shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 4, 2016 22:29:19 GMT -5
We got into this last RaGNW and never really resolved it. How do we define a "Graphic Novel," and what was the first?
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Feb 4, 2016 23:20:59 GMT -5
I dislike that term and rarely use it. To me, it's an attempt to make comics appear more legitimate to those who would ordinarily dismiss them, giving the appearance of serious literary value by using a more sophisticated-sounding term. I believe comics can have serious literary value, but the medium should be accepted on its own merits and not because you dress it up using fancy words.
When I do use the term, it's usually referring to works that were intended to be released as a single completed volume, rather than a work that collects previously serialized material. It seems silly to refer to the latter as a "graphic novel" because it's just a series of comic books in collected form. So I take issue with works like Watchmen and DKR being referred to as graphic novels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 4, 2016 23:25:53 GMT -5
They're funny books have have moved on up to a deluxe apartment in the sky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 23:41:47 GMT -5
I dislike that term and rarely use it. To me, it's an attempt to make comics appear more legitimate to those who would ordinarily dismiss them, giving the appearance of serious literary value by using a more sophisticated-sounding term. I believe comics can have serious literary value, but the medium should be accepted on its own merits and not because you dress it up using fancy words. When I do use the term, it's usually referring to works that were intended to be released as a single completed volume, rather than a work that collects previously serialized material. It seems silly to refer to the latter as a "graphic novel" because it's just a series of comic books in collected form. So I take issue with works like Watchmen and DKR being referred to as graphic novels. Do you take issue with say Dickens works being called novels because they were serialized first? Or Edgar Rice Burrroughs Tarzan and John Carter stoires? Or any of the other writers who released their works serialized first and then later collected in book form? Is David Copperfield any less a novel because it appeared in newspapers in serialized form first? For me, a graphic novel is a long form story told using words and pictures, no matter what it's original format of release was. Not all collected editions are graphic novels, not all standalone stories published all at once are graphic novels-just as all prose stories published in book form are not novels and some novels appeared serialized before being released as a collected book. I don't consider something like Essential Avengers Vol. 1 a graphic novel, as it is not a single long form story, but I don't consider something like Gotham by Gaslight a graphic novel either, as it is not a long form story even though it is a single standalone story-it's more a short story or possibly a novella, than novel. Yest I would consider Bone or Maus a graphic novel because they are single long form stories even though they were originally serialized. my criteria are basically- 1) does it use words & sequential pictures to tell the story? 2) is it a long form story with a definitive beginning, middle and end? 3) is it if substantial length to be considered a novel and not a short story, vignette, novella or novelette? if the answer to all 3 is yes, then I consider it a graphic novel. Not all prose fiction qualifies as a novel, not every comic qualifies as a graphic novel. At it's heart, the term is a classification of length and content, not a measure of quality or value. -M |
|
|
|
Post by batlaw on Feb 5, 2016 0:52:11 GMT -5
I have no problem the term "graphic novel". It's fine, descriptive and accurate imo. However I agree it's been used far too frequently and liberally, and for the bogus need of "legitimizing" the material or source.
Personally I consider a graphic novel to be a larger, longer format, singular or self contained tale. Usually hardcover.
