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

[Bill Ferriter]

Thanks for the Dewey Decimal correction, Kristin.

I was writing after a long week of work.

That explains my transposing error.

Bill

[Kathleen Marsh]

Are you wrong? Yes.

Here's why: your (and your colleagues’) understanding of graphic novel reading is limited to the frame of reading--reading words, which are made of letter symbols, which stand for another, abstract idea. Pictures, as you point out pejoratively, do not require translation. (This is what makes the visual language so powerful and universal—but I digress) Graphic novels are all bilingual by nature, and have to be understood within both a reading and a looking framework. Many here have mentioned the generational understanding of the role of graphic novels—and comics have played over the past decades. What we have experienced lately is a sophisticated evolution of the marriage of two mediums—written and visual—and the expression of both in a not-so new form, but resulting in some really great work.

Your post assumes that graphic novels and books are interchangeable, and in fact, they are different media. Often, as you have experienced yourself, students will often defer to a graphic novel when given a choice and as educators we have to continue encouraging (bribing, pushing, shoving) them to read literature. If you haven’t already, I would encourage you to check out: Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud, for an excellent analysis of the medium and Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi and Maus by Art Spiegelman for some really solid examples of how written and visual language can be combined to tell compelling stories...these are not your comic equivalent of Jersey Shore.

[Clix]

I'm not sure why you see my question about which graphic novels you've read as a cheap shot. If you hadn't read any, I could at least understand where you were coming from.

What sort of time frame are you describing? Have you talked to students who devoured graphic novels, say, four years ago and are now sophomores and STILL not reading anything else?

"I also knew that "reading" meant tackling traditional texts."

Seriously?! Reading for pleasure isn't REAL reading? How long does an author have to be dead for his or her work to count?

I am really, really hurt. I had thought of you as someone who celebrated all types of reading, and this post and your comments come across as pretty canon-snobby.

[Virtual_teach]

I was like you when it came to graphica. I had a very limited number of "graphic novels" in my classroom, and could not uncderstnad the appeal. And then a few things happened.
1) While conferring with one of my students reading Captain Underpants I laughed (out loud). We had a great conversation about character motivation and predicting. I then read a Captain Underpants for fun and laughed hard, completely understanding why it appealed to the nine year olds I teach.
2) I read as many books as I could get my hands on to learn about the genre. One of them being Graphica by Terry Thompson. It helped me understand the genre better. I never realized the amount of inferring that occurred in graphica!
3) I read Scott Pilgrim for an adolescent lit class. I didn't care for it much, but looking at it through the lens of quality adolescent lit, it DID fit ALL the criteria.
4) I read a few books on writing graphica. Oh boy! It sure is a lot of work! It's probably closest to writing a script and storyboard for a movie. And that's really what graphica is...a slow motion movie.

Sure, graphica has pictures that may limit the need to visualize, but so do picture books. And there is a tremendous amount of thinking that occurs while reading them as well.

My thoughts on what the student said about not thinking while reading graphica are: s/he is not metacognitive and does not realize that s/he IS thinking (which means someone needs to teach him/her that!), has probably learned that perception from adults in his/her life, wanted to engage in a power struggle with his/her teacher.

Graphica whether in the form of comic, manga, novel, or blended genre has literary and artistic value. It follows all of the same plot structures of what ever genre it is written in. Mystery graphic novels follow a mystery plot structure, fantasy & sci-fi GN follow that plot structure, biography GN follow that structure, etc. Not to mention it follows the guidelines for the intended audience whether it be young adult, juvenile, early reader, etc.

I hope you give them a second chance and use them as a tool to engage your students in rich reading (and thinking).

[Kevin Hodgson]

I think there are bad graphic novels and great graphic novels, and one of our roles as teachers is to figure which books (graphic novels, classics, genre studies, etc.) belong in our classroom. You raise some good points, Bill, but in the end, what I have seen is more engagement from my students when I mix graphic novels in. Now, does that translate into higher test scores? I don't know. But I know that the age I team (sixth grade) is the age we often lose readers, and the more engaged I can keep them, the better.
Still, it's always good practice to question the hoopla.
Kevin

[Kim]

I think many (to me, the BEST) Graphic Novels do things that traditional text only fiction CAN'T do. I am thinking here of works by Jeff Lemire (the Essex County stories), Chris Ware (Jimmy Corrigan), and the latest GN I have read, Duncan the Wonder Dog by Adam Hines (it's an animal rights manifesto/conversation that is as devastatingly sad as Jimmy Corrigan). I consider myself a fairly proficient reader of many genres, and those books SLOW ME DOWN and MAKE ME THINK.

