Suggestions to Welsh on Graphic Novels

So are you saying art can't be intellectually stimulating? :)

Well Bradylama- One could be anti-intellectual, but wouldn't that essentially mean that you're pro-stupidity?
Click to expand...

Call my words reacionary angst if you want, because I'm just tired of the way intellectualism is referred on the internet. I'm tired of little shits spouting off Hobbes or Plato as if they knew what they were talking about. Worse still when they use Freud as a basis for any psychological argument.

Worse yet are the people that will quote passages from literature both popular and vague in lieu of their own input.

I don't care what Ayn Rand wrote in Atlas Shrugged.
 
Actually I am not a big fan of Ayn Rand. I read her "For the New Intellectual" and thought about being anti-intellectual for the rest of my life. Then I discovered she was full of shit.

So yes, I find folks that quote Hobbes or Plato who don't know what they are talking about, a bit annoying. But a lot of folks who do post on the net are doing this as some form of social interaction and exchange of ideas. Ideally people should be willing to challenge themselves enough to be individual, or creative or at least original.

But in the scope of the world, how much is really original thinking? Expecting brilliant new insights might be asking a bit much from a lot of folks either in or barely out of adolescence.

OK, back to the question of graphic novels.

No, I think art can be intellectual- I am not sure if graphic novels are, or have reached that point. That said, I'm willing to try them out and read through a few. At worst, If they are little more than enjoyable comics, at least they were fun. But maybe they are more than just mind candy.

If you think they are more, I'd like to hear why.

But I am not even saying that art has to be intellectual. Personally I would like to think of art as being more than mind candy that rots your head. THat said, I admit I enjoyed the remake of Dawn of the Dead. But I don't think I would be happy if every movie was a Dawn of the Dead- probably why I am sick of superhero movies.

Have graphic novels reached a point where they stand out as art on their own? CCR thinks so. Ok, I'll give them a chance.

I'd like to hear from you guys.

I do sympathize with this idea that you, as a young adult, should think about what is representative of your generation and get past the veneration of the old. Christ, it's fucking frustrating to hear 20 year olds venerate people who were recognized as great in the last generation but who are blind to the greatness of their own. I've been arguing with one of our local novelists that a myopic study of great novels that ignores the contemporary is little but a veneration of age? Art needs to evolve or like anything else that doesn't evolve, it dies.

The thing is a lot of movies are being drawn from graphic novels- and some pretty decent ones-
From Hell, Road To Predition, so if these are the ways stories are being told, cool. What makes them work? What are the good ones?
 
Have graphic novels reached a point where they stand out as art on their own?
Click to expand...

Depends on one's perception of art. Art itself is an elusive concept. =)

When it comes to less thoughty works such as The New Teen Titans, or The New Gods, I see them less as art, and more as a contemporary mythology. A modern fairy tale.

Most would relegate fairy tales to the young, but more often than not, fairy tales touch on issues and motifs that are lost on them.

Even if something is seen as mindless entertainment, is it so wrong to indulge oneself once in a while?
 
Welsh, if you really worry that somehow you are wasting your time on pulp with Graphic Novels, I would'nt suggest Sin City as a starting point, no offence to Malkavian. Maus is probably the best graphic novel ever written as purley literature; it even recieved a special pulitzer.
 
Then why not suggest the Sandman comics? The issue when Morpheus inspired Shakespeare to write A Midsummer Night's Dream received a pulitzer for best short story. In fact, its the reason that comic books can't receive Pulitzers anymore. =/
 
Bradylama said:
Because comics are gay? Hell if I know.
Click to expand...

Yer, that's it. The Pulitzer people get uncomfortable when approached with books full of pictures of men-in-tights.
 
Seriously, I think they made a big stink about comic books not qualifying as literature. For whatever reason.
 
Geez hard cover comics is considered literature and taught in some Universities since the 70`s in France, Belgium and Italy. Seriously Hugo Pratt is a lot more interesting than Tom Wolfe, Moebius/Jean Giraud had a greater impact on visual arts, particularly hodiern cinema than almost everyone else, and my generation, at least in Europe, is used to read books by Comés, Tardi, Frank Miller or the japanese school (although most manga sucks...) as pieces of literature for as long as i remember.

Even if events like the Angouléme Festival aren`t a sucess as they once were, still we`re talking of a huge industry, wich tons of scientific level studies made about it, and with everything that constitutes Art, no matter the concept of art one`s embrace.

