“Does pairing pictures with words elevate a piece beyond plain words?”

After reading Scott McCloud’s comic “Show and Tell,” I was inclined to explore the argument that he presented through my own perspective and maybe share these thoughts with you guys. This comic was about how comics should not be considered inferior to literature with only words, or art with only pictures. My main question for this week is “Does pairing pictures with word elevate a piece beyond plain words?” 

Many people consider comic books to be childish and lesser forms of literature than lengthy novels and classics, which is the point that McCloud is trying to argue against.

There is a pretty good case for why comics can take an author’s story to the next level. The most obvious reasoning to explain why this is true is that pictures can be used in tandem with words to visually show what the author is trying to convey. Words alone can be confusing to some readers when they have meaning to them not explicitly stated, or if they are trying to explain something that can’t be easily visualized. Pictures to go with these words are helpful because they are learning aids that can help readers understand concepts hard to describe with examples. Another reason for why comics could elevate literature is that it is easier to show the tone of the story as well as use a lot more words with different meanings. For example, McCloud uses this example in his comic to prove this point: “‘After college, I pursued a career in high finance’” (McCloud 13). To a reader, these words alone would make them assume that the narrator has a profession related to finance, but with the picture of a robbery to accompany this statement, it takes on a completely different meaning, also changing the tone of the comic. These are the arguments for comics being elevated forms of literature.

But what about the naysayers? Surely there is reasoning for why comics are not up to par with classic literature? Obviously this party is more biased, with limited exposure to comics as well as associating comics with children or poor people. However there are legitimate reasons for this train of thought that comics are inferior. For one, comics don’t encourage sophisticated language, instead relying on pictures to carry bare dialogue or simple observations. Without the language that classical literature is revered for, it is hard to consider comics as anything more than simple entertainment and not something to be taken seriously intellectually. Another is the fact that comics can never have descriptive language because of redundancy issues, so it loses all the nuance to be gained from utilizing details in ways that could benefit a piece. Overall, there are a few downsides to comics, but there is no doubt that they are a form of literature here to stay.