tragedy books
by Joey Levesque
The notion that comic books ‘should be funny’ used to be quite widespread. Several critics of Maus spoke to the controversy of portraying the Holocaust in a comic medium (forgive me). Kendall Bleckern brings up Michael Rothery, Francis Toselli mentioned the notion in his class blog, and the idea is almost omnipresent in a collection of essays edited by Deborah Geis.
I am not entirely sure that Maus was controversial (among literati) – revolutionary, certainly, but I’ve yet to find a credible argument against Spiegelman’s use of the form. (It did win the Pulitzer.) I think the shock value of ‘a comic book about the Holocaust’ was at least equally derived from subject and medium – the Holocaust is shocking on its own where a comic book is not. Emotional reactivity to constructed controversy could certainly serve as a justification for lazy scholarship – I am not at all leveling accusations, merely suggesting the possibility. The act of constructing controversy is far more interesting to me.
To me, the idea that comics should be funny seems naïve. I grew up reading Hergé’s Tintin comic books (1920-30s) and the predominant genre of American comics has always been the superhero; these are not intended to be ‘funny’ (not that they aren’t).
The perception of comics as ‘childish’ was also widespread. The desire of comic artists to avoid this perception led to a new genre – the ‘graphic novel’. This seemed like pretentious nomenclature to me, until I realized I associated ‘graphic novel’ with Persepolis, Maus, Watchmen – a different category than cheap Archie periodicals printed on recycled paper (n.b. I am a fierce advocate of sustainability). ‘Adult’ and ‘serious’ works of hybrid literature triumph over thin ad-platforms full of reused stories (I remember finding duplicates often, and even memorized a few plots. I had three brothers who really liked Archie, so our bathrooms were well-stocked.)
Joseph Witek explored these themes in-depth in his 2004 essay ImageTexT, or, Why Art Spiegelman Doesn’t Draw Comics and is worth checking out; also see his Comic Books as History: The Narrative Art of Jack Jackson, Art Spiegelman and Harvey Pekar out of Mississippi Press in 1989.
I’ve developed an interest in comic books (graphic novels are included in my definition) and will be doing some reading into comics theory – my critical vocabulary is limited and I’m drawing on literary and visual terminologies. Geis’ collection suffers the same malady, which is surprising given its date of publication (2003). If anyone knows where to start, please let me know.
Works Cited
Bleckern, Kendall. “Comics and Cartoons: Important Social Work.” Contemporary Lit 474. 23 Oct 2014. Web. 5 Nov 2014.
Geis, Deborah R. Considering Maus: Approaches to Art Spiegelman’s “Survivor’s Tale” of the Holocaust. Tuscaloosa, Ala.: U of Alabama, 2003. Print.
Toselli, Francis. “Maus – Comic Book Forms and Coherence” ENGL 474F Auto/biography as Social Action. 27 Oct 2014. 5 Nov 2014.
Witek, Joseph. “ImageTexT, Or, Why Art Spiegelman Doesn’t Draw Comics.”ImageTexT: Interdisciplinary Comics Studies 1.1 (2004). University of Florida. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.
I think Maus drew controversy was that you were using a medium that was initially, from its inception, appealed to the lower classes and to children. It was a simplistic way of reading, with not an emphasis on prose (which I think was the standard for writing serious messages) but rather on quick blurbs of dialogue. Pictures also contributed to this notion that it was for children and that it remained for children. So, indeed, this stereotype of comics as an “unserious” art form in the 1970s when Maus was published was still very much alive: how could a text so sacrosanct that even the name of “the Holocaust” sent an emotional shiver in the body could be represented in this “unserious,” “childish” medium? I think what it comes down to is how one viewed comics back in the 1970s, and of its potential to be serious or not; and how one views comics today with the same question in mind?