Wondering (Worrying?) About Graphic Novels

Blogger's Note:  The real power in this conversation rests in the comment section where we are talking all things reading.  Come and join us! 

________________________

 

I’ve got a bit of a confession to make—and it’s probably going to leave a TON of people completely hacked off.

But that’s never stopped me before, right?

Here goes:  I just CAN’T buy into the mad-crazy-graphic-novel-as-a-legitimate-form-of-reading-worth-promoting love that seems to be sweeping through middle school libraries.

In fact, I reflexively cringe every time I see my students swimming through the 741.5 section of the media center.

#ducking

Before you unsheathe your digital bazookas and start lobbing intellectual bombs, listen to this quick story:  A colleague of mine who teaches drama noticed how many of her students were reading graphic novels during a recent SSR period.

Concerned, she asked a few kids why they were drawn to the genre.  Their answer:

“We don’t have to think while we’re reading them.”

#ouch

I can hear graphic novel enthusiasts everywhere groaning as I type—and I’m all-too-familiar with the argument that graphic novels require students to make meaning from pictures, drawing subtle inferences based on what they’re seeing.

But is that REALLY true?

Let’s be honest, y’all:  Graphic novels ALREADY take away the need for students to visualize anything while they are reading.

What does the hero look like?  How is the light shimmering off of the summer pond at sunset?  How does pain—or love, or joy, or surprise—change a face?

“In a book full of pictures, all of the imagining,” my colleague explained, “has been done for them.  How is THAT a good thing?”

Based on what her students are saying, it’s a good thing because it means thinking is optional.

#yuck

So here’s what I’m wondering:  Will students who are hooked on graphic novels ever be terribly excited about picking up a text where they’ve got to do the imagining on their own again?

Think about it:  Can YOU imagine trying to imagine—or wanting to imagine, or seeing a need to imagine—after discovering an entire genre where imagining just isn’t necessary? 

#whybother

Even worse, will students who are hooked on graphic novels ever willingly tackle the kinds of nonfiction, content-heavy reading that plays larger and larger roles in advanced learning environments.

Think about it: How intimidating must it be for students who spend all of their free reading time in image-heavy graphic novels to crack open their textbooks in my science class and try to make meaning out of the sea of words that they are confronted with?

#HOLYCRAP

Now I get it:  For struggling readers, graphic novels are a great way to encourage emergent reading behaviors and habits. 

Seriously—I LOVE seeing kids who have never felt successful during silent reading periods turning pages and signing out stacks of books. 

Like the kids who love my Kindle set to jumbo-font, the simple act of turning pages can build confidence in kids who feel overwhelmed by more traditional texts.

#babysteps

But I just can’t help thinking that graphic novels are nothing more than the literary equivalent of Jersey Shore for the majority of our kids—and when you are addicted to mental candy like Snooki, I can’t help worrying about your future.

Am I wrong here?

#listening

#hopeyouwontshout

Comments

[Fran Lo]

Love your comparison of GNs to Jersey Shore - they're fluff. On the other hand, an awful lot of YA "lit" is fluff - Twilight leaps to mind. But I compare your concerns. Most of the GN genre is utterly forgettable. But then I look at books like the Photographer (joint drawings & photography), true story of Drs. without borders in Afghanistan. Fabulous book - but you have to read the words, too, to understand it. If there were more GNs like this, I've find the genre more tolerable.

[Clix]

Bill, I'm really surprised that you're broad-brushing an entire medium.

Have you read any graphic novels?

Can YOU imagine trying to imagine—or wanting to imagine, or seeing a need to imagine—after discovering an entire genre where imagining just isn’t necessary?

Um, yes. First of all, implying that graphic novels somehow prevent imagination is wrong. If anything, the panels provide a scaffold for a more clearly imagined plot and setting. I suppose imagination isn't technically NECESSARY in order to understand what's going on... but then it isn't NECESSARY in text, either. However, in both cases, imagination deepens the experience.

And considering that I haven't given up on text despite enjoying comic books and graphic novels, CLEARLY it is possible to enjoy them both.

