In Graphic Novels as a Literature: Overcoming a Stereotype, Michael Kneeland analyzes what exactly constitutes a work as literature, and applies these criteria to graphic novels. He begins by describing his own experience with finding literary value in various graphic novels and how these works shattered his preconceived notions that graphic novels were, “silly, trite works that hack writers produced for little boys and immature men. In short, I viewed the graphic novel medium as though it had never left the Golden Age of comic books— the time from the 1930s through the 1950s when superheroes like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, et al, were first introduced.” Kneeland goes on to explain how he discovered that graphic novels could indeed delve into subjects deeper than the various ways heroes beat up bad guys.  In fact, because the term graphic novel pertains only to the way the writing is presented and formatted, the content is without limits. Kneeland asserts that, in order to be considered literature, a work must:

1.     Contain some amount of writing

2.     Be quantifiable within one of the four rhetorical modes: exposition, argumentation, description, or narration

3.     If a narrative, the work must have a logical conflict, a cohesive plot structure, relatable characters, and a variety of effective literary elements

4.     Transcend the culture and time period in which it was written and be easily applicable to other cultures and time periods

Kneeland specifically references Maus in his Appendix as an example of a graphic novel that meets these criteria. And I would agree. Maus II certainly contains some amount of writing, it is a narration (non-fiction) and it contains a logical conflict (Art struggling with his relationship with his father and with the creation of his book), relatable characters (Art’s vulnerable honesty intensifies the reality of his character and his story), and literary elements (predominantly symbolism). Maus also contains a sense of universality. The violence and terror of the holocaust was not merely restricted to Jews. The racism, prejudice, and hatred it represents are broadly applicable to human nature in general.

http://englishteacherman.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/graphicnovels/

Thumbing My Nose At You Know Who

Postmodernism can be defined as a rejection of the dogma of established modernism, a dogma that demanded a zealous progression towards idealistic standards of efficiency and mathematical perfection. Kurt Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, illustrates a postmodernist’s approach to the concept of truth. Before the actual story even begins, Vonnegut adds his own satirical disclaimer: “Nothing in this book is true. ‘Live by the foma that make you brave and healthy and happy.’” Vonnegut advocates a postmodernist belief that there are no absolutes, no standardized International Style of right and wrong. A postmodernist comrade would argue that truth should reflect the diversity of the environments and individuals in our world, each with their own effective system of beliefs, and therefore that there is no truth. Vonnegut accurately conveys this through the doctrine of Bokononism, and the motives of Bokonon: “I wanted all things/To seem to make some sense/ So we all could be happy, yes/Instead of tense. And I made up lies/So that they all fit nice/And I made this sad world/A par-a-dise.” Bokonon realized that the citizens of San Lorenzo could thrive in their squalid conditions if they had something to hope for and believe in- not the standardized Christianity, strategically required by the government, but the outlawed Bokononism, full of excitement and intrigue and pleasant principles that served as an acceptable form of morality. Though the citizens became devout in their Bokononist beliefs and practices, the disclaimer was ever-present: “All of the true things I am about to tell are shameless lies.” This shamelessly false religion was useful merely because it allotted people a sense of morality that they could take or leave as they saw fit, a morality that benefitted humanity not in the search for moral uniformity and perfection but in the search for contentment and acceptance in the midst of wonderfully drastic diversity.

Like Two Unhurried Compass Needles

In Technopoly, Neal Postmen explains that in this technopoly, which is, “driven to invent…an ‘unseen hand’ will eliminate the incompetent and reward those who produce cheaply and well the goods that people want.” This description perfectly characterizes the futuristic society in Brave New World. Incompetence does not even exist, as children are conditioned since infancy to devote themselves to the principles of efficiency and orthodoxy. They are also conditioned to want the right things, the things mass produced “cheaply and well.” And this society has perfected the art of mass producing what people should and, as a result, do indeed want. Factories and assembly lines work relentlessly to cheaply and swiftly manufacture key essentials such as clothes, happiness, and human life.

Additionally, Shakespeare’s The Tempest provides some insight on control and conditioning which can be applied to Brave New World. Caliban and John parallel each other in many ways. They are both considered savages, oddities, in their environments, and they both fight violently against the conditions they are thrust into. However, Caliban was born and developed in this environment. He has been conditioned to believe that he is inferior, that he must always be subject, and, though he knows he deserves more respect from Prospero- or at least more humane treatment- he is unable to entirely grasp the injustice of his slavery. In contrast, John spent his entire life to be conditioned by “savages” before being thrown into the “After Ford” society. Like Caliban, he fought against the perversions of this culture and what he inherently knew to be right. However, despite their differing backgrounds, they both reached the same demise. Caliban submits to Prospero, acknowledges his wrongdoings, and crawls back into his place of servitude. John, no longer strong enough to resist a society which flips his version of reality and morality upside down, finds escape in death. Ultimately, the cultures which they fought so passionately against subdued them, put them back in their place, and reminded them who exactly held the power before them, who holds it with them, and who will continue to hold it forevermore after.

Could It Be 200 Feet Tall And Made Of Foam Rubber?

