| Archive for Whatever Comics Forum for Whatevercomics.co.uk Discuss comics. Air your points of view. Fun for all the family! |
| Batmanuel |
The Graphic Novel Vs The Trade Paper Back.Just thought i would pick up on the Boy Wonders comment on Graphic Novels posted else where,I agree it is another thread to be told in another place, so here it is. Thanks for the inspiration BW The Graphic Novel Vs The Trade Paper Back. I am going to cast my mind back to the early eighties and the groundbreaking epic line published by Marvel Comics Group, during this period Marvel launched a new line of books called Graphic Novels the first being the Death of Captain Marvel, these stories were to be original works made especially for this format, these stories were to be a cut above anything we had seen before, they were to be bigger better, and special, so special that this new format which was bigger and better than a mere comic book was the only place to truly do justice to these stories. Now lets fast forward to 1989 and Arkham Asylum, the biggest selling Graphic Novel ever, which contained a pinnacle of excellence and which could only be found in this book as it was an original story, not a reprint. lets move on, its 2009 and any old shit can be repackaged and called a Graphic Novel, why? because you demanded it, but did you? sure its nice to have something really special, i myself own at least a few Graphic Novels, what i don't own is Trade paper backs which are not to be confused with the former. Boy Wonder:
I am going to skip the chapter 11 Marvel found itself in an focus in this remark which i feel pretty well sums it all up, TPB's makes them an awful lot of money, why on earth should we pay someone to do new stories when we can repackage any old shit, call it a Graphic Novel, and make money, the creators have been paid for it, haven't they, what more do you want. It is this bastardization of the Graphic Novel that i object to, i also object to being told by some dick that ... "oh i don't read comics, i read Graphic Novels i do" as is reading comics is something to be ashamed of. reading the sun is more shameful, reading the Sunday sport also, but comics? nothing wrong with that, i also take great pleasure in telling these kind of people that most of the so called Graphic Novels they have read were originally printed as comics, yes even the Watchmen, you pricks. so lets not confuse Graphic Novels with Trade paperbacks, as one is completely different from the other in much the same way as eggs are different to cornflakes. |
||||||
| Robin The Boy Wonder |
Hm.
I'm not sure where you're coming from. I think the vast majority of fans are fully aware of the differences between the Graphic Novel and the Trade Paperback. I've always referred to the packaged reprints as TPB's and the original novel-length comic stories as Graphic Novels. I think the vast majority of people who frequent here already know this. So I guess you're referring to the larger mainstream network and how stores like Booksellers refer to TPB's (ie. Graphic Novels). I agree there should be a differential here to clearly mark out to the public what these are; however, if it lures Joe Public to comics, should it then really matter what they're called (OK, to you and me it does but let's sidestep that comment for this paragraph). Of course, within that paragraph lies the real debate. People are clearly buying TPB's and/or Graphic Novels from stores like booksellers (HMV Maidstone recently got in on this act, btw); however, I wonder how many of these are then inspired to seek out their local comic book store (unless, of course, there isn't one locally and these plebs therefore have an excuse) and buy the original paper comics we digest each month. Booksellers are also clearly making money from them too and some stores even have impressive and well-thought out displays for them (Lakeside & Bluewater), while also maintaining an entire stand for independent TPB's also (and I'm not just talking Vertigo). Online stores like Amazon & Play are also benefiting, I daresay - while, in the meantime, local comic book stores suffer because they cannot simply make a profit on their TPB's by offering these at the same prices the competition can (and that brings us back to the Diamond thread, in a round-a-bout way). I think the other fear is that, soon, supermarkets could likely stock these (Watchmen, anyone?) and, of course, we can all think of one supermarket giant who apparently suffer in the credit crunch because they only make a profit of £2 billion rather than just the usual £3 bn. TPB's and/or Graphic Novels are readily available outside of the comic store but, again, is this a bad thing when it can open Joe Public's eyes to the greatness of our industry? Is this an indication of where the larger publishers are headed toward, particularly Marvel, who repackage everything in a TPB. Will we see a conscious publishing decision to release comics online in the first instance before later releasing them as a TPB? I'm trying to ask some questions here and spark debate (so sue me if you don't like it; I'm a formidable foe as Bats & Xeall will attest). Then we'll debate for a few (50) pages! Good start, Bats! Next? |
||||||
| Web of Fear |
I'm not sure quite what the debate is. Does whether you call them TPB or GN make a difference as long as it sparks interest, and usually any collected edition will state what it collects.
