Natalie wrote:

As I’ve been reading this, I’ve been wondering about what makes this a remarkable graphic novel or piece of literary text. I mean, Time made it its #1 book of the year in 2006. This is not to say that I don’t like the book! There is just a lot of text and the memoir itself seems steeped in literature. I was just wondering if this book would be the same (or better?) if it were just a straight up novel.

We had a class discussion about whether or not Jimmy Corrigan could be translated into film or novel form. The general consensus was that Jimmy was just too damn avant-garde and comic-specific to be anything other than a graphic novel. I don’t know if this is necessarily the case with Fun Home. To me, a lot of the things that Bechdel draws could also be effectively conveyed through vivid imagery (Everyonecan picture that slightly creepy Dad who wears cut-off jean shorts.).  This thought then makes me wonder if the book would be as heralded as it is if it were mere novel. Is what makes it original the fact that it’s a comic book?

Bechdel’s art style is very detailed at moments, but it is still very iconic and therefore I don’t know if the drawings really help evoke the extravagant nature of her house (except maybe the last panel of p. 17). The only real function I see in the art is that it helps make the literary illusions more subtle (so she doesn’t actually have to say, “Yeah, I masturbated to Anais Nin.”) Perhaps my opinion will change once I finish the book. What do other people think? Could Fun Homefunction pretty well as a straight up novel?

—————————————————————————————————————————

Now that we’ve discussed in class the plausibility of Fun Home being made into a novel, I’d agree with your hesitation to say that it would still be as critically acclaimed. I think that the art holds a TON of meaning, and while it could be translated into words, the work would probably lose some merit in doing so. I believe that Fun Home was so well-received due largely to it’s genre of graphic novel.

Fun Home stands out as a work comprised of very iconic, cartoon-y images, mixed with such verbose prose and heavy (emotionally) content. That combination of qualities is what makes it so great. Or so Time says. If you take the imagery aspect out of the mix, it’s not quite the same. You’d still be left with a novel that is verbose and has a deep story line, but without that third element of illustration, Fun Home wouldn’t be as admirable, I don’t think. I’m sure it could function alright, but that outstanding quality Fun Home possesses that won it such praise wouldn’t shine as brightly.