Sir Ken Robinson is arguing against an educational paradigm built on two traditional pillars: economic and intellectual. These pillars were initially implemented due to the belief that they were the most efficient in advancing progress. Thus, these pillars became educational law, and the standardized movement began: standardized tests, standardized curricula. Robinson argues that education and its insatiable thirst for systemic efficiency has defined progress as a must-be-measured quantitative value for the child as a general homogenized entity, based on raising the bar “academically,” with no regard to children of different strengths and capabilities. In the same way, Brave New World illustrates a society in which efficiency, standardization, conformity are all held as sacred virtues. The progress of the population as a whole must usurp in importance the progress of individuals. In fact, the individual must be eliminated, and we must all work together in the same way for the same cause. “Ninety-six identical eggs working ninety-six identical machines!” (7), exclaims The Director while passionately preaching about Bokanovsky’s Process. The process of one bokanovskified egg producing ninety-six embryos signals “the principle of mass production at last applied to biology” (7). This directly parallels Robinson’s assertion that education is, “modeled on the interests of industrialization and in the image of it.” He describes how schools are “organized on factory lines, with ringing bells, separate facilities, specialized into separate subjects, and systemized by age group…as if the most important thing about them is their date of manufacture.” In Huxley’s futuristic society, the most important thing is the manufacturing of human beings. Individual countries race to be the first to mass produce the most. Mankind is given a few standard, simple goals, purposes, and desires, and conditioned to not want anything more. They are to desire orthodoxy, cheap, soma-induced, sex-crazed happiness, and an efficient work ethic. And this philosophy is applied to every individual equally. Bernard Marx epitomizes the problem Robinson claims exists in the education system. Bernard is not satisfied by this philosophy; he cannot adopt it unconsciously and religiously as the rest of his peers can. His mind rejects it because he is visibly different, and this physical difference has resulted in the shaping of a mental difference, causing a longing in him to value different things. In the same way, Robinson speaks for the children who are not what the institution classifies as “academic.” Maybe they are more right-brained, more artistic, and cannot keep up with educational standardizations. For this, they are penalized: failed, left behind, alienated. Similarly, Bernard is shunned, whispered about, alienated. 

Twenty Piddling Little Fountains

In Alduous Huxley’s Brave New World, the natural fulfillments of human satisfaction are manipulated and replaced by cheap substitutes. The concepts of family and monogamy are now disgusting. The complexity of the relationships, the emotion one must expend to maintain these relationships, it is all seen as too many limitations on mankind. How can one get what they want when they want if they are tied down to a relationship? Things must come easy and fluidly, with no hardships or obstacles. The students have never even heard of the term insurmountable obstacle. They have been specifically designed to know what they want, to want simple things, and to know the exact way they should achieve this. They have been told what to feel since early childhood through a constant stream of brainwashing tapes played in their sleep. They have been conditioned to believe that all the impulses, feelings, and desires they have are indeed natural, but even more, they are to be expended as much as possible in the most basic and easiest ways possible. “Everywhere exclusiveness, a narrow channeling of energy and impulse” (40). Feelings and desires should never be channeled towards one person, or one group of people. When we all belong to everyone else, individuality is erased, and the ability to build special connections with people is made impossible. All of this is achieved through the shaping of society’s values. A nice, virtuous young girl let’s as many men have her as she can, so as to not appear strange and immoral. The government establishes these standards in an effort to leave humanity in a constant state of cheap, surface level, but still effective, satisfaction. They are left in a constant state of euphoria so that they never realize the depth of what is missing in their lives as intellectual thought and meaningful relationships are made impossible.

In Discussions Of ____, They Say ____, And I Say Something Else

In discussions of Shakespeare’s The Tempest, one controversial issue has been whether or not Shakespeare meant to convey a particular message on colonialism. On the one hand, George Will argues that by, “politically decoding, or otherwise attacking the meaning of literary works, critics strip literature of its authority. Criticism displaces literature and critics displace authors as bestowers of meaning.” On the other hand, Stephen Greenblatt contends that the a exploration of, “the painful, messy struggles over rights and values, the political and sexual and ethical dilemmas that great art has taken upon itself to articulate and grapple with,” is the key to catalyzing progress and preventing cultural conformity. Poet, essayist, and playwright Aime Cesaire even maintains that The Tempest can be viewed as a direct parallel to his own experiences pertaining to France’s colonization of Africa. However, my own view is slightly less melodramatic and a bit more realistic. Great literature, that which withstands the test of time, is dynamic. It is valued for its beautiful and poignant construction, and for its daring attempt to convey a significantly relevant and impacting message. Many books present thought provoking messages, but they have been overlooked and forgotten because the way in which their message was presented did not affect society to the point of alteration. In the same way, Shakespeare’s The Tempest hints at imperialistic influences but also expresses commentary on many more slightly uncomfortable topics. Prospero is not merely symbolic of a slave owner, but a man in possession of unlimited power, the ability to manipulate anyone and anything. Thus, the ethics of his situation are expanded to encompass a broad range of societal topics. Additionally, Shakespeare’s plays are priceless examples of the success of the art of writing due to the complex yet fascinating plot structures and eloquent language he employs. To emphasize any one of these aspects while simultaneously abandoning the rest constitutes the real definition of devaluing literature.