Graphic Memoirs Come of Age

Is William Bradley challenging that Graphic Novels do not exist? Although he breaks down different types of novels, he constantly brings up the fact that it is actually a memoir. From what I understood from one of his arguments is that all graphic novels tell a deeper story. While discussing Spiegelman’s “graphic novel” he writes, “While this is certainly true, applying the label “graphic novel” to a work like Maus ignores the fact that it is not, strictly-speaking, a novel. It’s a memoir. Or a work of literary journalism. Or an extended essay. Or some combination of the three.” This leaves me to the assumption that graphic novels have a deeper underlying meaning to it than the comic itself by referring to them as “literary journalism”, “extended essays”, or a “memoir”.

While discussing Bechdel’s  struggle of writing her narrative he writes, ““You have too many strands,” her mother tells her—too much of what Joan Didion might call “shifting phantasmagoria.” This is, ultimately, every memoirist’s dilemma—life doesn’t really follow a narrative pattern. You have to decide what to cut, what to emphasize, and what really mat- ters—what you want your reader to understand about yourself and your experience.” This insists that her narrative is more than a narrative; it’s a memoir. Bechdel struggled with developing her story because of trying to follow a structure without realizing that there is a deeper importance to structuring her story, which is holding on to the important parts of her story.

So, is Bradley saying that graphic novels all have hold some type of personal accounts that weave in-between the context of the stories as the writer develops the novel?

Empowerment Through Mythical Imaginings

This reading was very easy to follow.  Johnston has clear structure. I found it interesting that instead of Kingston writing a direct memoir about her life in America from China, Johnston gives small summaries of the rest of the memoir and connects that the myth is used for the reader to understand Kingston's upbringing in China. With this connection, Kingston reflects on her roots and adapts to her life in America. Johnston writes, 

"By laying claim to her own language, her own voice, Kingston refuses the role of racial or sexual Other invents  herself as speaking subject. While dramatizing the movement from silence to articulation, she may appear to be moving away from her roots in the Chinese and Chinese-American tradition, moving toward and essentially American "logic" that seems a necessary part of her American success. " 

What I concluded from this point is that when we adapt to a new culture, is it mandatory to be able to switch off our roots? What I mean by that is, Kingston had to be flexible and hold on to her morals but she  had to put "American logic" first to be able to succeed. Although some may conclude that we don't have to or can't ignore our roots, if you are of a different culture, is this concept really "necessary" for success?