|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 16:35:01 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. Because this is such a recent trend...Tolkien intended LotR to be a single novel but the publisher rejected the idea and published it as a trilogy instead for economic purposes (i.e. they would make more money!). Like it or not, publishing is a business and those decisions are likely as not being made by publishers not authors. It's not a new trend, it's SOP. There is just a ton more material being put out now than there was in the early 20th century (in prose as well as comics) so it is a lot more noticeable. Again, it's people applying standards to comics that don't apply to the prose though and saying it's not a novel because..when whatever reason doesn't preclude a prose equivalent form being considered a novel... -M |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 3, 2015 16:45:08 GMT -5
Because this is such a recent trend...Tolkien intended LotR to be a single novel but the publisher rejected the idea and published it as a trilogy instead for economic purposes (i.e. they would make more money!). Like it or not, publishing is a business and those decisions are likely as not being made by publishers not authors. LOTR would have been HUGE if it was combined as one book. It's understandable that it was broken down. I'm talking about books being broken down into a couple hundred pages or less (in large print), and finding that when you've finished the first one you've only gotten an introduction. It's been a long time since I read LOTR but I'm fairly sure I came away from each portion of it satisfied. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 16:51:34 GMT -5
I will add this though-not every book of prose fiction is a novel-some are collections of short stories, so not every book collection of comics would be a novel either, some are the comic equivalent of a short story collection or an anthology collection. I think an omnibus, essential/showcase volume, or an archive or a masterworks or epic volume of Marvel or DC material would most resemble that-a short story collection not a novel. However, as much as I dislike the modern writing a 6 issue arc for a trade style of writing, it does make each stand as more like a novella or novellette than as a collection of short stories in terms of structure and story length.
But at heart, I think if you want to define what a graphic novel is, you start with the noun-novel-and what is a novel? The adjective-graphic-is easy, it refers to the use of pictures in addition to words to separate a graphic novel from a prose novel. If you have an accurate working definition of novel to start with, you can probably arrive at a working definition of graphic novel, the problem is people want to add too much to the discussion that has little or nothing to do with what an actual novel is and this clutters up the discussion.
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2015 16:53:43 GMT -5
Because this is such a recent trend...Tolkien intended LotR to be a single novel but the publisher rejected the idea and published it as a trilogy instead for economic purposes (i.e. they would make more money!). Like it or not, publishing is a business and those decisions are likely as not being made by publishers not authors. LOTR would have been HUGE if it was combined as one book. It's understandable that it was broken down. I'm talking about books being broken down into a couple hundred pages or less (in large print), and finding that when you've finished the first one you've only gotten an introduction. It's been a long time since I read LOTR but I'm fairly sure I came away from each portion of it satisfied. I have a collected single volume edition of the LOTR, it has a smaller page count than some of the later single volumes of Game of Thrones or Wheel of Time (or some novels by the Russian masters). And each volume of the LOTR ends on a semi-cliffhanger and the fate of the characters is unresolved, so it is unlikely you could pick up say Two Towers, read it as a standalone and walk away satisfied you got the whole story. But to each his own. -M |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Feb 3, 2015 16:58:31 GMT -5
Genre novels were much shorter back then. Today's fantasy is so bloated beyond belief, I can't even read it. And of course I wouldn't start with the middle part. But I could read each one and feel like I had gotten my money's worth in terms of story and substance (even at today's prices.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 3:23:45 GMT -5
While the merits of TPB's as graphic novels could be debated to the end of time, so could the ongoing sub plots versus shorter storylines in comics.
But I'd like to say I prefer long serial comic stories. No done in one stories. I think six issues is really short for a story too. Give me forty issues. Many of the comics I read are kind of like that. Although they may have 6-12 issue runs with different titles, if you read it in an omnibus it's simply an ongoing story. Into the next omnibus, and the one after that. That's what I prefer. I'll accept done in one stories, or even short anthology offerings, but the ones I liked the most I always think it could have been so much better as an ongoing serial.
|
|
