What do you think?
Rate this book
Comics and Language: Reimagining Critical Discourse on the Form
It has become an axiom in comic studies that “comics is a language, not a genre.” But what exactly does that mean, and how is discourse on the form both aided and hindered by thinking of it in linguistic terms? In Comics and Language , Hannah Miodrag challenges many of the key assumptions about the “grammar” and formal characteristics of comics, and offers a more nuanced, theoretical framework that she argues will better serve the field by offering a consistent means for communicating critical theory in the scholarship. Through engaging close readings and an accessible use of theory, this book exposes the problems embedded in the ways critics have used ideas of language, literature, structuralism, and semiotics, and sets out a new and more theoretically sound way of understanding how comics communicate.
Comics and Language argues against the critical tendency to flatten the distinctions between language and images and to discuss literature purely in terms of story content. It closely examines the original critical theories that such arguments purport to draw on and shows how they in fact point away from the conclusions they are commonly used to prove. The book improves the use the field makes of existing scholarly disciplines and furthers the ongoing sophistication of the field. It provides animated and insightful analyses of a range of different texts and takes an interdisciplinary approach. Comics and Language will appeal to the general comics reader and will prove crucial for specialized scholars in the fields of comics, literature, cultural studies, art history, and visual studies. It also provides a valuable summary of the current state of formalist criticism within comics studies and so presents the ideal text for those interested in exploring this growing area of research.
Comics and Language argues against the critical tendency to flatten the distinctions between language and images and to discuss literature purely in terms of story content. It closely examines the original critical theories that such arguments purport to draw on and shows how they in fact point away from the conclusions they are commonly used to prove. The book improves the use the field makes of existing scholarly disciplines and furthers the ongoing sophistication of the field. It provides animated and insightful analyses of a range of different texts and takes an interdisciplinary approach. Comics and Language will appeal to the general comics reader and will prove crucial for specialized scholars in the fields of comics, literature, cultural studies, art history, and visual studies. It also provides a valuable summary of the current state of formalist criticism within comics studies and so presents the ideal text for those interested in exploring this growing area of research.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
54 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
March 10, 2017
There were a number of interesting readings in this book. It felt like the author had a very clear agenda, and in a number of cases discussed other scholars rather harshly over a difference in views that seemed more driven by positioning oneself rather than an actual difference in view.
August 26, 2016
This review originally published in Looking For a Good Book. Rated 1.5
I enjoy scholarly studies on topics that I am interested in. But I believe it is a fallacy to think that just because something is 'scholarly' it has to be written in a dry, emotionless, passionless manner. Hannah Miodrag could learn from her subjects. Language in comics is brief and to the point. To clutter up the space that is shared with images is wasteful. To be concise and precise is preferred over excess verbiage. This reads, not even like a scholarly study so much as a thesis paper trying to impress old academics who look down upon comics.
Although the title of this book is Comics and Language, this is, as the sub-title refers, a discourse on critical writings about comics. A discourse on comic book criticism. A hot topic to be sure (and if this were a comic book, that last sentence would be in a word balloon with dripping sides, indicating sarcasm).
Early on, Miodrag puts forth her contention that:
I have to admit that I am not intimately familiar with comics scholarship or criticism, other than the oft-referred to Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics, so I must accept Hannah Miodrag's premise that there is an over-reaction to perceived slights. But I am already confused...are critics defending the comic book medium (they are responding analytically to the perceived slights) or are they, as critics creating the slights by responding analytically? The former, I think... but let's move on....
In writing a little more specifically on language, Miodrag writes:
I disagree. While I understand and accept her points to this argument, I think that language/speakers do NOT always reuse pre-existent signs. New words/signs are brought forth quite regularly whereas our visual signification remains somewhat static. One common means to this is by mis-using a word, creating a new meaning for the word in use. Miodrag notes this herself just a few pages later when she discusses the "verbal eccentricities" of a character in a comic by Lynda Barry.
