[hart]

There's a somewhat vitriolic discussion at Salon.com today over comics (or depending on your position, graphic novels.)

So, I wanted to toss the ball to you guys. What's your take? I (a bit shamefacedly) admit to having been following the Star Wars extended universe via graphic novels which has been leading me into other areas of the art form. A spin through "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" lead me into Joss Whedon's comic adventures and a brush with X-men lead me to start looking at the super hero genre and then I've been moving out from there.

As a graphic artist I find the visual form as involving if not more so than the words themselves. They also form a natural extension of my other areas of geek entertainment.

So, do you feel a bit embarassed when you pull one out on the subway? Do you have a basement full of comics enshrined in acid-free storage? Do you lament the passing of the educated American into the pit of ignorant comics?

(a paranthetical note on that: way back in the 60's we would beg my parents for comics when we went on trips. In that century, people thought we were guaranteed to have brain rot if we read comics. Hasn't happened yet tho.)

As usual I apologize if this has come up before but the closest discussion I found was last winter on anime.

[ort888]

Both?

Like every art form out there, you have valid artistic expression and schlocky garbage. Comics are no different.

[peeb]

Sturgeon's Law applies.

[starman]

Someone went through the trouble of putting something together. No matter how good or bad people might think it is, you have to RESPECT that someone went through all that trouble. If people can piss in a jar with a crucifix in it and call it art, I think that something that obviously had a little more thought and effort in it should get respected as well.

[RAILhead]

Comic books are not graphic novels. Just saying (long time collector, here).

Anyway, sure they're art. Glad we settled that.

[awaspaas]

What's the difference between a comic book and a graphic novel? I just thought it was a euphemism.

[Kevin]

Yeah I thought "Graphic Novel" was just a pretentious word that people who are too old to be still buying them called them to feel better about their addiction.

Has to be it.

[starman]

A comic is usually like 20 pages or so (including ads). Graphic Novels could be 50 or much more.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah I thought "Graphic Novel" was just a pretentious word that people who are too old to be still buying them called them to feel better about their addiction.

Has to be it.

It's like the difference between a book and a novel. Comic books are not necessarily graphic novels, but I'd say graphic novels do qualify as comic books.

Anyway, I'm with Peeb. Sturgeon's Law is the correct answer here.

[RAILhead]

A couple of things differentiate GNs and CBs. For one thing (as was already mentioned), the book's length. Comics are a couple dozen page sin length, whereas a graphic novel can be the length of a "regular" book at times.

The main difference, though, is that GNs are designed to be stand-alone stories whereas comics are meant to be an on-going, continuous story arc.

Take Batman for example. DC Comics has their main Batman comic book, and it chronicles the life of Batman -- and those individual comics are meant to paint an overall story that's part of the DC Universe. Frank Miller (and others) have also release Graphic Novels based on Batman — but they aren't parts of the on-going series. They take place in the same time, with the same characters, in the same universe, etc. -- but they're a stand alone snippet of the character.

THAT'S the difference.

[Chuckit]

So if a graphic novel were run in three parts, it would be a comic book?

[exca1ibur]

It would be listed a limited series comic, yes. A graphic novel is a complete story in one book as Railhead said.

And yes they are art. I just wish there was more of actual drawing and watercolor mediums like before, and less Photoshop.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

It would be listed a limited series comic, yes. A graphic novel is a complete story in one book as Railhead said.

Oh, are we talking about what catalogs call them, or what actually makes sense in logic-land?

[exca1ibur]

I'm talking about if you read the cover and it will say 1 in a 4 issue limited series. A graphic novel will not say this because it contains the entire story in one book hence 'NOVEL' in the title.

[ghporter]

Something by Frank Miller? Almost certainly art. By Will Eisner (they were short, but his comics sort of broke the trail)? ART! Even the early TMNT comics qualify as art. But as peeb says, Sturgeon's Law applies; you have to sift through a lot of dreck to find the gems.

I check out the graphic novel aisle at Barnes and Noble or Borders and I'm amazed; twenty years ago the publishers of the current stuff would not have returned calls from any of the artists and writers they're publishing today-and in many cases JUSTLY SO! But they still publish 'em...

[MacosNerd]

wow seems like a lot of gyrations to justify reading comic books

Actually I don't care if you call them manga, graphic novels or comic books. Some are good, some are bad. Frank Miller is amazing in what he does.

All in all, I think people call them graphic novels because comic books have a juvenile connotation and some people are embarresed or want to justify reading them.

