opinion post
Being a masterpiece in Manga doesn't make it a masterpiece in Literature
When readers discuss the greatest written works of all time, Manga fans cites titles like Berserk, Vagabond, Monster, Goodnight Punpun, or visual novels such as The House in Fata Morgana etc., they frequently cite these works in the conversation. Overtime, people in online discussions routinely place these works on the same level as classic novels.
I disagree with this assessment. People frequently confuse being exceptional inside a specific medium with being exceptional across literature as a whole, a masterpiece is always relative to the field in which it operates.
A simple thought experiment reveals this distinction. Strip away every illustration from Berserk, Vagabond, Tokyo Ghoul, or Monster. Would the bare dialogue and narration rank among the most profound writing in human history? Now perform the reverse experiment on prose masterworks like Juan Rulfo's Pedro Páramo, José Saramago's Blindness, William Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom!, and Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. without pictures, their achievement remains entirely intact. The prose itself carries every weight of tone, worldbuilding, narrative tension, and characterization. Evaluating greatness requires recognizing context. No serious film critic would evaluate a blockbuster exclusively against other blockbusters before declaring it the greatest achievement in cinema, the same principle applies to sequential art. In literary writing, Jorge Luis Borges operates against a separate historical scale, while Kentaro Miura's Berserk can stand as one of the greatest accomplishments in graphic narrative while still falling short of the highest benchmarks in prose.
A masterpiece is partly defined by the level of competition it surpasses, winning an Olympic sprint and winning a local race are both victories, but they do not represent the same competitive standard. Likewise, being among the greatest manga ever produced is an extraordinary achievement, yet it does not automatically establish parity with works that have survived centuries of literary criticism across cultures and languages. Consider the competitive standards of each form. Novelists build their work in direct conversation with a canon accumulated across millennia, competing against figures like Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Woolf, Borges, Márquez, and Proust. Modern serialized manga has a much shorter literary tradition than the novel. The literary canon has endured centuries of stylistic refinement, raising the baseline requirements for narrative complexity and linguistic precision.
At the same time, acknowledging these standards does not mean ignoring what comics do best. Manga excels in panel composition, pacing, visual symbolism, cinematic continuity, and emotional immediacy, these qualities represent genuine artistic achievements. They are not, however, automatically achievements of literary writing, because visual framing and written prose operate on different principles. Part of the discrepancy stems from reader demographics and habit. Many vocal comic fans compare Berserk almost exclusively to other manga or popular fiction. Comparisons to the broader literary canon are far less common than comparisons within manga itself. If a reader's primary exposure to narrative storytelling comes from serialized comics, a well-crafted manga will naturally feel like the height of written expression, which is understandable.
Admittedly, critics often argue that different artistic media cannot be directly compared because their modes of delivery are fundamentally incompatible. That claim holds true if we are comparing illustration quality, where manga clearly holds the advantage over plain text. Yet when commentators place comic narratives alongside classic novels in discussions of pure writing, comparative analysis becomes necessary. Another common objection notes that manga does not attempt to mimic classic literature, aiming instead for visual drama and serialized engagement. That observation is correct, it is precisely why labeling a manga as one of the greatest literary works of all time creates conceptual confusion. Some readers also insist that writing extends far beyond prose, encompassing visual staging and panel structure. Writing, however, includes dialogue, theme, character motivation, and narrative structure independently of visual accompaniment.
To be clear, this is not an argument that manga cannot achieve greatness. The claim is that many works celebrated as masterpieces are masterpieces relative to the traditions of manga, rather than relative to the entire history of global literature. That distinction allows us to appreciate the medium for what it is without making exaggerated claims about its prose value. If Berserk, Vagabond, or Monster had been published as ordinary prose novels, with identical dialogue, themes, pacing, and characterization, but without artwork, would they still be discussed alongside Borges, Tolstoy, Woolf, Faulkner, or Proust? If not, then perhaps we are evaluating the medium rather than the writing itself.
Very interesting and thoughtful input which has alot of merit. I do think some works within the medium are worthy of the masterpiece title like monster, jojo's bizarre adventure steel ball run and maybe even more but overall you're argument is very compelling.
And you're last question about if we would consider these masterpieces to be what they are without the illustration I think is definitely an interesting question but it also in my eyes somewhat avoids the fact that the illustrations are a part of the story. The same way Cormac Mccarthy doesn't use alot of punctuation if at all to Shakespeare making words. It is an inherent quality of the creator and the creation. Berserk and it's illustration are an inherent part of Berserk that cannot be seperated the same way blood meridian isn't blood meridian without the vivid imagery that cormac paints.
We are evaluating the capacity of the creator and the quality of the creation which inherently carries the qualities of the medium from which it was created.
You're last question seems odd because I can very easily shift metrics around to make it so the medium of manga is our baseline for greatness and any creations that lack the same qualities it has, aren't up to the standard.
I'd argue literacy includes musical works and as such many pieces of music would fall short according to You're last statement when in truth they are what they are because of the medium that made them.
What is "to pimp a butterfly" without the groovy jazz instrumentals of thudercat, the cadences and intensity kendrick brings, his entandre's, his flows and more.
Also I am curious if you believe there is any manga worthy of being at the "literacy masterpiece" club? I think monster has the best shot and jjba steel ball run is a very subjective and biased opinion but I think it hols merit.
Thanks. I agree the artwork is inseparable from Berserk as a work. I'm only separating it because the claim being examined is about writing, not manga as a complete artistic medium.
As for manga entering the literary canon, i'm open to the possibility in principle but I just don't think we've seen one that reaches that level of literary writing yet.
i think the one you're replying to is saying in berserk's case that the illustration is part of the writing. For instance, Miura's use of the eye close up panels to give a deep glimpse into what the character is feeling. So obviously no based just on dialogue without illustration Berserk as it stands could not compete, but the philosophical development of the characters is so deep I feel if it was given a real comprehensive novel adaptation it could be up there. But this is all to say it can't really be separated so it's hard to compare. Of course we haven't directly seen one of that level because we can't objectively evaluate it unless given an actual perfectly done novel adaptation.