Finally, I'd really like to know the context around the students' response that they "didn't have to think."

Seriously, Bill - which graphic novels have you read?

[Alan and Jen Friesen]

>But I just can’t help thinking that graphic novels are nothing more than the literary equivalent of Jersey Shore for the majority of our kids—and when you are addicted to mental candy like Snooki, I can’t help worrying about your future.

>Am I wrong here?

Yes. Dismissing graphic novels as the equivalent of Jersey Shore is the same as dismissing detective short stories, or science fiction novels, or Canadian poetry, or Icelandic sagas, or any other genre/mode of literature as not literary enough.

Bill, here's your homework. Read:
-Art Spiegelman's two "Maus" books (and "In the Shadow of No Towers" for bonus marks),
-Neil Gaiman's "Sandman" series,
-one of Alan Moore's "Watchmen" or "V for Vendetta" (ignoring the fact that film adaptations were made),
-Grant Morrison's "The Invisibles" series,
-and Warren Ellis' "Orbiter"

Note that none of these are particularly kid-friendly, but we're talking about the literary merit of a genre of literature here. I have two shelves in my house dedicated to graphic novels and some nineteen shelves of books (plus what's on my Sony Reader), and as a senior high English teacher I move between "The Epic of Gilgamesh" and "Transmetropolitan" without breaking a stride.

You may find that graphic novels aren't for you, and that's fine, but certainly for some of my students they're a gateway to real literature. For me, that's enough to warrant their use in school. But the genre itself is much, much, MUCH more than simply picture books that disallow imagination. Check it out.

[Bill Ferriter]

Alan and Jen Friesen wrote:

You may find that graphic novels aren't for you, and that's fine, but certainly for some of my students they're a gateway to real literature.

See, here's the thing, y'all: I'd LOVE it if graphic novels served as a gateway for students to "real literature" (your term--not mine), but I just don't see that happening nearly enough.

The vast majority of the students that I see hooked on graphic novels never move beyond the genre.

Why does that happen?

I'm not sure---but I know that it happens and I don't think I like it.

I would definitely be less concerned if I saw kids pairing their graphic novel collections with other types of text, but I don't.

For those kids, are graphic novels really a gateway---or are they instead a dead end?

Just thinking here.
Bill

[Mike Kaechele]

Hey Bill, I have a new job teaching 9th grade social studies starting this fall. I will not have textbooks and have been looking at biographies and historical fiction to use as texts in my classroom. The second semester my class will be combined with ELA and team taught.

All of that background to get to my point that we are purchasing some graphic novels, particularly Maus as mentioned above, I have just read it and it is an excellent book. I currently have checked out 3 more GN from the library and am waiting for more to come in. I think GN can be excellent books, just like any genre or they can suck just like any genre.

It's just like action movies with lots of special effects. There are many B ones like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_Troopers_(film) but there are also great ones like The Matrix. What separates them? The story. Medium or genre is not important, good storytelling is crucial.

Another subset of GN is anime and manga. I have noticed that students who are "into" this genre are voracious readers who read constantly and at a high level. Many GN actually have higher vocabulary levels than other YA books. And I do see these students reading other types of books also.

I don't always take students word for things they say like this. They might have the impression that they are not thinking, but that is probably not the case.

Finally I have always heard (I don't where it is to back it up) that research supports that more reading = better readers and that it does matter what(as long as it is close to a reader's level): books, online, magazines, comics, etc. This makes sense to me as "practice makes perfect." Curious if anyone has a source for this often stated research or counter research to de-bunk it.

[Bill Ferriter]

Clix wrote:

And considering that I haven't given up on text despite enjoying comic books and graphic novels, CLEARLY it is possible to enjoy them both.

I don't doubt that, Clix. And that's not what I'm arguing.

What I'm arguing is that for many middle level readers, "both" isn't happening.

Instead, they're swallowed by the 745.1s. They might sign out 30 books a year, but none are from text-heavy genres at all.

