|
|
Post by Randle-El on Feb 6, 2016 0:27:55 GMT -5
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 So would you consider Secret Wars, Avengers VS X-Men, or Crisis on Infinite Earths to be graphic novels? Because that would seem to fit your criteria. I would consider them to be comic book mini-series. If you buy them as a single volume, then that edition is a trade paperback or hardcover or what have you, but the story itself is a mini-series. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 0:58:02 GMT -5
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 So would you consider Secret Wars, Avengers VS X-Men, or Crisis on Infinite Earths to be graphic novels? Because that would seem to fit your criteria. I would consider them to be comic book mini-series. If you buy them as a single volume, then that edition is a trade paperback or hardcover or what have you, but the story itself is a mini-series. I would not consider any of those graphic novels because none of them were self-contained stories, they had spin-offs/tie-ins/x-overs in other books that were part of the story so you do not get the complete story, beginning, middle, and end in the collected edition-so they would fail on criteria #2 of my definition. And you didn't answer my question-do you consider the works of Dickens and others not to be novels because they were serialized first and collected later? -M |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 6, 2016 1:01:03 GMT -5
I would not consider any of those graphic novels because none of them were self-contained stories, they had spin-offs/tie-ins/x-overs in other books that were part of the story so you do not get the complete story, beginning, middle, and end in the collected edition-so they would fail on criteria #2 of my definition. To go back to the point I made with coke & comics though, that part of your definition would mean that Fellowship of The Ring would not be a novel because it is only the first part in a series. Of course, even the Lord of the Rings trilogy could not be seen as an individual novel because it makes references back to The Hobbit. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2016 1:06:06 GMT -5
I would not consider any of those graphic novels because none of them were self-contained stories, they had spin-offs/tie-ins/x-overs in other books that were part of the story so you do not get the complete story, beginning, middle, and end in the collected edition-so they would fail on criteria #2 of my definition. To go back to the point I made with coke & comics though, that part of your definition would mean that Fellowship of The Ring would not be a novel because it is only the first part in a series. Of course, even the Lord of the Rings trilogy could not be seen as an individual novel because it makes references back to The Hobbit. Well Tolkien didn't want it separated into three books, he saw it as an all in one piece entitled the Lord of the Rings, told in 6 parts or books, and wanted it published as a whole, but the publisher didn't think a book that long would sell, so divided it up as a trilogy, each containing 2 of the books rather than as 6 individual books because each book was a little too short to stand alone by their standards and sold it that way. So technically I don't consider each part (each of which contains 2 books anyways) of the trilogy as a novel, but the whole I do, and it is now sold in all-in-one editions. SO the trilogy-a serialized novel or all-in-one as a novel, sure, each one separately as a novel, no. As I said, each part of the trilogy contains 2 books of the overall story-as the Lord of the Rings is technically 6 books long. -M |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 6, 2016 1:11:28 GMT -5
In my head, a 'Graphic Novel' was never sold in single comics. And yes, I don't think serialized stories stuck in a book are a novel. War and Peace? Works of Dumas like Three Musketeers or Count of Monte Cristo? Uncle Tom's Cabin? Works of Dickens like Oliver Twist? EDIT: I see mrp has addressed this point. Honestly, I think I'm probably on board with what mrp says. Except perhaps the fiction point. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 6, 2016 1:17:07 GMT -5
Just because it's published in one book doesn't mean it's a novel. I haven't read War and Peace or Oliver Twist (I hate Dickens), but Dumas I can see that being short stories that are tied together.... Uncle Tom's Cabin I've only read parts of, but I didn't think it was meant to be a novel.
Do you consider all the Holmes stories one novel? I have them all in one book.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 6, 2016 1:19:00 GMT -5
Though I see OED seems to agree with mrp on the word "fictitious". www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/novelI am concerned by the word, particularly in comic book context, because graphic novels in comics are so often not. If you look in the "recommend a graphic novel thread", mrp suggested non-fictitious graphic novels Understanding Comics and Fax from Sarajevo. I added Blankets and Fun Home. Maus (despite the serialization issue) is one of the most famous graphic novels. Persepolis is another beloved example. The word "fictitious" just eliminates too much. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 6, 2016 1:20:01 GMT -5
So essentially no Science Fiction from before 1965 is a novel.
Alrighty then.
Wow!