I do tend to think that TPB's are the way the industry is going. Marvel knocks them out pretty quickly after an arc completes, and I can't help thinking they represent better value for money, with a more durable format, easier to store and no adverts every other page (please don't kill me  ).
So far though, there are only two titles I'm buying in trade (Captain America and Powers), but the number of monthlies I buy is relatively few anyway. If I had a massive haul each month, I'd probably consider making the switch. JMO. |
||||||
| God |
Ahhh, this debate is fun. I had this with a few American friends of mine via Skype a few weeks back, one of whom collects just about everything in trade and the other of whom swears off of them as though Satan himself personally spat in every one. Me? I'm somewhere in between.
I got my start in to the Marvel universe as a kid watching the 60's series of Spider-Man and Spider-Man & His Amazing Friends on Sky Movies Gold during one beautiful, beautiful summer. The following year BBC started showing Spider-Man the 90's version and Marvel Comics UK started releasing Exploits of Spider-Man (which was, in 1996, replaced with Astonishing Spider-Man, which is still going today and I still collect) and my foray in to comics began. Unlike the other UK based Spidey comic (which I believe is Spectacular Spider-Man, which used to (and I think still does) print original, UK stories that don't follow the regular Marvel universe but instead follow on from the aforementioned 90's television series), Exploits, and later the "Collectors Edition" series of comics which include Astonishing, reprint US stories from about two years in the past. Right now, for example, they're just about to start the Civil War. The point in this is simple: if not for the reprints I'd never have gotten up to date with the regular American stuff, and the classic section of some of the reprints provides me with COLOUR versions of comics I'd never otherwise be able to read (Fantastic Four Adventures, for example, provides one current FF comic, one mini-series and one classic slot normally, and the classics have started at #1 and gone IN ORDER from then for about three years, which is just plain awesome). I get very few TPB's compared to normal comics (in fact only three that I can think of: Captain America, Nova and Ultimate Fantastic Four, and that's only because I was never the biggest Cap fan until recently, and it's easier to find the TPB's than it is the comics, I only have a passing interest in Nova so only pick them up when I have the extra money, and I decided to give UFF a shot in trade and just continued collecting the trades -- hell, Manny even talked me out of swapping over to the comics recently). I do honestly believe that even the most hardened of comics collectors should embrace SOME of the trades though. I'm not talking about the collections of arcs that have JUST been printed in the comics -- it's much more fun to collect them monthly than it is to wait four of five months (or one month in the case of Spidey) -- but what about the older stuff? I want with every fibre of my being the Infinity Gauntlet/War/Crusade books, for example, just because I'll NEVER find the comics for that. And I have the Secret Wars trade because again I'll NEVER find the comics for that either. Another advantage of the trades are that newer collectors, or people who have just started picking up a comic they haven't gotten before, have easy access to all the stories previously. Say, for example, that you wanted to start reading Invincible Iron Man starting at Worlds Most Wanted, which is #8. You COULD go and find #1-7, but if you can pull that off without the expense of shipping from e-Bay (Manny, did you block the spelling without the hyphen?!?!?!) then please god tell me where you went because I'm still looking for #5 and 6. Or, alternatively, you could pick up the trade and hey-presto, you're immediately caught up. I'll never agree that trades are a REPLACEMENT for comics because yeah sometimes it's quite cool to have the story arc in one, but then you miss out on the excitement that comes with the comics. You miss out on reading #7, seeing the cliffhanger at the end, and rushing to the store to get #8 when it comes out. When you can just turn the page and see the conclusion right there it kind of takes something away from it... Well, that's my 1.4p (dammit, my "two cents" have increased by almost half, stupid exchange rate) anyway. |
||||||
| Batmanuel |
Its a bit late and i need to sleep so i am going to just ad a bit here and a bit there for now, but thanks for the fantastic repose so far to this thread.
