|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Nov 18, 2016 9:31:21 GMT -5
www.npr.org/sections/monkeysee/2016/11/17/502422829/the-term-graphic-novel-has-had-a-good-run-we-dont-need-it-anymoreIn the link above, Glen Weldon, who regularly writes about comics, for NPR, suggests that the term graphic novel has lost it's need and suggests it be retired. The gist of his argument is that it was coined to separate serious illustrative works from those of pure escapist fantasy, namely, superheroes. Will Eisner latched onto the term (which was bandied about in fandom, prior, and ran with it. Publishers and booksellers picked up on it. But; as Weldon argues, we are in an age where Maus has won a Pulitzer, March won the National Book Award for children's literature, and several other graphic memoirs have been nominated. Hugo Cabret won the Caldecott and the bestselling kids books not called Harry Potter and.... are things like Smile and Diary of a Wimpy Kid. He feels that Eisner made his point and that serious work are considered alongside comparable literature and non-fiction. He thinks its okay to go back to calling it all comic books, that people get it is a medium, not a genre. I would argue that isn't entirely true, given how many arguments I had with colleagues, when I was a bookseller, who referred to the comic genre. I would delineate the various genres to be found at any one time, with the conclusion that it is a storytelling medium. I think Glen misses the bigger point, that graphic novel has replaced comic as shorthand for any book with illustration as part of the narrative. Comic books have come to just mean the magazine format, not the medium; that has become comics. I don't think anyone is ever going to call book collections comics again. Your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Warmonger on Nov 18, 2016 9:39:57 GMT -5
I've always hated it.
Seems like a term originated by people who were ashamed of reading comic books, so they had to make it sound more sophisticated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 9:46:50 GMT -5
If you put together a series of Comics - Like Grant Morrison's Rock of Ages of which it is a Six-Part JLA Adventure in the 90's together in one book - I consider that book a Graphic Novel - first and foremost. A Graphic Novel is a collection of stories put altogether in one bundle a continuous form without interruption is a GRAPHIC NOVEL. I will be very disappointed in our Comic Community in whole if the society adopt with Mr. Weldon ways.  Six Books banded together in one bundle is A Graphic NovelThe term Graphic Novel should never, ever be retired and I read that link that you provided and I totally disagree with Glen Weldon period. My answer is NO to Glen Weldon proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by adamwarlock2099 on Nov 18, 2016 10:09:05 GMT -5
I've always used TPB for a collection like what Juggernaut mentions. The stuff that's one original story like The Killing Joke is deluxe format or square bound, I think I remember them being called.
I don't know when the term coined but it does seem to come from the angle of this is more sophisticated than that. GN is for the refined reader. That's just my perception.
But they're all just terms one way or the other and have no strong feeling who uses what. I've never used the term floppies for comics cause floppies are what Commodre 64 games were. But it doesn't bother me that people use them to describe comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Nov 18, 2016 10:13:03 GMT -5
I'm not the biggest fan of the term, but I get why it exists. I think it still serves a marketing purpose though, in that (rightly or wrongly) for most people "comic book" conjures up childhood memories of monthly floppies sitting in the spinner rack. If you're a publisher trying to sell an extended, non-serialized story that is not related to superheroes, it can serve to differentiate your product from whatever connotations "comic book" may have.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Nov 18, 2016 10:42:15 GMT -5
Was it Eisner or McCloud who suggested "Sequential Art" as a label? I've found myself using it more and more. I've always struggled with what constitutes a "Graphic Novel" -- does any trade paperback count? Or, does any run of comics count? The "novel" aspect is problematic if the work was not published all at one time.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Nov 18, 2016 11:14:56 GMT -5
I personally call collections of monthly comics 'trades' and things that start in trade form 'graphic novels'. The terms don't really concern me, to be honest. Non-comic fans have been referring to any square-bound book with comic content in it a 'graphic novel' for some time, as does both Amazon and Barnes and Noble, so I don't see it changing any time soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 18, 2016 12:21:34 GMT -5
They're all funnybooks to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 14:40:07 GMT -5
It's now just a term of convenience that has entered the common parlance without a specific meaning. It has come to broadly mean comics in book form (ironic since a comic book implies something in magazine/periodical form and not a book). As such it will remain in the common parlance until the zeitgeist of language drops it, just as people refer to taping shows still when no tape is involved and records survived in usage even when most music was primarily on CD.