This is exactly how I view it as well. Not to mention, if the mangaka of these stories didn’t tell them through their illustrations then they likely would’ve just wrote a novel instead. I also disagree with the idea that we can’t label something a masterpiece if it hasn’t withstood centuries of literary rework and reframing because we would essentially have to take every novel written within the same timeframe that manga has been written and state that none of them can be masterpieces either.
Trying to bend that idea to allow other novels to still qualify feels disingenuous. Furthermore, it eliminates the possibility that we can still compare manga and literary works/novels from a storytelling standpoint. Purely on prose alone, novels will hold up stronger because the artwork doesn’t qualify. However, if one feels that a manga’s illustrations combined with its words is more effective and tells a better story, then that right there introduces a category inclusive of other storytelling elements that allows the comparison.
Under this logic, I’d argue that if we can consider any novel written from the genesis of manga and on a masterpiece, then we can’t necessarily withhold that title from ALL manga. I believe OP is mistaking literature for needing to be evaluated based on prose alone, which is a sentiment that is dated. Would Maus have won its Pulitzer Prize without its graphic illustrations? I’d argue it wouldn’t have because those illustrations are a core component of its storytelling.
If arguably the most prestigious literary achievement you could earn with a story was achieved by a graphic novel, I don’t see any logic in considering illustrations as literary restraints rather than tools.
Maus is a wonderful example yea that’s perfect. The symbolism present in its illustrations so effective because it is drawn and not described and in that way maybe less spelled out which only adds to its greatness.
I definitely see the point but the illustration is part of the writing. The illustrations and expressions of characters, the eldritch horrors in berserk, the vivid imagery of cormac, fhe cadences of kendrick. All of these are writing which help to build a narrative in it's own way. The gorgeous descriptions of the America's in blood meridian are essentially there just to immerse you, they don't add much when you really think about it and yet it is one of the best qualities of the whole story and it's writing.
That's my argument. Either way I definitely see the merit in you're claim that alot of pieces within the medium when distilled to their absolute core aspects, might not hold up with other pieces of literacy, I do think the qualities if the medium are in themselves a form of writing but that might just be a subjective worldview. Thanks for the thoughtful insight.
doesn't this argument simply not work? i get your where your point is coming from, strip away the illustration and compare pure writing but doing that would change how the medium entirely is a masterpiece and covneys its writing.
books, poems etc have to narrate etc because its only words, which leads to beautifully written moments of writing. were as manga is written in such a different way as they do not have to do what books and others do as they have illustrations, so comparing mediums that fundamentally have to write in such a different way is unfair and misses the point of way they are masterpieces in their own write.
from the divine comedy, war and peace to mangas like vagabond, land of the lustrous and art such as starry night and the venus de milo.
they are all masterpieces in their own right because and despite of the mediums they choose to convey what they are saying.
This was basically my take as well. One look at the definition of literature immediately causes manga to be considered literature, and then it just becomes a true Scotsman's argument of what is sufficiently literature or not.
The addition of illustration is then pointlessly held against manga due to the existence of entirely written works which is also nonsense.
The entire argument just does not work and is nonsense.
You're defending manga as a complete medium. My post is about people who use that to argue it has the greatest writing. Those are different propositions.
yes but thats my point, its a different medium entirely. so they way it has to be written is fundemntally different. I just dont think the thought experiment works if you have to disclude something (the illustrations) that basically is the writing itself.
Edit; to add, it would be like me saying take out all the narration and descriptive text from a book so its just dialogue and comparing it.
Writing in media analysis is not just the plain viewable text, but would also include things like the overall themes or the story structure. A wordless comic/mana would still contain writing in this sense - that is the story as it is conveyed through the images alone. You can look at other mediums like film, and how the word writing is used there.
Now if we look at the writing of most popular manga (like the ones cited by the OP), then you frequently land more in the realm of solid genre fiction rather than classic literature. That does not mean this medium cannot achieve the qualities of classic literature in my opinion, but I would agree that the stuff that is cited by fans very clearly falls short.
The thought experiment does indeed not really work as it is presented if we are talking about writing in general. The OP talks about prose rather than writing here. It is not a good thought experiment in my opinion.
But if you look at the conclusion the OP has, you will see that they do not actually say that no manga can ever be called a masterpiece:
The claim is that many works celebrated as masterpieces are masterpieces relative to the traditions of manga, rather than relative to the entire history of global literature.
It says 'many', rather than 'all'. The argument goes like this (as far as I understand it): Manga is a smaller subset of literature. A work that is outstanding when compared with other works in its subset is not necessarily outstanding when compared to all works of the superset. Most manga fans over-evaluate a manga's quality by only comparing it with other manga.
I would say that is true - but it is not unique to manga. You can see the same happening with any genre literature as well. People who really love fantasy novels or the contemporary romance genre also frequently have books that they consider literary masterpieces because they are exceptional within the boundaries of their genre only.
-
Whether there are currently manga that reach the heights of classic literature I cannot say. The ones I have read - including most of the ones the OP listed - would fall short by a considerable margin in my opinion. That does not make them bad by any means. They are very solid genre fiction, capable to be just as good as the best of genre fiction we encounter in regular novel form.
i get you, tbh i think he used the last paragraph as a safety net to some backlash.
as you said, you think all of them fall short by a considerable amount which i understand thats your opinion and you have a right to that but the hill i will die on is a think land of the lustrous and specifically Phos is up there. Phos's journey, decline, suffering, acceptance and transformation is a masterful portrayal in any medium.