They should get out of theit high horses Bradylama, and accept that an interesting part of american, japanese and european literatures is made of books with drawings.

Where`s Alec, he can tell you i´m right on this, just watch his avatar :)
 
They should get out of theit high horses Bradylama, and accept that an interesting part of american, japanese and european literatures is made of books with drawings.
Click to expand...

Hey, all awards commitees are inherently elitist. Otherwise people wouldn't receive awards. :)

Seriously though, has anybody watched the Oscars recently because they wanted to? For enjoyment?
 
To address several points:


Bradylama, first of all I am not a "little shit" because I happen to like literature. While that might very well work on Gamefaqs boards or somesuch as an insult, it needs some work. Yes, I read classics and quote from several of them. I ALSO happen to read modern literature and novels, not just "old" stuff. I read vorcaciously, and it seems we both have different images of what constitutes literature and intellectualism. I daresay if you truly wish to have a verbal spar and insult me, use the private message system, as that is what it is for.

I offer you your own contention back: What makes graphic novels inherently valuable? I have read some, yes. I happened to enjoy some as well. Do I consider them "art"? I don't know, however I do know that I prefer the thought that must go into each and every word to make a scene come to life in the mind of the reader. Or do you deny a good writer as an "artist" as well in a different medium? Yet you cannot seriously contend that much of the manga from Japan is "art" (some of it is, I will concede, but it is the diamond in the rough)???

Perhaps it is my own bias, as I retain far more through word usage than pictures. Yet, as a medium graphic novels how been around how long compared to the written word? How long is a graphic novel worked on compared to a book, and by who? In my opinion, it is easier to draw out a plot with the graphics already provided as opposed to relying solely on language to convey images.


No, I dont watch the Oscars. They are atrocious, flashy, and full of shit. Simple as.
 
If I wanted a verbal spar with some elitist self-proclaimed "intellectual" I would have called you a little shit to your face.

Anybody can see that I didn't, and anybody can also see that I was talking about people that quote things with overwhelming frequency, and with a lack of proper context or understanding. The implication was also focused on those that tend to be below their 20's.

Welsh was able to pick up on that last part, but you haven't. So either you're taking offense to my statements because they contain some truth, or you're a minor.
 
Bradylama said:
If I wanted a verbal spar with some elitist self-proclaimed "intellectual" I would have called you a little shit to your face.

Anybody can see that I didn't, and anybody can also see that I was talking about people that quote things with overwhelming frequency, and with a lack of proper context or understanding. The implication was also focused on those that tend to be below their 20's.

Welsh was able to pick up on that last part, but you haven't. So either you're taking offense to my statements because they contain some truth, or you're a minor.
Click to expand...

Interesting context to call someone a minor, as I am 18, yes. Though it is at least amusing to me that I am the faux intellectual for criticizing graphic novels while being the "minor", as opposed to the older person who defends them. Who is this mythical "anybody"? Or is this about age then, and you claim superiority by being on this planet for a few more spins around Sol?

As for proper context or somesuch, I refer you to my above statements. At the time, I generally called people "fanboys" for liking graphic novels AS A JOKE. You know, because no one ever insults anyone on these boards here, ever, Something apparently you, taking it "out of context", imagined it as some sort of attack on yourself (which apparently Kharn felt as well). So I shall copy his response: Insecurity, Bradylama?
 
I just turned 20 on the 2nd, so I claim superiority to nothing due to age. Though, if you're perceptive enough when you do reach my age, you'll notice how differently you think at 19 than you did at 18. (indeed, what you could have noticed so far throughout all of your post-adolescent life, I know I did, and probably 8 months from now I'll look back on how I behaved last week and think 'Oh my God, what was I thinking?')

But, if you'll notice. Nobody above the age of 26 calls themself an intellectual with a straight face, and those that do, guess what? They're douche bags! Think I'm lying? Wait until you have to deal with stupid-ass college professors. Talking about Chaucer as if they could possibly know exactly what he was thinking. Then maybe you'll notice how elitist and asinine it is to call yourself an intellectual, because you know what? Intellectual pursuits, admirable as they are, don't make you superior to anybody.

And please, God, don't tell me that you were joking. Maybe I'm behind the times and humor is dead, but there was nothing humorous in that statement. Nobody could say something like that without believing at least some of it.