Boy Wonder:
Yes, i know that and you know that, we have been reading this stuff for years, its the new readers who are being had over with substandard reprinted material in place of real Graphic Novels. I see the majority of trades as nothing more than reissues, these are worthless chunks of paper that given time will just fall apart. however i still have my first printing of Arkham Asylum hard cover and still cherish it. Web of Fear:
Unfortunately it is, why? because the TPB is being pushed on us because it is highly profitable for the Publisher, and Distributor alike, the work within has already been paid for, and the publishing costs are low, due to this it can be pushed into the bookshops on a sale or return basis, the same bookshops that would not have touched the firm sale comic book with a barge pole, its also all about the profit, and the control of the once buoyant back issue market. Oh and the bizarre belief that some people have that it is somehow not childish to read comics if said comic have been collected into a book. God:
A Valid point, but i just find it so offensive when i open one of these old stories represented in a new trade, why you ask? because of the little attention given to the presentation of said stories, more than often these are reprinted directly or indirectly into the books the colours and presentation is crap and offensive to the eye. The only old comics i have seen reprinted into trades which are worth the admission fee are the Marvel Conan Comics reprinted by Dark horse, these are absolutely FANTASTIC, everything else i have seen pretty much sucks, including the overpriced so called Masterpieces. |
||||||
| CatFang |
Ooh -this is a good one. Why was I away for so long? Let's see if I can remember how to do this...
I think I've posted enough elsewhere on the forum about my thoughts on the term "graphic novel" - but in short I pretty much agree with Bats about it sounding like a justification, but I am not going to get into all that again. I think the word has passed into common usage, like it or not, and for most people the distinction between a TPB and a GN is not important. In any case there is a whole other discussion about individual issues being "written for the trade" - which is to say that the writer conceives of the story arc as a something that will eventually be collected as one book, and the fact that it is serialised at all is just a relic for the sake of nostalgia. Personally I think there is nothing wrong with that, but I know it causes great gnashing of teeth in some corners of the internet. Just one more word about why I think that people try to make a distinction between "comics" and "collections" - whatever name they go by - as I am in a less ranty mood than when I last posted about this.When people say "comics" they think of 22 - 24 page "floppies" as representing an entire medium. I find this strange. When people say "books" or "sculptures" or "paintings" they are not nearly this prescriptive in their thinking. I find this close tie between the artistic medium and physical format odd. As has already been said - were it not for trades, collections, reissues etc then I would never had the chance to read some things that have since become favourites of mine (such as Nemesis The Warlock). On the other hand you can't beat the full sensory delight that is taking my other Warlocks - those by Jim Starlin - out of their box (not only is the art mind blowing but they feel and smell so nice!). Of course, if it were not for the kind of personal recommendations you get at a good comic shop  I would never have found these.
Here's a question though - if I had the choice of a trade or back issues for something I haven't read before what would I pick? I don't think I can answer it, really. It depends on many things and why I want the book. If I "just want to know the story" a trade with no extras would do me fine. If it is something more I would probably want the back issues. If it is something I really love, who am I kidding, I would be getting the back issues, the "art of" book, the absolute edition... Yes, of course they are money spinners - sometimes I ask myself how many versions of Watchman, for example, we actually need in the house, but I love the big absolute editions with all the extras and the lovely glossy paper There is nothing wrong with money spinners though. The companies have to be getting enough in to give them breathing space to take chances on other, newer, things.
Another question is really "What are floppies good for that books are not?". I think the answer to that is "What they were designed for", which is, of course, on-going stories that are produced on a regular schedule and have a loyal audience that waits for each new issue in anticipation. Of course the form influences the storytelling structure so they lend themselves to the kinds of stories that are naturally episodic and have a pace and shape that leaves the reader satisfied by 22 pages but still wanting more. So far probably most of the greatest examples of the medium have been created to fit this "floppy shape" mostly for business reasons (regular revenue streams, how the logistics of the previews, printing and distribution have worked, creators needing regular paychecks) rather than artistic concerns, but things are starting to change. Looking at things from the publishing side for a minute - for an indie it is not much more expensive to print an "album" (I'm sticking with that to avoid the TPB/ GN issue every time I refer to a book length thing) than a floppy, not to mention the issues with distribution and visibility. This is getting a very long post now - and probably no one will still be reading - but wearing my Insomnia hat I'll tell you why we have decided to publish only in "album" format with no floppies. Bats - before I start this I want to point out that I know how much you do personally to let people know about new indie books etc - but you are may be unique, or at least in a tiny minority in the way you know your stuff and run your shop. Insomnia's format decision springs mainly from our focus on creators and our desire to deliver something different. Neither of these things will work with a "floppies" model for a smaller publisher because: * Different is understandably scary to readers and retailers on tight budgets * Monthly schedules are practically impossible for newer creators with other commitments. Both of those things contribute to a vicious circle that mean, in effect, you already have to be successful to be successful, retailers already need to know your books sell to try and sell your books and readers already need to know your work to know they want to give your work a try. Tricky, huh? 1) We can have our books carried by large book chains, independent bookshops, online retailers etc as well as specialist comic shops (sorry Bats!). 