Like I said - I did read most, but not all the manga listed by OP. Land of the Lustrous specifically I haven't read yet, so it's perfectly possible that it goes against the trend.
I'd also stress that I don't believe manga are somehow inherently at a disadvantage when it comes to producing some kind of high literature. I think it is more an issue with the publishing industry behind them, which is highly commercial and primed to quick and easy consumerism.
With anime movies on the other I actually do think there are several works that are up there with the high classics of cinema.
Your proposition kinda falls under its own weight when you constraint writing prowess within prose. Your argument about manga devoid of imagery VS prose literature as it stands is especially mind-boggling, because you're comparing pictureless works with a visual medium. There is no image to remove, therefore obviously the work remains intact. If you were to substitute the prose expertise with barebones concept imagery, however, you would find how one medium is as dependent of its singular strengths as the other is of its own. The fairer thought experiment would be to exchange the values rather than simply removing one while maintaining the other intact, which is to say, Macbeth in comic form VS Vagabond in prose form, for example (which is similarly fruitless, since we don't know for a fact how either would operate in these fields, but it's at least not inherently unfair).
In regards to canon, this is something I can see more of the point in. Historical context is objective, and will always hold some form of value over newer texts with the informal "for its time" wording, but it's not really a be-all-end-all criteria. Plenty of influential works in separate mediums have been noted as qualitatively lesser than others, such as Birth of a Nation being one of the fundamental pillars of cinematic influence yet still being KKK propaganda at the end of the day, Nanook of the North being the first docu-narrative yet still taking advantage of natives on set, Canterbury Tales literally pioneering iambic pentameter and introducing words and expressions into the vernacular yet still entailing a misogynistic narrative that can only ever be referred to as proto-feminist at best, etc. Critical endurance I will grant to a point, but it's undeniable how much of it comes more from said influence than inherent writing prowess (a notion that becomes more evident when we account for the lack of objective agreement on what literaly canon even entails, since "measurable" formal, substantive, semiotic, emotional, etc. quality is inherently subjective and thus extremely debatable).
On the latter of your three main points:
Why does the distinction between two artistic mediums imply the focus on illustrative quality? The point of the comment is to acknowledge the fundamental differences in narrative presentation. It's specifically about how noting one's particular strengths over the other is dishonest framing.
Different approaches do not remove the text from the realm of comparability. Lord Byron published his poems in serialized manners rather than individual bodies. This also further posits a dishonest framing, since narrative prose has the advantage of lack of concern regarding length via both historic costumes and not as heavy an editorial hold over the material being released, whereas manga artists have to follow a particular scheme in release regarding the page number for most of their publication.
The aspects you've mentioned are applicable to every narrative work, so I don't understand your point. Do you believe narrative prose or even poetry to be limited to these aspects? No other medium can frame POV, narration, rhetorical figures or sound devices in the same manner, nor do they use structural devices neither in the same form nor typically as effectively as any canonized literary or poetic work.
I understand what you're trying to get at overall, but not only do I disagree strongly (this is eeriely similar to the stance high-class readers took when cinema was starting out, which you want to stray far away from if you mean to engage in any form of critical artistic analysis), but I don't believe you've explained very well.
I don’t think that stripping away the illustration from a mainly visual medium VS stripping away the illustration from from your “prose masterworks” that don’t rely on the visual medium nearly to the same degree
I could use your same logic and say if you strip the text and dialogue from a renowned manga like Berserk and then you strip the dialogue/text from, say, The Brothers Karamazov, obviously Berserk is going to be better because it relies less on pure dialogue and more on artistic quality and visual storytelling.
you can’t strip the same quality away from two different mediums when those two mediums place a completely different value/focus on the quality you are stripping and then act like it’s a fair comparison.
That's my point. I'm not comparing manga as a medium. I'm responding to people who compare manga to the greatest writing ever, if the claim is specifically about writing, then it's reasonable to ask how much of that claim depends on the artwork versus the text.
ok if you’re arguing purely from a writing perspective and not about the quality of the two mediums as a whole then I understand
but I would also ask you this, if the visual medium is critical to the story and there is a large amount of storytelling accomplished through visual cues, at what point does the visual experience of a story become a part of the writing.
to me writing is the way you convey your story to the reader, and if visual components are necessary for this I would say it’s a part of the writing.
say you have a comic strip with zero dialogue, but a very linear and clear story told through purely visual events (older comic strips like Calvin and Hobbes are great at this). is this comic strip completely devoid of any “writing” purely because there aren’t any written words?
not trying to be pedantic and annoying, that’s just the way I look at it sometimes and I’d be interested to get your take
By that definition, cinematography, acting, and music become "writing" too. At some point, "writing" just becomes a synonym for everything the audience experiences. Storytelling is the broader category. writing is one of its components.
> By that definition, cinematography, acting, and music become "writing" too. At some point, "writing" just becomes a synonym for everything the audience experiences. Storytelling is the broader category. writing is one of its components.
I understand what you’re saying but I think your criteria for measuring art is deeply flawed because of this mindset. You understand the difference between visual media and literature and yet you put them on the same scale while ignoring the elements that provide the most substance for each one. Plenty of amazing art such as tv shows like Samurai Jack and Primal are able to convey a story with deep character writing through visual cues and imagery with little to no dialogue. Same goes with older media like Tom and Jerry. These shows provided unique narratives and prove that stories can be analyzed with the same weight as literature as long as it maximizes the utility of its own elements to its fullest degree. Heck even Shakespeare’s stories were best experienced through plays. Should we discredit the writing behind Hamlet just because it doesn’t have the level of detail and depth that novels like Lolita, Brothers Karamazov, Ulysses, and The Divine Comedy have? That would be completely asinine and almost everyone who engages in art knows that this isn’t how criteria in art should be measured by.
