"Comic book" vs. "graphic novel"
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
I think that "graphic novel" is too unweildly a term. It sounds
stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
which is a reputation we don't really need, thanks very much. And what
do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction, like MAUS
or PALESTINE?
Personally, I think books of comics should be called "comic books."
This way people will know what kind of storytelling they're in for.
The first time they see a "comic book" that's not superhero, their
definition of "comic book" will be expanded. There wouldn't be a
ghetto of "comic book" outside of "graphic novel." You don't have to
explain what a "graphic novel" is; everyone knows what comics are. I
have a shelf of comic books. See, it sounds good!
Anyway that's my opinion
-k.
Alan David Doane
Destructo <ko...@softhome.netCNY-TOC> wrote:
>
>I think that "graphic novel" is too unweildly a term. It sounds
>stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
>which is a reputation we don't really need, thanks very much. And what
>do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction, like MAUS
>or PALESTINE?
>
>Personally, I think books of comics should be called "comic books."
>This way people will know what kind of storytelling they're in for.
Yes, a book full of comedy. Brilliant! Perfectly describes Maus.
Alan David Doane
Sequential Art Galaxy
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> I think that "graphic novel" is too unweildly a term. It sounds
> stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
> which is a reputation we don't really need, thanks very much. And what
> do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction, like MAUS
> or PALESTINE?
You can have non-fiction novels.
However, comics are usual Romances rather than Novels. But that's another
story.
---
- Dug.
---
The E-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail.
---
Elayne Riggs
> I think that "graphic novel" is too unweildly a term. It sounds
> stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
And "comic" usually means "funny," which doesn't apply to most comic
books.
> Personally, I think books of comics should be called "comic books."
Donna Barr has been lobbying for the term "drawn books" for awhile now.
- Elayne
See Gnolls
> stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
And "comic" usually means "funny," which doesn't apply to most comic
books.
> Personally, I think books of comics should be called "comic books."
Donna Barr has been lobbying for the term "drawn books" for awhile now.
- Elayne >>
I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
Of course if graphic novels continue to be overpriced collections of dumbass
superhero swill, the term 'Graphic Novel' will become subject to derision as
well.
=======================================
Let's go burning down the road!
=====================================
Henry Spencer
Alan David Doane <alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown> wrote:
>>...And what do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction,
>>like MAUS or PALESTINE?
>>Personally, I think books of comics should be called "comic books."...
>
>Yes, a book full of comedy.
Check your dictionary for the current definition of "comic book"; most
comic books are neither books nor comedies, and nobody expects them to be
either one. The meanings of words and phrases change.
The problem with "comic book" is not its purely historical association
with comedy, but its more recent association with badly-written superhero
stories.
--
When failure is not an option, success | Henry Spencer he...@spsystems.net
can get expensive. -- Peter Stibrany | (aka he...@zoo.toronto.edu)
Jackie Estrada
formerly Peter Destructo <ko...@softhome.netCNY-TOC> wrote:
> I think that "graphic novel" is too unweildly a term. It sounds
> stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
> which is a reputation we don't really need, thanks very much. And what
> do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction, like MAUS
> or PALESTINE?
>
Mainstream bookstores now use "graphic novel" as an identifying category,
so I think it's here to stay. The term is used to apply to both fiction
and nonfiction works of sequential art, to collections of comic book
issues, to original works, and even to books about comics.
Jackie Estrada
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>>Personally, I think books of comics should be called "comic books."
>>This way people will know what kind of storytelling they're in for.
>
>Yes, a book full of comedy. Brilliant! Perfectly describes Maus.
I think it's pretty clear by now that comic doesn't mean funny in this
case. A lot of english words are funny like that. For example, 'jass'
bands played in 'jass' houses -- brothels. Now, of course, jazz is a
very highbrow musical genre that isn't assosciated with prostitution
at all.
-koby
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>You can have non-fiction novels.
Really? I always thought a novel meant fiction
>However, comics are usual Romances rather than Novels. But that's another
>story.
I'd like to hear what you mean by that...
-koby
Josh Brandt
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo <ko...@softhome.netCNY-TOC> wrote:
>bands played in 'jass' houses -- brothels. Now, of course, jazz is a
>very highbrow musical genre that isn't assosciated with prostitution
>at all.
Much. 8)
Josh
--
I don't wanna ride the piggy.
J. Brandt / m...@solipsism.net / mu...@sidehack.gweep.net
Nenad Vidovic
See Gnolls wrote:
> I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
> irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
I agree... there is a word Novel in there which grant it the potential
to be treated as literature. As it stands now comic books are thought of
32-pagers superhero X-Men (well that's what most of non-comics reading
public means). Graphic novel is not ideal term but... It also makes life
easier to booksellers - if there were 'Graphic Non-Fiction' 'Graphic
Historical Ficition' etc... it would be hard to shelf those.
BTW, 'Maus' is not in graphic novel section: 'History-WW2' (or similar -
on the back it might say something like 'Shelve with...')
'Stuck Rubber Baby' is in Gay Issues. So there you go.
>
> Of course if graphic novels continue to be overpriced collections of dumbass
> superhero swill, the term 'Graphic Novel' will become subject to derision as
> well.
Thankfully they are calling those trade paperbacks.
> =======================================
> Let's go burning down the road!
> =====================================
Take care,
nenad
Justin Bacon
Peter Destructo <ko...@softhome.netCNY-TOC> writes:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:57:23 +1000, in rec.arts.comics.misc you wrote:
>
>>You can have non-fiction novels.
>
>Really? I always thought a novel meant fiction
Think Maya Angelou.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
KRothst402
>
>I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
>irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
I think you are ignoring the other stigma, that of when those that are
stigmatized protest too much and come up with equally silly terms which
everyone else sees as being worthy of a snicker or two. (Trekkies vs Trekkers)
Try telling someone that Dark Knight Returns isn't a comic book "No! It is a
GRAPHIC NOVEL godammit!", and watch as they look at you as they reserve a room
in the loony bin with your name on it.
Whether there is a stigma or not, the general population has a near universal
understanding of what you are supposed to call a book filled with panels and
words in baloons. That term is "comic book". To arbitrarily insist that if
the people reading it deem it is for adults, that then and only then should it
be called a graphic novel is silly. For starters, one has to wonder which
comes first, the adult audience deeming it a graphic novel, or the graphic
novel itself.
Batman: Knightfall was released as a novel. Now, the comics covering the exact
same material were compiled in TPB form, and yet this was not for some reason a
Graphic Novel--despite being the novel graphically told. So the form or page
count doesn't dictate the usage of the term, so what else is there except the
subjective usage of the term in an effort to protect comic book readers from
being ridiculed? "Some read comic books, tsk tsk...I read GRAPHIC NOVELS..see
the difference?"
Also, there is the business of these graphic novels being so small as to wonder
whether the term is really fair. Also, should we go back and make Marvel's
Pope John Paul biography a new form, the "Graphic biography"? Or is it that we
only need to use new terms for books we want everyone to know has no capes?
Mogen Dave
>Donna Barr has been lobbying for the term "drawn books" for awhile now.
Well, best of luck to her.
Orion
>stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
>which is a reputation we don't really need, thanks very much.
assume a 'graphic designer' plans pornography? The term 'graphic
novel' is not sinonymous(sp) with 'comics'. A graphic novel is a
self-contained story in one volume, not a piece of a continuing
episodic story. This is why the industry invented the term 'trade
paperback'. Puting the word 'novel' in the name makes perfect sense,
to me. It gives teh stories a sense of class, of legitimacy. You say
'reading a book' or 'reading a story', people shrug and move on. You
say 'reading a *novel*' and suddenly you're a freakin' genius. That's
the impression I get from teh term, anyway. I probably shouldn't speak
for anyone else.
>And what
>do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction, like MAUS
>or PALESTINE?
First, MAUS is semi-biographical fiction. Spiegleman(sp) did take a
few dramatic licenses with the story. Above and beyond the animal
imagery, he also specifically noted, in an interview on the CD-ROM,
that the character 'Art' in the story is -not- Art Spiegleman. Second,
if you -do- find a auto/biographical comic, you could easily call it a
'graphic biography'. 'Sequential art', though a wonderful descriptive
term in the world of theory, isn't a term many people are going to
recognise.
>Personally, I think books of comics should be called "comic books."
>This way people will know what kind of storytelling they're in for.
>The first time they see a "comic book" that's not superhero, their
>definition of "comic book" will be expanded. There wouldn't be a
>ghetto of "comic book" outside of "graphic novel." You don't have to
>explain what a "graphic novel" is; everyone knows what comics are. I
>have a shelf of comic books. See, it sounds good!
Unfortunately, the term 'comics' or 'comic books' is -so- strongly
associated with one particular genre (the superheroic mode) that
coming up with an alternative name for 'serious' comics is a
worthwhile endevour, if one's goal is to give more people an excuse to
read them.
>Anyway that's my opinion
And I respect, even if I disagree.
Mogen Dave
>I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
>irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
Unlike "graphic novel," which is irrevocably stained with geekoid desperation
not to be seen as a geek who reads comic books.
How about "pictorial narrative"? More syllables, more cred.
>Of course if graphic novels continue to be overpriced collections of dumbass
>superhero swill, the term 'Graphic Novel' will become subject to derision as
>well.
Smartass superhero swill for all!
Steven Rowe
>paperback'.
ARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
No, this is why some in the industry are IINCORRECTLY using the term "trade
paperback" which any bookseller will tell you is an oversized paperback!
Steven Rowe
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> Donna Barr has been lobbying for the term "drawn books" for awhile now.
But they are written and drawn... and in rare cases photographed.
Also, if someone was to say "drawed book" to me I'd think they meant a
hand-made book with pictures...
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
> irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
I hate GN used for pamphlets... which I have seen in mainstream media used
to make fun of geeks. The old "dolls"/"action figures" joke rejigged.
> Of course if graphic novels continue to be overpriced collections of dumbass
> superhero swill, the term 'Graphic Novel' will become subject to derision as
> well.
Already has.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2000 20:57:23 +1000, in rec.arts.comics.misc you wrote:
> >You can have non-fiction novels.
> Really? I always thought a novel meant fiction
A novelisation of actual events is a novel. A novel about the voyage of
the Titanic is a novel.
> >However, comics are usual Romances rather than Novels. But that's another
> >story.
> I'd like to hear what you mean by that...
Using the original terminology a Romance is about a hero running around
doing things, a Novel is the story of an event.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> How about "pictorial narrative"? More syllables, more cred.
Once it's known, the same problems will occur. Plus it sounds sillier.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> >This is why the industry invented the term 'trade
> >paperback'.
> No, this is why some in the industry are IINCORRECTLY using the term "trade
> paperback" which any bookseller will tell you is an oversized paperback!
However the publishing industry in using the terms Trade and Mass Market
to indicate a books size are using the terms INCORRECTLY in the first
place.
See, the usuage of words adapt their meaning. That's why my earlier Novel
vs Romance comment was lost on some people.
Slushfactory.com
>I think that "graphic novel" is too unweildly a term.
Graphic Novel is what you call a comic book when a hot girl asks you what
you're reading.
-BJ
----------------------
The Slush Factory: Your Home For Comics On The Web. Featuring interviews,
reviews, columns and more at Http://www.slushfactory.com. Visit us today!
Orange
(Mogen Dave) broke it with something equally heavy:
>seeg...@aol.com (See Gnolls) wrote:
>
>>I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
>>irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
>
>Unlike "graphic novel," which is irrevocably stained with geekoid desperation
>not to be seen as a geek who reads comic books.
>
>How about "pictorial narrative"? More syllables, more cred.
"Sequential Art". :)
Christian Henriksson
(ora...@hem.passagen.se)
--
"These are the days of miracle and wonder
And don't cry, baby, don't cry, don't cry"
- Paul Simon
Michael Alan Chary
Slushfactory.com <viper...@aol.comakazi> wrote:
>>From: Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo ko...@softhome.netCNY-TOC
>
>>I think that "graphic novel" is too unweildly a term.
>
>
>Graphic Novel is what you call a comic book when a hot girl asks you what
>you're reading.
>
Only if you want her to think you're an idiot. If you want her to like
you, you just say some titles, and if she likes them, you have something
in common, if not, well, she might be intrigued. If she makes fun of
you, who needs her anyway.
--
"Ipsa scientia potestas est." - Roger Bacon
Mogen Dave
>On 23 Nov 2000, Mogen Dave wrote:
>> How about "pictorial narrative"? More syllables, more cred.
>
>Once it's known, the same problems will occur. Plus it sounds sillier.
Well, darn. Guess we'll have to stick with "comic books," then.
Todd VerBeek
>> {ahem} The publishing industry invented the term "trade paperback"
>> as a way to identify paperbacks that didn't fit the standard dimensions
>> of the ubiquitous "mass-market paperback".
Our friend Avram Grumer said:
>Nope. Some trades are rack-sized; some mass-market paperbacks are
>oversized. Here's an explanation of the differences between trade and
>mass-market paperbacks, from the FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written (where this
>comes up every so often):
>
>: What is the difference between trade paperback and mass market: the
>: channels of distribution. Trade paperbacks do not piggyback on the ID
>: system of periodical distribution.
....
I stand corrected on this point. But the rest of my comments (about folks
in comics fandom misconstruing and misusing the term) still apply.
The key point: it has nothing to do with the contents of the book.
Cheers, Todd
--
Radix malorum est stupiditas.
Todd VerBeek
>>stupid. "Graphic" can too easily mean "with lurid sex and violence"
>>which is a reputation we don't really need, thanks very much.
Our friend Orion said:
> I think you're reading too much into the word 'graphic'. Do you
>assume a 'graphic designer' plans pornography?
(Well, not =all= of us do. {grin})
>The term 'graphic
>novel' is not sinonymous(sp) with 'comics'. A graphic novel is a
>self-contained story in one volume, not a piece of a continuing
>episodic story. This is why the industry invented the term 'trade
>paperback'.
{ahem} The publishing industry invented the term "trade paperback" as a way
to identify paperbacks that didn't fit the standard dimensions of the
ubiquitous "mass-market paperback". Since then, comics fans have heard the
term, not understood its meaning, and guessed. Because the only trade
paperbacks they knew of were reprints of stories that had previously been
published in a series, they assumed that this is what the term refers to.
It's not.
On shelves across the room from me are softcover printings of {squints}
Stuck Rubber Baby, Goodbye Chunky Rice, Lost Girl, Understanding Comics,
Reinventing Comics, The New Adventures of Abraham Lincoln, You Are Here, I
Die At Midnight, The Wizard's Tale, Our Cancer Year, Dignifying Science,
Bull's Balls, Heartthrobs, Pedro and Me, Why I Hate Saturn, The Cowboy Wally
Show, To the Heart of the Storm, Last Day in Vietnam, Son of Superman, Life
on Another Planet, Violent Cases, Cave-In, Back Alley Graffiti, A Contract
with God, The Courageous Princess, A History of Violence, Banks/Eubanks,
Faith: A Fable, The Moon Looked Down and Laughed, Arkham Asylum, Colossus,
Black Candy, Bearskin, Gregory (and sequels), Seven Miles a Second, The
Dome: Ground Zero, The Broccoli Agenda, Littlegreyman, and more. These are
all trade paperbacks... which happen to also be graphic novels(*) that were
never serialised.
(*) I'd call some of them "novellas", since they're a bit short to be
considered full novels, and a couple would be better described as "a set of
thematically linked short stories", but those are distinctions to argue over
some other time. {smile}
>Puting the word 'novel' in the name makes perfect sense,
>to me. It gives teh stories a sense of class, of legitimacy. You say
>'reading a book' or 'reading a story', people shrug and move on. You
>say 'reading a *novel*' and suddenly you're a freakin' genius. That's
>the impression I get from teh term, anyway. I probably shouldn't speak
>for anyone else.
