Neil Gaiman is right: this does seem like a particularly silly and antiquated argument:
This is not about denigrating the comic book, or graphic novel, or whatever you want to call it. This is not to say that illustrated stories don’t constitute an art form or that you can’t get tremendous satisfaction from them. This is simply to say that, as literature, the comic book does not deserve equal status with real novels, or short stories. It’s apples and oranges.
“Not to denigrate comics…but comics are stupid. What? I’m just sayin’.”
Well, needless to say, I agree with Gaiman that Tony Long is wrong to say that comics are not the equal of any other form of literature. However, I think Long would have had a point if he had complained that comics are not the same artistic medium as prose literature and therefore shouldn’t be judged against prose works any more than, say, a play would be. Nobody disputes Shakespeare’s artistry, but he was not a novelist any more than Bunyan was a playwright. Comics, prose, film, and stage drama all fall under the broad category of narrative fiction, but they are each distinct art forms. Perhaps someone should start a “Story” prize for which any book, film, comic, or play would be equally eligible. But until such a prize exists, I’m happy to see comics winning literature prizes, because it emphasizes the two media’s equality at a time when (as Long demonstrates) that equality is not yet universally recognized.
(Bunyan didn’t write any plays, did he? Er, I don’t think he did, anyways…)
Except of course that Tony Long isn’t making that (perfectly valid) point. He’s saying, “There’s nothing wrong with comic books…except that they’re juvenile, silly, and not at all difficult to create. Not like real literature.”