However, I digress. My job here isn't to agree or disagree with Hannah Miodrag, but to review her work. To that end, this book proves disappointing.
Unnecessary verbiage is still the key. Miodrag spends a fair amount of time discussing Will Eisner. Eisner, for those who aren't already familiar, was a ground-breaking cartoonist who invented, and re-invented the comic form, experimenting with styles and characters. Miodrag picks his work apart ("When Eisner really lets rip, however, the awkward grandiloquence of his extended bursts of prose veer towards the embarrassing..."*) until finally concluding: "To subject his sentences to linguistic analysis takes them out of context, for adroit prose is really not the point of Eisner's work."* So why did we just spend time discussing it?
From Eisner, Miodrag moves to Alan Moore, a writer/creator most noted for the Watchmen series that was quite the rage in the 1990's. Here, Miodrag notes:
While Miodrag cites a critical essay that refers to Moore as a "wizard at formalist exercises" to conclude her point, I'm not convinced that one or two essayists constitutes the wider range of "comics criticism" to which she regularly refers. And while it seems that Miodrag herself is critical of the literary merit of comics, she does say:
So...tell me again why we just spent one-quarter of the book discussing the language in comics?
I could only laugh as Miodrag concludes Chapter Three with:
Critics agree that the visual is vital to comics?! Whew...I am relieved. But...there's a "but?"
The book drags on. There is a short discourse on whether or not single-panel cartoons should be considered as comics, just as strips and serialized comic books and graphic novels. Not surprisingly, Miodrag thinks that they should, whereas Scott McCloud (whom she clearly doesn't seem to care for) thinks that they should not. This, perhaps, is the crux of comic book criticism?
It strikes me that, in an attempt to be 'scholarly,' this book is profuse with verbiage. I read the following sentence aloud to my wife when she foolishly asked what I was reading.
Miodrag defends her own writing as she concludes the book with:
It makes me wonder if the medium really does need scholarly criticism. Certainly, I would argue, it does not need this particular style to become the norm.
Looking for a good book? A thesis review committee may enjoy this critical discourse on comic book criticism, but for the book-buying public -- be aware that this is a dry, passion-less look at criticism of comics.
*Please note: All quotes are from an Advanced Reading Copy. Language may have been altered or removed before final publication.
I enjoy scholarly studies on topics that I am interested in. But I believe it is a fallacy to think that just because something is 'scholarly' it has to be written in a dry, emotionless, passionless manner. Hannah Miodrag could learn from her subjects. Language in comics is brief and to the point. To clutter up the space that is shared with images is wasteful. To be concise and precise is preferred over excess verbiage. This reads, not even like a scholarly study so much as a thesis paper trying to impress old academics who look down upon comics.
Although the title of this book is Comics and Language, this is, as the sub-title refers, a discourse on critical writings about comics. A discourse on comic book criticism. A hot topic to be sure (and if this were a comic book, that last sentence would be in a word balloon with dripping sides, indicating sarcasm).
Early on, Miodrag puts forth her contention that:
Critics have tended to overreact to perceived slights against the medium, often at the expense of responding analytically to the exigencies of the corpus itself. *
I have to admit that I am not intimately familiar with comics scholarship or criticism, other than the oft-referred to Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics and Reinventing Comics, so I must accept Hannah Miodrag's premise that there is an over-reaction to perceived slights. But I am already confused...are critics defending the comic book medium (they are responding analytically to the perceived slights) or are they, as critics creating the slights by responding analytically? The former, I think... but let's move on....
In writing a little more specifically on language, Miodrag writes:
In language, speakers are always reusing preexistent signs, whereas visual signification affords scope for creating new ones.*
I disagree. While I understand and accept her points to this argument, I think that language/speakers do NOT always reuse pre-existent signs. New words/signs are brought forth quite regularly whereas our visual signification remains somewhat static. One common means to this is by mis-using a word, creating a new meaning for the word in use. Miodrag notes this herself just a few pages later when she discusses the "verbal eccentricities" of a character in a comic by Lynda Barry.
