British Journal of Aesthetics Vol 49

COMICS AS LITERATURE? |  223 

  Are Comics Literature? The State of the Debate 

 Given the high status of literature in our culture and the aspirational nature of much of the 

contemporary discourse about comics, it is not surprising that a range of theorists have 

claimed that comics count as literature. The great comics artist Will Eisner claims that  ‘ in 

every sense, this misnamed form of reading is entitled to be regarded as literature because 

the images are employed as language ’ . 

14

  In  How to Read Superhero Comics and Why ,  Geoff 

Klock writes that in works such as  Batman: The Dark Knight Returns  and  Watchmen    ‘ the  build-

ing density of tradition becomes anxiety, the superhero narrative becomes literature ’ . 

15

  

And Charles Hatfi eld has recently suggested that  ‘ the graphic novel in particular has be-

come comics ’  passport to recognition as a form of literature’. 

16

  

 But there are dissenting views both within the comics community and outside of it. 

Some comics theorists and practitioners argue that it is a mistake to treat comics as litera-

ture. Douglas Wolk criticizes the idea that comics are literature in his recent popular book 

on the form,  Reading Comics: How Graphic Novels Work and What They Mean :   ‘ They  bear  a 

strong resemblance to literature — they use words, they’re printed in books, they have nar-

rative content — but they’re no more a literary form than movies or opera are literary 

forms. ’  

17

  And Alan Moore, one of the most respected contemporary authors of main-

stream comics, puts it this way in an essay on writing comics:

  With the best will in the world, if you try to describe the Dazzler graphic novel in the 

same terms as you describe  Moby Dick  then you’re simply asking for trouble. As op-

posed to fi lms without movement or sound we get novels without scope, depth or 

purpose. That isn’t good enough either.   .   .   . Rather than seizing upon the superfi cial 

similarities between comics and fi lms or comics and books in the hope that some of the 

respectability of those media will rub off upon us, wouldn’t it be more constructive to 

focus our attention upon those ideas where comics are special and unique? 

18

   

  Moreover, comics — certain comics at least — are commonly invoked by literary theo-

rists and philosophers of literature precisely as examples of things which are similar to 

but not quite literature. So, for example, Terry Eagleton states that  ‘  Superman   comics 

and Mills and Boon novels are fi ctional but not generally regarded as literature, and 

certainly not as Literature. ’  

19

  Similarly, Eileen John and Dominic McIver Lopes suggest 

that  ‘ a comic book that is a work of fi ction and has aesthetic merit may be a work of art 

but not a work of literature ’ . 

20

  And in the introduction to their recent coedited anthol-

ogy of works on the philosophy of literature, David Davies and Carl Matheson write the 

following:

  14           Will  Eisner,   Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative  (Tamarac, FL: Poorhouse Press, 1996), p. 5.  

  15    

      Geoff  Klock,   How to Read Superhero Comics and Why  (New York: Continuum, 2002), p. 3.  

  16    

      Hatfi eld,   Alternative Comics , p. ix.  

  17           Wolk,   Reading Comics , p. 14.  

  18    

      Alan  Moore,   Writing for Comics , Vol. 1 (Rantoul, IL: Avatar Press, 2007), pp. 3 – 4.  

  19           Terry  Eagleton,   Literary Theory: An  Introduction  (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), p. 2.  

  20    

      Eileen  John  and  Dominic  McIver  Lopes  (eds),   Philosophy of Literature: Contemporary and Classic Readings  (Malden, MA: 

Blackwell, 2004), p. 43.  

 at University of Athens on June 19, 2011

bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org

Downloaded from 

---

 224  | AARON MESKIN

  To ask as to the nature of literature in the artistic sense is to ask what makes a piece of 

writing a literary artwork. What we are seeking is a principled distinction between 

novels, poems, and plays, for example, and science articles, biographies, essays, com-

ics, and advertising material. 

21

   

  Opinions, then, are sharply divided on the  ‘ comics as literature ’  question. As I have already 

mentioned, I believe there is a very natural explanation for this divide. But fi rst, we need 

to clear up some potential sources of confusion.  

  A Few Points About the  ‘ Comics as Literature ’  Question 

 I suspect that much of the resistance to treating comics as literature stems from various 

combinations of the following thoughts: (1) the view is mistaken because there are clear 

cases of comics that are not literature; (2) the view is misguided because treating comics as 

literature would entail ignoring their visual element; and (3) the view is problematic because 

it fails to recognize what is distinctive about the art form of comics. Despite the pull of these 

considerations, none should lead us to give up a substantive  ‘ comics as literature ’  thesis. 

 First, the view that  some  comics are literature is, in fact, much more plausible than the view 

that  all  comics are literature. But the fact that some comics are not literature does not impugn 

the  ‘ comics as literature ’  thesis if that thesis is understood as expressing an existential claim 

rather than a universal one. Suppose, for example, one thinks that literary status entails artistic 

status. Then, the examples of non-art comics that I mentioned in the opening paragraph will 

also provide examples of non-literary comics, but comics which are art will not be excluded 

from the realm of the literary for this reason. On the other hand, suppose one denies that 

literary status entails art status (or one is simply interested in what Davies and Matheson call 

the   ‘ extended ’   sense  of  literature). 

22

  Still, some comics plausibly fall outside of this category, 

because they fail to contain any words. That is, there are wordless comics (sometimes called 

 ‘ mute ’  or  ‘ pantomime ’  comics), and these do not seem to meet a necessary minimal condi-

tion for being counted literature in  any   sense. 

23

  Finally, suppose one assumes that LITERA-

TURE is an evaluative concept in a strong sense; that is, that possessing some (high) degree of 

value is a necessary condition for literary status. Then some comics will fail to meet the condi-

tion since COMIC is not an evaluative notion in this sense and there are truly valueless 

examples of the medium. But other comics — such as those I mentioned in the introduction 

and fi rst section of this essay — surely meet such an evaluative condition. In short, the only 

reasonable version of the  ‘ comics as literature ’  thesis is one that is committed to some but not 

all comics counting as literature. (Presumably the thesis is most interesting if it implies that 

many comics are literature). And, hence, the putative non-literary status of  Dazzler ,   Superman , 

and other superhero comics would provide no good reason to reject the thesis in question. 

  21    

      David  Davies  and  Carl  Matheson  (eds),   Contemporary Readings in the Philosophy of Literature: An Analytic Approach  

(Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2008), p. xii.  

  22           This  sense  of   ‘ literature ’   picks  out    ‘  writings in non-artistic genres   .   .   . that are taken to share with literary artworks 

some of the qualities for which the latter are valued ’  ( ibid. ).  

  23    

      See,  for  example,  Eric  Drooker’s   Flood!: A Novel in Pictures  (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1992).  

 at University of Athens on June 19, 2011

bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org

Downloaded from 

---