I’d also recommend Studies in Comics itself–the two issues I’ve read have had a number of good articles in them (I’ve since subscribed)–as well as other articles by Miodrag. I’d recommend searching out this article. She goes on to examine a number of comics for their use of language, including astute readings of a few Lynda Barry comics. Of course, comics critics/theorists often have their own issues with discussing text in comics, as so many consider text to be (and it has historically been) the lesser element, subordinate to images (as friend of the beard Allan Haverholm recently argued).

Miodrag, on the other hand, notes that “literary” should be about literary uses of language, as all these other factors are not solely within the purview of literature (any narrative form could have all those qualities, and I might add that this focuses on comics as narrative which they are not always). Literary is taken up in this way as a sign of quality. These are all factors that tend to highlight the divergence of “literary” comics from the historically more prevalent types: pulp/genre comics and comic strips. Most often comics are considered “literary” because of qualities that are not inherently about language: well-structured narratives, sophisticated plotting, strong characterization, rich themes.

I recently read Hannah Miodrag’s “Narrative, Language, and Comics-as-Literature” from Studies in Comics (2.2 (2011): 263-279), in which she argues against the common way “literary” is used in regards to comics. For redirection to newer content, go to the homepage.

Comics and Language by Hannah Miodrag