Jan. 14, Response to McCloud

I afford a very broad definition to "real" literature. I simply consider it the art of the pen (keeping in mind that movies of course begin with a script). I like to think of it as intelligent material that makes me think, but I know better than to do so. To address the underlying question, yes, I do consider comics to be literature. Sometimes they can even be exceptionally good literature.

I was never really a particularly big fan of comics when I was younger. But I'm an absolute die-hard fan of the "Batman" story line (I think it's another dark psychology thing), so I had to lend credence to this art of which I knew very little.

Comics definitely have a negative connotation. The best works of comic art (in my opinion) are not even regarded as comics. They are called "graphic novels." It's interesting how society has a way of adapting it's vocabulary to cope with it's own prejudice. I theorize that it's a situation of older audiences not wanting to associate a fascination with something perceived as juvenile as "comics." But "graphic novel" on the other hand sounds much more mature.

In McCloud's book, I appreciate the deep scope of understanding that he conveyed. He describes them in a manner that I can easily attribute to film-making. For instance, he describes the comic gutter in a way similar to that of how I would describe film-scene cutting and editing. The read was made much easier by the way in which McCloud invoked very clever humor. My academic pursuits would be made infinitely more pleasant and effortless if all my textbook readings were written with the same high wit that McCloud puts into his writing.