I like the term "novel" for this reason. It carries some weight, and many
of these books deserve that. If someone doesn't care for "graphic" as the
adjective, what about "illustrated novel"? I know that "illustrated" is
typically used to describe books for children, but to my knowledge those
aren't usually called "novels". (And I'm not sure there's a fundamental
difference between the medium used for "Where the Wild Things Are" and that
of "Why I Hate Saturn" anyway.)
>>And what
>>do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction, like MAUS
>>or PALESTINE?
Does the book industry generally single out biographies told in narrative
form as not being "novels"? (This is not a rhetorical question.)
> First, MAUS is semi-biographical fiction. Spiegleman(sp) did take a
>few dramatic licenses with the story. Above and beyond the animal
>imagery, he also specifically noted, in an interview on the CD-ROM,
>that the character 'Art' in the story is -not- Art Spiegleman. Second,
>if you -do- find a auto/biographical comic,
(For the record, such beasties do exist. Seven Miles A Second, Our Cancer
Year, and Pedro And Me are all pretty straight autobiography. So to speak.)
>you could easily call it a 'graphic biography'.
Alternatively: illustrated (auto)biography, illustrated journalism... in
general, illustrated non-fiction.
>'Sequential art', though a wonderful descriptive
>term in the world of theory, isn't a term many people are going to
>recognise.
The problem I have with "sequential art" is that it misses what I consider
to be the point of the work (any of them). The primary raison d'etre of one
of these books is rarely the pictures; the pictures are there to tell a
=story= or convey some other idea/information. Just calling it "sequential
art" puts the medium in front of the message. "Sequential art" is to a
"graphic/illustrated novel" as "prose" is to a conventional "novel"... and
if someone asked you about a book you just bought, you wouldn't tell them
that it's "a book of prose". {smile}
Todd VerBeek
>>>This way people will know what kind of storytelling they're in for.
>alandav...@yahoo.communication.breakdown (Alan David Doane) wrote:
>>Yes, a book full of comedy. Brilliant! Perfectly describes Maus.
Our friend Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo said:
>I think it's pretty clear by now that comic doesn't mean funny in this
>case. A lot of english words are funny like that. For example, 'jass'
>bands played in 'jass' houses -- brothels. Now, of course, jazz is a
>very highbrow musical genre that isn't assosciated with prostitution
>at all.
You say that as if it were a good thing. {grin}
But getting back on point: I don't think the "funny" meaning really has been
lost in the public's mind. Even though most people understand that there's
more to "comic books" than Archie and Donald Duck, they still regard the
only =other= genre that comes to mind (superheroes) as just a different
joke. So there's really no conflict between the literal denotation of the
phrase "comic book" and the connotation that they're something to laugh at.
My only little half-assed step to get away from reinforcing that has been to
replace the phrase with the compound word "comicbook", since it seems that
people tend to pay less attention to the literal meaning of single words
than they do to phrases (which is why you get nonsense like people saying
"irregardless" when they mean the opposite). So maybe people will see the
word and not think about the fact that it's (literally) supposed to refer to
something laughable.
Orion
>>paperback'.
>
>
>No, this is why some in the industry are IINCORRECTLY using the term "trade
>paperback" which any bookseller will tell you is an oversized paperback!
books. Hence the term. What's your problem?
Lawrence Watt-Evans
Well, actually, "trade paperback" doesn't mean "oversized paperback."
It means a paperback book distributed through the book trade's
wholesale system rather than through the newsstand/mass market
network.
Ordinarily, rack-sized paperbacks are mass market and oversized
paperbacks are trade editions, but not _always_. There are rack-sized
trade paperbacks, such as TSR's old D&D novels.
And the comics industry didn't invent the term "trade paperback" at
all, which I think is what triggered that "argh." It's a bookseller's
term that's been around since LONG before there were any comic-book
trade paperbacks, and includes a great deal of material that does not
fit the original poster's definition.
--
The Misenchanted Page: http://www.sff.net/people/LWE/ Last update 11/8/00
My latest novel is NIGHT OF MADNESS
Avram Grumer
> {ahem} The publishing industry invented the term "trade paperback"
> as a way to identify paperbacks that didn't fit the standard dimensions
> of the ubiquitous "mass-market paperback".
