Sadness, illustrated.

I don't have much to say about David Small's graphic novel memoir, Stitches.*

Small, an artist and illustrator,** did not, by all conceivable standards, have a happy childhood. His mother and father had an unhappy marriage; his mother had all kinds of issues of her own (including health issues: she was born with her heart on the opposite side of her chest, and personal problems: Small describes "her furious, silent withdrawals" that "could last for days, even weeks at a time"); and he suffered from multiple illnesses, including a sinus condition, which his father, a radiologist, treated himself, with (you got it) radiation. The end result of that? At the age of 11, Small developed a cyst on his neck, which wasn't removed until three and a half years later, and which of course was cancerous.

That's right: his dad gave him cancer.

Why don't I have much to say? Well, other than saying that you should read this book (which I am indeed saying), I just don't WANT to talk about it. There are a few topics I just don't like to explore. Kids suffering is one of them. Health problems of any kind and the scariness of various health procedures is another. And the graphic novel format of this story? Not making it any easier to take, really. Not that I think it should be easy to take. But for some reason I just never have a lot to say about graphic novels of the nonfiction type. I always find them interesting; they just never stand out as my most memorable reads, even when they are very memorable. Maybe the pictures make them too REAL, and not enough like books? I don't know. Evidently I'm just too much of a text girl, and that's that.***

*I know, it doesn't happen very often, so try not to fall over in shock.

**He often collaborates with his wife, children's author Sarah Stewart, as he did on the wonderful picture book The Library.

***Goodness, evidently I had more to say than I thought about this one.

Comments

[Rachael]

I try to read a graphic novel every couple months, just to know what's what when the patrons ask. I read this last month and was suitably horrified. Very well written and illustrated, extremely moving.

But I agree with you about not really wanting or needing to discuss it (or any of them, really). Even when they're moving (and I found Stitches very moving in the moment), there just never seems to be much substance there.

I think for me the "challenge" is that I like to paint the pictures myself, internally as I read. Having the pictures already drawn makes reading a far more passive act, at least in graphic novels. Oddly enough, I love kids picture books and don't have the same problem with the illustrations detracting from the story. No idea why.

[Robert Brown]

I'm a snob. I'll always think of comic books as kid stuff, no matter what's in 'em.

[Jessica]

"Comic books." Hmph!

I love graphic novels. I also love memoirs. I thought "Stitches" and "Disappearance Diary" and "Fun Home" were all totally successful. There's just something so moving about the facial expressions, and one tiny pen mark in the corner of an eye or mouth can say something that would take, say, Mary Karr ten thousand words to convey. (In Small I cite the "enema" scene for an expression of ultimate terror that took only a single frame).

People who read more text and less image might, perhaps, focus more on the dialogue in a graphic novel rather than the illustrations. Not sure.

[Citizen Reader]

Rachael,
I too like to see what's out there in graphic novels, particularly in nonfiction. I think they're okay substance-wise; "Fallout" by Jim Ottaviani is one of the meatier science/history books I've seen. In the end I think it is simply too disconcerting for me to read and look at pictures at the same time ("photo sections" in the middle of stereotypical NF are a different proposition); I literally feel that different parts of my brain are struggling to understand both the text and the pictures, and it's too much for me to do at one time--it takes me out of the reading too much. This is also why, I would guess, that I don't often read much of the informational tags in art museums; I just want to sink into the pictures and forget the words. Perhaps I just don't have a very integrated brain?

Hey Bert,
Snob away. But I definitely wouldn't give "Stitches" to any kids. Way too disturbing, especially in picture form.

[Citizen Reader]

Jessica!
And I support your love of graphic novels. For the most part, I can't say I love them or that I love the format, but I recognize that many of them are very well-done (this differs from NF books I dislike and I think are poorly done; sadly, there's a lot of those).

God, the enema picture was one of the most disturbing ones for me. Oof. That's gonna stick with me for a while. The pictures were fantastic; so was the text. I think it's really just too hard for me to take them both in at the same time. Maybe on the first pass through I should just read the words, then go back through for the pictures. But that doesn't seem right either.

[Tripp]

And hey, what's wrong with plain old comic books? The Ultimates, Criminal, and Y: the Last Man beat 90% of the crime and sci fi genre for sheer awesomeness.

[Rachael]

Enema picture? Hm. Will have to allow myself to be disturbed by that book.

I worry about myself sometimes.

[Jessica]

@Tripp: What I meant by snorting at the phrase 'comic books' is that not all 'sequential art' should be referred to as a 'comic book.' It trivializes what can sometimes be superlative works of art. I prefer the term 'graphic novel' while realizing that we need something better for nonfiction sequential art narratives.

[Tripp]

Hey no worries Jessica! I took no offense and I agree that graphic novel is a better term for the many literary works that use the format. I was just taking to the ramparts in the defense of genre.

[Beth]

Graphic novels are simply a format, a way to tell a story, like paintings or film or novels. I love comic books, but to say they're kids' stuff is foolish. If you don't want to read them, don't read them.

I have Disappearance Diary on my wishlist :) I haven't read it yet, and I can't wait. I enjoy superhero books a great deal as well; in fact I love to read and watch and listen etc. to pretty much every genre and format. It's all about eclectic quality for me. I loved Stitches and was thoroughly disturbed, as I should have been. Anyone who likes graphic novels or graphic NF should read I Kill Giants, which is brilliant and beautiful.

Can't wait for the Geary book. I've never read one of his!

[Citizen Reader]

I'll say this for graphic novels (I just don't think I can get myself to call them "nonfiction sequential art narratives," that's a mouthful!) they always are good for a discussion. I'll leave this one largely alone, as superheroes, comics, what have you, are not really my thang (I like losers and villains, and they just don't win often enough for me in the comics), but I will say I can't wait to talk over the Geary! This has been very educational.

[lesbrarian]

Just read it last night. Liked it, didn't love it. It won't leave a lasting impression. Like everyone else here, I don't have much to say about it (though this is not always the case with GNs: I could write a whole these on my thoughts about Neil Gaiman's Sandman series).

[lesbrarian]

"I could write a whole THESIS" is what I meant to say. Evidently I should proofread myself better. And maybe I should stop lying, because honestly I'm never writing one more word for scholarly publication, ever, unless it pays very, very well.

[Citizen Reader]

Lesbrarian,
No worries about typos. There's always at least one in my posts that I'm too lazy to go back and fix. It's a blog, and no one's paying me for it, hence my "close enough" attitude.

It won't stick with you, huh? Interesting. I think I'll remember parts of it better than I will any of the first volume in that "Sandman" series, which I freely admit I wasn't really intelligent enough to enjoy or understand. I am destined to never really understand the appeal of Neil Gaiman, ever.