British Journal of Aesthetics Vol 49

COMICS AS LITERATURE? |  233 

not essentially tied to texts, suggests that physical layout is not ultimately what is aestheti-

cally or artistically essential to them either. And when layout  is  important to works of prose 

literature, as in works such as  Tristram Shandy , we may typically cleanly separate the parts 

where it matters from the parts in which it does not. In short, I suggest that the aesthetic 

signifi cance of layout is standard for comics but contra-standard for literature. Having a 

layout that is aesthetically signifi cant (or perhaps having  most  or  every  aspect of layout aes-

thetically signifi cant) tends to disqualify something from being literature — it provides de-

feasible evidence that the representation in question is not literature. But it is a typical 

feature of comics. 

 Moreover, comic books (at least all standardly produced comic books) present traces of 

the physical actions of the artists who produce them. 

56

  When you look at a standard comic, 

you see traces of the actions that the penciller made in producing the images. Ditto for the 

letterer when the comic is hand-lettered. But this is not the case in the case of standard 

works of literature. Again, there are exceptions.  Tristram Shandy  and  Breakfast of Champions  

contain traces of Sterne’s and Vonnegut’s own drawing. But — again — these are typically 

discrete and separable instances inside a work that does not present traces of his actions. 

The presentation of traces of artists ’  actions is standard for comics but contra-standard for 

works of literature. 

 There are many other related differences between comics and standard works of litera-

ture. But I have pointed to some important differences which appear to put some pressure 

on the  ‘ comics as literature ’  thesis. Typical comics have many pictures. In fact, one might 

even say that in some very rough sense there is a preponderance of pictures over words in 

most comics. But this is contra-standard for literature — the presence of a lot of pictures 

surely gives us defeasible evidence that we are not dealing with literature. Typical comics 

are fully or wholly autographic. But being fully or wholly autographic is contra-standard 

for literature. Layout is typically aesthetically and artistically signifi cant in comics but this 

is contra-standard for literature. Comics typically show us the traces of artistic actions in a 

way that is contra-standard for literature. The upshot is that we have a number of defeasible 

reasons to think that typical comics are not literature. But the best examples of comics we 

have — the comics canon if you like — are typical in this sense.  Maus ,   Persepolis ,   Krazy Kat , 

 Little Nemo ,   Watchmen ,   Tintin ,   Peanuts ,   Jimmy Corrigan  are all dominated (in some sense at 

least) by pictures and are fully autographic. Their layouts are artistically signifi cant and they 

present the traces of artists’ actions. We have, then, some reason to think that the very best 

comics are not literature. And if this were the case, then the truth of some  ‘ comics as lit-

erature ’  thesis would be of only very limited interest.  

  Resolving an Impasse: Comics as a Hybrid 

 If the arguments above are any good, then we have reached an impasse. We have reasons to think 

(some) comics are literature, but have seen there also appear to be substantive differences 

  56           One exception is the case of photocomics. But such comics contain other traces (namely traces of the objects and 

scenes depicted photographically) that distinguish them from works of literature.  

 at University of Athens on June 19, 2011

bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org

Downloaded from 

---

 234  | AARON MESKIN

between typical comics and standard forms of literature. These differences exert some pressure 

against the  ‘ comics as literature ’  thesis. 

 How can we resolve the apparent impasse? I suggest that we can explain the tug-o’-war 

between the two views about comics by recognizing that the art form of comics is a hybrid 

art form among whose ancestors is the art form of literature. This in and of itself does not 

answer the question of whether comics are, in fact, literature. But it does do a great deal to 

explain the relevant phenomena that have been sketched above. And it should help answer 

the questions about comics that drive the debate about the  ‘ comics as literature ’  thesis. 

 I am not the fi rst person to suggest that comics are a hybrid form. David Kunzle claims 

that the comic strip  ‘ is essentially a hybrid form ’ . 

57

  And Hillary Chute and Marianne 

DeKoven claim that  ‘ graphic narrative ’  (their preferred term for the art form) is

  hybrid in the following sense: comics is a mass cultural art form drawing on both high 

and low art indexes and references; comics is multigeneric, composed, often inge-

niously, from widely different genres and subgenres; and, most importantly, comics is 

constituted in verbal and visual narrative that do not merely synthesize. 

58

   

  But aside from Chute and DeKoven’s tendentious and grammatically perverse claims, 

there has been little clear explanation of why comics should be considered a hybrid. More-

over, there have been a number of authors who have criticized the view that comics are a 

hybrid. Roger Sabin states that comics  ‘ are not some hybrid form between  “ literature ”  and 

 “ art ”     .   .   .  but  a  medium  in  their  own  right ’ , 

59

  and Scott McCloud argues that  ‘ it’s a mistake 

to see comics as a mere hybrid of graphic arts and prose fi ction. What happens between 

these panels is a kind of magic only comics can create. ’  

60

  So why should we count comics 

as a hybrid? 

 Not for the reasons offered by Chute and DeKoven. Comics may be largely mass-cultural, 

but not all comics are examples of mass-culture since every art form allows for the possibil-

ity of an avant-garde. Being multigeneric does not seem to entail hybridity in any signifi cant 

sense — it is hard to think of any art form that is restricted to a single genre and surely none 

are essentially restricted in such a way. 

61

  With regard to the alleged non-synthesizing nature 

of narrative in comics I have already mentioned that not all comics contain verbal elements, 

nor are all comics narrative. And verbal and visual narrative may combine in a variety of ways 

in comics, including combination by synthesis. 

  57    

      Kunzle,   The Early Comic Strip , p. 2.  

  58    

      Hillary  L.  Chute  and  Marianne  DeKoven,   ‘ Introduction:  Graphic  Narrative ’ ,   Modern Fiction Studies , vol. 52 (2006), p. 

769.  

  59    

      Roger  Sabin,   Adult Comics  (London and New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 9.  

  60    

      Scott  McCloud,   Understanding Comics  (Northampton, MA: Kitchen Sink Press, 1993), p. 92.  

  61    

      I  take  it  that  they  are  suggesting  that  the   art form  is composed of examples from widely different genres. If they are 

referring to individual comics, then it is simply false that all comics are multigeneric in any substantive sense (i.e. over 

and above the fact that categories of art embed). Some comics stay within one traditional genre entirely (e.g. certain 

horror comics). And if the point is merely that  some  comics exemplify multiple genres, then it is hard to see what art form 

would not count as hybrid — since it is plausible that every art form has instances that belong to more than one genre.  

 at University of Athens on June 19, 2011

bjaesthetics.oxfordjournals.org

Downloaded from 

---