From: Jones, Caroline E <cj24_at_txstate.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:12:02 -0500

Alison said, "The problem as I see it is that calling all sequential art "c omics" brings an unfortunate picture to the eye of the general public. A c omic to most people is a small, paperbound, weekly disposable (or collectib le) item. Calling "Fun Home" a comic really (IMHO) belittles it."

But isn't this the problem? When we buy into that assumption, that comics are somehow "lesser" than "real" literature we perpetuate the stereotype th at any form of graphic narrative is less worthy of reading than a purely te xtual narrative. Has anyone seen the NYT article of October 7 ominously ti tled "Picture Books No Longer a Staple for Children"? It details a wide ac ceptance of the same assumption, that narrative exists only in text, that i mage plays no role in developing or creating narrative (or character or the me or tone). If anything, many illustrated texts, be they picture books, g raphic narratives, or comic books, are richer and more complex from the ble nding of textual and visual narrative techniques. I like McCloud's use of the term "comics" to describe sequential art work, and see the primary prob lem as one of perception and attitude; perhaps it's time to reclaim the ter m from the public's (and our own) dismissive assumptions. I also think tha t assuming that those "small, paperbound, w eekly disposable (or collectible ) item
" are inherently and by definition unworthy of examination and exp loration is short-sighted on our parts.

Caroline

-- Dr. Caroline E. Jones Department of English 601 University Dr. Texas State University-San Marcos San Marcos, TX 78666 512-245-3785
Received on Tue 19 Oct 2010 02:12:02 PM CDT