However, I digress. My job here isn't to agree or disagree with Hannah Miodrag, but to review her work. To that end, this book proves disappointing.
Unnecessary verbiage is still the key. Miodrag spends a fair amount of time discussing Will Eisner. Eisner, for those who aren't already familiar, was a ground-breaking cartoonist who invented, and re-invented the comic form, experimenting with styles and characters. Miodrag picks his work apart ("When Eisner really lets rip, however, the awkward grandiloquence of his extended bursts of prose veer towards the embarrassing..."*) until finally concluding: "To subject his sentences to linguistic analysis takes them out of context, for adroit prose is really not the point of Eisner's work."* So why did we just spend time discussing it?
From Eisner, Miodrag moves to Alan Moore, a writer/creator most noted for the Watchmen series that was quite the rage in the 1990's. Here, Miodrag notes:
"But to cite Moore as one of the comics form's best writers reveals the disinclination, within comics criticism, to tease out the difference between great comics and great language-in-comics." * (The emphasis is mine.)
While Miodrag cites a critical essay that refers to Moore as a "wizard at formalist exercises" to conclude her point, I'm not convinced that one or two essayists constitutes the wider range of "comics criticism" to which she regularly refers. And while it seems that Miodrag herself is critical of the literary merit of comics, she does say:
"Comics are not, of course, reducible to literature. They are a visualverbal (sic) form, and layouts, pictures, other visual devices, and plotting might justifiably take precedence over a well-crafted sentence. Language is just one of the form's elements, and may not be at the core of a particular text's aesthetic."*
So...tell me again why we just spent one-quarter of the book discussing the language in comics?
I could only laugh as Miodrag concludes Chapter Three with:
"Critics agree that the visual is vital to comics, but in acknowledging this we must not overlook the potential centrality of text—of material, graphic, spaced-out words—in shaping these visual works as much and potentially more than do iconic pictures."*
Critics agree that the visual is vital to comics?! Whew...I am relieved. But...there's a "but?"
The book drags on. There is a short discourse on whether or not single-panel cartoons should be considered as comics, just as strips and serialized comic books and graphic novels. Not surprisingly, Miodrag thinks that they should, whereas Scott McCloud (whom she clearly doesn't seem to care for) thinks that they should not. This, perhaps, is the crux of comic book criticism?
It strikes me that, in an attempt to be 'scholarly,' this book is profuse with verbiage. I read the following sentence aloud to my wife when she foolishly asked what I was reading.
"All narrative forms can, analeptically or proleptically, override their diegetic sequencing, but as we have seen, only comics can potentially override textual progression."*
Miodrag defends her own writing as she concludes the book with:
"While it is something of an exaggeration to suggest that there is still a “dearth” of serious comics criticism, it is true that the theoretically sophisticated criticism that exists is too rarely distinguished from the theoretically inadequate, and this remains a particular problem for formalist conceptions. ... As comics criticism continues to strengthen its presence within the academy, it becomes ever more urgent that this kind of properly thoughtful scholarly criticism becomes the norm, not the exception, for if the seriousness of the field really does need defending, this can be the only viable strategy."
It makes me wonder if the medium really does need scholarly criticism. Certainly, I would argue, it does not need this particular style to become the norm.
Looking for a good book? A thesis review committee may enjoy this critical discourse on comic book criticism, but for the book-buying public -- be aware that this is a dry, passion-less look at criticism of comics.
*Please note: All quotes are from an Advanced Reading Copy. Language may have been altered or removed before final publication.
September 9, 2013
This is not simply a work of comic criticism. It's a criticism of the current state of comic criticism. For those who didn't realize that there was a current state of comic criticism, you'll have to accept that it's true.
