O Papel das Graphic Novels na Educação

"In each of her classes, she combines the intrigue of graphic novels with the question of what makes up a hero."

Via dilaycock

Rachel Cooke's pick of the graphic novels that transcend the comic book medium...with additional updates ....

 

Via Lynnette Van Dyke

"Many teachers are very hesitant to use graphic novels in their classroom. Much of the hesitation has to do with a personal lack of familiarity with this specific form of literature. For some, the use of graphic novels in the classroom is foreign and scary, some might not even see it as “literature,” while others are actually beginning to see the great advantage of using them to supplement student learning."

Via dilaycock

If you have ever taken an English course, it’s likely that at one point your professor asked the question: What is literature?

 

 

 

_________________

Thought provoking, though this article raises questions that have bothered me for some time when thinking about how literature is taught. 

 

I'm not certain that I disagree with the basic premise of this opinion piece, though I suppose that if the article were the counterargument professing that text-based literature lacks qualities of graphic novels, an equally thought provoking argument could be made.

 

My concern is not the truthfulness of the article, but rather the side-affects of such articles in classrooms where the audience for literature study may include the illiterate, the reluctant, the casual, the enthusiastic, and the future English majors. Arguments such as this are of potential interest to the last group, I suppose.

 

However, the article's point of view may be one more reason why we are less successful marketing an interest or potential love of reading among the other groups. Literary snobbery, based upon well-founded arguments or not, is off putting; appearing as annoying as being forced to be a spectator at a pissing contest. It is not unlikely that the majority of the class' reaction might just be "Who cares?"

 

And, even more damaging might be the implication that the reader of graphic novels, like the readers of YA, SciFi and other genres also considered to be of "lesser literary" quality; and those who are reluctant may feel so criticized that they find themselves marinating in perceived criticism that they somehow ought to be ashamed of themselves and are thereby "unworthy" of respect.

 

It is that sort of perceived criticism that sooner or later may well be the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. "To hell with it, why bother?" Thus, an opportunity to capitalize upon an existing engagement with graphic novels and to attempt to expand that existing engagement into a possible engagement with reading considered to be of "higher literary quality" is lost, and thereby a potential life-long reader may just lose the last bit of potential for growth as a reader.

 

So, though I'm not a big fan of graphic novels (only because there is so much more to read than there is time to read and therefore I have too small of a database to condone or condemn with any authority), but, I've read a few; among them I'd point to Maus and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as being as valuable as a literary experience for some readers as Buddenbrook may be to some literary scholars. And, Buddenbrook may be actually nothing more than mind-numbingly boring to students who are not yet ready for, or for students who have teachers less able to engage students in the challenges of such literary masterpieces.

 

One real criticism I have about the premise of the this article is the assumption that if a work does not meet a literal understanding of the Oxford English Dictionary, then it can not be literature. And, yet the article's author takes the definition so literally that he does not address the fact that according to his interpretation, pornography, propaganda, and much published material that is racist, sexist, xenophobic, uninformed, misinformed, ill-informed, and published specifically to disinform is literature while Maus is not. 

 

Thus, in the end, though there is certainly an argument to be made regarding the literary merit of the "mostly text" versus the "mostly not text" storytelling genres, the narrowness of the argument made here is disconcerting to those of us charged not with the duty of precision nit-picking, but rather with the charge of stemming the tide of waning interest in reading.

 

One last thought...

Consider the definition of "speech" as in many freedom of speech cases (see: http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/fos.html)

 

At one time speech meant that which is "said orally." But, who would think that freedom of speech would be limited to that which is said orally and heard aurally? Who would say that speech heard and then printed and taken in via visual means is not literature?

 

I think a more interesting argument would be whether or not text heavy literature is enough to distinguish "great literature" from crap and whether or not text light storytelling is enough to exclude graphic novels are qualifying for good, if not great literature status.

 

 

 ~ http://www.GoogleLitTrips.com ~

 

 

 

Via GoogleLitTrips Reading List

Comicbook.com (blog)When is a Graphic Novel Just a Comic Book?