If graphic novels were a part of well-balanced reading collection for kids, I wouldn't be concerned.

Bill

PS: You also wrote:

:

Have you read any graphic novels?

and then:

Seriously, Bill - which graphic novels have you read?

I'm not sure how to reply to this comment because it comes across as a cheap shot---which honestly surprised me considering how long we've interacted with each other.

If it is important to you, though, I've actually read quite a few graphic novels---and have quite a few on the shelves in my classroom.

I started with the Bone series. I then dabbled in Manga---which really turned me off to the genre.

I've also read a bunch of Max Axiom books---thinking maybe they'd be a good tool for hooking kids into nonfiction text.

Then, I moved into the adaptations of the Redwall series and Coraline. Again, I figured I could use them to hook my kids into the more traditional versions.

(No luck, if you're wondering).

My favorite graphic novels are the Doppelganger series. I love the artwork and the way that the author plays with interesting text, fonts, colors and page layouts.

I guess that's kind of my point, huh? The kids are drawn to the images, too.

I'm just not sure that's a good thing.

[Johntspencer]

I don't like the term "graphic novel," because it is a different medium altogether. Do I let students read graphic novels during silent reading time? Absolutely not. Do I allow them to use graphic novels when they must find the internal conflict of a character? You bet. Just as I let them read magazine articles with low and high visual material. The same is true of print versus online text.

If the standard involves analyzing internal monologue of a character, a graphic novel is great. If the standard is about characterization, it can be decent as well.

Many graphic novels require deep thought. True, they aren't ideal for visualization, but they can lead to critical thinking, philosophical inquiry and a deeper conceptual understanding of a particular topic. Hence the Jerzey Shore analogy is a little off (though not entirely - the medium shaped the notion of "reality tv")

The point is that students need to think critically both about the work and about the medium. I don't want graphic novels to replace novels. However, I do want students reading various types of texts through the use of several types of media.

The goal should be a blended approach that helps all students master the standards.

[Jenniferlagarde]

I've seen many (yes, many) kids make the leap from graphic novels to traditional and even classic literature. As you mentioned in your post, they can be useful as scaffolding for reluctant readers. Additionally, for ELL students, they provide a wonderful visual context for vocabulary building.

On the other hand, I've also seen plenty of kids who don't need extra help with reading devour one graphic novel series after another. For these students, they are pure pleasure. And so what?

Frankly, I don't think it's an either or proposition.

Without question, when it comes to teaching/learning there are certain activities for which a graphic novel just isn’t going to cut the mustard. However, as with all disciplines, student mastery of reading is dependent, at least in part, on being given opportunities to engage in authentic practice – which means being given the chance to a) choose what they read and b) read those selections for pleasure. And when it comes to that, I believe it’s entirely appropriate to meet kids where they are, allow them to see themselves as readers, (regardless of their choice of materials), and then nudge them along to bigger and better as their pallets mature.

For generations, adults have bemoaned the "garbage" being consumed by "kids today" - this is no exception. My English teachers told me that romance novels would rot my brain -- and look at me? All grown up and reading Bill Ferriter's blog.

#gofigure?

[Sandra]

I started reading comics in 1974 when I was 11, and to me, you're making the same arguments that generations of people have made against comics (which is what I consider graphic novels to be -- just thicker).

For some people, this is as close as they will get to reading something they enjoy. Some people get pulled in by the characters and go on to write fanfic of varying degrees of competency. And some people will end up using comics as a starting point/companion to more complex literature.

Comics are not books, and books are not comics. Each form has advantages and disadvantages. In a perfect world, the comic is a fusion of art and language; the best of these tell stories that could not be told by either film or book alone. Others have mentioned "Watchmen" in this category; I would add Frank Miller's first run of Daredevil and Terry Moore's Strangers in Paradise series (definitely not recommended for middle-schoolers).

I enjoyed reading the "Twilight" series, but I think there are a lot of age-appropriate graphic novels that are at least as complex as those books were. The other virtue of the graphic novels is that they are not just restricted to subjects tween-age girls would be interested in.