Some readers will say "I don't have to think" when they read GN--they can also say that about many, many genres of other texts. And that's ok sometimes. We learn lots from those kinds of reads as well--we build speed and fluency, we learn facts, we corroborate our understandings of genre, and we gain confidence.

Bill, have you read a GN as a class read? American Born Chinese by Gene Luen Yang is a great one to consider. It's as "literary" as the Great Gatsby in its way--we paired those two books in my YA Literature class for future teachers, and they were amazing together.

I encourage you to read more yourself--no capes, no tights, but some of the heavy hitting ones--not all of them will be right for middle school--but for you to see the potential. I think that will have a big impact on how you approach the ones your kids are reading

[Bill Ferriter]

Kathleen wrote:

What we have experienced lately is a sophisticated evolution of the
marriage of two mediums—written and visual—and the expression of both in
a not-so new form, but resulting in some really great work.

And despite this sophisticated evolution, Kathleen, my colleagues students still read them because they dont have to think.

Do you see why this is disconcerting to me?

As teachers and librarians, we wax poetic about the beauty and sophistication of graphic novels as a genre----and who knows, maybe they really are beautiful and sophisticated.

But is that REALLY why are students are choosing to read them?

And if not---if theyre really drawn to graphic novels because they dont have to think---what consequences does that have for teachers?

You know what Id really be interested in?

Seeing a survey of responses from students who are heavy readers of the genre. Id love to ask them what their motivations are for selecting graphic novels. Id also love to ask them how sophisticated they really see the medium.

Ill have to work one up. It would be an interesting look into a genre that few educators seem to be ready to question.

Any of this make sense?
Bill

[JANE]

I think we need to avoid either/or thinking on this. It isn't graphic or traditional novels, but instead each has its place. Operation Ajax, the first GN to try to take advantage of iPad technology, has embedded dossiers on the historical characters it portrays. And, it's on little-known history re US involvement in Iran. Watchman took me forever to read, taking far more concentration than many traditional novels. Free choice in reading is simply too important to take away any genre.

[Bill Ferriter]

Virtual Teach wrote:

My thoughts on what the student said about not thinking while reading
graphica are: s/he is not metacognitive and does not realize that s/he
IS thinking (which means someone needs to teach him/her that!).

Im definitely not ready yet, Virtual Teach, to buy into the idea that these students dont understand their own motivation for choosing a book----to me, thats a bit of a dangerous assumption that teachers make all too often---but I am starting to see graphic novel integration in the same way that I see technology integration in schools.

In many places, tech tools are embraced with no serious plan. We buy iPads because they are flashy and kids like em. We buy IWBs because they are flashy and parents like them. We embrace gadgets and online tools---think freaking Wordle----with little real consideration as to exactly what skills and objectives they are advancing.

And honestly, in those circumstances, the potential in the tool, gadget or service is irrelevant because the teacher/school has no systematic plan for using that tool to improve the work theyre doing with students.

I think thats whats going on in a lot of places with graphic novels.

Because kids are motivated by them, were dropping boatloads of cash adding them to our media center shelves---and as long as our kids look happy and our circulation numbers look high, we figure were doing remarkable things.

But we never bother to give teachers any kind of meaningful professional development on how to systematically integrate graphic novels into their curriculum, do we?

We love to throw around terms like, graphic novels teach visual literacy, an essential 21st century skill --- but I wonder how many teachers could explain (1). what visual literacy entails, (2). how it is different from traditional literacy skills, (3). how to teach visual literacy and (4). why it is important for success tomorrow.

So we end up with a bunch of folks who believe that just by giving kids access to graphic novels, were improving their visual literacy skills.

Thats a stretch.

Im starting to really enjoy this thread because it is yet another example of poor decision making by schools. Until we start to help teachers see how any tool in their bag of tricks --- whether they are iPads or graphic novels --- matters, were wasting our money and our students time.

Any of this make sense?
Bill

[Bill Ferriter]

Kevin wrote:

But I know that the age I team (sixth grade) is the age we often lose readers, and the more engaged I can keep them, the better.

This is a great point, Kevin---and one I can definitely get behind. As a sixth grade teacher, too, I want to do ANYTHING that I can do to keep kids reading, and if compromising on graphic novels hooks a few more kids, then I can live with that.

Good to see you here---and in Twitter. Enjoying the conversation.

Rock on,
Bill