"How Comic Books became part of the literary establishment"
Well, I'm not sure how to feel about this article, here on the Telegraph web site.
It all feels like it's leaning towards the message that comic books haven't been a valid form until recently, with people drawing and writing comics/graphic novels of a rather more 'serious nature'.
High literature
I have issues with 'literary literature', because well, it tends not to be entertaining to read. In fact Tim Martin's article completely misses out on why comic books and collections of comic books turned into graphic novels, and manga in Japan, have been a success for so long: they tell stories, and they tell them well.
A good media text, is a text that tells a story well, and doesn't try to force a message directly in front of you and down your throat, (if there's a message, it does it subtly).
So, your problem with this article is?
It seems to be validating a form of media based off the backs of something that does not represent the majority of the body of work that is annually produced.
I know these are big words, but when something does not sit well with me that is what happens.
Also, Martin fails to mention that it just seems like a bunch of always profit hungry publishers jumping on a bandwagon. But who can blame them? it does look like they need the money.
Related links
Tim Martin article on comic books
Wiki entry on graphic novel Persepolis, which image is taken from
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment