|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 7, 2016 15:00:32 GMT -5
Slam's got it right. The SF genre was treated shabbily by the major publishers until later in the 60s. With few exceptions they were only interested in publishing short story collections or previously published material from the SF digests. An SF author would have found it almost impossible to get a new novel published and the only way to go about it was to break up the story into increments and shop it around to Astounding, Galaxy, Amazing or F&SF magazines.
I should try to research those exceptions. Kurt Vonnegut comes to mind who I consider an SF writer in the 60s. Philip Dick had a very hard time getting his novels published and when they did they very quickly went out of print. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 was published but since he had work bought for upscale magazines like Redbook or Playboy, publishers no longer classified him as strictly an SF writer. I guess Vonnegut fell into that category as well.
Anyway, novels were being written but had to chopped into pieces for readers to find them Bradbury and Heinlein were instrumental in getting SF out of the gutter. But it was in a roundabout way and largely through short fiction that they did it. They were really the first two SF (and with Bradbury I mean that in the nominal sense) to break out of the pulps/digests and publish in the slicks (Colliers, Saturday Evening Post, Redbook, etc.). That showed there was a mainstream market for SF and lead to the ability to get novels published without serialization first. Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End was also a rare exception since it got published in the mid 1950s. As far as I know it always remained in print |
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Feb 7, 2016 15:27:59 GMT -5
I definitely think most of the ones I've been reading are from the mid-late 60s so perhaps by then the market had swung. I bet those old sci-fi mags are amazing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Feb 7, 2016 19:05:43 GMT -5
I definitely think most of the ones I've been reading are from the mid-late 60s so perhaps by then the market had swung. I bet those old sci-fi mags are amazing! You didn't want to miss an issue. My might only get to read 3/4 of a serialized novel. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 7, 2016 19:13:00 GMT -5
I definitely think most of the ones I've been reading are from the mid-late 60s so perhaps by then the market had swung. I bet those old sci-fi mags are amazing! Without a doubt, if I was, lets say 18 years old in 1955, I would have been a regular reader of the SF digests and a member of that organized fandom rather than comic books. Especially when the comics code kicked in by that year |
|
|
|
Post by Randle-El on Feb 10, 2016 14:44:40 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. 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 I don't know enough about the historical context and publishing practices at the time those stories were published to give a definitive answer. For example, I don't know if Dickens wrote his story as a longer work, and the publisher decided to split it up and serialize it, whether he made it up as he went along, whether it was intended to be serialized in a shorter format, etc. Nor do I think that it's necessarily relevant because modern comic books and 19th century Victorian fiction are different enough that comparisons may not be meaningful. On the other hand, I do know the context for when Watchmen and DKR were published to be a bit more firm in my statement. Both Watchmen and DKR were published as single-issue monthly comics by DC comics. Format-wise there was nothing to distinguish them from any other comic book they published. If you put issue #1 of DKR next to an issue of Detective Comics, I would have looked at both and said they are both comic books starring Batman. Now I don't recall the specific marketing behind DKR from that time, but in that general era I recall seeing advertisements for a number of self-contained stories of fixed length published in monthly serialized format that were labelled as "mini series" or "limited series". It just seems odd to me that when those limited series get collected we should start calling them "graphic novels" when they would otherwise have been called "comic books". To me, one thing that sets a graphic novel apart from comic books is that they are created without having to abide by the restrictions of the monthly publication format. If the story is published in a monthly comic format, than more often than not the creators are forced to work within that structure. So they have to meet monthly deadlines, they have to provide natural stopping points for their narrative at around the 20ish page mark, etc. If a story is meant to be published in a longer, standalone form, then those restrictions need not be heeded (though the creators may decide to employ chapters, but that's entirely up to their creative prerogative, and not something forced upon them by the format). That opens up different kinds of storytelling possibilities that wouldn't exist with stories published in monthly comic format. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2016 15:11:17 GMT -5
Dickens was contracted to write stories in segments (usually 20 parts), paid by the word and then when finished those stories were collected and published in book form and are considered novels to this day.
Serializing fiction before publishing it in collected form was standard practice in publishing and the serialization had no bearing on what the final form of the book was, the story was considered in total, not in fragments when making that determination.
As Slam pointed out elsewhere, most science fiction novels before the 1960s were serialized first. Robert E. Howard's one Conan novel was serialized first. Yet all of these were still novels even though they were created for monthly (and sometimes weekly) publication first.
It's a publishing strategy. The difference between Dark Knight and Watchmen and an issue of Detective on the stands at the time is not their format but that DKR and Watchmen were conceived as a standalone story with a beginning, middle and end, while the issue of Detective contained a fragment of a story that was part of an ongoing story that had no end, just plot wrap ups before the story launched into the next plot, with no actual resolution of the long term story ever intended. Original format is irrelevant and is a publisher choice, not an authorial one.
The other obvious difference to the reader is that the issue of Detective was published as part of an ongoing story while DKR and Watchmen were published as part of a finite mini/maxi series. You knew going into Watchmen there were 12 parts to the complete story and if you read all 12 you got the complete story that stood on its own. With the issue of Detective you didn't know if it was a standalone story, part 1 of a 2 part story, 6 part story, 20 part story, or part 6 of a 6 part story or what not, it was not meant to standalone no matter how many issues of it you had. That was pretty much made clear on the trade dress of books (Part 3 of 12 on issue 3 of Watchmen issue #570 of ad infinitum) on the cover of Detective. So yes, even in monthly format, there were tangible differences between Watchmen/DKR and their ilk and a typical monthly issue of a comic like Detective.
-M
Edit to add-That's not even m,entioning that the monthly format used to publish DKR and Watchmen made them stand out from other books on the stands. DKR was the first to use the Prestige Format an attempt to translate the format used for the OGNs Marvel and DC had published to a comic sized product to make it look and feel more like a GN than a monthly comic. The intended message to consumer-this isn't just another monthly comic.
Watchmen too used a high end format, not prestige, but higher quality paper and printing process and cost twice what a standard monthly comic cost and was reserved mostly for higher end projects at DC, things that were meant to stand out as not just another monthly comic.
So really there was no way you were going to mistake books like that for something akin to just another issue of Detective of generic DC super-hero comic of the month even though it came out serialized monthly.
|
|
|
|
Post by coke & comics on Feb 13, 2016 0:55:13 GMT -5
Dickens was contracted to write stories in segments (usually 20 parts), paid by the word and then when finished those stories were collected and published in book form and are considered novels to this day. Serializing fiction before publishing it in collected form was standard practice in publishing and the serialization had no bearing on what the final form of the book was, the story was considered in total, not in fragments when making that determination. As Slam pointed out elsewhere, most science fiction novels before the 1960s were serialized first. Robert E. Howard's one Conan novel was serialized first. Yet all of these were still novels even though they were created for monthly (and sometimes weekly) publication first. It's a publishing strategy. The difference between Dark Knight and Watchmen and an issue of Detective on the stands at the time is not their format but that DKR and Watchmen were conceived as a standalone story with a beginning, middle and end, while the issue of Detective contained a fragment of a story that was part of an ongoing story that had no end, just plot wrap ups before the story launched into the next plot, with no actual resolution of the long term story ever intended. Original format is irrelevant and is a publisher choice, not an authorial one. The other obvious difference to the reader is that the issue of Detective was published as part of an ongoing story while DKR and Watchmen were published as part of a finite mini/maxi series. You knew going into Watchmen there were 12 parts to the complete story and if you read all 12 you got the complete story that stood on its own. With the issue of Detective you didn't know if it was a standalone story, part 1 of a 2 part story, 6 part story, 20 part story, or part 6 of a 6 part story or what not, it was not meant to standalone no matter how many issues of it you had. That was pretty much made clear on the trade dress of books (Part 3 of 12 on issue 3 of Watchmen issue #570 of ad infinitum) on the cover of Detective. So yes, even in monthly format, there were tangible differences between Watchmen/DKR and their ilk and a typical monthly issue of a comic like Detective. -M Edit to add-That's not even m,entioning that the monthly format used to publish DKR and Watchmen made them stand out from other books on the stands. DKR was the first to use the Prestige Format an attempt to translate the format used for the OGNs Marvel and DC had published to a comic sized product to make it look and feel more like a GN than a monthly comic. The intended message to consumer-this isn't just another monthly comic. Watchmen too used a high end format, not prestige, but higher quality paper and printing process and cost twice what a standard monthly comic cost and was reserved mostly for higher end projects at DC, things that were meant to stand out as not just another monthly comic. So really there was no way you were going to mistake books like that for something akin to just another issue of Detective of generic DC super-hero comic of the month even though it came out serialized monthly. All makes sense to me. I think the world is ready for a definition of graphic novel that doesn't consider serialization or not, and that just focuses on the structure of the final product. Beginning, end, flow from one to the other. That will certainly make "Read a graphic novel week" easier at any rate! |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Feb 18, 2016 14:07:14 GMT -5
Wow, I'm just back and read this whole thread, picturing myself this very same exchange being held by the GOP debate,  I agree with htose above who view graphic novels as works with pre-established end before start of publication, and self contained stories. Prison Pitt from Johnny Ryan is presented in TPB format, but its lack of ending (as of yet) doesn't qualify it as GN IMHO, just comics, good ones as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 18, 2016 14:10:13 GMT -5
Wow, I'm just back and read this whole thread, picturing myself this very same exchange being held by the GOP debate, I agree with htose above who view graphic novels as works with pre-established end before start of publication, and self contained stories. Prison Pitt from Johnny Ryan is presented in TPB format, but its lack of ending (as of yet) doesn't qualify it as GN IMHO, just comics, good ones as well. Good to see you back Mr. Scratch. I was itching for a return  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2016 17:02:11 GMT -5
Wow, I'm just back and read this whole thread, picturing myself this very same exchange being held by the GOP debate, I agree with htose above who view graphic novels as works with pre-established end before start of publication, and self contained stories. Prison Pitt from Johnny Ryan is presented in TPB format, but its lack of ending (as of yet) doesn't qualify it as GN IMHO, just comics, good ones as well. Good to see you back Mr. Scratch. I was itching for a return Agreed. Welcome back AGS! -M |
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Feb 18, 2016 20:03:06 GMT -5
Wow, I'm just back and read this whole thread, picturing myself this very same exchange being held by the GOP debate, I agree with htose above who view graphic novels as works with pre-established end before start of publication, and self contained stories. Prison Pitt from Johnny Ryan is presented in TPB format, but its lack of ending (as of yet) doesn't qualify it as GN IMHO, just comics, good ones as well. I'd consider Prison Pit vol. 3 or Powr Mastrs vol. 2 or Nana Vol 15 as much a "novel" as The Two Towers or 50 More Shades of Grey. Ideally, each individual volume should have it's own themes and structure and some resolution at the end. (Although Prison Pit pretty much avoided all that on purpose, if I remember right.) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2016 22:33:02 GMT -5
I noticed something somewhat relevant or at lest possibly of interest to this conversation earlier tonight when reading the letters page of an issue of Conan from 1973- (it was either #29 or 30, I think 30)-more than one reader referred to an issue of Conan they were commenting on as fine examples of "graphic storytelling"-a term that might be a precursor to the adoption of graphic novel. If comics were graphic storytelling, a long form story told in comic form could logically be called a graphic novel, and the term while coined by Eisner, likely had some debt owed to the term graphic storytelling being used among fans of the medium (and possibly creators of such as well). Not sure, haven't looked into it too deeply as I just saw it, but it does seem likely there is some connection there...
Anyone have an idea when the term graphic storytelling came into use among professionals or fandom to refer to comic book stories?
-M
|
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 29, 2016 0:01:33 GMT -5
I noticed something somewhat relevant or at lest possibly of interest to this conversation earlier tonight when reading the letters page of an issue of Conan form 1973- (t was either #29 or 30, I think 30)-more than one reader referred to an issue of Conan they were commenting on as fine examples of "graphic storytelling"-a term that might be a precursor to the adoption of graphic novel. If comics were graphic storytelling, a long form story told in comic form could logically be called a graphic novel, and the term while coined by Eisner, likely had some debt owed tot he term graphic storytelling being used among fans of the medium (and possibly creators of such as well). Not sure, haven't looked into it too deeply as I just saw it, but it does seem likely there is some connection there... Anyone have an idea when the term graphic storytelling came into use among professionals or fandom to refer to comic book stories? -M Bill Spicer published a fanzine from the late 60s until 1974 called Graphic Story World. 16 issues in all.Known for mature and intelligent articles, it focused on creators rather than characters. I used to have a few. The term, however, did not originate with him, it was around earlier   |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Feb 29, 2016 0:10:57 GMT -5
Wikipedia gives credit to Richard Kyle and his 1964 fanzine Capa-Alpha of coining the phrase "graphic novel " in one of its articles. I'm not sure if it was used for a specific item but we know that in the 1950s the Picture Novel on paperback format It Rhymes With Lust was published with art by Matt Baker. It was written by Arnold Drake and ran 128 pages. A followup graphic novel came out in the mid-50s  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 29, 2016 0:13:25 GMT -5
Hmmm I see a listing for issues 1-8 of Graphic Story World starting in 1971 on Lonestar, then 2 issues of Wonderworld: The World of the Graphic Story (#9 and 10) starting in 1973, did it change titles? Were issues 11-16 known under a different title (or does Lonestar just not have a listing for these). I'd be curious to check these out (I love old fanzines and mags about comics), but at about $10 a pop I'm not sure if I want to pluk that down just to see.
-M
|
|