It has evolved past its original and intended meaning in usage, so asking if we should stop using the term is essentially a moot point.
While novel might have a specific meaning in literature, it is now boiled down to a word count for fiction despite it's previous more literary defining terms and graphic novel really never meant anything more than comics in book form that aren't super-heroes. A Contract with God was really a Contract with God and Other Tenement Stories , an anthology of shorter stories not a novel in literary terms, but it was "the first graphic novel" so to speak, so shorter stories collected together still get the graphic novel moniker. Maus was serialized first, but no one has any problem calling its collected edition a graphic novel, so collections of shorter installments of a story is still a novel (or graphic novel) (just as any Dickens novel was). And long form stories that take several volumes to tell (oh say A Song of Fire and Ice by George RR Martin) are released and each part of the larger story is still called a novel, so collections of comics that take more than one volume to tell (say oh Walking Dead, or the adaptations of those Martin novels or say Amazing Spider-Man) can have each volume referred to as a novel as well, so for me, all arguments of this type of comics can be a graphic novel but that kind of comics can't be because of the way they were originally released or formatted are irrelevant to the way terms actually are used in the world. Debating what we should call it is chasing our own tail and there are much more important issues within the realm of comic creating, publishing and retailing that need time, focus, effort and consideration that this debate wastes, but what do I know?
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 18, 2016 17:39:36 GMT -5
As usual (because he sends me a monthly check), I pretty much agree with mrp
The article in question is pretty much a masturbatory exercise. The public in general will call it what it will, has already done so and no blogger's article decades later will change it
|
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 18, 2016 18:33:13 GMT -5
I've always hated it. Seems like a term originated by people who were ashamed of reading comic books, so they had to make it sound more sophisticated. Since "comic books" is a term that was never in common usage in Britain while "graphic novel" perfectly describes a lot of the European stuff in particular, I totally disagree. I like it. |
|
|
|
Post by tingramretro on Nov 18, 2016 18:35:03 GMT -5
They're all funnybooks to me. But that makes no sense. Most of them aren't funny. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2016 20:00:47 GMT -5
I suggest Glen Whedon finds something else to split hairs about. I kinda agree with this description below. Graphic novels are similar to comic books because they use sequential art to tell a story. Unlike comic books, graphic novels are generally stand-alone stories with more complex plots. Collections of short stories that have been previously published as individual comic books are also considered graphic novels. I'd call Lost Girls a high brow porn GN but not a high brow porn comic. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202 
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 18, 2016 21:37:35 GMT -5
They're all funnybooks to me. But that makes no sense. Most of them aren't funny. Have you never heard the phrase funny books? I though it was quite widely known as something folks in America used to call comic books. The term was commonly used in the U.S. in the early to mid-20th century, back when a lot of comics and comic strips were still filled with humorous content, rather than predominantly superheroes. The comic supplements of American newspapers were similarly called "The Funny Papers", I believe, regardless of whether they actually featured humour, adventure or sci-fi strips. "Funny books" is a fairly archaic term these days though. Slam has long used the term as a way to skewer the more pretentious regard that some comic book fans afford the hobby. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,202
|
Post by Confessor on Nov 18, 2016 21:45:36 GMT -5
^ It makes perfect sense. You just don't get it. No need to be rude. I think tingramretro's confusion perhaps stems from his cultural background not being that of an American. Or being a dedicated yank-o-phile like me.  |
|
