Although Frey and Fisher advocate for the use of graphic novels and other visual media as a means of engaging students in creative writing, they nonetheless seem to situate these texts as something other than or outside of academic text. That is, while graphic novels may mediate learning through their pop culture appeal to students, they still seem to be presented as forms of “low-brow” reading and not as legitimate literary texts themselves. Invariably, the written text is still privileged; indeed, the authors’ focus was on using graphic novels, a “form of popular culture,” to “[scaffold] writing techniques, particularly dialogue, tone, and mood,” and even “[began] with the idea that graphic novels were comic books at best and a waste of time at worst” (24. This brings up questions of what exactly constitutes a legitimate and appropriate “academic text” for study in the English classroom and who has the power to make those decisions. Though this issue is beyond the scope of my post, I think these questions of legitimacy, access, and power imbalances in curriculum-planning bear further consideration.
To return to the article, while the authors’ focus seems to be on using students’ existing visual literacies to foster or reinforce more traditional forms of literacy, I would like to argue that not only should we treat graphic novels as literary texts in the classroom, but that we also need to explicitly teach visual literacy skills to our students. Although it is true that many students come into the classroom already possessing a different visual literacy skillset and perhaps have more confidence / practice in interpreting and encountering visual media, I think it is nevertheless important to give our students certain literary tools to enhance their reading, understanding, and analysis of graphic novels and their articulation thereof. Close reading and other analytical skills, after all, are transferrable across various literacies, and fostering students’ confidence and ability to analyze a graphic novel may also help them improve their analysis of more traditional forms of narrative, and vice versa.
Thus, I think if we are going to use graphic novels in the classroom, then we need to teach students the conventions of the discourse. At the very least, they should have an awareness of terminology and formal elements specific to graphic novel studies, elements that authors use to influence readers’ perception of the work. Just as students doing a film study need to be aware of certain aspects of film (such as camera angles, zoom, story boards, etc) that mediate or even manipulate our emotional reactions, so too, students studying a graphic novel need to understand elements such as framing, gutter space, panels, etc. In other words, students must be given the tools to understand not only what is on the page and what the effects of the page are, but also how these effects are achieved. The very nature of the graphic novel medium, after all, affects how we approach the narrative.
One significant difference between prose fiction and graphic novels, for example, is that graphic novels are a “unique hybrid of text and image” that demands a continuous shuffling of attention between the images and words (Rosen 3). Hirsch uses the term “biocularity” to highlight the “distinctive verbal-visual conjunctions that occur in comics,” and it is this biocularity that enables what Eisner termed “sequential art” (as qtd. in Whitlock 966). Specifically, sequential art conveys a story or information through presenting images in succession; however this “sequence of images [is] linked by juxtaposition, rather than chronological order,” and consequently, is able to “manipulate the time and space within a narrative” (Rosen 3). Thus, while capable of portraying a chronological account of events, comics are also able, at the same time, to depict simultaneous events by juxtaposing two different scenes. However, because comic panels are arranged side by side, there necessitates the existence of a “gutter,” or the negative space between the two images. These gutters, according to Whitlock, “fracture both time and space, offering a staccato series of frames” that require the reader to fill in the missing parts themselves and achieve narrative closure by “mentally [constructing] a continuous, unified reality” (970). Reading and analyzing graphic novels, therefore, require a different set of literacy skills, skills we should not automatically assume our students already have.
Works Cited
Frey, N. and Fisher, D. (2004). “Using Graphic Novels, Anime, and the Internet in an Urban High School.” The English Journal 93(3): 2004. 19-24. Print.
Rosen, Elizabeth, K. Apocalyptic Transformation: Apocalypse and the Postmodern Imagination. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2008. Print.
Whitlock, Gillian. “Autographics: the seeing ‘I’ of the comics.” Modern Fiction Studies 52.4(2006): 965-979. Project MUSE. Web. 20 Nov. 2009.
By: Katrina Lo
2 responses so far ↓
adamh // Jul 7th 2013 at 10:10 pm
This isn’t so much a comment about Katrina’s post as it is about the topic of graphic novels in general. As I’m a bit late in the game, and as I’ve yet to figure out how to make an actual post, I’ll put it here.
Thanks,
Adam
I completely agree that graphic novels are likely underutilized in English classrooms, however I think we all may be singing their praises a bit too hastily.
What makes a novel graphic is the addition of images to text, arranged in frames. But if we watched a film with subtitles are we not then essentially reading a graphic novel? What is the difference if we are watching and reading on a larger screen, in the dark and probably with popcorn?
Derrida has argued that everything is text, and if we take this to the extreme then anything could be introduced into an English classroom to be read as such, including graphic novels, films, television, advertisements, clothing, music, blogs, photo albums and snap bracelets. Many of us have asked the question, “Why favour the novel over other texts, or literacies, if you will. I think the answer has everything to do with imagination.
I believe a purpose of an English teacher is to guide their students on a quest of discovery and becoming- to assist them in taking pleasure in the experience of being human in the world and creating their place within it, through the lens of stories/art. What has always made literature so perfect in regards to this goal is the imagination being able to be swept away while constructing the images in an individual’s mind, which will inevitably be different from reader to reader. When the images are presented to you, as in a graphic novel or film, the blanks are already filled in and the imagination becomes limited.
It is absolutely true that we live in a visual culture, and that graphic novels can help to engage the reluctant readers, but let’s not get carried away with the question why we have traditionally favoured a print based book as opposed to one that is image based in an academic/educational setting. The imagination is sacred and I think (and at risk of sounding a bit dramatic) has been under attack as we engage with even more visual stimuli in our lives with the expansion of technological devices and what not. Visual representations of texts (films) are vital in the English classroom, but I would always have my students read the text first, engage with their imaginations, and then I would offer a visual representation, which invariably helped with comprehension. The only other thing I have to say on the topic is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfGhfI_NwcA (ha, see what I did there?)
Tina T. // Jul 7th 2014 at 3:13 pm
I strongly agree with your argument that visual texts should be considered as equally valid literary forms as prose (short stories, novels, etc.). Although we are quickly approaching a multimodal classroom, there is still a struggle in recognizing newer genres as academic. School libraries are increasing their graphic novel collections, but when students take one out during silent reading, many teachers quickly shut them down and ask them to read an ‘actual book’ with text in it.
Although it is true that graphic novels can be used as scaffolds or stepping stones for reading difficult prose, it’s undeniable that reading graphic novels and visual texts requires a unique skill. Instead of just focusing on understanding the text, reading a graphic novel requires the understanding of the visuals, the text, and the relationship between the two. Therefore, I would go so far as to argue that reading and analyzing a graphic novel requires more unique skills than reading a novel. This requirement to understand more than one type of text is an example of multi-literacy. As our world is being increasingly multimodal, it is very important for teachers to train students to be open and practiced in several modalities and literacies.
Why is it that we encourage youth to read chapter books that are filled with illustrations, but then deny them that literacy when they approach a more mature age? Somehow, we believe that illustrations are helpful for early readers, with picture books being the main type of books for young children, but we refuse to recognize it as a literary genre. Instead of limiting illustrations to early language learners, we should expand the appreciation of the visual form in literature and address visual texts as a valid academic topic.
Certainly, teachers who are unfamiliar with visual texts may be reluctant to teach them to their classes. However, I find that students have such a broad experience with graphic novels that they can provide a learning experience for the teacher just as much as the teacher can provide knowledge. Rather than be hesitant to approach this newer genre because of unfamiliarity, teachers should embrace their students’ knowledge and background information, an opportunity that does not arise very often.
You must log in to post a comment.