Graphic Novels

CatFang · Graphic Novels

This is just a mini-rant, although it has been building up for some time....

I really, REALLY hate the term "Graphic Novel".
It sounds like an excuse, or an apology, or a justification.

Ok, the term "comics" is not a good one to describe the incredible diversity of storytelling styles and subjects in the medium - sounding, as it does like "funny cartoon books for kids".

Also the use of one term, "comics", to cover every kind of story told in the medium also helps to further the perception that all comics are the same. Saying "I like comics" is as meaninglessly general a statement as saying "I like novels" or "I like films". People don't do that. They talk in genres, or writers, or directors, or...well, you get the idea.

I think because of this, the term "comic-book" has become a perjorative description of stereotype laden, 2 dimensional unskilled storytelling. That is insulting. It is also used because non-comics readers do not know any better.

However - I don't think they are going to take the time to claw their way out of ignorance if all comics readers do is whine "oh, it's not really like a comic as such...it's more of a graphic novel...". (which, incidentally, has become a joke in itself) Why this constant, desperate, neediness to be given perceived artistic weight or value by association with other formats? If a comic is a worthy, credible work of art it should be able to stand on its own two feet and speak for itself.

My other pet hate related to this is why do highstreet bookshops (and we all know not to buy our comics from bookshops of course) have a "comic shelf" where they stick everything in a big scruffy pile with rolled spines and turned corners? I think the comics shold be in the appropriate fiction sections. Would you put Love in the Time of Cholera next to Bravo Two Zero because they are both "printed lines of text" in format?

Maybe a competely new and different word is needed. I have no idea what it would be. Other media look for new words to make themselves stand out. They don't want to be described as "like that other thing, kind of..."

In any case - I assume that in invoking the "novel" part of "graphic novel" the comics apologist is meaning "literary fiction" as they now label that section in bookshops - in a move to differentiate "proper writing" from the latest Jeffery Archer or Sex and Shopping (cowardly porn for housewives) "bonkbuster".

Of course the term "novel" was a badge of scorn itself when it was first coined - with novels being considered "frivolous entertainment for the weaker sex".

People should be proud to say they "read comics" (until and unless a completly new and better word is coined) and if others misunderstand they should show them something good to read to change their perceptions.

If the medium wants to be taken seriously alongside other art or entertainment choices it needs to stop begging and grovelling, speak in a grown up voice and grow some damn balls!

Ah - that feels better

Xeall

RUN she'll kill us all.

I never know what a graphic novel is. Almost like people who call anime manga, i feel like i haven't been informed yet (not that an anime company calling itself manga helped). I always have refered to then as trade paper backs. or tb. not the illness.

I think if films like watchmen really made a point in advertising that it is a comic book they might be picked up more. If spider-man stuck to the fiction bringing in some of the darker and thought provoking side (of old) then people might start buying it monthly.

I got back into comics with the release of ultimate spider-man in tb. then i regularly picked up the tbs as released and eventually broadened out into the tb's of 616 over the years i missed, eventually picking up the civil war and then i was hooked in.

tb's or graphic novels are a great idea, i don't have anything against them, alot of people aren't willing to wait several months to finsh a story and tbs give them the chance to read it as they like. Also we know how hard it is to pick up back issue's sometimes. I actually missed new avengers for the most part and picked them all up that way rather than hunting down every issue. Not all of us are collectors and in it for the story rather than the value.

my rant over now

CatFang

Just to be clear -

I don't have anything against TPB collections or full length stories brought out as complete books - I have lots of both - and am working on two. That is what got me thinking. I was talking to someone about my art and they said "oh, graphic novels, you mean" and then were rewarded with a lecture They were probably only feigning interest, as well. That will teach them to be polite! Laughing

I just object to people who think they have to try and associate them with "novels" to make them sound "proper and respectable".

They aren't novels (just as film is not "cinematic novels" and songs aren't "melodic novels")- they are a thing in their own right.

Web of Fear · Re: Graphic Novels

CatFang · Re: Graphic Novels

Batmanuel

CatFang:

Reaper

Tbh the term doesn't bother me either way, I know Mannys sentiments on the whole graphic novel issue as I'm sure do the rest of them. In one respect it's good if people are buying them because it's an easy step into the world of collecting as we do.

Sadly some people just can't differentiate the term comic from the Beano or Buster.

Batmanuel

Reaper:

Reaper

Probably, though I was agreeing/confirming one of Catfangs initial points.