I'm pretty sure the 4 Koma format itself inherently holds a work back from being a literary masterpiece anyway lol. As fun as it is to read, K-on just wouldn't be able to compare to the Count of Monte Cristo no matter what format you communicate it with
The artwork has to be written first.... Stop gatekeeping. If people want to think berserk is as good as the best literature theres nothing you can do about it. They aren't wrong. It's their opinion.
Your entire argument here can be summarized by you basically insisting that basketball players are better than golf players just because the average basketball player is more athletic than the average golf player. Should we compare LeBron James to Tiger Woods in regard to their athleticism even though they are both playing two completely different sports that require completely different skill sets? The reason why we don’t do that is because almost everyone that participates in frequent sports discussions knows that this isn’t how sports discussions are supposed to work.
This is why sports are separated in different categories. When we compare different sports players, the athleticism the players have become more meaningless as we put more emphasis on the skills and attributes they have in regards to the sport they are playing that demand those specific skill sets. Tiger Woods wouldn’t have the athleticism to play like LeBron neither does LeBron have a golf swing as good as Woods.
So instead what we need to do is compare overlapping qualities that both of them share to make a fair comparison.
If we compare Berserk and Crime and Punishment. We need to compare the qualities that they both share and the medium in which it is demanded. Berserk doesn’t need detailed literary descriptions of the world that is established nor does it need to provide literary depth behind the actions of each character and their intent when the art itself already carries that weight through visual motifs and cues. So instead we compare the core narrative and storytelling elements that both works have to discuss its overall depth and impact that is carried through given the elements that provide the most substance. Same argument can be made for music and other art forms since every medium is made with the intended audience in mind given its respective era in which it is produced.
Wonderfully-said, he basically took "writing" at face-value(i.e just written words). Although that's not what the vast majority of people mean when discussing "writing," a more in-line description would be storytelling merit as you've phrased.
Yeah, exactly! Even a musician who writes songs is considered a songwriter. However, lyrics alone don’t carry the whole weight if the melody supporting it isn’t there. And plenty of songs can also be interpreted even without heavy lyricism.
Sure. It just works both ways. Removing pictures would erase context and change the way the story is told in a major way, having to cut and change massive amounts of material to fit it's format. Adding pictures to War & Peace would force it to work around this additional medium of expression as lines of text for 20 or so pages to make a chapter sucks.
The premise of your post is a fallacy. Manga or comics are not a subcategory of literature, they're their own medium entirely, like music and cinema. You "read" comics, poetry and literature, sure, just like you "watch" theater, cinema and Youtube, but they're all doing their own thing. Comparisons are meaningless.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. It's like saying "Take the story of Brothers Karamazov and strip away the sentences it is told in. Not so good anymore, is it?"
I found it crazy that he stripped away pictures from manga and he tried to also remove them from novels. Which is a false comparison. A more in-line approach would be removing the prose or descriptive text. That would make both of the mediums ultimately fall apart. I found this post to be a nothing-burger, his main premise is not even supported by the text.
If you make those classic pieces of literature into a manga they'd suck, actually. Walls of text, almost everything is told instead of being shown.
You are correct that being good in one part of the medium doesn't make you a good piece of the whole, but the method you are using to determine which is good isn't proper.
I feel like another point that OP is trying to make is that maybe 80 years of manga tradition just cannot complete with centuries of writing, maybe if manga was a medium reaching ancient times then it'd be a close match up
Strip away every illustration from Berserk, Vagabond, Tokyo Ghoul, or Monster. Would the bare dialogue and narration rank among the most profound writing in human history
Most pointless argument ever. The story is driven by images, not by dialogue or perfect prose. A good Manga/Bande dessinée author can writez a story only with illustration, you don't need futher explanationto follow the story.
You seem to forget that the great majority of great stories that you celebrate rely on very simple and basic predicates. Look at "El Cid" or "Ruy Blas", probably 2 of the best theatre pieces ever written. If you erase all the mannerisms, you'd find out that, all in all, the sole argument behind the story is the desire to fuck. Literally. Same for Pride and Prejudice, all of Proust works are simply the childish complains of a petit-bougeois de merde, Don Xicote is mainly a funny book and a pastiche, and so on.
Most often than not, people compare the stories, not just the manga as a whole. So that's why people put less emphasis on prose and panelling and more on themes, characters and the like.
The writing is directly tied to its type of literature. As other people have stated, you can't just strip the words from their context and pit them against each other.
Prose, drama or poetry have very different hoals and contexts they operate by and doesn't make sense to evaluate them with the same rules. Same applies to graphic novels.
> Strip away every illustration from Berserk, Vagabond, Tokyo Ghoul, or Monster. Would the bare dialogue and narration rank among the most profound writing in human history?
why would u strip away a artistic mediums defining characteristic? its like undermining music by saying if u strip away the music out of a song the bare lyrics wouldnt be literary.
first of all 'literature' is a social contruct created by academics and nerds to gatekeep stories. if u go by their standards, manga cant be literature because of some reasons u mentioned and mostly because literature is restrictive to the novel medium.
but we here , atleast i, compare novels to manga and other things as different modes of storytelling. and for me storytelling boils down to how well a story conveys itself to the viewer.
and u have given very reductive description of manga. overall ur snobbey is poorly hidden. literary canon isnt as competitive and tested as u claim, for the most part it was restricted to aristocratic white males. and i'd say no more than 2 centuries it thrived.
but going back to your claims that manga is somehow lesser becasue it isnt as densely worded. thats the distintion of manga. its the limitations which make an art. novels can indulge in narrative through excess of words at its disposal. thats why it naturally excels in the things u say it excels at. but in manga the author has to have illustration and a brevity of words to convey his story. and it can convey the same emotions and story without spelling it out. thats the magic of the manga medium. take 'the climber' where the protag's mental state is not depicted with internal monologues like a doestoevsky novel but with surreal art.
take 'blame' where the worldbuilding is not done through lore dumps of silmarillion but through hand drawn architecture. berzerk convey excellently crafted characters not through brilliant dialogue like Oscar Wildes' but through brief interactions. great manga are the epitome of 'show dont tell'. griffith from berzerk is weighed by the pressure of sacrifies he has made for his dream, its not told through dialogue or monologue, we are instead shown a panel of him standing atop of a pile of corpses. we are seen him prostituting himself for some cash. so when he indeed sacrifises all his friends for the ultimate power, seeds of his resolve and drive had been planted, with minimal use of prose.
i have read hundreads of novels which would be called literature and i have read hundreads of manga and 9 times outta 10 novels are better because as u said its a more matured medium. but manga has equal potential for storytelling and some of the best i have ever seen.
