shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 1, 2015 1:16:36 GMT -5
A thread for discussing anything in relation to Read a Graphic Novel Week that doesn't otherwise already have a topic.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 1, 2015 1:22:17 GMT -5
Here's something I'd love to discuss: what is our working definition of a "graphic novel"?
In general, I take a "graphic novel" to be a comic work that is more than a single comic book issue in length, has a clear beginning, middle, and ending, and is inherently literary, artistic, and/or innovative in its approach.
However, there are definitely gray areas in this working criteria.
For example, do we count stories originally published as individual comic books that were envisioned as, and later reprinted as, complete graphic novels? Most folk would include Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and Dark Knight Returns as graphic novels without batting an eye, but what about Cerebus, any given limited series, or most modern day superhero comics which are written as multi-part stories intended for later sale as trade paperbacks? Where do we draw that line?
And what about a work like Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, which makes many Best Graphic Novels lists, and yet isn't a "novel"?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 1:22:23 GMT -5
Do they need to be ten years old? I can only think of one OGN in my collection and it's nowhere near ten years old.
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,860
Member is Online
|
Post by shaxper on Feb 1, 2015 1:24:12 GMT -5
Do they need to be ten years old? I can only think of one OGN in my collection and it's nowhere near ten years old. I can't comment officially, as this is not my event, but I would suspect the answer is "no." The Eisner Foundation, itself, places no such restriction on the event. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 1:35:59 GMT -5
Here's something I'd love to discuss: what is our working definition of a "graphic novel"? In general, I take a "graphic novel" to be a comic work that is more than a single comic book issue in length, has a clear beginning, middle, and ending, and is inherently literary, artistic, and/or innovative in its approach. However, there are definitely gray areas in this working criteria. For example, do we count stories originally published as individual comic books that were envisioned as, and later reprinted as, complete graphic novels? Most folk would include Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and Dark Knight Returns as graphic novels without batting an eye, but what about Cerebus, any given limited series, or most modern day superhero comics which are written as multi-part stories intended for later sale as trade paperbacks? Where do we draw that line? And what about a work like Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics, which makes many Best Graphic Novels lists, and yet isn't a "novel"? I'm not crazy about "inherently literary, artistic and/or innovative" being a criteria, but that's more tied in to my general dislike for the term graphic novel. I feel like it's used as a way to "make comics ok for adults", which I think is stupid. It may have some validity with regard to the origin of the format, though. I haven't read Cerbrus, but I have read Preacher, Planetary, Promethea (and even some limited series that don't start with P) and I don't feel like they fit. I'd say current books, at least with DC/Marvel (and maybe all non-creator owned), probably shouldn't count because "writing for the trade" is motivated by profit with no regard for the format itself. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 1:38:45 GMT -5
Even as I hit submit on that I began to waiver on Promethea not fitting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 2:02:13 GMT -5
For the sake of the event...the Eisner Foundation goes with pick a graphic novel...any graphic novel....so it's wide open according to them, and since I am curating the event, I will keep the spirit of openess. Any GN, original or collection, new or old, as long as it is panels and pages and tells a story...is fine. Even if the story is non-fiction (like Understanding Comcis which tells the story of comics and how to read them in a sense).
The point of the event is to read stuff in GN format...to celebrate and promote "graphic novel literacy" free speech and the sequential arts.
Whatever its origin and intentions, in publishing now, a novel is simply a word count for a prose work (to differentiate between a short story, novella, novelette, and novel); genre, artistic merit, format, or any other criteria has pretty much left the building. So a graphic novel here, to meet what I see the spirit of the event to be, is any story told with words and pictures in sequential art form that is not an individual issue of a comic book...
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 1, 2015 3:27:41 GMT -5
Here's something I'd love to discuss: what is our working definition of a "graphic novel"? There is no real answer to that question. The word has become quite loaded and used inconsistently. The better question is what is a graphic novel for these purposes. I like definitions, but there are a lot of things that need them. I will tell you I have no interest in value judgments in basic term definitions, such as the merit of the work being considered just when defining what type of work there is. Things there are: 1. Comics which do not have a spine (so-called "single issues") 2. Comics which do have a spine and so can be placed on a bookshelf in such a way that the title can be read from the spine 3. Comics with a spine reprinting and collecting several shorter comics ("Watchmen") 4. Comics with a spine representing original content ("Blankets", "Death of Captain Marvel") 5. Comic stories with a particular narrative structure, self-contained, with a beginning, an end, and a flow from one to the other that does not feel "serial" in nature. "Y the Last Man" or "Buddha" are examples of such things. Arguably, "Sandman" and "Cerebus" are as well. 6. Variations on Definition (5). For this contest, a graphic novel is whatever mrp says it is. |
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 1, 2015 3:40:47 GMT -5
In the spirit of the week, I'd like to also encourage everyone to encourage several people in their lives, particularly those who don't read comics, to try a graphic novel.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Feb 2, 2015 18:58:35 GMT -5
This event takes place 3+ weeks before the Emerald City Con, and that's my next logical opportunity to buy & read an OGN. So I may have to re-read something.
