GRAPHIC NOVELS

the comic tradition A SOPHISTICATE’S GUIDE TO COMIC BOOKS AND GRAPHIC NOVELS by DAN CASEY

What would you say if someone told you they read comic books? Would you write them off? Joke about how it’s just “kids’ stuff?” Who reads comics, anyway? Surely it’s all just sweaty, overweight, pasty, acne-ridden people who live in their parents’ basements, stuffing their faces full of Twinkies and Cheetos, only emerging to head to the local Sci-Fi convention with their stained “Jedi Was Better” t-shirt, right? Wrong. Too many people miss out on the visual and literary goldmines that are comic books. Granted, there are still your throwaways like Archie and other titles geared toward a younger audience, but the majority of comics tackle social and political issues, using them as a springboard for the art form. That said, why is there still this stigma attached to such a seminal part of our national visual culture? Superman has his own exhibit in the Smithsonian, for crying out loud! Where’s the justice?

Perhaps it’s the nomenclature; “comic book” has certain negative connotations attached to it. Instead, why not go with the more sophisticated terminology of “graphic novel.” According to Merriam-Webster, a “graphic novel” is a “fictional story that is presented in comic-strip format and published as a book.” Boy, howdy, that sure sounds like a comic book to me. Now that we’ve elevated ourselves to a higher plateau of lexicology, let’s discuss the issue at hand: the unwarranted neglect of a rich medium. Since the inception of comics, critics have castigated comics as “subliterate” and even purported that reading comic books would disrupt the development of a child’s literacy. The poor quality and tiny typeface of the original comic books lead to fears of visual impairment. Furthermore, comics were generally seen as “poor-quality, unimaginative works that promoted a fantasy world.” Though some spoke out against this criticism, citing a lack of any substantial evidence, the critics kept up their full-frontal assault. Hence, the long-lasting assumption that comics are but a “children’s medium.”

It’s no secret that violence has a certain place within comic books. With any other form of media, people are bound to take issue with something and blow it out of proportion. In his 1940 editorial “A National Disgrace” in the Chicago Daily News, columnist Sterling North alleged that the “bulk of these lurid publications depend for their appeal upon mayhem, murder, torture, and abduction….Superhuman heroics, voluptuous females in scanty attire, blazing machine guns, hooded ‘justice,’ and cheap political propaganda were to be found on almost every page….Unless we want a coming generation even more ferocious than the present one, parents and teachers throughout America must band together to break the ‘comic’ magazine.” Wow, Sterling, those are some strong words. This all feels strangely familiar: just as today’s demagogues decry videogames like “Grand Theft Auto” and the alleged “fact” that they are turning our nation’s youth into bloodthirsty, car-stealing, pedestrian-pummeling killers, yesterday’s firebrands sought to vilify the comic book. I mean, these are the same people who told you that playing “Dungeons & Dragons” is a one-way ticket to Hell.

To be fair, there is some credence to these claims. Some comics are exactly that: chock full of violence, cheap political propaganda and the like. Case in point: This Godless Communism, an American anti-communism propaganda comic from the ‘60s. This Godless Communism poses the age-old question of “what if the US were conquered by the communists?”

(Apparently, it won’t be very much fun.)