LET THE GRAPHIC NOVELS IN!

Against the proliferating climate of hate and /pol/ threads here on Veeky Forums, I dare (dare I?) say, let the Graphic Novels in! Nobody on /co/ talks about serious stuff, they mostly circlejerk about retarded superhero stuff. O I invoke you, spirit of freedom in literature, and I pray UNLEASH THE MOORE!
(also the Gaiman, Ware, Clowes, Burns, Spiegelman, Morrison, many others)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passionate_Journey
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

First, name three graphic novels that can be considered as true art. No moore allowed

>Cages
>Maus
>David Boring
First three that come to mind

>true art

Pseud detected

And no OP graphic novels are not literature. Please go back to your board.

I visited /co/ maybe three times, and I was utterly disappointed

Also you're right about that pseud busting

Honestly my dude, graphic novels (and comics as a whole) are cool as fuck but your taste is entry level as fuck and this is not the place to discuss them. Also, Spiegelman is overrated as fuck, Maus is good as a narrative, but there's nothing new being said there, and nothing's being said in a particularly bright manner either. I'd probably be more forgiving of him if he wasn't such an elitist cunt but Spiegelman is the typical "I did it when no one else was doing" kind of artist.

Anyway, try Peter Bagge.

If you explain me what is "true art" I'll answer.

>No moore allowed
obviously

I used the word fuck a lot of times, I'm sorry, I'm kinda angry at a lot of things.

There are plenty of genuinely great graphic novels.

However, the fact is they simply are not literature. That doesn't make them bad or anything, but they are a different medium entirely and don't belong here. It's a shame that /co/ is a shitheap for manchildren, but what can you do?

I know I'm not the big graphic novel connaisseur, and this is what brings on my problem. There's no place to have an actual good discussion about graphic novels, and this kinda bothers me.
> Anyway, try Peter Bagge.
Thank you m'man, I'll check him out

I grew out of picture books a long time ago

I understand that the medium is different, but what I can do about it is try to bring the discussion to a crowd with a more, let me use the word, "erudite". I'm not saying graphic novels should become a trending topic, I'm only saying that, sometimes, it would be nice to talk about them here, discussing "literary merit", even if we all understand the medium difference.

A Contract With God
Ice Haven
City Of Glass
Violent Cases
Palestine
Building Stories
The Frank Book

Nothing beats Love & Rockets.

>people defending literal comics in this thread

LOOOL.
quite the readers we got here

You seem to be familiar with big two stuff considering the authors you've listed, so it's always worth to check on people who work on the mainstream as well as on more authoral stuff.
Check out Paul Pope, Jim Woodring, Simon Hanselmann, Richard Corben and Thomas Ott, these are the guys I've been reading lately.

Also, much like Veeky Forums, all you have to do is lurk /co/ until the appropriate thread shows up.
This tbqh

>he still makes judgement values on whole mediums based on their position to other media

wooooh quite the aesthete here bois

...

you gotta discuss the 'literature' themes that graphic novels have. the same ideas that connect poetry and philosophy in their plots and characters.

This was good - mainly because of the artwork.

That's fair. I mean most philosophy threads have nothing to do with literary merit, but there's a million of those all the time.

>Batman

That belongs on .

All these I should have mentioned here (). Damn my stupid memory

Also I think we can all agree Asterios Polyp is a literary masterpiece

>no OP graphic novels are not literature.

>However, the fact is they simply are not literature. That doesn't make them bad or anything, but they are a different medium entirely and don't belong here.

Ah, gentlemen, but what constitutes literature then becomes the question we must answer! Let us discuss for the sake of making such trivial distinction what within graphic novels disqualifies their presence here today. First, I must begin by directing all towards the obvious, that of course being what we can all see; yet can not a book include photos, and not just as decorations, but images necessary to the narrative. Are we not simply playing with the puzzle of the heap when we shout down this most interesting distinction. How many pictures relevant to the narrative, gentleman, does it require before a book looses its status as literature and suddenly becomes the shunned graphic novel?

Any takers? Or do you all not wish to play my game? Because next I bring you the question: when does a picture and a word become a separate entity? What of hieroglyphic writing, or classic Chinese writing systems? Is a picture ever an ideogram? Do you ever wonder how the typeset affect the reading?

Do I go too far?

Sorry for the sage. Didn't mean to namefag.

Go to bed, Scott McCloud.
However, I proposte the following axiom:
"comics are a different medium for they interact in a different way with mind by the combination of pictures and words. Yet they do have dignity non inferior to that of literature and can be discussed in literary terms.". Ya like it?

oh. this is that post.

>in a different way

Tell us this way and how it is different? Does the possibility of a new form of literature which uses different typeset in non traditional formats and strewn with pictures become something other than literature?

Thanks for the rec.

Based

Ehr... yes? A "medium" is something that interacts with its consumer in a determinate standard way. If you change the structure of the medium in a way that makes it interact differently with the consumer, it is a different medium

I have this. Seems literary to me.

>interacts with its consumer in a determinate standard way. If you change the structure of the medium in a way that makes it interact differently with the consumer, it is a different medium

So translations of Hebrew writings into English are from a different medium? The old testament of the bible has been placed into a new medium?

Also, again, when does a picture and a word become a separate entity? What of hieroglyphic writing, or classic Chinese writing systems? Is a picture ever an ideogram?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passionate_Journey

Op, this one has a foreword by Thomas Mann. In a couple days I'll have my copy back and write what he says about the form and let lit shit on him, if they can.

