I truly enjoyed Grossman’s lecture/discussion. He brought up points I’ve yet to previously consider, such as the classification of literature being relevant in terms of institutionalization and the history of the form. Prior to that, I’d considered defining literature as a pointless objective given how subjective the classification is. However, I now see that by classifying a work as literature, it now has a considerably older history of form to contend with. Though I initially answered without a doubt that comics should be classified as literature, his argument has made me rethink that a bit. I have read through a handful of comics that I find to be really great. In Maki Kusumoto’s tribute to Andy Warhol, Die Todliche Dolis, she takes up not only a color scheme but also an overall book layout resembling Warhol’s work. She then proceeds to argue Warhol’s concept of the multi-faceted individual, with one never truly knowing another, and redesigns it into the comic form. In terms of comics, this I found to be particularly well written and designed. I’ve also come across other manga that delves into the subject of religion or utilizes religious imagery as well as allusions to literary works such as Kafka’s Metamorphosis in forming its own arguments. However, if I were to compare these works to all of literature, then the significance of finding such an in-depth argument in the work becomes somewhat trivial given that most prose given the categorization of literature are just as thought provoking if not more so. Therefore, I found his lecture and overall argument to be not only thought provoking, but enlightening as well. I had actually anticipated more of a discussion revolving around his work and potential intentions. Yet even so, I found this discussion to be even more intriguing in the long run.

-Kathy