Just look at the posts here, GN are 50+ pages and are a complete story. Seems kind of silly, since most publishers bundle the serial comics into one bound book and call it a graphic novel. What's the difference. Just take Miller's Dark knight returns. It was a comic book serial but they now sell it as a unified story that's longer the 50 pages, so what is it a graphic novel or a comic book?

Like I said, I enjoy them whether you call them comic books or graphic novels.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Seems kind of silly, since most publishers bundle the serial comics into one bound book and call it a graphic novel.

No they don't -- those are called trade paperbacks.

NEXT!

[awaspaas]

What about on the Heroes website? They're called graphic novels but are just a few pages long and are serial in nature - each one generally picking up a bit of the story after the previous one.

[Cipher13]

Why wouldn't they be a "valid art form"?

Nowadays, you can nail a sandwich to an echidna, call it art, and sell it for a million bucks.

It's a far more valid form of art than many, many others.

Also, many graphic novels/comics really are very impressive, by way of both art and story.

[red rocket]

I never really got that deeply into graphic novels as a consumer, but I'm seriously toying with the idea of turning this novel idea I have into one. It'll take less time than writing it as a traditional novel, more people will buy it, and somebody's bound to buy the movie rights because they won't have to visualise everything from scratch.

[JonoMarshall]

It'll take less time than writing it as a traditional novel

Reeaaally..? Writing yes. Writing and illustrating? Surely not.

[red rocket]

It depends on how fast you write.

I'm a perfectionist, it can take me literally weeks to tweak individual chapters to my satisfaction.

Or take something like Lord of the Rings. I used to have the comic book version when I was a kid. I can guarantee you, that didn't take anything like the time to create that Tolkien spent on the verbose version.

Sure, if you're somebody like Stephen King who used to pump out novels like a machine, creating a well illustrated graphic novel would take longer than writing one of those pieces of garbage, yes.

[JonoMarshall]

Or take something like Lord of the Rings. I used to have the comic book version when I was a kid. I can guarantee you, that didn't take anything like the time to create that Tolkien spent on the verbose version.

Indeed, as long as you gurantee it... I'm sold on this.

Sure, if you're somebody like Stephen King who used to pump out novels like a machine, creating a well illustrated graphic novel would take longer than writing one of those pieces of garbage, yes.

Indeed, and in that sense a well illustrated graphic novel would seem to be art and perhaps a plain old graphic novel would be non-art/garbage?

[hart]

"comics" always feels like it applies to stuff like the Archie comics I read as a kid.

"Graphic novels" has a pretentious feel to it whatever it actually means. I can never take myself seriously using the phrase. Altho I did use it when speaking to my kid's teachers about what she was reading.

"trade paperback"... well I've been hearing that now but it seems to have pitched off the deep end of euphemism. No one except hard core ... grapho-literary cognoscenti would know what the heck you're talking about. If I said to my neighbor or friend "oh, I've been reading a lot of trade paperbacks recently" it would have no meaning.

Okay, I think I'm going for grapholit. Then no one will have a clue what I'm talking about. I respectfully request that you all use that term from now on for a form of entertainment that utilizes words and still pictures to tell a story.

But it's interesting that coming up with a word to use for the form takes up so much energy before you even come to talk ABOUT the form.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

No they don't -- those are called trade paperbacks.

NEXT!

Seem a little touchy on the comic book subject are we

Just go to about any bookstore and go to the"graphic Novel" Section I guarantee that you'll see comics individual and the combined flavor,e.g., Dark Knight. Even Amazon in its tagging ability does not show "trade paperback"

"trade paperback"... well I've been hearing that now but it seems to have pitched off the deep end of euphemism. No one except hard core ... grapho-literary cognoscenti would know what the heck you're talking about. If I said to my neighbor or friend "oh, I've been reading a lot of trade paperbacks recently" it would have no meaning.

Don't let Railhead see your post Seriously I've never hear "trade paperback" term, but comic books and graphic novels terms are interchanged and bantered about

[JonoMarshall]

I respectfully request that you all use that term from now on for a form of entertainment that utilizes words and still pictures to tell a story

I love that top-shelf grapholit, now that's art...

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Both?

Like every art form out there, you have valid artistic expression and schlocky garbage. Comics are no different.

Nice to see the first reply to the thread nail it.

[JoshuaZ]

The Watchmen often makes top 100 books of the 20th century lists. Its a graphic novel. Quite the very damn good read.

[Peter]

100% art.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Or take something like Lord of the Rings. I used to have the comic book version when I was a kid. I can guarantee you, that didn't take anything like the time to create that Tolkien spent on the verbose version.

