I can see the distinction because the author who uses the written word exclusively is building a mental image in the head of the reader and letting them fill in the gaps. If he's good at it, the reader will see what the author intends, while still being able to maintain his own image in his mind. In other words, the author is engaging the reader's imagination so that the reader can "see" the same thing, just with some slightly different details. If you've ever had a discussion with someone over a scene in a book that the both of you have read, it's very likely that the two of you will have the basic image down, but you may have wildly different details about that scene.

 

The author who uses words and images does not do this though. He is forcing the image onto the page and replacing the reader's imagination with his own. The reader simply has to look and absorb the image and there is little to no effort done by the reader other than critique.

 

When I was younger, I loved Comics and the art in them. I just thought the images were so cool. But as I began to read better and better books, and become a better reader myself, I got bored with comics. I was being forced to see things a certain way and I didn't like it. Something was missing. Now, is it literature? Yes, I can agree that a graphic novel is literature that uses visual images as well as the written word in order to tell a story. But to me, telling a story is only half of what a writer is trying to do. Anyone can yell on a street corner and tell a story. A great storyteller uses words to engage the reader in order to get him to see the image in his own mind. That's what I want.

---