Web of Fear

CatFang

Right - I don't think either works well as "comics" is not really a wide enough term. Helpfully I don't have a suggestion for a good alternative. I was posting an opinion, not offering a solution Laughing

I way prefer the term "comicbook" to "graphic novel" though - as they are not "novels". "Book" is a different matter - there are all sorts of thing that are "books" eg instruction books, guidebooks, novels etc

At least "comic book" acknowledges its history.

I read a novel fairly recently ("the Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana" by Umberto Eco - check it out, it's really great) and I think that has a better claim to being a "graphic novel" as it is novel with graphic reproductions in it. Not illustrations. It is basically the story of an old man who awakes from a coma with amnesia and he is trying to piece his memory back together from scraps of comics, album covers, posters etc that are in the attic of his childhood home. So that is a "novel, with graphics".

Xeall

comic collection?
comic series (as tbs are generally a story run)
comic compendum?

just trying to come up with an alternative rather than, just moan about it. And when i have found my alternative i shall make every company change to conform or i'll lock them in prison. Nah thats a crap idea that only a w***er would do..... Razz

CatFang

All those are fine, or tpb, for a collection of a series that originally came out in parts.

Where I think a word is missing is for complete comics stories published as a book from the outset.

Robin The Boy Wonder

An interesting topic this; one where those concerned have varying opinions on the subject too.

Firstly, I tend to agree with CatFang here although I may just take things a step further. The term 'comic' is somewhat derivative of the industry, especially when one considers the wide diversity that a 'comic' can offer. The majority offer super hero story-telling; however, 'comics' have the potential to tell any story in any genre, and without the limitations of, say, a budget.

A big-budget, blockbuster film, in today's CGI-driven age, for example, is only ever as good as its budget. A certain scene may be undoable as it's simply not financially viable; this doesn't apply in a 'comic' as anything can be done, budget be damned. This is but one example and not necessarily a good one but I hope you see where I'm going with it.

I can almost see Batmanuel screaming at his computer when I mention the term 'comic' as derivative. Well, here's why...

What's the actual defintion of the word 'comic'? Well, it means 'funny, comedian, related to comedy'. It's used as an adjective for either 'being funny' or 'related to comedy'. So far, this has nothing to do with what we read, does it?

Only when you use the word 'comics' will the more familiar graphic strip with which we all know and love come to the fore. Even then, historically, comics dealt with telling stories of a humourous nature, hence their given name of 'comics'.

Today then, the terms as they are precisely known, 'comic' or 'comics' bear little relation to what we actually read on a periodical basis (weekly, monthly, annually) and do very little to describe the varying genres that stories can be told within. Does the term adequately describe, say, Watchmen? The Dark Knight Returns? These are the two shining examples of 'comics', yet both do little to act as a defintion for the word itself.

CatFang is spot on with her assessment of 'graphic novels'. My understanding of a 'graphic novel' is that it's a longer, and bound incidentally, original story; one that is told in one volume rather than sequentially. 'Trade Paperbacks' act as the term to describe bound works of once-serialised comic book stories.

I've always used the term 'comic books' myself rather than the term 'comics'. It appears far more respectful to what I read than the more misleading 'comics' (oh, how Bats is going to kill me; how his eyes must be bleeding with rage right now; how great is his anger, so easily contained by that masterful creature known only as 'The Wife'; how he must desire beer right now... Smile

).

If, however, I were to use a term to describe the medium in and of itself...? Then I would humbly suggest 'graphic fiction'. To me, this ably describes everything that the industry currently produces (even its so-called non-fiction works) and lends a certain, perhaps more mainstream friendly, gravitas.

In today's world where 'comics' have the potential to reach a far-wider audience than ever before, whether it be through film, TV, video games, downloading from the internet or even by simply stepping through the doorway to your local comic book store, I think it's about time we re-assess our place, and quickly; after all, as Mark Millar warned about six months ago, a time of growth, expansion and popularity within the medium usually leads to a financially-difficult one shortly after. If the high we're currently experiencing is to properly last, then the medium needs to look inward next to continue its expansion outward.

And if I find the time, I'll post a link to that interview. It was damned interesting reading.

