A novel as an artform is coming from those who want to make "the great American novel " implicit in the term novel. In publishing, novel is a format, not a genre. Novel also implies fiction, book does not. Books can be non-fiction, books can be reference, books can be instruction manual, book can be scientific theory, but long form fiction is published in a format called a novel. Novel doesn't apply to any of those others, not because they don't have literary merit, but because they are not long form fiction. Outside of English/Literary arts departments, very few people think of novel as a genre, it's a format they get their stories in. You can add all the connotative meaning you want, it doesn't change the basic denotative meaning of the term.

-M

Sorry... it's not your definition per se.

The view is not yours alone. I've encountered it for years. And it's really not your view itself that's concerning, as I know your sold on the medium of comics.

I've read in in many a critic review from non-comics readers on this subject or that. Looking down on the medium of comics. Never sat well with me. Then at some point in my life I found what seemed to be these same types of critics continuing to look down on comics, but praising instead graphic novels like Maus and Watchmen.

And I thought to myself... one book stitches together a bunch of shorts from a comic anthology and the other stitches together 12 comics. Maybe what the reviewer meant is they appreciate some comics, but not others. Or prefer comics when slightly reformatted.

EDIT: Hopefully that came off clear. It's not you or anything you said or this discussion that upsets me. But I do have a negative reaction to that all-too common definition of a graphic novel. And it's based on many articles read, many conversations, over the course of many years.

And why do publishers want to describes some things as graphic novels? Probably marketing.

I don't agree a novel needs to fiction. It should be told in story form, as opposed to a biography or encyclopedia. But I think it's a novel whether based on true events or no.

I can agree with much of what you are saying here, and you argue it well. My concern with not including merit in the definition applies perfectly in the example of Read A Graphic Novel Week. If a "graphic novel" is just an extended narrative with a beginning middle and end, then virtually any multi-part storyline from the 1980s through present is fair game. In which case, why set aside a special week to celebrate what is already so dreadfully common in comicdom? The event was created in honor of Will Eisner as a way of honoring what he did to escalate comics into a higher minded art form. Whoever created "Read A Graphic Novel Week" certainly had my definition in mind.

And so, for Read a Graphic Novel Week, I always enjoy seeking out works that challenge me and offer something more than the usual extended comic book saga. Oh, there's art to be found in those as well, but rarely transcendent art.

Or would you prefer I review The X-Cutioner's Song again for RaGNW

I will say that questions of classification interest me, but I prefer to aim for the most quantitative definitions possible.

Let me throw out several examples.

Revolver by Matt Kindt. I would say obviously. Book-sized. Original content. Fictional narrative. Beginning and end.

Blankets. Really thick. Original content. Tells a story. It is nonfiction and mrp brought up the word "fiction". But I don't think that's key. Blankets tells a story based on true events. I would say this is a graphic novel by most standards.

Batman: Absolution by J.M. Demateiss and Brian Ashmore. A little less clear. Shaxper claimed Big Two superhero stories don't have the proper level of artistic merit. I reject the assertion. My concern about this is the extent to which is stands alone. Can you just sit down and read it, or does it help to have an appreciation of the Batman mythos first? I would argue the latter. Now, does that matter? Not in prose. Lots of sequels to famous novels. Is Second Foundation not a novel because it really presupposes you read the first two. Nobody claims that. However, I think there is worth in separating out those things that stand alone from those that kind of do, but don't really.

Batman: Ego by Darwyn Cooke. Like Absolution, but thinner. Thick enough to have a spine, but still pretty thin. Perhaps a novella?

Watchmen. Long form. The only possibly objection is that is was originally serialized. So it's not an "original graphic novel". I think consensus is to let this distinction go. Is Count of Monte Cristo not a novel? Is War and Peace not a novel. Again, we hit shaxper's claim that Big Two superheroes lack a certain level of artistic merit. But I continue to reject that. I'd be happy to call Watchmen a graphic novel.

X-Cutioners Song. My concern is the same one about Batman, but even stronger. Batman Absolution really can be read on its own. It just helps to be familiar with Batman. I think this story is incomprehensible outside of the context of X-Men history.

X-Men #58-64. I forget what happens in these issues. I just note they haven't been collected in trade. Is there a clear arc in those issues? Does it matter? Could those issues be a graphic novel? Or is it pushing it no matter what happens in them? I think it's pushing it.