The premise is that comic criticism holds a wholly defensive posture because those who study the area are convinced that others in academia consider comics a lowbrow form. This self-conscious defensiveness leads to a rejection of proper theoretical applications to the criticism and is thus a further bar to improving the medium's perceived stature.
The author points out that one fundamental flaw in comic criticism is that the text in comics has been neglected. The accepted approach that the images and text do not hold equal footing, but that comics are still a literary form because the images carry the burden of the narrative and are thus to be considered a language in themselves, is incorrect. The author contends that the images have no minimum units that language must have. And, further, the argument that comics tell a story doesn't mean it's literature either and sites ballet as having a narrative but isn't considered literature.
The author analyzes a couple of comics as examples of where language is used well and breaks down that text to demonstrate how linguistic techniques may be applied to further the critical discourse.
The author moves on to tackle the topics of comics as a language and the images as language. The chapter analyzing the structure of images using Asterios Polyp as an example was particularly interesting to me.
I would not call this a light read of the theory. Not that I expected it to be an easy read, but I hoped it would be more approachable. Some level of knowledge of linguistic and semiotic theory would be helpful in ready through this.
I'm not a scholar, or even a adept student of the form, so I'm not sure what this work's place in this area will be. It has made me question why I like comics and what it about them that I appreciate and I think that is a positive thing.
The premise is that comic criticism holds a wholly defensive posture because those who study the area are convinced that others in academia consider comics a lowbrow form. This self-conscious defensiveness leads to a rejection of proper theoretical applications to the criticism and is thus a further bar to improving the medium's perceived stature.
The author points out that one fundamental flaw in comic criticism is that the text in comics has been neglected. The accepted approach that the images and text do not hold equal footing, but that comics are still a literary form because the images carry the burden of the narrative and are thus to be considered a language in themselves, is incorrect. The author contends that the images have no minimum units that language must have. And, further, the argument that comics tell a story doesn't mean it's literature either and sites ballet as having a narrative but isn't considered literature.
The author analyzes a couple of comics as examples of where language is used well and breaks down that text to demonstrate how linguistic techniques may be applied to further the critical discourse.
The author moves on to tackle the topics of comics as a language and the images as language. The chapter analyzing the structure of images using Asterios Polyp as an example was particularly interesting to me.
I would not call this a light read of the theory. Not that I expected it to be an easy read, but I hoped it would be more approachable. Some level of knowledge of linguistic and semiotic theory would be helpful in ready through this.
I'm not a scholar, or even a adept student of the form, so I'm not sure what this work's place in this area will be. It has made me question why I like comics and what it about them that I appreciate and I think that is a positive thing.
October 1, 2013
I recently got ahold of a copy of Comics and Language: Reimagining Critical Discourse on the Form and was genuinely excited to read it. I do a lot of study on the medium thanks to a project I have been working on for several years and consider myself well versed on the subject. I am always looking for new ways to examine the art form, although to be fair I am not a long time comic reader as it has only been the last few years that I revisited comics since I was a child. That being said this book was marked that it would “appeal to the general comics reader” and that I most certainly am. This book seemed like a great way to start a new direction in conversations on comics.
Unfortunately neither the marketing nor the book lived up to even my least expectation. This book reads like someone published their English doctoral thesis, in fact I have a strong feeling that is exactly what this book is. The way this book is presented only someone who loves to study the structure of English and the syntax of language would enjoy it. This is a book for scholars, and that is it. The “general comics reader” would not make it through the first 5 pages. The language is purely academic and dry. Getting through this book was a study in determination for me and I don’t image anyone would read this book for fun. Hannah Miodrag is an excellent writer in a technical sense but in no way a writer in the entertainment sense.
If you like studies of the English language then this is a book for you, otherwise skip this unless you need a sleep aid.