That's because Tolkien was busy doing other stuff, coming up with original material and writing scads of nearly irrelevant backstory, whereas they were merely adapting his book into comic form. I guarantee you I could write a new "verbose version" in far less time than Tolkien took.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

That's because Tolkien was busy doing other stuff, coming up with original material and writing scads of nearly irrelevant backstory, whereas they were merely adapting his book into comic form. I guarantee you I could write a new "verbose version" in far less time than Tolkien took.

The ‘nearly irrelevant backstory’ is the reason LOTR has stood the test of time, whereas most if not all the other big fantasy novels that have come in its wake have failed to make an even remotely comparable impact, and invariably seem derivative, unoriginal, and shallow by comparison.

The notion that it takes more time to create a graphic novel than it does to write a book is absurd, in my opinion.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

The ‘nearly irrelevant backstory’ is the reason LOTR has stood the test of time, whereas most if not all the other big fantasy novels that have come in its wake have failed to make an even remotely comparable impact, and invariably seem derivative, unoriginal, and shallow by comparison.

The notion that it takes more time to create a graphic novel than it does to write a book is absurd, in my opinion.

Way to miss the point. Tolkien took a long time to write Lord of the Rings because he put so much work into it. The graphic novel took less time not because it was a graphic novel, but because Tolkien had already done all the work!

[red rocket]

That's not the only reason it took less time.

In my opinion, assuming he'd known how to draw, it would have taken Tolkien less time to do LOTR as a graphic novel than it took him to write it as a novel. Considerably less.

Forget Tolkien for the moment.

The point I was making in my original post and in my response to JonoMarshall was that it takes longer to write a satisfying novel than it does to create a satisfying graphic novel.

Perhaps that's just an opinion based on my own relative writing and drawing pace, but I would be genuinely surprised if it could not be backed up by statistics. Maybe somebody should pick up a random sampling of good novels and an equal sampling of good graphic novels, and find out how long it took to actually get each to a publishable level.

[- - e r i k - -]

If you can kill someone with it, then it's a valid artform
Amazon.com: The Absolute Sandman, Vol. 1: Books: Neil Gaiman,Sam Kieth,Mike Dringenberg,Charles Vess,Michael Zulli,Kelley Jones,Chris Bachalo,Malcolm Jones,Danny Vozzo,Colleen Doran

Yes, I own this behemoth

[hart]

LOTR is an extra humungous book anyway. Equal to 3 standard books roughly so you have to compare it to 3 works of grapholit.

But there are two points here. One, everyone is making assumptions about how long it takes to create one volume of grapholit. Without input from actual creators it basically constitutes talking through your hat. And for two, equating the time it takes to create something to it's relative value is largely meaningless.

[red rocket]

I wish people would stop using the term ‘grapholit’, it sounds bloody awful.

>1. Actually, I would really like to see some comparative stats regarding production length of graphic novels versus traditional novels. That said, I don't think I'm talking entirely out of my hat. I do write a lot, and I used to draw a lot, as well. When a project has reached the point where I'm thinking about whether to continue it as a novel or a graphic novel, I'm visualising the novel in terms of 500-1000 pages and the graphic novel in terms of 70-120 pages. The way I look at it, if the graphic novel got any thicker than that, the printing costs would push the eventual retail price into a range that few people would be willing to pay. So I have to consider the time it's going to take me to draw these 120 pages. Say, eight hours per page, that'll make it around four months. (Less if I leave the colouring to a bunch of art students.) Can I write a 1000 page novel in four months? Yes. Can I do all my revisions and get the novel into a publishable state in four months? Doubtful. I reckon the graphic novel will be less work.

>2. Well, replace ‘time’ with ‘effort’, then.

When I read a book, I can usually get a pretty good idea of how much thought has been put into things like plot consistency, character development, background, science, style, etc. Apart from style, there is a direct correlation between effort/time invested and, well, literary weight, if you catch my drift.

Similarly, with a graphic novel one should be able to roughly estimate how many man‑hours have been invested in the thing by virtue of the quality of the artwork and the number of pages.

All that said, if we're talking about Star Wars, BTVS, and X-Men themed graphic novels, I would agree that it quite probably takes less time to write a novel set in those universes, than it would to do a graphic novel about it. Part of the reason I don't buy any Star Wars/Star Trek/etc. novels: they're literary junk, in my opinion, and in that particular sub‑genre, the graphic novels probably have the greater value.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Seriously I've never hear "trade paperback" term, but comic books and graphic novels terms are interchanged and bantered about

Just because you'd never heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yes, the serial comic books are collected into trade paperbacks. In the last few years, the industry has been moving more toward that means of distribution.