Amazing Spider-Man by Lee/Ditko. Say specifically the stretch from Amazing Fantasy #15 through Amazing Spider-Man #33, including 2 annuals. This is my personal favorite comic book saga, and I think issue 33 makes a great ending to the story begun in Amazing Fantasy. Its dependency on other comics is light. The Sinister Six arc has odd cameos of other superheroes which seem weird without any context. He battles Dr. Doom and teamps up with Dr. Strange. But there's nothing unapproachable about it in terms of its dependcy on other narratives. I would say it's even more accessible than the Batman Absolution example. My concern is that while there is a clear saga with a clear beginning and a clear end, what it lacks is narrative flow. The individual chapters don't seem to moving the novel toward conclusion so much as they seem to be doing their own thing. They seem like episodes. It reminds one much more of a season of a television show than it does of a film, in terms of narrative structure. While I find this word hard to define, I would call the series "episodic".

Dr. Strange by Lee/Ditko. Another favorite. Closer to the mark than Amazing. Has no interaction with the Marvel Universe, so can be read entirely on its own. In its early days, has a bit of an episodic feel, but then there is an extended narrative, the Dormammu/Mordo/Eternity Saga

Amazing Adult Fantasy by Lee/Ditko. Another favorite. But clearly an anthology. It's a bunch of short stories.

A Contract with God by Will Eisner. Not a novel. A collection of three stories. Each a short story or perhaps novella.

Last Day in Vietnam by Will Eisner. A novel, but on the short side. See Batman Ego. Except it lacks the problem of featuring pre-defined characters. Maybe a graphic novella?

Blackmark by Gil Kane. Novel-length. Story. Seems clear enough.

Sandman by Neil Gaiman. Story with beginning, end. The flow is perhaps nontraditional. It breaks into several arcs and sometimes into short episodes. (But Gaiman's prose novels, like American Gods sometimes have similar interludes). All the arcs and episodes fit well into a nice flow. It's a bit long. 10 books, rather than 1. But I could see arguments. It does draw from and take place in the DC universe, but it doesn't particularly depend on understanding the DC universe. Though a scene or two may seem odd without context. Why is there a green martian who likes Oreos living on earth?

Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud. Not really a story. More like a textbook. Still, I'm inclined to give the term graphic novel a bit of a wide berth. I would accept it. It is a book-length thing. Original content. Merit.

Marvel Graphic Novel #___. Some take place in the Marvel Universe. Some stand on their own. Some are chapters in other story's (e.g. Dreadstar). All are on the thin side as far as page counts. And it is a series. A series of novels. I have trouble not calling these graphic novels though, as "Graphic Novel" is in the name. A lot of my favorite superhero stories come from this series. Particularly #1,5 and 24)

Usagi Yojimbo by Stan Sakai. Clearly an ongoing thing. No ending in sight. Even with one, I would say it is an episodic thing.

Usagi Yojimbo: Grasscutter by Stan Sakai. Closer. See my concerns about X-Cutioners Song. I would liken these two things (in terms of format; in terms of content, well...)

Were we to come up with a few boxes, and figure out which of those go in which box (or which sit on the edge), I would find it a wortwhile endeavor.

To clarify, they don't lack artistic merit because of the characters they feature. They lack artistic merit because, at the end of the day, the publisher's desire to make more money will always override artistic integrity. If DeMatteis decides the fitting ending for this story is Batman taking a long walk over a short pier, DC will say no. If DC decides that the book will sell better if Robin's in it, it's going to have Robin in it whether DeMatteis likes it or not. A lot of these books have some artistry in them, but they do not have artistic integrity because the need of the publisher to make money will always overrule the needs of the artist to create art.



Watchmen is an exception to my Big Two superhero book concern because there were no carefully guarded licensed properties in play. The very point in forcing Moore to not use the Quality superheroes the Watchmen were based upon was that it freed him to do as he pleased with them. There was no pressure from DC to do anything with these characters other than what Moore saw fit.

I absolutely see Watchmen as a GN. Even though it was originally serialized, there was a definite beginning, middle, and end in mind before the first issue saw print. I'm less concerned with format than content and artistic integrity in my wishy-washy definition.




While I absolutely do not see X-Cutioner's Song as being a graphic novel for artistic reasons, I disagree with your logic, as it also prevents Fellowship of The Ring from being a novel, as it depends upon the reader's knowledge of The Hobbit.



Some Usagi trades are just collections of issues; others are graphic novels in my mind. "Grey Shadows" is a great example of an Usagi volume that, while not containing a major multi-part storyline, has key themes and supporting characters that permeate the volume, first introduced in the first issue and resolved/last seen in the final one. That's a GN from my standpoint, and a damn good one at that.



Again, Lord of the Rings.




This is a fun idea!