[Kristin]

Quick factual correction. I think you mean 741.5, not 745.1. :)

http://www.oclc.org/dewey/discussion/papers/graphicnovels.htm

[Bill Ferriter]

Among about a dozen other brilliant comments, Mike wrote:

To: wferriter@hotmail.com

[Bill Ferriter]

Among about a dozen other brilliant comments, Mike wrote:

Finally I have always heard (I dont where it is to back it up) that
research supports that more reading = better readers and that it does
matter what(as long as it is close to a readers level): books, online,
magazines, comics, etc. This makes sense to me as practice makes
perfect.

First, Mike, thanks for taking the time to stop by and share your thinking. Youve challenged my thinking in a bunch of ways, and thats cool.

This particular bit from your comment resonates with me. Ive heard that research too---and believe that it is entirely possible. After all, isnt that the conclusion that Gladwell comes to in Outliers?

And Im COMPLETELY down with the idea that graphic novels hook some kids who would otherwise never pick up a book. For those kids, graphic novels are brilliant because they re-enforce emergent reading behaviors.

But what I worry about is that I rarely see those same readers working to move beyond graphic novels----which makes me think that theyre not moving on to higher levels of practice. To use a baseball analogy, its like the guy at the amusement park who sits in the slowest speed batting cage jacking homers on kid-pitch, but never getting to the faster pitches because it feels too good to be good at the easy stuff.

Any of this make sense?
Bill

[Bill Ferriter]

John Spencer wrote:

The point is that students need to think critically both about the work
and about the medium.

I love this comment, John. It also makes sense to me. I can see having GREAT conversations with kids about how the author uses the medium of graphic novels to communicate/influence/persuade an audience. Understanding how visual media is being used as a tool for influence is an essential skill that I think the majority of schools do a really poor job of tackling even though it is a high interest/high importance topic.

John also wrote:

The goal should be a blended approach that helps all students master the
standards.

I think this is at the center of my concerns. For many struggling readers, there isnt much blending going on---especially when it comes to free reading. I can think of a dozen kids that Ive wrestled with over the years who would sign out six or seven graphic novels every time we went to the media center, but wouldnt even attempt to read the short stories we were studying in class---even when they were connected to the same topics and themes.

Those are the kids Im worried about.

Any of this make sense?
Bill

[Bill Ferriter]

Jennifer wrote:

For generations, adults have bemoaned the garbage being consumed by kids today - this is no exception.

I love your take on this, Jennifer.

I totally agree that pleasure should play a central role in student reading choices----as a guy who reads for pleasure CONSTANTLY (and whos guilty pleasure is books about mafia hitmen), thats a goal Im always interested in promoting.

What I worry about, though, is that I havent had the same experiences as you have had when it comes to seeing many kids make the leap from graphic novels to more traditional texts. In fact, when it comes to struggling readers, Im not sure Ive seen any make that leap.

Worse yet, Ive seen a resistance on the part of those same kids when I try to push them towards more traditional text.

That makes me think theyre going to be stuck in the graphic novel genre for life----which I just cant believe is a good thing.

Any of this make sense?
Bill

[Bill Ferriter]

Sandra wrote:

I started reading comics in 1974 when I was 11, and to me, you're making the same arguments that generations of people have made against comics (which is what I consider graphic novels to be -- just thicker).

I'm with you, Sandra.

I was a HUGE comic book fan as a kid. In fact, it was the present that my parents bought me whenever they wanted to give me a quick, special treat.

Here's the difference: There weren't entire sections of the school library dedicated to comic books.

And there weren't huge numbers of teachers and librarians pushing comic books as positive choices for silent reading.

I always knew that my comic books were sources of great pleasure and quick laughs, but I also knew that "reading" meant tackling traditional texts.

There was a "proper place" for comic books in my reading life.

I'm not sure that my struggling readers have the same perspective about graphic novels today.

Instead of having a "proper place" for the genre in their reading lives, graphic novels are the only thing they're willing to pick up.

Any of this make sense?
Bill