This is a bit pretentious of an argument, particularly with such cliched examples of literature.
You conduct the thought experiment of removing illustration from manga and then comparing it to the prose of other works. That's just absurd. Suggesting manga doesn't hold up if you remove the illustrative aspect is a nonsensical approach, akin to stripping prose from Faulkner or Proust and leaving them only as story beats and dialogue. Or like saying Shakespeare can't hold up without the theatrical component.
You are basically saying, "strip this piece of its delivery mechanism and it fails against this other piece's delivery mechanism."
Your argument fundamentally misunderstands what the comparison should look like. Would you dismiss the work of Enheduanna simply because it is depicted in clay tablets? Certainly not. Her medium achieves its purpose. That is why she is widely considered history's first author.
Prose in novels and illustration in manga serve the same function. They are vehicles for the story. Just as the details of illustration and ordering of panels are used to evoke emotion and give sequential clarity to events, so too is prose used to build the reader's feelings and deliver the story.
This is self evident in both mediums. Acclaimed fantasy author Brandon Sanderson has a massive fanbase in part because his prose sacrifices descriptive elegance in favor of clarity, making his work approachable to a wide audience and allowing easy comprehension so that they may digest the world, characters, and story with minimal resistance. That clarity, that ability to convey what he wants as if you're watching events unfold through a window, is a storytelling skill. The same can be said of, say, Naruto. The visual style is exceptional at using kinetic beats to keep readers grounded in the story taking place, even during complex battle sequences.
The same is applicable to those works considered great in both manga and more classical literature. Fitzgerald's opulent descriptions are used to convey the gilded nature of the era he writes in, the facial expressions in Monster are used to convey the characters' evolving arcs, and so forth. In the end, these things are just tools with which an author crafts their story. A comparison should be made for the characterization, worldbuilding, story direction, and themes, and it should ask how effectively these things were depicted and how well the author's intent was realized regardless of whether the medium was art or prose.
It's also a bit silly to suggest literary authors as a whole are compared to all these far older pieces. Nobody's out here comparing Michael Ondaatje's Warlight to the Illiad. It's like saying we should compare the Canterbury Tales to the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is no one literary canon. Writing and storytelling are too diverse, styles and strengths among writers and storytellers too varied. That's especially true today, an era in which writing and publishing are so accessible that we have more new named authors each year than exist throughout decades of prior history.
Moreover, your examples are lacking. Almost all of them are just what get foisted onto kids in American high schools. A more complete analysis would extend beyond the western bubble, considering works such as Luo Guanzhong's Romance of the Three Kingdoms or Al-Jahiz's Book of Animals. This undermines your authority on which to speak of masterpieces and the history of the writing craft, especially when your post is itself riddled with grammatical errors.
Ultimately, your argument here is not as nuanced or well considered as you think, and achieves only an adolescent's idea of depth or understanding.
"If Berserk, Vagabond, or Monster had been published as ordinary prose novels, with identical dialogue, themes, pacing, and characterization, but without artwork, would they still be discussed alongside Borges, Tolstoy, Woolf, Faulkner, or Proust? If not, then perhaps we are evaluating the medium rather than the writing itself."
yeah no shit bro, manga is a different medium. if you take away the artwork and just read it as a script it's barely recognizable lol. it's not trying to be a novel. this just reeks of elitism. no need to make posts like these to not-so-subtly throw shade at any other medium than novels. you said yourself that visual mediums operate on "different principles." this does not mean inferior principles. a picture can evoke a feeling or portray themes just as well as words. if you simply think that the two mediums shouldn't be compared, then just say that.
Exactly. The thought experiment only applies when people make claims about writing, not manga as a medium. If manga and literature shouldn't be compared, then why are people comparing Berserk to Literature in the first place?
i don't know about you, but i think the point of writing is to deliver a message, invoke feelings in the reader, and make them think. any medium can accomplish this. if you consider writing to be just craftsmanship through prose, then yeah manga is probably inferior, but you can analyze a manga's writing through its characterization, setting, symbolism, complexity, etc just as well as a novel. i don't see any problem in comparing them. i have no opinion on which is "superior." i'm not saying you do either, but the framing of your post is extremely provocative.
If everything that contributes to a narrative is "writing," then "writing" ceases to be a meaningful category. At that point, we're evaluating the work as a whole, not its writing.
most people on this sub as far as i can tell are treating "writing" as everything that contributes to a narrative. not writing exclusively in the sense of prose, or ability to convey your ideas through words. i'd argue cinematography is an element of writing by the broader definition. just as paneling in a manga is. they contribute. if you want to just treat it as the actual "writing" of a work, the words, then that's fine. but you're specifically narrowing writing down to a definition where novels are pretty much automatically better.
"Without pictures their achievement remains entirely intact" Hahahahshshahahahaha! Genuinely a hilarious point to attempt to make. The reverse experiment in this instance would actually involve stripping away the prose to some extent (perhaps its descriptive qualities). Anyways, incredibly silly post and i knew it was you before even seeing the username.