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 6, 2016 1:28:20 GMT -5
In my head, 'Collection' or 'Collected Edition' works. These are much more sensible terms. I think "trade paperback" needs to go. I think we are clear what a "collected edition" is. And mostly clear on what an "original graphic novel" is. There's the fiction question, and an agreement of length to be made, but we're pretty close on that. I am open to the phrase "graphic novel" including more than "original graphic novels". I am not open to it including less, as shaxper suggests. I would be open to it including some collected editions or perhaps even a series of collected editions, along mrp's criterion. I insist the "comic books" remain the overarching phrase, encompassing floppies*, collected editions and original graphic novels. And that "comics" be an even broader category covering comic books and strips. *I do need a better word than floppies, preferably one that doesn't remind me of embarrassing sexual encounters. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 6, 2016 1:35:45 GMT -5
To go back to the point I made with coke & comics though, that part of your definition would mean that Fellowship of The Ring would not be a novel because it is only the first part in a series. Of course, even the Lord of the Rings trilogy could not be seen as an individual novel because it makes references back to The Hobbit. Well Tolkien didn't want it separated into three books, he saw it as an all in one piece entitled the Lord of the Rings, told in 6 parts or books, and wanted it published as a whole, but the publisher didn't think a book that long would sell, so divided it up as a trilogy, each containing 2 of the books rather than as 6 individual books because each book was a little too short to stand alone by their standards and sold it that way. So technically I don't consider each part (each of which contains 2 books anyways) of the trilogy as a novel, but the whole I do, and it is now sold in all-in-one editions. SO the trilogy-a serialized novel or all-in-one as a novel, sure, each one separately as a novel, no. As I said, each part of the trilogy contains 2 books of the overall story-as the Lord of the Rings is technically 6 books long. -M I did not know that. Fascinating. But there's still the problem that the Lord of the Rings, as a complete work, still continues from (and references) The Hobbit, a work that was its own stand-alone novel. By your criteria, that disqualifies Lord of the Rings from being a novel because "I would not consider any of those graphic novels because none of them were self-contained stories, they had spin-offs/tie-ins/x-overs in other books that were part of the story so you do not get the complete story" |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,864
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 6, 2016 1:37:43 GMT -5
Just because it's published in one book doesn't mean it's a novel. I haven't read War and Peace or Oliver Twist (I hate Dickens), but Dumas I can see that being short stories that are tied together.... Uncle Tom's Cabin I've only read parts of, but I didn't think it was meant to be a novel. Do you consider all the Holmes stories one novel? I have them all in one book. And then there are some works that were written to be one whole piece but were originally published in parts. Dickens, for sure, but a more modern example might be Stephen King's The Green Mile. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 6, 2016 2:45:02 GMT -5
Well Tolkien didn't want it separated into three books, he saw it as an all in one piece entitled the Lord of the Rings, told in 6 parts or books, and wanted it published as a whole, but the publisher didn't think a book that long would sell, so divided it up as a trilogy, each containing 2 of the books rather than as 6 individual books because each book was a little too short to stand alone by their standards and sold it that way. So technically I don't consider each part (each of which contains 2 books anyways) of the trilogy as a novel, but the whole I do, and it is now sold in all-in-one editions. SO the trilogy-a serialized novel or all-in-one as a novel, sure, each one separately as a novel, no. As I said, each part of the trilogy contains 2 books of the overall story-as the Lord of the Rings is technically 6 books long. -M I did not know that. Fascinating. But there's still the problem that the Lord of the Rings, as a complete work, still continues from (and references) The Hobbit, a work that was its own stand-alone novel. By your criteria, that disqualifies Lord of the Rings from being a novel because "I would not consider any of those graphic novels because none of them were self-contained stories, they had spin-offs/tie-ins/x-overs in other books that were part of the story so you do not get the complete story" Lord of the Rings is a complete story. It has a beginning and an end, and can be read, understood, and appreciated without any auxiliary reading. It is set in the same world and features some characters from an earlier work of Tolkien's. But that work is not required reading. In fact, it would only have confused the reader as the two works were not consistent. Tolkien rewrote parts of The Hobbit after publishing Lord of the Rings to remove these inconsistencies. To see how well it stands on its own, look to the films. There were (believe it or not) many people who had never read any work of Tolkien whose first exposure to the characters and world were the Lord of the Rings films. That the films were somehow incomplete for not telling a tale of a hobbit's journey with some dwarves crossed the mind of I would guess no viewers new to the universe. Frodo has an adventure. He has an old wise uncle who also went on adventures in his day. This is a common framework for stories. Understanding Frodo's adventure can be appreciated without any more details of Bilbo's than were provided. Just as Bilbo's adventure could be appreciated without knowing details of the Old Took's adventures. There is not so much the question of if there are other works that form a broader picture, but to what extent the narrative presupposes those works. I tried to point this out in several examples. However, while I disagree that Lord of the Rings depends on any other work, I don't think this necessarily should be a criterion for a novel. Many novels have sequels. Speaker for the Dead, Naked Sun... I mentioned Second Foundation earlier. I think there is a concept of a "series of novels", and that is okay. I would still call Speaker for the Dead a novel.
There is a key difference with these series of novels though, and it comes in terms of how you would introduce them to someone. You would suggest they start at the beginning. Whereas you may not suggest that with many a superhero arc. You don't often hear, Dark Knight Returns is great, but first I recommend all these old Batman comics, and Superman comics, and comics where they team up. And of course you'll need Justice League and Green Arrow, oh and Joker had his own series...
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 6, 2016 8:05:21 GMT -5
That's exactly why judging by content and author intent is both subjective and full of exceptions. I prefer strictly going by format  |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 6, 2016 8:09:27 GMT -5
So essentially no Science Fiction from before 1965 is a novel. Alrighty then. Wow! I think few of them are. Much more often, there are two or three short stories meant for the same universe that a writer adds a bit to in order to make it have enough flow to pretend to be a novel. That's not the same as a story written as a novel, though. And really, anything from that era that one might consider as a novel is really barely (or not) long enough in most cases... they usually clock in at under 200 pages. |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 6, 2016 8:12:32 GMT -5
War and Peace? Works of Dumas like Three Musketeers or Count of Monte Cristo? Uncle Tom's Cabin? Works of Dickens like Oliver Twist? EDIT: I see mrp has addressed this point. Honestly, I think I'm probably on board with what mrp says. Except perhaps the fiction point. I think what MRP says works fine if you're a literary critic or academic. You shouldn't have to be famililar with the material to decide whether it's a graphic novel or not, though... that's just not what people do. Really, the term 'graphic novel' to anyone outside this forum means 'comics in a book'.. and that's likely how it's going to stay. |
|