Nope. Some trades are rack-sized; some mass-market paperbacks are
oversized. Here's an explanation of the differences between trade and
mass-market paperbacks, from the FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written (where this
comes up every so often):
: What is the difference between trade paperback and mass market: the
: channels of distribution. Trade paperbacks do not piggyback on the ID
: system of periodical distribution.
:
: How does size relate: It doesn't. The reason that a number of trade
: paperbacks are oversized is that they are manufactured from the actual
: sheets printed for the hardcover edition, but bound in paper wrappers.
:
: Does being strippable make a difference: Yes. All mass market books
: are strippable. Any book that is distributed through both mass market
: and direct channels is strippable. [Strippable means that the
: retailer needs to return only the cover for full credit; the rest of
: the book is destroyed.]
:
: Books that are distributed -only- though trade channels, be they
: hardcover or soft cover, are usually sold on the basis of whole copy
: returns.
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
"The American people have now spoken, but it's going to take
a little while to figure out exactly what they said."
-- Bill Clinton, 7 Nov. 2000
Steven Rowe
>books. Hence the term. What's your problem?
hmm, my problem is that certain folks in the industry use the term "Trade
paperback" to mean reprints.
Next?
Steven Rowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.
join the FelixTheCat list at www.egroups.com
.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
Exactly. If asked what I'm reading I'd say "A comic book, why?" rather
than "it's a Graphic Novel" or "It's a picturial narrative" because, I'm
not ashamed of what I'm doing.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> I stand corrected on this point. But the rest of my comments (about folks
> in comics fandom misconstruing and misusing the term) still apply.
> The key point: it has nothing to do with the contents of the book.
True, or the size.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> > Collected volumes of comics are over-sized in relation to other
> >books. Hence the term. What's your problem?
> hmm, my problem is that certain folks in the industry use the term "Trade
> paperback" to mean reprints.
A reprint collection, actually.
Mogen Dave
>On 24 Nov 2000, Mogen Dave wrote:
>> "Duggy (Paul Duggan)" jc12...@jcu.edu.au wrote:
>> >On 23 Nov 2000, Mogen Dave wrote:
>
>> >> How about "pictorial narrative"? More syllables, more cred.
>> >Once it's known, the same problems will occur. Plus it sounds sillier.
>> Well, darn. Guess we'll have to stick with "comic books," then.
>
>Exactly. If asked what I'm reading I'd say "A comic book, why?" rather
>than "it's a Graphic Novel" or "It's a picturial narrative" because, I'm
>not ashamed of what I'm doing.
Wow, really? You've opened my eyes. Death to "pictorial narrative."
Orion
>>>paperback" which any bookseller will tell you is an oversized paperback!
>
>> Collected volumes of comics are over-sized in relation to other
>>books. Hence the term. What's your problem?
>
>Well, actually, "trade paperback" doesn't mean "oversized paperback."
>
>It means a paperback book distributed through the book trade's
>wholesale system rather than through the newsstand/mass market
>network.
>
>Ordinarily, rack-sized paperbacks are mass market and oversized
>paperbacks are trade editions, but not _always_. There are rack-sized
>trade paperbacks, such as TSR's old D&D novels.
>
>And the comics industry didn't invent the term "trade paperback" at
>all, which I think is what triggered that "argh." It's a bookseller's
>term that's been around since LONG before there were any comic-book
>trade paperbacks, and includes a great deal of material that does not
>fit the original poster's definition.
indedamon 2000
Mogen Dave wrote:
>
> seeg...@aol.com (See Gnolls) wrote:
>
> >I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
> >irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
>
> Unlike "graphic novel," which is irrevocably stained with geekoid desperation
> not to be seen as a geek who reads comic books.
is there a difference bewteen a cd single and a cd?
between a novella and a novel?
--
"Neither Bush nor Gore is President. As reassuring as that is,
it can't last." Bill Maher
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> > Unlike "graphic novel," which is irrevocably stained with geekoid desperation
> > not to be seen as a geek who reads comic books.
Yes. Lenght (usually) and number of different songs.
> between a novella and a novel?
Lenght, and as such, whether it appears in a collection or not.