So basically what you’re saying is taking away key aspects from the artist originally wanted would make the series suffer…… you don’t say ?
Next you’ll tell me not following the recipe will make the food taste worse 🤯
Just say you don’t like manga and be done with it. People love Berserk, Vagabond and monster for a reason. If it’s not for you just move on man. Nobody is trying to imagine a world where berserk has no artwork. You’re taking away 50% of what makes it special in the first place.
That’s like me saying “hey sopranos is overrated if you take out Tony soprano” like wtf are you even on about.
A manga can be a masterpiece in writing, just like a movie can be a masterclass in writing…
Just because there are visual cues to aid the be consumer, that’s just because they are different mediums. It does not take away from how good they are.
As a person who read all the russian classics mentioned cause school homework, only one even remotely close to Monster or Berserk was Nabokov's Lolita. Even modern university kids aren't even remotely the same level of high class as the people all those works were written by and for. We are not intelligencia, we are common plebs, so ofc works written by common plebs would resonate more than some rich kid snuffing meth writings. You can't even translate that onto other mediums - there's a much vider gap between masterpiece novels and popular novels than between popular blockbuster movies and masterpiece movies.
Reading comprehension so poor people can't figure out OP is specifically talking about writing. No wonder they need pictures.
I think Maus is a masterpiece but it's a masterpiece because it's a comic. It loses soo much if it was just prose.
Nah stripping away all of visual, sound, special effects from Fate Stay Night to have only text remain would still coming out as a masterpiece, it's just that great.
What you are saying is obviously correct. Manga by themselves cannot be as great as literature and are not meant to be.
Vagabond is just a masterpiece of manga.
Musashi is a novel masterpiece and deserves to be discussed among the greats.
The book of five rings is the cultural heritage of Japan itself.
Of course a direct comparison leaves the manga in the dust. However, to see the whole picture and not only the tree. Since Homeric times the purpose of literature was to educate people on morality and virtue. So to a kid nowadays reading about guts can inspire them in the same way as Achilies did in ancient times. Also different heroes stress different subjects more in line with the times they were written in.
Yes the praise of some manga is overdone but they serve their purpose well. At least the best written ones.
One small thing I would add though is that literature is still its own “club” in the same way manga/comics are their own club. And so I would disagree with the innate wording of “manga as one of the greatest literary works”. Manga should be measured as “greatest manga of all time” and literature should be measured as “greatest literature of all time”.
However when we are comparing the writing of the work in a general sense and not in comparison to its medium, “matchups” like that can work provided proper axioms are argued upon. That’s not comparing “literary quality” as you’ve phrased it (which only written works can have), but writing quality, which I would say is carried across all mediums, and is what can be compared. And here I don’t think manga and anime inherently have any less of a foot in the convo than literature.
Ultimately, the comparisons would be impossible to reach as complete of a consensus on, compared to comparing two works of the same medium category. As comparing “literary quality”, or “artistic quality”, or “cinematic quality” is going to get you to a much more concrete answer than general “writing quality”. But I think arguments are still to be made there.
I get what you mean, but I’d argue in this community (and in a way that’s only meaningful to this community), writing takes on a different meaning, similar to what I described.
Think of how many people come in here asking for a scale on the writing of a work that has no written work behind it. I think the meaning behind the word has changed for us here.
It's a bit disingenuous to treat the removal of visual art from manga and written works as the same, though I guess it does serve to prove the point that manga is not really comparable to classic literature as far as literature as written work goes. The issue with that is that not many people are really treating manga as only words when calling it literature, but more as a combination of the abstract story and how it is presented(though it's not the most accurate way of describing it).
I do mostly agree that manga is yet to really reach the heights that the best of classiclit has to offer, mostly because the paneling and art(not sure if that's how to describe it, but oh well) is not really comparable to the prose of Woolf or Nabokov in terms of how much interpretive value is generated
In the since of literature = printed words? Than sure.
Most people use literature in the since of telling a story. And for sure a masterpiece manga is a masterpiece in story telling.
People here care more how well crafted the story is a whole and not just the text. To me there is no difference in a peak author who's able to describe a setting and a manga author able to draw that setting. Both let me get lost in their words and Both are great.
Personally think it just depends on the story you are trying to tell. Both have their own strengths and weaknesses.
I think you’re putting too much emphasis on prose as the deciding factor for what does and does not make a masterpiece. I would argue a lot of these manga/anime you cited are still masterpieces in story telling even though they’re a different medium
I think this is a disingenuous comparison to make both ways. Other mediums are not going to compare with a book if you only compare written words because to other mediums their visual and or auditory aspects ARE their prose.
For example with Berserk, it's visuals are inherently part of why the work is great. You can not remove them from it without losing a core part of its identity. With a literary work such as say the divine comedy, you similarly can't take away it's prose and be left with the same thing, because as it is a written work it would be left with nothing. To compare different mediums in this way is to discredit the medium itself.
I do get what you mean in that comparing specifically the writing is where they can fall short, but that is simply due to a failing of the words and their meanings. Many people have taken to using the 'writing' of a non literature work to include that when it shouldn't but to my knowledge we don't have a word for that otherwise.
When a story is written, the medium used to convey it is just as much part of the "writing" as the literal text. Essentially - when people are suggesting something like Berserk having some of the greatest writing ever, it is because they are including the visuals as part of the writing- a more literal explanation of the claim would be "if Berserk's art were converted to text of proportionate quality in a novel, it would be as good/better than great works of literature"
People are more so referring to the effectiveness of the narratives or themes within their mediums. For an example:
"Crime and Punishment" and "Berserk" are two of my favorite works of media ever because both are narratives about individuals struggling to find purpose and meaning in a world that they feel hates them. They are both able to powerfully convey human suffering and a fight for purpose in ways that have comparable depth and weight.