Batmanuel

ok , Ive had a little rant, and although i have been offline for a couple of days due to
1: a buggered up Modem on my works machine.
2: Diamond ordering, (its that time of the month Crying or Very sad

do they do a tampon to stop your wallet hemorrhaging?)
and having read comments posted there are a couple of things that in my haste i forgot to mention.
So here goes from one who knows Wink

When the term Graphic Novel was first bandied about in the early eighties (thats pre 1985 for the thick Laughing

) it was suggested that only stories that were to big, to awesome, with art that was the best and the most fantastic, would grace the pages of said new format, this really was the place where those who had made it, could flex and charge the additional buck for what was to be deemed as the best of the best...

This concept has now been eroded like so much else in our lives, why?

let me explain the basic principles...

Batman: Arkham Asylum.... Graphic Novel
Batman Begins And Other Tales Of The Dark Knight.... Not

Superman: Peace on Earth.... Graphic Novel
Superman: the Wedding and Beyond.... Not

Art Spiegelman's MAUS.... Graphic Novel
The Watchmen .... Not
Oh and i can almost hear the ROAR of disapprovement Laughing

but bear with me.

Yo see, its simple, if there is indeed such a thing as a graphic novel, then surly it stands to reason that it would not have been, or ever had been a comic book. (its a bit like finding out you girlfriend used to be a porn-star Laughing

)
If its a graphic novel, then its a graphic novel, if its a comic book then its a comic book.
if it was originally conceived as a graphic novel ie: Arkham Asylum then its a Graphic Novel.
if its a bunch of collected comics rebound into a book, the its either a Comic Book Collection or a Trade Paperback. ie. The Watchmen.

and on a final note

Sin City ... Graphic Novel
The Collected Strangers in Paradise Vol 1... Not.

spot the deliberate mistake.

see nothing escapes my wrath Wink

Robin The Boy Wonder

Isn't that what I said in my post... just in fewer words...? Wink

Batmanuel

Boy Wonder:

Reaper

Can't be bad?! The entire fabric of reality is TEARING!

Batmanuel

Dont even get me started on that fabric of reality malarkey Laughing

CatFang

Phew - that's fine - they're sure to disagree about the fabric of reality and that will mean it stitches itself back together.

Robin The Boy Wonder

Yeah... that fabric of reality thing...

We Starkists are planning to control it and all eternity itself.

You will all register and bow down before me!!!

BWAH-HAH-HAH!!!! Twisted Evil

Batmanuel

NOOOO, The fabric belongs to US.
we will control all you Starkest's yes we will,
you really think this registration thing was your idea didn't you.
well we have you now, we know where you all live Bwa ha ha ha HA ... sucker punched Laughing

CatFang

In position.
Back windows covered by Stinger Missile Launcher.
Awaiting orders.

Corinthian's RippedTshirt

Interesting topic,but inevitably was going to go down the old route of what people's misconception of what comics are.

I left your shop with amongst other things Wolfmen "there you go a graphic novel for 3 quid" Obviously the context of the original post isn`t so much about the term graphic novel.I can empathise with this situation and the annoying customer.For myself I always look for graphic sorry ahem this format for example... of the few comics I collected in the 80`s I recently dug out Phantom and realised the fourth and last one was missing.It would have been stacked nicely as a complete series on my bookshelf had it been a Twisted Evil

graphic novel.

As for the term comic or comic books you could also say movie is a little outdated but we all know what it means.My missus' incessant watching of inane programmes like Hollyoaks or anything with a panel of judges causes much conflict in our house.Her response "at least I don`t read comics " is well....comical.I simply reply if you`re watching tv does it mean you like Tweenies? Enough said.
The very reason I got into comics the last two years was over a debate with a friend and telling him I don`t read comics because I don`t like superheroes.The next day he handed me a well worn copy of Watchmen.
I was blown away by it,I`d forgotten what growing up in the 80`s was like.The paranoia of the commies coming was something I`d forgotten all about.Watching the news with the parades of missiles up and down Red Square and Alan Moore had it all there on a crumpled newspaper headline blowing up the street in the background.The story and the art hit me all at once,I`d never read anything like it before.On returning the book my mate said "see? you could never make that into a film"
I see further up in this topic that it has been made into a film.I neither wish to see it or any other film adaptation.But then how many films have I watched unaware that the plot comes from a comic book?

I still maintain I don`t like superheroes,but then I`ve just finished Wanted.......... my word what a blinder!!

Finally I don`t think I like the term graphic novel either,primarily because it`s just another excuse for Waterstones to pile their shelves full of what sells and bollox to the punters.