I have no problem regarding watchmen or DKR a graphic novel in their collected form.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 5, 2016 1:00:01 GMT -5
Personally I consider a graphic novel to be a larger, longer format, singular or self contained tale. Usually hardcover. I have no problem regarding watchmen or DKR a graphic novel in their collected form. I don't think you can put a page count on a graphic novel or judge the book by it's cover. For me, it's more about scope and a sense of depth. Some comics are complete narratives that read on a deeper literary level (ergo graphic novel), and some are just complete narratives (ergo comic book run). I realize that sounds snobbish, so I'll soften it by saying that I think it comes down to one's own subjective opinion. I may find great depth and meaning in a comic narrative that another does not. However, I struggle to view anything starring a Big Two Superhero as a graphic novel, as the desire by the company to make money overrides any courageous effort by the creator(s) to make literature in those cases. |
|
|
|
Post by realjla on Feb 5, 2016 1:32:44 GMT -5
If it says "Graphic Novel" on the cover, was published in the '80s, and cost at least 5 bucks new, then it's a graphic novel. Any other use of the term is a misnomer perpetuated by 'civilian' book critics who want the genre to sound more 'respectable'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 5, 2016 2:23:33 GMT -5
If it says "Graphic Novel" on the cover, was published in the '80s, and cost at least 5 bucks new, then it's a graphic novel. Any other use of the term is a misnomer perpetuated by 'civilian' book critics who want the genre to sound more 'respectable'. Whoops, hit the "like" button by mistake. Actually think this is an arbitrary and ridiculous definition. There were graphic novels before 1980. Price has nothing to do with the term. And if i name my pet cat "Dog" its still a cat so slapping whatever on a cover is meaningless |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 5, 2016 2:42:04 GMT -5
 Gil Kane's Blackmark from 1971 was a graphic novel published in paperback Will Eisner's A Contract With God was released in 1978 Richard Corbin and Jim Steranko also released graphic novels in the 1970s So to was Don McGregor's Sabre  Released in 1950, one of the earliest graphic novels by Arnold Drake and Matt Baker |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 5, 2016 3:03:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 5, 2016 3:29:42 GMT -5
Personally I consider a graphic novel to be a larger, longer format, singular or self contained tale. Usually hardcover. I have no problem regarding watchmen or DKR a graphic novel in their collected form. I don't think you can put a page count on a graphic novel or judge the book by it's cover. For me, it's more about scope and a sense of depth. Some comics are complete narratives that read on a deeper literary level (ergo graphic novel), and some are just complete narratives (ergo comic book run). I realize that sounds snobbish, so I'll soften it by saying that I think it comes down to one's own subjective opinion. I may find great depth and meaning in a comic narrative that another does not. However, I struggle to view anything starring a Big Two Superhero as a graphic novel, as the desire by the company to make money overrides any courageous effort by the creator(s) to make literature in those cases. I disagree 100%. There are many definitions of graphic novel I will accept. But I definitely want it to be a definition based on format, not anybody's value judgement of the content. And any definition I would accept would certainly include many things published by DC or Marvel, including superhero works. In fact, the reason I often hate the word graphic novel and very pointedly avoid it is because so many people seem to try to use it as you suggest. And I have no use for pretentious definitions. They sound snobbish because they are. And more importantly, I don't find them useful. I also have no use for people who define "art" snobbishly or "literature" snobbishly. "Art" is that humans do which is not for the sake of basic survival needs. "Literature" refers to text-based art. Because many critics use "comics" to mean "light entertainment" and "graphic novel" to mean "capital L literature", I get annoyed and very pointedly refer to everything as comics, particularly when speaking to anybody not themselves a comics fan. I reserve any other term for people I already know love comics. If I need to distinguish a comic book like "Blankets" from a prose book like "To Kill a Mockingbird", I call the latter a graphicless novel and the former a comic. I insist upon this language when speaking outside of the comics community. --- Growing up, I used the phrases thusly: "comics": floppy things that couldn't stand up on a shelf "graphic novels": shorthand for "original graphic novels", book-shaped comics with spines containing mostly original content "trade paperbacks": like graphic novels, but reprinting several comics. In this case, the first was probably from Europe. In America, Blackmark is the earliest I've read and know of. Now, "trade paperbacks" is a stupid phrase for that, but it got into the lexicon somehow. I would be willing to let go of the "trade paperback" phrase and use "graphic novel" for any comic with a thick enough spine, keeping "original graphic novel" for those spined comics not collecting thinner comics. This is probably my vote. Watchmen (in collected format) is a graphic novel. "Batman Absolution" is an original graphic novel. Both are comics. By this definition, Blackmark is still the first American one I know of. ----- However, I have been thinking about this lately and it would be useful for a term to distinguish stories with an episodic structure from those with a beginning-end flow. And some comic series could be put in one or the other quite clearly, with others being a little more debatable. Put differently, series that are "compact" in the mathematical sense of the word (specifically how the word is used in metric spaces: "closed and bounded"). I'll go into more detail on this word later. This is on my mind because many great works of literature are today considered novels, but were originally serialized. And in the long run, it doesn't seem like it should matter all that much that "From Hell" was serialized once where "Blankets" was not. Both feel pretty novel-like. "Graphic novel" could serve in this capacity. However, I find the phrase too loaded and think I would prefer another, one that people don't abuse. I consider shaxper's definition to be abusive of the phrase. But wouldn't mind a good phrase for "extended comic stories with beginning and end and a flow from one to the other", as distinguished with episodic comic stories or short comic stories. If we call such stories (against my wishes) graphic novels, then I dunno. The Eternity Saga from Strange Tales, maybe? ---- None of my opinions affect any particular thread on graphic novels, to include "Read a graphic novel week". For such events, I consider it up to the thread-starter to explain what they mean, or not and let people interpret as they will. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 5, 2016 3:31:35 GMT -5
