Tintin Forums

I ordered a book by Tom Mc Carthy called " Tintin and the Secret of Literature".
Today I received by an e-mail a link to a review of that very same book.
Moderator Note: Broken link updated 08/03/2013
What shocked me, though, was this line: "They are, in short, wonderful books for children, not literature for adults."
I disagree. Tintin might not be literature as Shakespeare's or Chaucer's, but it has literary quality that is better analyzed and understood by adults.
What's your opinion?

I read the book and I thought it was intresting, but I love the idea of hidden messages or motifs within a story, and the auther claims Tintin is chock full of them! I personally think that Tintin has a deapth and leavel of quality that a lot of recognised and praised "authors of literature" can't acheive

I haven't read "The Secret of Literature", so it would be unfair to comment on that. But I think the criticism by Kirsch deserves a few comments. To me it seems that Kirsch doesn't have any objections against comics (or "graphic novels") as such. In fact, he seems quite able to understand the art form. Kirsch notes that, "while Mr. McCarthy treats the Tintin books as a text, ---, it is actually composed mainly of images". If true, that pretty much sums up McCarthy's book and drains any interest from me. Comics should be analysed as comics, and that's impossible if the pictures are forgotten.

As for the controversial "wonderful books for children, not literature for adults" -quote: well, in the field of graphic novels, the place of Tintin is not among the most "serious" titles, but arguably it's the best thing available in its own genre.
If you really think adults should only concentrate on "serious" art (and that the criteria for "serious" should be high), then it's probably fair to say Tintin is not for adults. That's a personal preference, and as such can't really be contested. Though if Tintin is for children, does that automatically mean it can't be serious?

That's a rather narrow point of view, but as long as the lines are drawn within the art forms, not between them, I can accept (but not support) the idea. I've never understood why we should divide art into "high" and "low", when the division doesn't seem to have any relevance to quality. Great things are done in the both ends of low-high-scale, as are indifferent things.

edit: typos, clarified few sentences.

Mcarthy did mention images multiple times in his arguments. It is my personal opinion that images reinforce concepts of symbolism and motifs that are essential to literature. Also if you are analyzing Tintin you can't simply read it as text, or it would make no sense, you have to pay attention to the images.

I completely disagree with that sentiment. In fact, I think what makes Tintin so special is that is grows with you. When you read the albums as a youngster, you are transfixed with the action, the format, the colors, the humor...but as you get older, you find very adult nuances, political themes, and satyrical humor, as we've discussed in the "Things you never Noticed Thread."

Couldn't agree more

You've made three important points, mondrian. First: literal comparisons must be made within the medium. That's debatable and I'll explain why. Secondly, the only clear line I've found between "child" and "adult" literature is the level of vulgarity. Topic seems to have little to do with these classifications. Good observation.
Your final comment is that critical regard rests on factors other than individual qualities. I think you're saying that some forms of art aren't taken as seriously as others (correct me if I misinterpret) and so are dismissed as less consequential. In this case, comics are given to be a lower breed than books. That might have its grounds in the general delinquent nature of the strip comic, or simply the fact that it is a relatively new form. I can't say for sure.

Triskeliae: tricky question! Now let me see. The first thought that comes to mind is: what is literature? Tolstoi? Dickens? If it means a large thick book with a venerable history, Tintin certainly doesn't qualify.
Fortunately, books are not the only form of literature. There's literature in music. In art. In filming. In dancing. Different mediums, all. What is the connection?
Every creator displays who he is through his creation. He (or she) is talking, through a story or a picture, and is introducing himself. He is showing us around his mind, into the little corners and crannys.
The question is, is that person worth knowing?
The answer is the definition of literature. Someone worth knowing is a help to us. He (or she) is funny without being base. He is intellegent without being obnoxious. He is wise but clean. He is human enough to express his emotions, share them with the world, and cause them to feel likewise. So should a book or film be. So is literature.
When a work of the mind enlarges ours, or opens our eyes, or causes us to think--that is an act of literature. I should think Tintin has done that.
So, mondrian, comparison between mediums is a sticky business. But it can be done fairly. Regardless of form, the minds behind the creations are on the same plane. If one looks beyond the work and at the worker and compares what the effect has been on you for knowing that person, an accurate judgement can be made. Your decision divides the "high" from the "low". Our minds are all different. What you see as literature could be what I consider junk (though somehow I doubt it). With reference to morality and reason, however, I don't think the general divergences between opinion are that great.
Concerning Tintin, I think we both agree that the series is, indeed, literature.

Ok, thanks Jeeves. The sentiment by Kirsch seemed rather bold. While I do believe that the tools of modern literary criticism can (and should) be applied to criticism of comics (as well as music, cinema etc), I also believe every work of art deserves to be analysed in its own context(s).

Ivan, I do agree with you, but I think I'll need to clarify my thoughts a bit, I maybe hurried a little in my first post (maybe trying to avoid repeating myself, I quite recently wrote a post on these issues here: URL )

Quite often art forms are divided into "high" and "low", and to me the division seems both needless and random. Opera is regarded as high art, and comics as low art. But quite a few operas are quickly written comedies with a libretto similar to soap operas (if an anachronism is allowed here). And quite a few comics have the form and content of the high literature. That's why I do think the line between high and low should be drawn within the art forms: every form of art contains both serious art and light entertainment. Opera=high, comics=low is a random classification.

Apart from being random, I also think that division is needless. I don't know much about opera, but I do believe that the light comedies can be good quality art. And obviously the most serious stuff can be poor quality. Luckily these lines are fading nowadays. Bob Dylan or Will Eisner are not dismissed as low art anymore just because of their chosen media.

I think the very reason behind all these silly divisions is that we too often confuse personal preference with analytical criticism. While it's perfectly acceptable to have personal preferences, only listen to punk and read "literature for adults" as Kirsch says it, we should probably all bear in mind that personal preference and quality don't necessarily go hand in hand. For a reason or another, all of us do like some things that are poor quality, maybe an average film you went to see on a first date or a poor record by an artist we've listened to all our lives. And unfortunately we also tend to dismiss great quality for random reasons. And when we start to promote our own tastes as a unquestionable* truth, that's when we are in trouble.



*I'm not implying that through analytical criticism we can find the definite truth about quality, but at least that's closer than a personal taste.

I also would like to throw my hat into the Tintin is literature ring.

One I want to question the idea that comics aren't literature. The 20th century brought us a great many new storytelling mediums that mix words and images such as film, television, cartoons, and comics (or graphic novels whichever term you prefer). Most people consider serious film to be literature and there are college courses on television. In my mind Hergé is just as worthy of scrutiny as great directors such as John Ford or David Lean. I think that it would be silly to restrict the term literature to books, plays, and poetry.

Second I think that Tintin has all the elements that I would call literary. I can identify themes, motifs, symbols, well developed characters, social commentary, and mastery of language. I think Hergé is a comic genius on par with P.G. Woodhouse, as good at blending depth and diversion as Graham Greene, as witty a satirist as Voltaire and as good a writer of characters as Charles Dickens.

I know I m making some major claims here but I really love Tintin! And there's a reason I keep coming back to these adventures as I read more of the classics. Like any of the classics there's always something new to appreciate.

I looked up "literature" in the dictionary and got "written works, e.g. fiction, poetry, drama, and criticism." I looked up "written" and got "involving writing and not speaking or drawing." So technically, comics aren't literature. But that doesn't mean they don't have the same value as literature.