Unfortunately neither the marketing nor the book lived up to even my least expectation. This book reads like someone published their English doctoral thesis, in fact I have a strong feeling that is exactly what this book is. The way this book is presented only someone who loves to study the structure of English and the syntax of language would enjoy it. This is a book for scholars, and that is it. The “general comics reader” would not make it through the first 5 pages. The language is purely academic and dry. Getting through this book was a study in determination for me and I don’t image anyone would read this book for fun. Hannah Miodrag is an excellent writer in a technical sense but in no way a writer in the entertainment sense.
If you like studies of the English language then this is a book for you, otherwise skip this unless you need a sleep aid.
January 4, 2014
After a few chapters I'm finding it hard going. Takes pages to say something simple. The analytical approach to language (a word has one and only one true interpretation) is off-putting. There is an odour of spherical cows. I'm interested in the differences between words and pictures in comics, but I find the approach in this work too heavy-handed like using a ten-ton divine hammer to crack a nut. The thesis that the words in comics can have literary qualities seemed weakly supported by one example which was more an illustrated story than a comic. It would be revealing to show that regular comics are literary, not so much a story which doesn't need pictures.
I read a review copy from the publisher.
I read a review copy from the publisher.
January 31, 2019
I think this is one of the more important books in comics studies I’ve read. Miodrag’s ability to adeptly develop a strong and clear critique of dominant approaches to comics and then to outline an important approach that does not skimp on the minute specifics of the comics as a medium is heartening. This book will be a central text in my own work on temporality, history and comics.
February 4, 2024
This is a dense book of comicscomics literary criticism essays that was a challenging read for one new to graphic narrative.
October 16, 2015
I needed this book so badly. I have been drowning in my dissertation, wanting to add in a chapter about why comics scholarship is so defensive and why it relies so heavily on a book without any real theoretical backbone (McCloud's Understand Comics, which is frustratingly popular), but knowing that this argument might just be a big tangent. Miodrag says a lot of things I don't have time to say, and she says them more carefully than I ever could. Since it seems like this is a published dissertation, it also strikes me as a very brave book: she comes out swinging and she doesn't pull any punches even if she is new to the conversation. There are a few stylistic choices that bugged me (some excessive passive voice, especially considering how direct her arguments are! and some needless repetition that might have been cut from the dissertation) but the models she provides for close reading comics are ESSENTIAL. The fact that she has gotten such mixed reviews on goodreads (not quite her audience, I get it) is very telling of the state of the field. Comics seem more approachable and popular than other literary mediums, so people feel like they should be able to pick up any book about comics and be entertained. More traditional literary criticism doesn't have to justify itself, if it's "dry" it's not considered necessarily worthless, and I hope books like Miodrag's move comics to that same level of respect.
April 2, 2014
Comics and Language by Hanna Miodrag is a text that defends the literary merit of comics. Miodrag gives evidence throughout the ages of examples of comics that she considers equally as literary as a poem or book. She cites famous critics, explains artistic techniques, and story-telling elements of what makes comics real literature.
This is NOT a book for a comic book fan who is not an academic. Just because you love reading comics doesn’t mean you will love reading about comic book analysis.
I have gone through and read some of the reviews of this book, and the biggest complaints I see are that it is “dry.” I’ll say this: I only found it interesting because I, myself, am an extremely academic English nerd. Reading this book reminded me of all of the Film Theory classes I took in college. Everyone loves watching movies, but almost no one loves reading about film analysis.
I believe that Comics and Language could be used as a textbook in literature classes. If you are a professor, I recommend that you check this out yourself to see if you would want to use it in your classroom.
This is NOT a book for a comic book fan who is not an academic. Just because you love reading comics doesn’t mean you will love reading about comic book analysis.
I have gone through and read some of the reviews of this book, and the biggest complaints I see are that it is “dry.” I’ll say this: I only found it interesting because I, myself, am an extremely academic English nerd. Reading this book reminded me of all of the Film Theory classes I took in college. Everyone loves watching movies, but almost no one loves reading about film analysis.
