Do you guys consider it literature (if youve read it)

>literature can't have graphic elements

Shit man, I guess I'll have to stop reading Tristram Shandy, Apollinaire, Tablada, and any sort of book with illustrations :/

I would, but whether or you want to define "literature" in such a way as to include it, I think it's still a very high-quality piece of story telling.

I think you got it backwards, m8. It's saying that it's NOT literature.

>Tablada

I think you and I are the only ones reading Tablada here user.

Well if you’ve already set your mind on the notion that every art form that uses any written language is literature, it’s settled. Do you feel better about reading comics now?

Nah. It's good for super hero comic, but that's not saying much, those are lowest of the low among comics trash as it is.

>I can only think in extremes

Embarassing.

Which is a shame. He was a real trailblazer.

No. I don't even like using the term Graphic Novel to describe it. It's a fucking comic book. It's fucking brilliant, but it's a comic book. Just because it's a comic book doesn't mean it has any less worth than any other medium. It's a fucking comic book.

This. The kind of babies that go "B-but muh literature" and can't read anything they don't consider literature because they fail to realise that masterpieces are masterpieces regardless of the medium are the biggest pseuds.

>introduction to book spoils the book
why

>Graphic Novel
the continued butthurt around this term is amusing. it's just a publishing term for something that comes out as a single thick book as opposed to a series of issues. i haven't heard anybody legitimately trying to use it to mean a higher artistic category than a "mere" comic book for years but i hear people complain about it all the time. why are you so triggered by the name of a release format?

because worrying about spoilers is a nerd culture phenomenon and nobody but manchildren cares

The thing is, it's not brilliant. It's high among capeshit. But cape shit is shit in the first place.
I read it since my pleb friends kept hiping it, and it was atrocious. That krakken subplot, completely unneeded nonsense, and you could see the forced plot twist as soon as ozimandias is introduced. Comic books can bee readable, this one is not among them.

Ozymandias is a great example of a truly Faustian character. People who don't consider it literature are dumb.

He is a supervilain. Consider this for a moment and abandon your plight.

>publishing term for something that comes out as a single thick book as opposed to a series of issues
No, that is called trade paperback.
>i haven't heard anybody legitimately trying to use it to mean a higher artistic category than a "mere" comic book for years
I hate superheroes. I think they're abominations. They don't mean what they used to mean. They were originally in the hands of writers who would actively expand the imagination of their nine- to 13-year-old audience. That was completely what they were meant to do and they were doing it excellently. These days, superhero comics think the audience is certainly not nine to 13, it's nothing to do with them. It's an audience largely of 30-, 40-, 50-, 60-year old men, usually men. Someone came up with the term graphic novel. These readers latched on to it; they were simply interested in a way that could validate their continued love of Green Lantern or Spider-Man without appearing in some way emotionally subnormal. This is a significant rump of the superhero-addicted, mainstream-addicted audience. I don't think the superhero stands for anything good. I think it's a rather alarming sign if we've got audiences of adults going to see the Avengers movie and delighting in concepts and characters meant to entertain the 12-year-old boys of the 1950s.
theguardian.com/books/2013/nov/22/alan-moore-comic-books-interview
It’s a marketing term. I mean, it was one that I never had any sympathy with. The term “comic” does just as well for me. The term “graphic novel” was something that was thought up in the ’80s by marketing people and there was a guy called Bill Spicer who used to do a brilliant fanzine back in the sixties called Graphic Story Magazine. He came up with the term “graphic story”.
The problem is that “graphic novel” just came to mean “expensive comic book” and so what you’d get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics – because “graphic novels” were ge
tting some attention, they’d stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel, you know? It was that that I think tended to destroy any progress that comics might have made in the mid-’80s. The companies, the marketing people, who are not terribly bright individuals, they’re not terribly creative, they don’t really have the hang of – well, I mean, they really haven’t got the hang of the 1970s yet, so the 21st century is a long way behind them and they think in very short term measures and consequently they were more or less to blame for destroying whatever kind of momentum the comic book picked up in the ’80s by immediately using it predictably to sell a load of Batman, Spiderman shit. But no, the term “graphic novel” is not one that I’m over-fond of.
blather.net/projects/alan-moore-interview/northhampton-graphic-novel/

i don't even like watchmen but it's funny that you call your friends plebs but then the only criticism you can make of their comic book is "i saw the twist coming" and "it's so bad guys". it's almost as if this place was full of functionally illiterate pseuds that collected "respectable" books on their shelves like fucking video game achievements

>as opposed to a series of issues
Like Watchmen's issues?

This happened to me once when I read the Old Man and the Sea and I was soooo mad

it's a really good comic, but even if it was life-changing it still wouldn't magically turn into a book

>a single thick book as opposed to a series of issues

This. Watchmen is as good, if not better, than any work of literature, but it's a comic book, not a novel.

>No, that is called trade paperback.
>Like Watchmen's issues?

technically a trade paperback is a collected reprint of something that came out as issues whereas a graphic novel is published as a thick book from the start without first coming out as issues. in practice people treat the terms interchangeably. it's still just a description of a release format and hasn't been widely used in the sense people are mad about (a comic but "literary") since like the 90s.

Ozymandias was completely and utterly justified in his actions. His guilt is merely the manifestation of Judeo-Christian ressentiment. You can not judge him because he has transcended your judgement. The only person who can defeat him is himself.

fag

And I can put a sign that says "BBC" on my weenie, it doesn't make it one

>in practice people treat the terms interchangeably

you're making shit up

what am i making up? i'm saying graphic novel is simply the name of a publishing format that has nothing to do with artistic value, and you posted a screenshot of a publisher's website in which the term is used, guess what, as the name of a format. what are you disagreeing with? do you even know?

>it's another "brainlets thinking 'literature = quality' " episode

Watchmen is a graphic novel with a damn fine story. Why the fuck do you want to overthink this?

It's a different medium, no comic is literature any more than a film is literature.

The Wire is literature without being a book
so I think Watchmen can be too

the wire is basically just dialogue with optional visuals. you could be blind and lose next to nothing. movies and comic books are primarily visual with an auxiliary verbal component. a good movie comes through even on mute, a good comic book would still work if you scrubbed out the word balloons.

>nothing to do with artistic value
why do you lie?

the only people who think it's a description of value are the people who are mad about it. nobody seriously uses it like that anymore. you just don't want to let go of a pet peeve so you can complain forever.

Or maybe they just listen to the already posted Alan Moore, who works in the field, and systematically proceed to ignore your fabrications and lamentations.

If you're going to be a reactionary, at least don't be a fucking retard. Chirst, it's like you fucks have never even heard of Derrida

oh really let's see what alan moore actually said about this

>What do you think of the term “graphic novel” that has come into use?

>It’s a marketing term. (...) The term “graphic novel” was something that was thought up in the ’80s by marketing people (...) “graphic novel” just came to mean “expensive comic book” and so what you’d get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics – because “graphic novels” were getting some attention, they’d stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel

so according to alan moore graphic novel is a publisher's term for a thick comic book and has nothing to do with artistic value. which is, you know, exactly what i've been saying. why are you still arguing about this?

who the FUCK is alan moore

No, it has pictures

is a sonnet a novel? are they both literature? are you a fucking idiot?