I dislike that term and rarely use it. To me, it's an attempt to make comics appear more legitimate to those who would ordinarily dismiss them, giving the appearance of serious literary value by using a more sophisticated-sounding term. I believe comics can have serious literary value, but the medium should be accepted on its own merits and not because you dress it up using fancy words. When I do use the term, it's usually referring to works that were intended to be released as a single completed volume, rather than a work that collects previously serialized material. It seems silly to refer to the latter as a "graphic novel" because it's just a series of comic books in collected form. So I take issue with works like Watchmen and DKR being referred to as graphic novels. Do you take issue with say Dickens works being called novels because they were serialized first? Or Edgar Rice Burrroughs Tarzan and John Carter stoires? Or any of the other writers who released their works serialized first and then later collected in book form? Is David Copperfield any less a novel because it appeared in newspapers in serialized form first? For me, a graphic novel is a long form story told using words and pictures, no matter what it's original format of release was. Not all collected editions are graphic novels, not all standalone stories published all at once are graphic novels-just as all prose stories published in book form are not novels and some novels appeared serialized before being released as a collected book. I don't consider something like Essential Avengers Vol. 1 a graphic novel, as it is not a single long form story, but I don't consider something like Gotham by Gaslight a graphic novel either, as it is not a long form story even though it is a single standalone story-it's more a short story or possibly a novella, than novel. Yest I would consider Bone or Maus a graphic novel because they are single long form stories even though they were originally serialized. my criteria are basically- 1) does it use words & sequential pictures to tell the story? 2) is it a long form story with a definitive beginning, middle and end? 3) is it if substantial length to be considered a novel and not a short story, vignette, novella or novelette? if the answer to all 3 is yes, then I consider it a graphic novel. Not all prose fiction qualifies as a novel, not every comic qualifies as a graphic novel. At it's heart, the term is a classification of length and content, not a measure of quality or value. -M I read shaxper's personally upsetting definition and responded before seeing this. I think I could get behind all of this. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 5, 2016 7:20:34 GMT -5
In fact, the reason I often hate the word graphic novel and very pointedly avoid it is because so many people seem to try to use it as you suggest. And I have no use for pretentious definitions. They sound snobbish because they are. And more importantly, I don't find them useful. I also have no use for people who define "art" snobbishly or "literature" snobbishly. "Art" is that humans do which is not for the sake of basic survival needs. "Literature" refers to text-based art. Your implying that I am a snob comes off pretty snobby  There will always be a slippery slope between literature and books, whether they be comic or otherwise. A Harlequinn Romance and Heart of Darkness can be the same length and sold in the same format, but one is daring/ambitious/transformative for me, and one is not. It's the for me part that you struggle with, but were I to outright objectively declare that one is literature for everyone and one is not, well that would be snobbery. Saying pieces that have a profound artistic impact upon me are literature and those that do not are not is not snobbery. It isn't telling anyone else what is good or what is bad. It merely distinguishes that we are affected individually by some works and not others. The ones that do affect you are literature. If we both notice a stain on the wall, and I decide that it was done purposefully and conveys meaning, I have discovered art. If you look at it and see nothing more than a stain, then you have discovered a stain. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 5, 2016 7:21:42 GMT -5
I read shaxper's personally upsetting definition Taking this a bit too far, you think? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2016 11:06:57 GMT -5
Personally I consider a graphic novel to be a larger, longer format, singular or self contained tale. Usually hardcover. I have no problem regarding watchmen or DKR a graphic novel in their collected form. I don't think you can put a page count on a graphic novel or judge the book by it's cover. For me, it's more about scope and a sense of depth. Some comics are complete narratives that read on a deeper literary level (ergo graphic novel), and some are just complete narratives (ergo comic book run). I realize that sounds snobbish, so I'll soften it by saying that I think it comes down to one's own subjective opinion. I may find great depth and meaning in a comic narrative that another does not. However, I struggle to view anything starring a Big Two Superhero as a graphic novel, as the desire by the company to make money overrides any courageous effort by the creator(s) to make literature in those cases. In prose, pulp novels and dime novels are still prose even though they are just extended narratives in prose form and really don't have a deeper literary meaning. Simply put, in prose, a novel is fiction that exceeds a certain word count. Any other connotative definition is not inherent in the term but added by the person using or reading the term. This is as much a novel...  as this...  the perceived literary value of each work has absolutely nothing to do with whether each one is a novel or something else. It is a format, not an artform. So why should using novel in the context of comics be different? -M |
|