Batmanuel

1st of all, welcome to the forum.
And what a blinder of a post you placed as a starter, the fact that you picked up on this particular subject is interesting, as are your observations.
First off

CatFang

Welcome Corinthian (I think I have been here long enough to say that now) Laughing

It must be said that when I started the thread I was having a semantic hissy fit - and you are right, of course, that the same arguments can be applied to terms like "movies" - with comics I think it is just unfortunate that the same sound is used to mean "funny".

On a slight tangent I saw Richard O'Brien on one of those More 4 interstitials recently saying how a comedian or comic actor who can make you laugh for 2 hours is not considered a "great artist" in the same way as someone who can make you cry for the same length of time. It is true. Why do we value more highly as "art" things that produce negative emotions rather than postive? Anyway...

But the points about a Phantom "graphic novel" collection that would have been on your shelf, and the discussion about comics piled up in Waterstones or discounted in Tescos is a whole other thing. This is much more a question about the economic models of the industry (and customer preferences). If a thing is to survive through mass popularity (volume sales rather than exclusive high prioe items) then it will necessarily become commoditised.

People are used to reading stories in books all at once, not getting an episode every month, and if they are going to read comics then they will want to read them like that as well. The same thing is happening with tv series where even tv channels have "box set" nights or weekends where an entire season of a show is shown back to back.

I don't know what the economics of trades vs floppies is (but judging from the fact that trades don't carry third party ads and they need to pay once for distribution / marketing etc I would hazard some guesses!)

Whether or not you think this is a good or a bad thing depends where you sit in the supply chain I guess.

Although Bats is trying to change my mind by showing me beautiful art and mad stories from the 70s I don't really like superheroes either.

I think that they cannot properly be considered "heroes" just for having a power - but I have posted lots about that elsewhere so won't repeat it all again here!

Bats - if you were a prositute you would not a choice of only "going with the good ones" so back you go and bend over for "Brand New Day" Twisted Evil

norsefire1

i am going to throw me 2p into the ring . (oh hi there corinthian, welcome to an awesome fourm)

first off i never thought i would read the name Richard O' (would you start the fans please Exclamation

) brian name sounded out on this subject, but you live, you learn Smile

although i think the lines between "high art" and rubbish are being blurred due to the fact that for the most, your average man on the street (and we all know what johnny Rotten had to say about the average man on the street) wants nothing more to be entertained, does not want to think or be changed by it. just wants to be entertaind by little more then a freakshow, where they can vote to live though vicarious occasion by picking a winner out of the ship of freaks.

i think that Catfang is right about what chains such as waterstones are doing. as far as economic models go

as for the issue of reading or viewing something all at once, i will sometimes wait for a title to be collected into a GN, i like being able to have a collection of something, not haveing to wait. i do the same with t.v although i think it is the completist in me, good to have the whole thing at me fingertips. although i am not sure by doing this i am hurting sales of the single issue Question

(which i tend to by on going titles in ) a beast i do not want to see die out.

as for the whole superhero thing, i am with batmanuel here, i can not understand why people say they dont like superheroes, i think the issue is far more complex in what makes a superhero then just haveing a power. so is slaine not a superhero Question

on the subject on being a comic prostitute, i guess i am one as well, for me its down to artist and writer, if someone i like writes for a label i dont know our i am not a fan of, i will pick it up on the merits of the writer or the art. hell one of the things that made me get into heroes at last was that some of the "chapters" where penned by jeph loeb. although catfang has a point with the whole "going with the good ones" does mean one gets burnt every now and again.

waffle

Not having the same historical and sociological relationship to comics as many others, I really don't have an issue with the term graphic novel.

It matters not that 'novel' was once used to describe inferior forms of literature. Words develop. These days, writers aspire to be great novellists. In fact, I quite like the image that saying graphic novel conjures up - I'm so clever, I can handle words AND pictures.

If saying I like graphic novels can help the layperson understand what I'm into without having to go into tons of detail, then great.

Also - to most people (me included, even some time into my comic reading career) TPBs and graphic novels were the same thing. It's not necessarily known that single editions are reprinted as complete stories - and when they are, sans-art, why not call them graphic novels. Despite the nature in which they were originally presented, there really isn't much of a difference (aside the obvious), between Watchmen and Maus. Both are sprawling, genre-defying stories, told amazingly using drawings and speech bubbles.

Semantics shemantics.

Batmanuel

CatFang:

CatFang

Graphic Novels

Re: Graphic Novels

Re: Graphic Novels