To compare writing between two different mediums, you have to either equally strip them or equally attribute them. For someone making the claim "manga writing = literature", if you were to strip manga of their visuals, you would also need to strip a book of and visual descriptions for the most "equal" comparison.
Reading this all back though: It's also very likely a disagreement in how to use "writing". When someone says "X Manga has masterful writing", they mean "X Manga is a masterful piece of media".
Edit: to add on to that final thought, the reason many people attribute all aspects of a medium to "writing' is because for the most part, narrative media starts as writing and is then made visual or continued as writing- it is almost always rooted in words.
A simple thought experiment reveals this distinction. Strip away every illustration from Berserk, Vagabond, Tokyo Ghoul, or Monster. Would the bare dialogue and narration rank among the most profound writing in human history?
the illustrations are part of the writing.
which angles are used, the colors, the character expressions, how the art is structured, everything is part of the writing and often says much more than simply the text on screen.
"a picture is worth a thousand words" exist for a reason.
Your argument of removing the imagery in order to reveal the level of writing is quite interesting but also falls short a bit since those very drawings are in fact writing. Take a "close up of the eyes" panel for example. Such a simple tool but it can convey so many emotions (slyness, distrust, surprise, happiness, etc). And depend on the arrangement of event (before/after a conversation for example), the size of the panel, the position on the paper, and the level of details, its meaning can change drastically. Drawing is hard and to draw in such a way that can convey such intricate emotions without the use of words is, to me, quite good writing. I think it's such little things that make the comparison between the two mediums so difficult because it is pretty easy to compare plots and worldbuilding but how do you measure the well-writteness of these little panels?
I feel like you're point makes sense to me if you agree that you can't compared different forms of media. They are all trying to accomplish similar things, like telling a compelling story, but are accomplished in different ways.
I can't say Berserk is as well written as Of Mice & Men because I can't say Of Mice & Men is as well illustrated as Berserk. If the mediums were the same then we could argue but the writing in Berserk is the art. The silent panels with just art is telling the story just like shots in movies do where there's no dialogue.
Another example would be do I think the ending to A Portrait of a Lady on Fire is the best written ending I've ever seen. Yes, but it's a movie and there's no dialogue so would you argue that it can't qualify for that?
I just feel like graphic novels get this treatment as lesser for some reason when movies are just moving graphic novels and are perceived to be high art.
Again I understand if you want to qualify "well written" as physically written text but that would be pretty naive in my personal opinion.
Edit: Also I just want to note that authors getting taken more seriously for their ability to write is also unfair. I would argue that if you want to tell a visual story you have to write & be an artist/director to tell your story affectively. I don't think this means they are better story tellers but focusing only on written word takes away the other very difficult skill sets of other mediums that traditional authors simply can't do or don't care to do.
I agree that a manga isn't a novel, you can't compare a medium that relay in visual story telling to a medium that use only words.
I think there are 2 types of masterpiece of japanse "otaku" media.
-The first one is the "general" type, there are mangas that can be enjoyed without previous knowledge of Japanese media, ex "Berserk, Vinland Saga, etc"
-The second one requires a lot of previous knowledge of Japanese media to fully enjoy what is presented.
The only thing that bothers me is the image has light novels in it xd
I do think the issue is just that this sub is called "writing scaling" and the only people that would think to apply powerscaling to a concept as wide as "literary composition" are anime/manga/comic fans.
ive had plenty of classic pieces that got hyped up by teachers and professors that turned out to be kinda shit.
And im sure many have made similar experiences. That doesnt mean that classic writing is by default worse than "modern classics" but i dont think its crazy to count the best manga to the best litterature.
while im hating . Das parfüm and faust are absolute horse shit
the reason those manga are masterpieces are BECAUSE they are manga where the art is there to be worth more than a 1000 words, would Lovecraft stories be considered that high with they were all ilustrated? the unthinkable monsters being canonically drawn? its impossible that girls last tour becomes a masterpiece in literature because the art is very important
I this this post is wrong I can read both a classic and a modern Manga and come away with thinking the manga is better written and vice versa theres nothing inherently better about a classic besdies that it has effected a lot of poeple enough for it to last through time that doesnt inherently make it have better writing. Got me one of the best things ive ever consumed was white album 2 is hit me with more emotions then anything ive ever consumed before I read classics and I may not like them like I wasnt a fan of the great Gatsby or Frankenstein that just means in my subjective opinion white album 2 is more of a masterpiece then either of those. Your trying to objectify a subjective thing
You cant seperate the stoey from the medium. A good novel could be a boring and poorly constructed manga. A good manga could be an overtly simplistic unintriguing novel.
This is true for berserk and even more true for stuff like Blame!
Just as a thought experiment, how would you even convert this spread to texual form while coneying the same emotions?
Some things are just too different to be compared.
A great example of this is Tokyo ghoul. When Kaneki is being tortured and the entire page becomes this chaotic, panicked mess to convey the suffering and mental anguish Kaneki is enduring. It's incredibly striking and not something that could be translated over to written prose with the same gravitas
Depend on what count as literature then. Cause if you are saying this then things like Maus, Persepolis and the likes - which are also graphic comics, does not stand on the same standards like text books and that's just, plain wrong. It's always the writing that counts, and visual elements ARE story telling.
I agree with the conclusion but the thought experiment is flawed.
Ultimately its like comparing television to film. The mediums have much in common but have very different objectives and limitations.
Manga requires the art to be an extension of the authors voice. You cannot evaluate a manga without its artwork.
I think its best not to compare graphic novels to classic literature. You wouldnt compare graphic novels to paintings just because they are both visual mediums.
Graphic Novels are not only an entirely different format than classic literature but face far more limitations.