I believe that Comics and Language could be used as a textbook in literature classes. If you are a professor, I recommend that you check this out yourself to see if you would want to use it in your classroom.
July 7, 2014
I'm going half way with this one. It's basically a very long scholarly article/textbook that would be more adept to an English course focusing on the language development of comic from the 1930's to today. I'm not saying this book is bad, but I'm also not going to call it great [Hey, it reads like a textbook! Dry and borderline boring.], the problem I found with this book is the way it was promoted, it was referred to as an enjoyable read for fans of comic books and is even listed under Comic & Graphic Novels, which would be ok if not for the fact that again it reads like a textbook.
In part I also liked the book because of the way it analyzes the comic book culture and language. So, I really have mixed feelings about this one. I would recommend this book for those interested in language analysis, but I would not recommend for people who are solely looking for a comic books.
Rating 2.5 out of 5
Read@Book
In part I also liked the book because of the way it analyzes the comic book culture and language. So, I really have mixed feelings about this one. I would recommend this book for those interested in language analysis, but I would not recommend for people who are solely looking for a comic books.
Rating 2.5 out of 5
Read@Book
July 16, 2014
ARC provided by NetGalley
Heather Miodrag has written a book that helps show why comics belong in the literary spectrum and conversations on it. And she isn’t talking about your average newspaper comic, like Peanuts, but instead is looking at longer works by authors like Lynda Barry and breaking down just how they fit into the literary spectrum. But here’s one of those difficult things to say about this book, it is not for your average comics reader, despite what the copy on the book says. This is written for those with a heavy academic bent, particularly those that do research in English. Let me put it this way, if you read the description of the book on Amazon’s page and it left your head spinning wondering what some of the terms meant this isn’t the book for you. That’s not to say it’s a bad book, as Miodrag does an excellent job of talking about the subject and arguing for it. It is just not the book for everyone. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
Heather Miodrag has written a book that helps show why comics belong in the literary spectrum and conversations on it. And she isn’t talking about your average newspaper comic, like Peanuts, but instead is looking at longer works by authors like Lynda Barry and breaking down just how they fit into the literary spectrum. But here’s one of those difficult things to say about this book, it is not for your average comics reader, despite what the copy on the book says. This is written for those with a heavy academic bent, particularly those that do research in English. Let me put it this way, if you read the description of the book on Amazon’s page and it left your head spinning wondering what some of the terms meant this isn’t the book for you. That’s not to say it’s a bad book, as Miodrag does an excellent job of talking about the subject and arguing for it. It is just not the book for everyone. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
January 30, 2016
This book was written for the tiny group on this planet who pursue comics scholarship.
Being one of those guys I have to say I really enjoyed this book, because it is provocative and really clear about what it states. But you definitely have to be in the club or otherwise use your search engine a lot if you want to keep pace with Miodrag's allegations. Apart from taking Scott McCloud to pieces this book can offer ways out of some muddy issues around comics theory, or if you do not accept the solutions offered, this book definitely makes you think about new ones.
Being one of those guys I have to say I really enjoyed this book, because it is provocative and really clear about what it states. But you definitely have to be in the club or otherwise use your search engine a lot if you want to keep pace with Miodrag's allegations. Apart from taking Scott McCloud to pieces this book can offer ways out of some muddy issues around comics theory, or if you do not accept the solutions offered, this book definitely makes you think about new ones.
June 5, 2017
This review is based on an ARC I got from netgalley.
This was distractingly academic. There is so much interesting information about comics in this book, but it is too dense to actually pick up the information. It also focuses so much on the linguistic aspect, and in some of the chapters comics almost fall by the wayside! I think you could probably edit out 50% of the words on every single page and have a really solid book.
This was distractingly academic. There is so much interesting information about comics in this book, but it is too dense to actually pick up the information. It also focuses so much on the linguistic aspect, and in some of the chapters comics almost fall by the wayside! I think you could probably edit out 50% of the words on every single page and have a really solid book.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews