Dragon Ball and other types of Literature

[Cure Dragon 255]

Oh. I see. Which side were you on then?

[ABED]

I believe Video Games aren't art, they are games. And so we're clear, that's purely a semantic issue.

[Witty User Name]

What do you take to be literature?

Mainly books, though as I already mentioned there is the ''controversy'' of whether stuff like manga or comics can be defined as ''literature''.

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

Maybe I need some time to rethink my definition.

[Planetnamek]

I believe Video Games aren't art, they are games. And so we're clear, that's purely a semantic issue.

Most everyone would strongly disagree with you on that, I think games absolutely are art.

[ABED]

I believe Video Games aren't art, they are games. And so we're clear, that's purely a semantic issue.

Most everyone would strongly disagree with you on that, I think games absolutely are art.

I don't really care if they do. No matter how many times I say this is purely a matter of semantics, they still take is a slight against the or video games.

[Planetnamek]

I believe Video Games aren't art, they are games. And so we're clear, that's purely a semantic issue.

Most everyone would strongly disagree with you on that, I think games absolutely are art.

I don't really care if they do. No matter how many times I say this is purely a matter of semantics, they still take is a slight against the or video games.

I disagree as do many others:https://time.com/collection-post/403882 ... games-art/

[ABED]

I know they do and you are just restating your previous point. It's also beside the point. Although i will say this, I doubt "most everyone" is actually true. Maybe nearly everyone here or geek circles.

[Planetnamek]

I know they do and you are just restating your previous point. It's also beside the point. Although i will say this, I doubt "most everyone" is actually true. Maybe nearly everyone here or geek circles.

No plenty of non-geeks as well. Time certainly isn't what one would call a "geek" publication.

[ABED]

I know they do and you are just restating your previous point. It's also beside the point. Although i will say this, I doubt "most everyone" is actually true. Maybe nearly everyone here or geek circles.

No plenty of non-geeks as well. Time certainly isn't what one would call a "geek" publication.

That article is not a good argument. Their view of what makes something art isn't specific. It's "If you can observe the work of another and find in it personal connection, then art has been achieved." However, that also would include sports since audiences observe the work of another person and can feel connected. As profound as that experience is, I don't consider sports to be art. It's very nebulous and therein lies the issue. People have been trying to define art for generations. Mine doesn't match up with most people's as I think people are way too liberal with the word and no matter how many times you tell them it's purely semantics, they still take it as an affront. Now can we move on?

[Planetnamek]

I know they do and you are just restating your previous point. It's also beside the point. Although i will say this, I doubt "most everyone" is actually true. Maybe nearly everyone here or geek circles.

No plenty of non-geeks as well. Time certainly isn't what one would call a "geek" publication.

That article is not a good argument. Their view of what makes something art isn't specific. It's "If you can observe the work of another and find in it personal connection, then art has been achieved." However, that also would include sports since audiences observe the work of another person and can feel connected. As profound as that experience is, I don't consider sports to be art. It's very nebulous and therein lies the issue. People have been trying to define art for generations. Mine doesn't match up with most people's as I think people are way too liberal with the word and no matter how many times you tell them it's purely semantics, they still take it as an affront. Now can we move on?

Well you're the one that brought it up to begin with, so you can't really blame people for jumping in to disagree with you, that's just life. The sports comparison is frankly nonsense, I don't think people are liberal enough with the word "art". If you don't want people disagreeing with you on that topic period then just don't talk about it at all, simple enough really.

[ABED]

No plenty of non-geeks as well. Time certainly isn't what one would call a "geek" publication.

That article is not a good argument. Their view of what makes something art isn't specific. It's "If you can observe the work of another and find in it personal connection, then art has been achieved." However, that also would include sports since audiences observe the work of another person and can feel connected. As profound as that experience is, I don't consider sports to be art. It's very nebulous and therein lies the issue. People have been trying to define art for generations. Mine doesn't match up with most people's as I think people are way too liberal with the word and no matter how many times you tell them it's purely semantics, they still take it as an affront. Now can we move on?

Well you're the one that brought it up to begin with, so you can't really blame people for jumping in to disagree with you, that's just life. The sports comparison is frankly nonsense, I don't think people are liberal enough with the word "art". If you don't want people disagreeing with you on that topic period then just don't talk about it at all, simple enough really.

But I didn't bring it up! Someone was confused because they thought my opinion was inconsistent. I clarified that my opinion hadn't changed, they misremembered a previous conversation I had with another board member. I corrected them, they asked what my opinion was, and I answered. Hardly what I would call bringing it up.

[Dragon Ball Ireland]

I know they do and you are just restating your previous point. It's also beside the point. Although i will say this, I doubt "most everyone" is actually true. Maybe nearly everyone here or geek circles.

No plenty of non-geeks as well. Time certainly isn't what one would call a "geek" publication.

That article is not a good argument. Their view of what makes something art isn't specific. It's "If you can observe the work of another and find in it personal connection, then art has been achieved." However, that also would include sports since audiences observe the work of another person and can feel connected. As profound as that experience is, I don't consider sports to be art. It's very nebulous and therein lies the issue. People have been trying to define art for generations. Mine doesn't match up with most people's as I think people are way too liberal with the word and no matter how many times you tell them it's purely semantics, they still take it as an affront. Now can we move on?

I'm far from being a big sports fan but would you not say that because athletes are performers (like musicians, actors, etc) they are playing a part in something a lot of effort was put into (like an album or movie) making their game a work worthy of appreciation or critique (i.e art)?

[ABED]

No plenty of non-geeks as well. Time certainly isn't what one would call a "geek" publication.

That article is not a good argument. Their view of what makes something art isn't specific. It's "If you can observe the work of another and find in it personal connection, then art has been achieved." However, that also would include sports since audiences observe the work of another person and can feel connected. As profound as that experience is, I don't consider sports to be art. It's very nebulous and therein lies the issue. People have been trying to define art for generations. Mine doesn't match up with most people's as I think people are way too liberal with the word and no matter how many times you tell them it's purely semantics, they still take it as an affront. Now can we move on?

I'm far from being a big sports fan but would you not say that because athletes are performers (like musicians, actors, etc) they are playing a part in something a lot of effort was put into (like an album or movie) making their game a work worthy of appreciation or critique (i.e art)?

Oh absolutely.

[Witty User Name]

Mainly books, though as I already mentioned there is the ''controversy'' of whether stuff like manga or comics can be defined as ''literature''.

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

Maybe I need some time to rethink my definition.

Thinking about it better, I would define Literature as "fiction and non-fiction written works".

[Drepanosaurus]

What do you take to be literature?

Mainly books, though as I already mentioned there is the ''controversy'' of whether stuff like manga or comics can be defined as ''literature''.

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

There's nothing wrong with watching shows made for kids (or reading comic books), but hopefully that's not all you watch. I like to mix it up. I like to read classics and schlock, and here's the thing, lots of works that are considered classics in both film and literature are often terrible. I still find the experience valuable, though.

There's even kids movies, books, and shows better than the stuff grows ups like. I take Harry Potter over 50 Shades of Grey and Dexter's Lab over Brickleberry. I even joy the Sonic movie over 1917 (Overrated movie BTW. Sam Mendes feels like a edgelord with some of his movies).

[Witty User Name]

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

Maybe I need some time to rethink my definition.

Thinking about it better, I would define Literature as "fiction and non-fiction written works".

Which maybe would exclude comic books (because they're drawings).

[Witty User Name]

Mainly books, though as I already mentioned there is the ''controversy'' of whether stuff like manga or comics can be defined as ''literature''.

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

There's nothing wrong with watching shows made for kids (or reading comic books), but hopefully that's not all you watch. I like to mix it up. I like to read classics and schlock, and here's the thing, lots of works that are considered classics in both film and literature are often terrible. I still find the experience valuable, though.

There's even kids movies, books, and shows better than the stuff grows ups like. I take Harry Potter over 50 Shades of Grey and Dexter's Lab over Brickleberry. I even joy the Sonic movie over 1917 (Overrated movie BTW. Sam Mendes feels like a edgelord with some of his movies).

I agree with this. Also, it's almost universally held that Hayao Miyazaki anime films are vastly superior to say, most of the ''grow up stuff'' that Hollywood puts out every year.

[Hellspawn28]

Mainly books, though as I already mentioned there is the ''controversy'' of whether stuff like manga or comics can be defined as ''literature''.

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

There's nothing wrong with watching shows made for kids (or reading comic books), but hopefully that's not all you watch. I like to mix it up. I like to read classics and schlock, and here's the thing, lots of works that are considered classics in both film and literature are often terrible. I still find the experience valuable, though.

There's even kids movies, books, and shows better than the stuff grows ups like. I take Harry Potter over 50 Shades of Grey and Dexter's Lab over Brickleberry. I even joy the Sonic movie over 1917 (Overrated movie BTW. Sam Mendes feels like a edgelord with some of his movies).

Harry Potter being better than 50 Shades of Greys is not a high feat. Comparing those two is a easy target because 50 Shades of Grey is already trash since day one. Same goes with shows like Brickleberry, Mr. Pickles, and reality TV shows.

[Planetnamek]

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

There's nothing wrong with watching shows made for kids (or reading comic books), but hopefully that's not all you watch. I like to mix it up. I like to read classics and schlock, and here's the thing, lots of works that are considered classics in both film and literature are often terrible. I still find the experience valuable, though.

There's even kids movies, books, and shows better than the stuff grows ups like. I take Harry Potter over 50 Shades of Grey and Dexter's Lab over Brickleberry. I even joy the Sonic movie over 1917 (Overrated movie BTW. Sam Mendes feels like a edgelord with some of his movies).

I agree with this. Also, it's almost universally held that Hayao Miyazaki anime films are vastly superior to say, most of the ''grow up stuff'' that Hollywood puts out every year.

Well most of them are, I found Ponyo a bit underwhelming and kind of forgettable compared to his other works.

If your definition of literature is as broad as "books" then I would say that it's an unequivocal yes, comic books are literature.

There's nothing wrong with watching shows made for kids (or reading comic books), but hopefully that's not all you watch. I like to mix it up. I like to read classics and schlock, and here's the thing, lots of works that are considered classics in both film and literature are often terrible. I still find the experience valuable, though.

There's even kids movies, books, and shows better than the stuff grows ups like. I take Harry Potter over 50 Shades of Grey and Dexter's Lab over Brickleberry. I even joy the Sonic movie over 1917 (Overrated movie BTW. Sam Mendes feels like a edgelord with some of his movies).

Harry Potter being better than 50 Shades of Greys is not a high feat. Comparing those two is a easy target because 50 Shades of Grey is already trash since day one. Same goes with shows like Brickleberry, Mr. Pickles, and reality TV shows.

I unironically like Brickleberry, it's a dumb show but hot damn does it make me laugh my ass off, i'm just a sucker for that kind of black comedy, definitely wouldn't put it on the same level of trash reality shows, as most of those require zero effort to produce anyways. Mr Pickles is a weird one, saw the first season and it had some laughs but was kind of hit and miss, now that the show has finally finished maybe i'll get around to watching the rest.