition of literature at all, but IMO it's still a better way to spend time. This is really what I meant-- I'd like to clarify my drunkpost and say that I don't actually want to have the discussion or think it's going to get us anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:The issue is that the "what is literature" debate is not just that it is unsolvable - it's that the debate itself is generally a rather useless discussion, especially now that it's already been hashed over multiple times in the thread. Like if we are going to talk about comics it's cool if people want to discuss books they think are good and why they think those books are good, because that might at least result in people having some cool new books to try out - but getting into "where exactly do we draw the line" for the millionth time isn't all that interesting. The other issue with the whole debate is that the question of literature is something everyone has an opinion on but much fewer people have invested any serious academic effort into exploring. Thus, the people who haven't researched the question come off as barely coherent children and the people who have done the research come off as pompous shiteating namedroppers. EDIT: Honestly my main frustration is the constant equivocation of old=literature. People seem to feel that a book has to be 100 years and thoroughly canonized to be worth considering literary. One of the poisons of the whole endeavor is the inability to look at art without some sort of societal affirmation. Mel Mudkiper fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
blue squares posted:I still say Blankets is a fantastic exploration of boyhood, brothers, losing your religion, and first love. Habibi was drawn with even more detail but he failed on literary department and that made it just another comic Or other way around. Fun Home has pretty good story (I'm not even that feminist/interested in lbgt stuff), and it's still pretty good, but the visual part isn't that good. Maus suffers from same. Sandman and Watchmen are pretty good comics but I wouldn't call them literature, out of praised comics, they belong to BSS if anything. Black Hole does the literary/sff crossover thing with more focus on literary, and it's much better. Alex Robinson was pretty good too and comic named Shortcomings (can't remember the author).. Maybe I missed some (these weren't all I read, but ones I remember), and maybe something new came out as I haven't read comics in few years, but my conclusion is that generally comics aren't good enough to be called literature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
mallamp posted:Or other way around. Fun Home has pretty good story (I'm not even that feminist/interested in lbgt stuff), and it's still pretty good, but the visual part isn't that good. If you are interpreting the comic simply on the merits of its overall visual artistry you are critiquing it as a piece of visual art rather than as a narrative. The art should serve as a form of literary expression rather than aesthetic expression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
What Is Literature is a stupid anglocentric semantic debate. "Literature" doesn't have to be a thing. "Literature" can just mean every creative written work ever. And you can just tell people who exclusively read children's books to gently caress off, and when they go "but these are important children's books on adult themes" you can tell them to gently caress off again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:One of the poisons of the whole endeavor is the inability to look at art without some sort of societal affirmation. I agree to an extent - it is, however, interesting to see which works end up having a pronounced influence on art in future decades or centuries, and age is really the only thing that allows us to see that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Ras Het posted:What Is Literature is a stupid anglocentric semantic debate. "Literature" doesn't have to be a thing. "Literature" can just mean every creative written work ever. And you can just tell people who exclusively read children's books to gently caress off, and when they go "but these are important children's books on adult themes" you can tell them to gently caress off again. I like children's books ;_;
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I agree to an extent - it is, however, interesting to see which works end up having a pronounced influence on art in future decades or centuries, and age is really the only thing that allows us to see that. Oh absolutely. There is a historical value to it that cannot be denied. My frustration is with people who feel that reading literature makes them erudite when all they read are books that have been burned into their social consciousness since the day were born. At some point a reader should have to challenge oneself to make critical judgments on works that they have received no pre-existing "push" to appreciate. If someone only reads great books because others have told them they are great, can it be trusted that they are actually engaging with the text or simply engaging in ego-driven performance?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If someone only reads great books because others have told them they are great, can it be trusted that they are actually engaging with the text or simply engaging in ego-driven performance? I don't think those are in any way mutually exclusive. That said, I don't really see anyone in this thread doing that kind of thing anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I don't think those are in any way mutually exclusive. That said, I don't really see anyone in this thread doing that kind of thing anyway. Oh yeah, I am not making any accusations. Just venting for a second.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:If you are interpreting the comic simply on the merits of its overall visual artistry you are critiquing it as a piece of visual art rather than as a narrative. The art should serve as a form of literary expression rather than aesthetic expression. mallamp fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
"Do you think it's a great book or have you just been told so?" is about as sharp a critique as "do you like this or are you only listening to them because no one else has heard of them?". It's not some kind of a social issue that people might pretend. No one really knows much at all. Every conversation about everything is a thick web of confused memories, misunderstood half-truths and outright lies. There is no form or method. There is only emotion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 13:18 |
|
|
Ras Het posted:What Is Literature is a stupid anglocentric semantic debate. "Literature" doesn't have to be a thing. "Literature" can just mean every creative written work ever. And you can just tell people who exclusively read children's books to gently caress off, and when they go "but these are important children's books on adult themes" you can tell them to gently caress off again. there are lots of Good and Solid children's books i mean i assume you read swedish you can't tell me Bröderna Lejonhjärta does not count as Literature
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:57
|
|