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 3, 2015 15:39:24 GMT -5
Here's something I'd love to discuss: what is our working definition of a "graphic novel"? In general, I take a "graphic novel" to be a comic work that is more than a single comic book issue in length, has a clear beginning, middle, and ending, and is inherently literary, artistic, and/or innovative in its approach. The last part isn't that important to me, but I do think it must have a complete story at the very least. I only use it to describe something that was originally published in book form as a complete work. I twitch when I hear people refer to just any old collection of comics as a "graphic novel." Unfortunately there isn't really a convenient term to describe such things in general (some people use "trades" but that's a bit vague for me.) I am willing to stretch the term to apply to serial works that are conceived as a defined and complete unit, like Watchmen or V for Vendetta (and their literary quality does help me justify it to myself.) I wouldn't use it to describe Y: The Last Man because even though it was designed to have an ending, it more a serial work to me (whereas the other two examples could be said to have "chapters.") |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 15:49:49 GMT -5
Here's something I'd love to discuss: what is our working definition of a "graphic novel"? In general, I take a "graphic novel" to be a comic work that is more than a single comic book issue in length, has a clear beginning, middle, and ending, and is inherently literary, artistic, and/or innovative in its approach. The last part isn't that important to me, but I do think it must have a complete story at the very least. I only use it to describe something that was originally published in book form as a complete work. I twitch when I hear people refer to just any old collection of comics as a "graphic novel." Unfortunately there isn't really a convenient term to describe such things in general (some people use "trades" but that's a bit vague for me.) I am willing to stretch the term to apply to serial works that are conceived as a defined and complete unit, like Watchmen or V for Vendetta (and their literary quality does help me justify it to myself.) I wouldn't use it to describe Y: The Last Man because even though it was designed to have an ending, it more a serial work to me (whereas the other two examples could be said to have "chapters.") So are works by folks like Burroughs and Dickens ouvre of work less novels because they were released first in periodical form (magazines and newspapers) and then collected into a book format as a novel? That was a pretty standard printing practice for a lot of material in the late 19th and early 20th century. Only the most successful of the serialized fiction stories got collected into book form and thus became "novels" but is Oliver Twist or Tarzan of the Apes any less a novel for their serialized origins? -M |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 3, 2015 15:56:56 GMT -5
The last part isn't that important to me, but I do think it must have a complete story at the very least. I only use it to describe something that was originally published in book form as a complete work. I twitch when I hear people refer to just any old collection of comics as a "graphic novel." Unfortunately there isn't really a convenient term to describe such things in general (some people use "trades" but that's a bit vague for me.) I am willing to stretch the term to apply to serial works that are conceived as a defined and complete unit, like Watchmen or V for Vendetta (and their literary quality does help me justify it to myself.) I wouldn't use it to describe Y: The Last Man because even though it was designed to have an ending, it more a serial work to me (whereas the other two examples could be said to have "chapters.") So are works by folks like Burroughs and Dickens ouvre of work less novels because they were released first in periodical form (magazines and newspapers) and then collected into a book format as a novel? That was a pretty standard printing practice for a lot of material in the late 19th and early 20th century. Only the most successful of the serialized fiction stories got collected into book form and thus became "novels" but is Oliver Twist or Tarzan of the Apes any less a novel for their serialized origins? -M If they were conceived as concrete stories with beginning and end I would have no problem considering them novels. If they were meant to run on indefinitely, then it gets a bit grey. Also, sometimes serial works like that were further edited to work as a novel. (And sometimes later printed again "in its original form!") I guess the point that I was making is that the average Avengers collection (or insert long-running character of your choice) is not a graphic novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 16:09:59 GMT -5
Dickens was getting paid by the word and stretched out each story and installment to pad his wages, yet when finished they were collected and called novels. You'd have to summon the ghosts of Dickens past to find out if he had it all planned out before he started writing with concrete beginning, middle and ends, or if he was making it up as he went along until he felt he had milked it for all he could and then ended the story to start another.
All I am saying is serialized origins does not preclude the status of something as a novel. A novel is not a publishing format really, although in modern usage it is deconstructed into a word count for a finished product no matter how it is released, the novel originally meant simply a long narrative featuring fictional characters usually told sequentially.
As for the average super-hero story not being a novel because there are other adventures of those heroes..well is Deerslayer less of a novel because Hawkeye has other adventures told in Last of the Mohicans or Cooper's other Hawkeye stories?
I think people are trying to apply distinctions to graphic novels that don't even apply prose novels in an attempt to add "respectability" to the GN format or based on their own biases, and not what it has comprised a "novel" historically.
A graphic novel to me is simply a novel length story told using words and pictures rather than just prose.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 3, 2015 16:26:12 GMT -5
I'll give Dickens and Burroughs a pass. I think there is a difference between sequential art and prose, and I am annoyed lately by the "serial" attitude a lot of authors have with their novels (i.e. breaking what would be a standard size novel down into "installments" because I dunno, trilogies are hot or whatever, or they just want to sell more books, not figuring on the people who dropped it after the first one turned out to be simply a prelude.)
I just don't like "GN" being applied to all kinds of comics. If I read the first Avengers omnibus by Lee and Kirby, I am not reading a novel. I'm reading a series of one- or two-part stories with not much more purpose than to bring readers back month after month by promising something exciting. The decompressed "arcs" of recent years are no different; the cliffhangers just turn up more often.
|
|