2) A book has a longer "shelf life" than an individual comic which has one month "on shelf" (probably tucked away in the Indie section in most shops that do not really support such books, but there is really nothing so wrong with that as shops have limited shelf space and have to have guaranteed sellers on show) before being consigned to the back issues boxes and no longer visible to potential customers. This is a big problem for indie books that people may not have heard of, or know to ask for. 3) Many retailers and readers are nervous about taking a chance on a new indie book - will it finish its run, will it come out regularly etc. It is much easier to try something new if you can get the whole story at once. 4)Reviewers like to read a complete story to make a complete review, especially when they may not have encountered the creative team before. Readers like reviews that cover the whole story. It is easier to decide if you want to buy something on a "this was great" than a "this looks promising". We let people read the first chapter for free as an ebook in most cases as well. 5) Our books are mainly for an older (15+) audience, and, within that, people who may not think of themselves as "into comics" or ever have been to a comic shop, but who are becoming more interested as the medium, and its potential, is getting more attention. I once heard Bryan Talbot say that when he was starting out his favourite film was "Don't Look Now" - and why couldn't we have that sort of artistry in comics storytelling? He was 30 years ahead of his time, and I still feel his question stands today. If you get the chance to hear him speak about this, what he has tried to achieve in his career, balancing his commercial and personal work etc at one of his talks drop anything else you had on that day and go. 6) The most important reason of all, though, is that we are trying to provide a new route into the industry for the many extremely talented creators who want to do something different / interesting / challenging with creator owned books, but who have not yet been able to (or perhaps don't even want to) go full time as comics professionals. By putting a complete book out in one go we are able to agree schedules with our creative teams that mean they can fit working on the books around day jobs, page rate work, other commitments etc without the pressure of a monthly schedule which would not be realistic for them. Also the "traditional routes" through the major publishers may not be suitable for the types of stories that some people want to tell - and you usually have to be a pretty big name before you get to use your own characters at larger publishers. 7) Finally it also allows us to include some of the "extras" like concept art, script pages, interviews with the creators etc that you normally have to wait (and buy a new edition) for. Phew! Carry on as you were! |
||||||
| Robin The Boy Wonder |
Well, this thread came to life, didn't it?
This begs the obvious question. Why should comic book publishers, like Marvel, not pursue the TPB market with an eye to making a profit?
Would that not suggest that the colours and crap presentation are indicative of the material being reprinted? Some examples would be useful. Don't get me wrong, I think a strong back-issur market is important; however, it's difficult to gauge how this has changed. We could condemn the TPB as the sole reason the back issue market collapsed; however, it's equally as important to consider the effect that whatever may have had on the medium. I've used whatever to great effect before to source back issues of comics that I simply couldn't find anywhere else (including Whatever Comics). I wonder if the back issue market isn't suffering as much as it has simply evolved. I found Cat's comments on Insomnia fascinating and I can certainly see her point. Insomnia have the potential to reach a far wider audience by printing in an 'album' format than they do by simply printing in 'floppies'. This should hopefully see the title attract greater attention and, hopefully profit, than it otherwise could as an ongoing series that has the potential to struggle to achieve a regular schedule. Of course, this being the case, we could then argue that Insomnia are printing Graphic Novels rather than TPB's... I disagree that TPB's herald the end of comic books as they currently are, I think. Presently, they're simply another format in which the industry can acheive an audience, and profit. It's not about to change, it's certainly not about to end and it will likely evolve still further. I do think companies like Marvel should change their policies slightly whereby they currently produce the TPB within months of the story ending in the comic. There are also examples where the story being told is better read in one shot, or as a TPB, than it is a monthly ongoing. Daredevil, I think, is better read in one shot; the same Captain America. And I found the same recently when I re-read some Ultimate Spider-Man from five years ago. This is indicative of certain writers too; Bendis almost certainly writes for the trade and Brubaker typically writes in arcs also. |
||||||
| God |
I've actually found I enjoy reading most of Bendis' stuff monthly (New Avengers and Ultimate Spider-Man especially, which I normally read a few hours after picking them up in the store, until I left the latter for a few months when I got distracted by other books) compared to others (Millar's recent run of FF, which so far has been two slightly-connected, four-issue arcs that were far more enjoyable to re-read as a whole than read in separate chunks). I'd imagine that almost everybody is pretty much forced to write in arcs these days. That's why I still like Tom DeFalco and his Spider-Girl title, solely because it doesn't run in arcs (well, not as much anyway) and contains a hell of a lot more "one-shot" style stories, rather than having the same villain for five issues. Hell I still like DeFalco in general, I'm probably one of the few people who actually still remembers the 90's "Clone Saga" in Spidey comics with a smile on my face. But that's an entirely different subject for an entirely different thread. ...also, I need to post more. Look at my pathetic post-count. Not at all befitting of The Almighty! 
