This is a decent if unspectacular apologia for comics. The title makes Versaci's thesis clear, but for anyone who missed it, he's careful to repeat rather more than necessary that "comics can do x and medium y can't, therefore comics have literary merit." It's not exactly a deep argument, and one can quarrel with the necessity of even making it, I think; do comics have to be "literature" any more than, say, film (one of his other comparators) does, in order to have artistic merit? The thesis occasionally leads Versaci into absurdly overstated claims, as when he argues that the Tom Mandrake-illustrated Classics Illustrated version of Hamlet can achieve effects impossible in the theatre. Yes, but so what? Does that make a comics version better than a performed version, in which all sorts of nuances not possible in comics can be used? It's cherry-picking, special pleading, call it what you will, and rather beside the point. Nevertheless, Versaci does have a refreshing enthusiasm for comics, and he offers several very interesting sections, especially in some of the historical context ones (e.g. when he compares 1940s/1950s war films and comics, explaining why the comics generally had more room for subversive takes on the subject than the films did). His style is easily accessible for non-academic readers, as well, which really should be the case for more academic books than it is. Comics enthusiasts and comics scholars alike ought to find at least something useful here.