Over at Comics, Comics, Tim Hodler has started a great discussion on the use of the word ‘literary’ to describe comics and the lack of an adjective to describe things that function like comics.  We have words like ‘cinematic,’ ‘concrete,’ and ‘painterly,’ but no word meaning ‘comic-y.’  As such, we rarely ask what defines comics as its own form.  We’d rather praise certain artists for understanding other forms and using this understanding in their comics, particularly an understanding of cinema and camera-work, and less often, an understanding of literature and the written word (Dan Clowes probably gets this accolade most often). Comics are also often criticized for being “photographic” (which means stiff and overdrawn). But we need to find a vocabulary that will let us grow beyond these often limiting descriptions.

As an English professor who teaches comics, I run into this problem almost daily.  I have to dance around the word “literary” and the abuse of the term “graphic novel.” But, unfortunately these words are shorthand for legitimacy in the academic system.  If I want to write a proposal for a comics practice course (as a Creative Writing workshop) I will surely have to use both terms liberally, if I hope to get it approved.  (Luckily, the obvious jargonism of ‘sequential art’ has practically relegated that term to the trashcan – apologies to Will Eisner.) While we assume the prejudice against the comic form is past us, and, rather, there’s an unfettered zeal for the medium (in publishing and academia), we are now at the next stage where we are dealing with prejudice from those who see themselves as supporters of comics.  There is an insistence on adopting the terms of canonical literature and “high art” and using those to validate comics, a medium that has always been mass-produced and easily available (before Kramer’s Ergot 7), and should be understood in the context of its own history rather than those of other forms.  Formal comparisons are always useful, especially for those learning the ins and outs of a new form, but these comparisons should in no way bee taken as definitive.

Take some time to read the comments in response to Hodler’s post.

I finished Dash Shaw’s Body World.  Go read it if you want to understand a comic that is comic-y.  It shows Shaw’s feel for comics as it’s own form, it is certainly not dictated by another form (although some great comics are). His strongest work yet, and it’s free.

Oh, and it seems Frank Santoro (with Dan Nadel and comics critic Jog) has started a new blog: Graphic Novels, Graphic Novels.  Should be an interesting one to follow.