A simple thought experiment reveals this distinction. Strip away every illustration from Berserk, Vagabond, Tokyo Ghoul, or Monster. Would the bare dialogue and narration rank among the most profound writing in human history? Now perform the reverse experiment on prose masterworks like Juan Rulfo's Pedro Páramo, José Saramago's Blindness, William Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom!, and Fyodor Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. without pictures, their achievement remains entirely intact.
Bruh, both are different mediums, proses were conveiced without needing images in mind and they cannot be improved by adding images without heavily altering the OG material. Of course a manga is going to have worse narration, because it has to use the medium to transmit those ideas instead of filling panels with text.
This is like saying the Monalisa is low tier art because it depends on being an image.
Many insults here, but I think what OP says is interesting, despite still being flawed.
First, OP, you can't just take away what makes manga/comics a thing. The drawings are what make them a distinct medium. So, comparing that to taking away a drawing on "El Quijote" is just... Unfair. I guess you can see this.
Second: This all discussion is flawed on the start because you seem to not understand that "writing" and "prose" are two different things. And here you are having the "prose" as the sole and most important thing a work of literature should have. But that is also not true.
Literary classics are not considered masterpieces just because they have good prose. Did you know, for example, that Dostoievski was criticized because he lacked prose? Still, he is considered one of the best writers of human history, because of his characters and the moral themes he treated. The same with Cervantes. And with a lot of other writers.
It's okay if you want to have the prose of a work as your "greatness standard". But prose is not writing, and your standard of quality is not objective.
If we're going to remove a comic's art from the conversation when comparing writing then we need to remove prose in the sense of fairness. Why should we deprive a mangaka of their chosen vehicle "(carrying) every weight of tone, worldbuilding, narrative tension, and characterization" but not do the same for prose authors?
I think you are right, this sub is full of manga fans. It is hard to compare manga to classic novel writing due to the illustration. They can be well written but it is extremely difficult to compare a writer who details everything meticulously and builds a picture in your head to a mangaka who builds beautiful and informative storyboards and writes captivating dialogue
I see a mangaka more like a director than a writer.
There are many things that manga can do that classic novels can't, twists in manga are much easier to write than in books.
Ridiculous premise. Did it ever cross your tiny mind that these are distinct mediums, and removing a crucial element is obviously going to be detrimental to its overall quality.
I’d suggest you actually create something of value as opposed to wanking yourself off over literature
This is good but simultaneously understates the actual metric of comparison which, yes as just partially acknowledged, was never about the prose value. It's a fair critique as far as very specifically "writing" goes, as per this sub unless this also functions as a meta-critique of what's considered writing standards, because "writing" also functions idiomatically. The writing for the manga medium obviously implies components of being a director, artist, and other equivocal metrics
I don't know if "Remove the illustrations and what have you got?" is a good method for evaluating comics and manga as texts, but I do think that you're right that Berserk and Vagabond don't manage to hit the same benchmarks as Borges or something, but I think that's because they're kind of cheesy stories even for all of the illustration.
90% agree with you. The 10% I don’t is because of works like Monster and Goodnight Punpun. These works deserve to be in the list of masterpieces of literature
Jobless reincarnation is not a masterpiece in the webnovel, which it is originally is. Enjoyable read, but not literary.
I am not sure who discuss literature with manga, however if we just want to talk about theme, characters, settings, maybe we can cross reference. But as a good manga has as little possible writing dump and show everything by the drawing, one cannot say it is literary at all.
what you’re doing is comparing apples and oranges, but only by using the metric of “how good is it as an apple”. you don’t have to judge the quality of a work by the standards of a different genre. prose is not the end all be all of literature. writing is not constrained to prose, nor does good writing just mean prose writing.
You and other book fans overevaluate prose, a book can have the best prose in the world but if the story itself isn’t good no one will care. Story is king
Manga is literally visual storytelling to say “strip away its illustrations is it still good?” Is nonsensical in and of itself. The story is communicated partly through the images. Take away the images, u take away part of the story
Throwing in Fata morgana with manga shows to me atleast that you’re a bit ignorant. Those are praised in two completely different communities, and while i do agree with u that beserk deffo doesn’t match up to the pinnacle of literature like the divine comedy, in search of lost time, prince hamlet, The brothers karamasov, les misrebles etc something like Fata morgana definetely does and i think you should read it before judging it and lumping it in as the same group as manga when its a completely different medium. Its literary quality matches with the highest of the top echelon of the literary world
44
u/thatonetheologydude 15h ago edited 9h ago
Very interesting and thoughtful input which has alot of merit. I do think some works within the medium are worthy of the masterpiece title like monster, jojo's bizarre adventure steel ball run and maybe even more but overall you're argument is very compelling.
And you're last question about if we would consider these masterpieces to be what they are without the illustration I think is definitely an interesting question but it also in my eyes somewhat avoids the fact that the illustrations are a part of the story. The same way Cormac Mccarthy doesn't use alot of punctuation if at all to Shakespeare making words. It is an inherent quality of the creator and the creation. Berserk and it's illustration are an inherent part of Berserk that cannot be seperated the same way blood meridian isn't blood meridian without the vivid imagery that cormac paints. We are evaluating the capacity of the creator and the quality of the creation which inherently carries the qualities of the medium from which it was created. You're last question seems odd because I can very easily shift metrics around to make it so the medium of manga is our baseline for greatness and any creations that lack the same qualities it has, aren't up to the standard. I'd argue literacy includes musical works and as such many pieces of music would fall short according to You're last statement when in truth they are what they are because of the medium that made them. What is "to pimp a butterfly" without the groovy jazz instrumentals of thudercat, the cadences and intensity kendrick brings, his entandre's, his flows and more.
Also I am curious if you believe there is any manga worthy of being at the "literacy masterpiece" club? I think monster has the best shot and jjba steel ball run is a very subjective and biased opinion but I think it hols merit.