7 ms·

No, Calvin and Hobbes is not Great Literature. After reading the other comments, I know how out of tone I am, but I do want to respect the meanings of the words

No, Calvin and Hobbes is not Great Literature. After reading the other comments, I know how out of tone I am, but I do want to respect the meanings of the words. Over the past centuries, "Literature" evolved from "written words" to "artistic written text". Most of C&H strips would be complete failures if we removed the drawings. I love C&H, and I think it's great comics, cartoons, art, à la rigueur bande dessinée… but not literature.

slantyyz 8y ago
The interpretation and application of the word varies. Growing up in Canada in the 80s, all of Margaret Atwood's books were always considered Canadian Literature (aka CanLit). Since the Handmaid's Tale TV series thrust her into the pop culture consciousness, I always find it interesting when someone in the American media refers to her work as science fiction.
- msla 8y ago
  And science fiction can be great literature, just as romance can be, and drama can be, and any other genre can be. Ultimately, all fiction exists in a genre. Whether it's literature is something else entirely.
  - slantyyz 8y ago
    >> Whether it's literature is something else entirely. And the bar for whether something is literature is subjective, and can change with the passing of time.
- gooseus 8y ago
  It would be both... I've read Atwood's claims to be "speculative fiction" rather than "science fiction" because - "Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen." I read the Maddadam Trilogy (the books that quote was specifically about) and the fact that she can claim it's not sci-fi because it "could really happen" is ridiculous and insulting to actual "hard sci-fi" which do a better job of working out new science could impact the real world. Also, the books literally have monsters in the form of human-intelligent, genetically-mutated pigs.
icebraining 8y ago
The pedantic hill is the silliest to die on.
scottlocklin 8y ago
There should be some word or phrase for the fact that our culture can't seem to actually produce great literature, and modern people can't seem to muster the attention to read great literature, and so kids stuff like Calvin and Hobbes and Harry Potter is touted as being "great literature" somehow. It's not; it's insipid kids stuff. Enjoy it for what it is worth; if you call it "great literature" you're just revealing the fact you don't read much in the way of literature or greatness. Go read some Dostoevsky or Melville, or for heaven's sake, even some Kipling or Tolkien if you can only read kids stuff. Next week we'll have something on the high literary qualities of bazooka bubble gum cartoons, and asterisk and obelisk comics; how Winnie the Poo was the 8th incarnation of the Buddha.
- jgwil2 8y ago
  I don't think that Calvin and Hobbes can be put in the same category as Harry Potter. Adults may reminisce about Harry Potter but I don't think they go back to it and find new things the way they do Calvin and Hobbes (as evidenced by this thread). It is far from "insipid kids [sic] stuff."

slantyyz 8y ago

The interpretation and application of the word varies. Growing up in Canada in the 80s, all of Margaret Atwood's books were always considered Canadian Literature (aka CanLit). Since the Handmaid's Tale TV series thrust her into the pop culture consciousness, I always find it interesting when someone in the American media refers to her work as science fiction.

msla 8y ago
And science fiction can be great literature, just as romance can be, and drama can be, and any other genre can be. Ultimately, all fiction exists in a genre. Whether it's literature is something else entirely.
- slantyyz 8y ago
  >> Whether it's literature is something else entirely. And the bar for whether something is literature is subjective, and can change with the passing of time.
gooseus 8y ago
It would be both... I've read Atwood's claims to be "speculative fiction" rather than "science fiction" because - "Science fiction has monsters and spaceships; speculative fiction could really happen." I read the Maddadam Trilogy (the books that quote was specifically about) and the fact that she can claim it's not sci-fi because it "could really happen" is ridiculous and insulting to actual "hard sci-fi" which do a better job of working out new science could impact the real world. Also, the books literally have monsters in the form of human-intelligent, genetically-mutated pigs.

icebraining 8y ago

The pedantic hill is the silliest to die on.

scottlocklin 8y ago

There should be some word or phrase for the fact that our culture can't seem to actually produce great literature, and modern people can't seem to muster the attention to read great literature, and so kids stuff like Calvin and Hobbes and Harry Potter is touted as being "great literature" somehow. It's not; it's insipid kids stuff. Enjoy it for what it is worth; if you call it "great literature" you're just revealing the fact you don't read much in the way of literature or greatness. Go read some Dostoevsky or Melville, or for heaven's sake, even some Kipling or Tolkien if you can only read kids stuff. Next week we'll have something on the high literary qualities of bazooka bubble gum cartoons, and asterisk and obelisk comics; how Winnie the Poo was the 8th incarnation of the Buddha.

jgwil2 8y ago
I don't think that Calvin and Hobbes can be put in the same category as Harry Potter. Adults may reminisce about Harry Potter but I don't think they go back to it and find new things the way they do Calvin and Hobbes (as evidenced by this thread). It is far from "insipid kids [sic] stuff."