|
||||||
| CatFang |
It will be interesting to see how/if this changes as Insomnia grows and gets known to creators. At the moment most (but not all) writer submissions we get in are "mini-series" style - eg 4 - 12 issues making a complete story. These are perfect to put out as a book, and sometimes a longer story can be split into "volumes", which I guess is kind of like an on-going series of albums! Of course, as yet no writers are coming up with scripts "for Insomnia" so they are writing for the shape of floppies as they are pitching to lots of publishers, most of whom work on the single issue model. When we sign them they can either keep the "issues" as they are as "chapters" or they have the space to make structural adjustments, given the new shape of the book - which most do and it is making for some interestingly shaped stories. Personally I think that story structure is an extremely important (but often hidden) art and that different pacing really affects the experience of the story much more deeply than many people realise. I think publishers need to do more thinking about the right sort of release schedule / format for books and not try to get a "one size fits all" as all you end up with is either things that could have been much better if done differently crow-barred into an ill fitting shape, or else lots of good solid very similar feeling stuff. Think about films for a minute. Sometimes you can see a brilliant short animation of 15 minutes, sometimes you can watch a 12 hour Lord of The Rings Marathon - and everything in between. Sometimes the length / format is even explicitly used in programs like 24 or films like Running Time. No one would think of saying "a film must be 90 minutes long and have the char chase at the 25 min point, the romantic scene at 45 mins etc..." Actually I did hear that Miramax told Peter Jackson that he had to make all of LOTR into one 90 minute film if he wanted to make it with them - I bet they are kicking themselves now as they watch New Line skipping off the bank! Of course manga are a whole different kind of thing again. I don't read much of it, to be honest, but we have all the Lone Wolf and Cub, Path of The Assassin etc - and we are looking at 28 300 page books for Lone Wolf and that is not uncommon if you look at manga shelves. Where do they fit in this naming system? The same with the big European series that last for many years and come out as beautiful series of books.
That's ok - we understand it must be a busy time of year for you
|
||||||
| Robin The Boy Wonder |
Let's start with CatFang's well-written (as always) post:
Insomnia sounds quite interesting, for starters. Both from a fanboy perspective and also a more personal one. But that's something for another time and place, I think. I have to agree with you concerning story structure. I'll use some of my own personal experience to explain. A few years ago now, I wrote an online Spider-Man fan-fiction on Newsarama. I started writing it as a little bit of a giggle with a semi-serious interest. I just bashed them out and, hey presto, there we were, all presented in a post. And then came the feedback, almost all of it constructive. It made me think a lot about what I was doing, how I was presenting the story and how I wanted the story structured. I tried to 'write for the trade' by telling a story in six-issue arcs... and this was incredibly difficult. I really struggled to cram a Mac Gargan Venom story into two issues (it needed more). After that, I relaxed more and established a full plot before settling on a possible number of 'issues'. It allowed me to tell a story at a pace I was more comfortable with, and one I felt better suited the story rather than cramming a number of set-pieces into one issue. This also worked the other way, of course. This actually sounds (and perhaps reads) as slightly foolish now, but I guess my point is that I learned a lot about structuring a story and relaxed when I understood that it was best for me to tell the story how best I thought it should be told and presented rather than give myself a rigid structure to adhere to. This may sound long-winded but I'm finding it the only way for me to equate your comment on structure to my own admittedly modest level of writing experience. To sum up: Structure = Important Your film example is a very potent one too.
Yes, you are one of the few... and the Boy Wonder stands with God (this time). I still have fond memories of The Clone Saga... and I still have a few back-issues to track down when I find the time. |
||||||