The Library

I'd say graphic novels don't particularly fit as literature because they're defined more by the visual element rather than by prose. But I suppose once Nic's used his stuck out tongue emoticon there's no arguing with the guy. Plus Alan Moore has more interesting philosophical ideas in his work than most modern novelists with only a few exceptions. 

If I had to name some I'd say

Batman: Year One
From Hell
Arkham Asylum 

would be the top few graphic novels I've read. 

With novels I'm not so much genre-prejudiced as I'm just a stickler about prose. Hence my sticking to the choices I made. While I do read other things than classics and whatnot, I can't say I like the writing itself. But genre fare has some of the best visuals, hence my complete lack of reservations about it in TV, movies and the few graphic novels I've read.   Anywho. I don't want to get all elitist and shit but Kairos asked me to chime in and now I can't unring that bell.

You should! I know they adapted it into a movie recently, but I read it years ago as a random pick from a local library. The first few pages were a struggle until I got used to POV of a young child, but later on it was a ride and couldn't put it down.

Haha, I think I'm probably the only person that felt bad for Harry instead of being pissed at him.

My ranking of the series would be:
The Best: 3 and 4
The Very Good: 1, 2, and 5
The Middling: 6 and 7

I don't want to claim that any of them were bad. In 6 I loved the beginning and the ending with the Inferi and you-know-which-character's death and the idea of Horcruxes, but the everyday life at Hogwarts missed me. All that talk of snogging, monsters in chest, and quiditch... I wanted more action, drama, and horror. I believe that JKR didn't have a plan how to resolve it and struggled with 7. I think she was going for the Horcruxes and the Peter Pettigrew effect with the Deathly Hallows and the reveal of what they are and who they belong to, but IMHO it felt a bit like asspull. The Peter Pettigrew reveal back in 3 was ingenious and I understand why we would never hear of Horcruxes before, but we should have had heard of the Deathly Hallows earlier, IMHO. I also really missed the Hogwarts. Still, it was good, and as opposed to many, I didn't hate the epilogue. 

I'm much less impressed with JKR's present work. I refuse to admit that the Cursed Child is canon. When I learnt about its plot the first time around, I though there must be a conspiracy to keep secret the true plotline, but nooooo. And the Fantastic Beasts... oh god. According to this newest addition to the lore, Harry should have died or become a deranged tornado before he got his Hogwarts letter. It's like she doesn't care what was established in the earlier canon anymore.

To me characterization, themes and plot have always been more important than prose. If the first three are excellent, I can accept prose that is not up to par with the greats.

I love Kazuo Ishiguro. The Remains of the Day is simply beautiful.

That's actually a really interesting question that is being debated a lot. I think nowadays the term "literature" is more inclusive than it used to be (because of post-structuralist notions). Today literary prizes are awarded to graphic novels, they are the topic of literature classes at university and they have entered the literary canon of many literature departments (including the one I'm studying at). More conservative voices are belittling this development of course, but that doesn't change the fact that it has been happening.

For me it's not anything against graphic novels. I'd actually like to be involved with writing one sometime because I have some ideas that I don't think I could translate into either film or prose. It's just that they're defined by different things so I'd put them in different categories. Though I guess it depends on how one is analyzing them. None of the English classes I took analyzed writing in a way I approved of, so I guess I don't greatly care what they teach under that umbrella anymore if they're not going to bother to do it right anyways. But I still want these definitions to be thorough enough to define the elements at play here. 

As for post-structuralism...