You know what, though? I didn't insult you. I made a comment on the word intellectual, and the state of intellectualism. Then, I went on to explain the source of my detest for it. Nothing about you. Nothing personal. Yet, you took my statements personally and now here we are.
 
Fireblade- I disagree with quite a bit with what Bradylama is saying above (which is pretty typical) but I agree with him that his comment wasn't meant as an attack against you personally.

Had I thought he was trying to flame you, I would have commented or warned him. So I think you might be taking this personally when perhaps you shouldn't.

I will also agree with Bradylama (hey 2 in one post! That's some kind of record!) that people's perspectives change with age.

Ok, one more, I will further agree that many folks who want to be intellectuals are fairly shallow about it, and (strive for four) a lot of professors are complete peckerheads- especially English professors.

That said, social superiority has much to do with culture. In america, for instance, one can measure social value by salary. Teachers generally get paid very little despite the time they spend getting educated and the work that goes into it. That's unfortunate. In other societies academics get more respect.

I would also agree (damn that's 5!) that most people who think they are intellectuals at 26 are a bit premature. Of the group of younger than 26's whose intellect I can actually respect, the one that stands out most is actually Kharn, and this guy hasn't gotten to college.

Now, folks who are intellectuals into their 30s, that's another story. These are folks that have dedicated themselves to developing their intellects or pursuing intellectual endeavors, often at some social cost. Are they superior? Frankly I don't like the idea of intellectuals thinking they are superior is a case of moral failure.

However, are they intellectually superior- in the sense that the mind needs to be exercised and expanded with practice and discipline- yes.

But elitism isn't really a matter of intellectual superiority. Rather, it has more to do with social heirarchy, and in the US I think that has more to do with wealth.
 
welsh said:
and in the US I think that has more to do with wealth.
Click to expand...
You, sir, have never been on a good campus. Hyde Park BLEEDS Intellectual pretention, and though it's wealthy it's not Lake Forest.
 
That's generally how it is in the US, and anybody who hasn't had to deal with "their type" :) can count themselves lucky. Elitism can be extended to any culture, though (or subculture in this case). It isn't just about nationality.

Also, as an aside, I feel for anybody who's dated a girl from a rich family.
 
I remember once in Austria, when I was doing graduate legal stuff with some Americans, one of these fellows was saying how, being that 40% of Americans go to college and only 10% of that group goes to graduate school, than lawyers were members of the intellectual elite. Almost everyone having dinner with him agreed.

I thought the guy was a pretentious asshole who had gone to school only to make money. I told him that the only thing that determines whether a person can get a legal education is their ability to cover tuition costs.

Intellectual elite? Nonsense.

That said, CCR, I guess I've been lucky with academic campuses but mostly because I have gone to either public or semi-public schools- SUNY, NUS, St. John's (NY Catholic school for poor folks), and UVA. Only the last campus where students drive BMW's, Range Rovers (and I once saw a Ferrari) does the issue of inherited wealth lead to pretentions of elitism- but that elitism is pretty heavy.

Then again, I still can't spell for shit, so maybe you're right CCR and I need to get on a good campus.

That said, I'll stick to the argument before. I am not sure if anti-intellectualism isn't another way of say pro-stupid.

As for graphic novels, I am still waiting for a good argument why graphic novels are a higher form of art than comic books. The "I know art when I see it," is ripe with individualized bias.

At some point you need to draw some kind of generalization between what is better, what is best and what is crap. If you can't make that distinction or explain it, than how can you determine "art" from "crap?"

Ok, I will concede that accepting a status quo interpretation or "a literaty establishment" interpretation of "good" and "bad" art is flawed for this generations own interpretation of what it defines as quality.

But that still doesn't answer the question- how do you measure quality in graphic novels.

Having not developed an appreciation of graphic novels, I'd like to hear how you guys determine that sense of quality.
 
Having not developed an appreciation of graphic novels, I'd like to hear how you guys determine that sense of quality.
Click to expand...

That's almost impossible to answer, because I don't think I've ever read a bad comic book. I've read a few mediocre ones, like the Young Indiana Jones comic books based on the mini-series.

I have no real divining rod for determining comic quality, but its usually dependant on the writer's skill, and how well the story and characters have been constructed. Or, in the more comedic comics like Groo the Wanderer, simply how humorous it is.

Sin City, for instance, features characters and stories that explore motifs of classic epics. The hero of the story, gruesome or sadistic as he may be, is nonetheless a hero, often pursuing his own sense of justice in a world that works against them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top