>So translations of Hebrew writings into English are from a different medium? The old testament of the bible has been placed into a new medium?
I would say no, because these are not changes of the structure of the medium but of the form of its message
Your second point is an interesting one. In comics we could say that pictures and words are joined because the words sre part of the picture, but this does not provide a complete answer for your question (when does a picture and a word become a separate entity?). Many people in fact consider hieroglyphic writing a rudimental form of comics. For classic Chinese I think the thing is different, for the picture is turned into an idea, therefore a word. So there's another question: "when does a picture become a word?" and "at which point pictures and words are joined in such a way that their fusion constitutes a different medium?". Well, I don't know, and thanks for bringing this up. Yet I still would say that usual books and comics work in a different way with your brain.

...

Put comics in the Cage, no better than a Maus, they're not just boring they're David Boring.

This reminds me of that German guy (forgot the name) who invented comics back in the 19th century (not counting the Bayeux tapestry and similar older stuff). Goethe was his close friend and praised his invention.

There is an entire board dedicated to comics. If you can't initiate meaningful discussion on that board, then go elsewhere.

Veeky Forums is not a platform for this.

Who appointed you gatekeeper?

>go elsewhere
Where?

LMAO! It's been settled then.

I did.

Don't care. Not my problem.

>Yet I still would say that usual books and comics work in a different way with your brain.

Put a lab coat on then and let us look at the history of typography while we monitor the brain. Does the pink comic sans we use for a poem by Milton seem to be producing something different than the black time new roman for the same poem? Or does the type do nothing at all to the work? Hmm? When does a picture become a word? How do you call the spirit from the tomb?

And would it be fair to say that typography tells us that a picture and a word are closer than we think?

Lily?

graphic novel or not it only depends on whether your post sucks or not

Stop with this pseudo-desconstructionist bullshit.
Comics and books are distinct mediums. Some works fall somewhere between the two but graphic novels are squarely in the comics section.

Warren Ellis is great btw

Currently the catalog consists of a Pixar thread, a guy complaining about his non-lit homework, several threads of people complaining that they don't like entry level books, another one listing more entry level works as life-changing, your usual several threads on genre fiction, manga and light novels, threads on the occult, Evola, Marx, Stirner, Plato, Aristotle, getting fit, transexuals, accelerationism, gender studies, memory, and cat pictures, with every single thread being 90% shitposts.

But hey, let's argue whether graphic novels belong on the board.

Persepolis is Veeky Forums

Just continue supporting the creation of /capeshit/ if you want a quality comic board.

>ctrl+f 'Devilman'
>phrase not found
>ctrl+f 'Mars
>phrase not found
Fucking plebs

I ordered Deathnote Vol.1 & Judge Dredd casefiles Vol.1 , they coming soon
iv never bought any GN before

these are paperbacks my dude, graphic noves are self contained

Dredd is the fucking shit, don't have a lot of love for Death Note though

Tell me more about this "Mars", user, please

...

You could just watch Death Note's anime and be completely ok. I don't think it's really worthwile to spend money on the manga. However, hope you enjoy it, even if I wouldn't really call it a "graphic novel". Manga graphic novel are, for example, the works of Tezuka, Devilman, Gen of Hiroshima or the works of Jiro Taniguchi

>pseudo-desconstructionist bullshit.
You obviously didn't start with the Greeks or understand what deconstruction is. I'm only asking what is literature if not any book - which I don't think it is, by the way. You fuckers are so inept when it comes to dialectical reasoning.

>Comics and books are distinct mediums.

How? That is the point of my question. You assume I'm attack you when I'm just wondering myself what the difference is given what I have already stated. You do no one any good by not engaging the argument while shouting it down. Even Thrasymachus entertained the notions Socrates put forth before destroying them.

>"""graphic novels"""
>serious stuff

>look I'm pretending to ignore basic facts and spewing uninformed bullshit like "ideograms are basically drawings"
>I'm doing the maieutics you guise!

Dude, I want to make clear that the guy you're answering to is not the guy you were discussing with earlier. I'm the one who said "when does a picture become a word?" and I do find this discussion interesting. Nevermind the bollocks, let's keep this going.

What do you guys think of Cyril Pedrosa? I read Portugal and I found it great.

What if we made this a continuing thread like the Science Fiction Fantasy general?

Science fiction and fantasy are, unfortunately, considered literature and technically belong on this board. Comics literally have an entire board for themselves.

Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi seems good
Nice movie adaptation too

By asking questions like "how many pictures before a book becomes a comic" or "when does a picture become a word", you're already making the assumption that those things are a continuum. Then of course if your partner in the conversation inadvertently accepts that, he finds himself in a position where he can't defend himself anymore.
Your apparent search for truth is nothing but a parlour trick, a rhetorical device to win an argument. I'll give to your credit that this is exactly what Socrates was doing.

Wait, wait, this wasn't meant to be an argument, it's more like an enquiry. It's obvious to me that there's some sort of continuum between words and pictures, because letters are graphical, i.e. pictures. So, if we agree on this (and I'd be glad to hear your point of view, since you seem to disagree), there has to exist a line (even if blurred) where a word becomes a picture and vice-versa. The nature and the existence of this line are the points me and the other user are discussing.

>because letters are graphical
I wouldn't say so. The graphical representation of letters is graphical (duh). But a letter is also a phoneme (or part of one), possibly a meaning (in the case of ideograms), and, of course, an element of a syntactical system used in the construction of words.

So a picture is a graphical representation that doesn't match a phoneme. This finally solves the question: comics are different because thei join words with pictures.