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>"Sequential Art". :)
Yeah, but if it's gonna comics that we're "Understanding," it's comic
books we're reading.
Speaking of which, what kind of book *is* UNDERSTANDING COMICS if not
a "comic book"? Answer me that.
------KOBY.------
"Revenge is not sweet, Fries - it is a bitter pill! And that pill is
an erosive medication that eats away at your soul!" - Batman, LEGENDS
OF THE DARK KNIGHT #121, in one of his more inspired moments
My website: Rare Cartoon Network MP3s
http://www.geocities.com/pdestructo
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>> superhero swill, the term 'Graphic Novel' will become subject to derision as
>> well.
>
>Already has.
Yeah! Doesn't anyone here read YABS?! :)
("You'll All Be Sorry," at www.cbr.cc -- it's running joke)
-koby, fan of pictorial narrativic literary imagerific sequences
www.geocities.com/pdestructo
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>BTW, 'Maus' is not in graphic novel section: 'History-WW2' (or similar -
>on the back it might say something like 'Shelve with...')
>'Stuck Rubber Baby' is in Gay Issues. So there you go.
Personally, I think comic books should be shelved together, because it
is a different art form. Books about jazz are not next to the jazz CDs
and the sheet music and the trumpets. All these items are in different
sections of a music store or different stores altogether. It follows
that people looking for comics (like you and me) could find their gay
comics, ww2 comics, superhero comics, comics about comics, historical
comics, biographical comics, and "pictographically configured
improvisatory romances" ;) (Jimmy Corrigan) in the same place.
In my BNN, I found Maus in the history section and Jimmy on the "new
science fiction" shelf. :P
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>>I think Graphic Novel is the best term. "Comic book" is, at this point,
>>irrevocably stained with geekoid stigma as to beyond rehabilitation.
>
>not to be seen as a geek who reads comic books.
Right-o!
>How about "pictorial narrative"? More syllables, more cred.
That has potential.
-koby.
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>>> How about "pictorial narrative"? More syllables, more cred.
Duggy:
>>Once it's known, the same problems will occur. Plus it sounds sillier.
>Well, darn. Guess we'll have to stick with "comic books," then.
heh.
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>Try telling someone that Dark Knight Returns isn't a comic book "No! It is a
>GRAPHIC NOVEL godammit!", and watch as they look at you as they reserve a room
>in the loony bin with your name on it.
EXACTLY! It's great to find someone who understands what I mean by
something!
>Whether there is a stigma or not, the general population has a near universal
>understanding of what you are supposed to call a book filled with panels and
>words in baloons. That term is "comic book".
"What do you like to read?" "Graphic novels."
To the untrained ear, this sounds like "pulp violence novels."
"What do you like to read?" "Comic books."
To the untrained ear, THIS sounds like "bad comic books."
I believe the latter is better. Because one can then go on to say "no,
they're actually good comic books," as opposed to saying "no, graphic
novels are actually comic books except they have square binding. oh
yeah, and they're actually good." See?
>Also, should we go back and make Marvel's
>Pope John Paul biography a new form, the "Graphic biography"?
I agree with that also. There are all kind of graphics then... graphic
histories ("the comic history of the world" or whatever it's called),
graphic instruction manuals (thousands of these), etc etc.
if not comic, then maybe "graphic books." But this just sounds silly,
again invoking imagery of lurid sex 'n' violence.
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>> Collected volumes of comics are over-sized in relation to other
>>books. Hence the term. What's your problem?
>
>hmm, my problem is that certain folks in the industry use the term "Trade
>paperback" to mean reprints.
Well, it's as good a term as any. I find it very useful. And as an
acronym -- "TPB" -- it works even better. Plenty of acronyms have less
to do with the real spelled-out meaning than this one here. (Sorry, no
examples. But I know they're out there.)
And most computer acronyms are more well-known than their original
meanings. "Modem," anyone? (Actually that's not an acronym; it's an
abbreviation, for "modulator-demodulator." But you know what I mean)
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
> I think you're reading too much into the word 'graphic'. Do you
>assume a 'graphic designer' plans pornography?
No, but I assume a "graphic movie" or "graphic cartoon" or "graphic TV
show" or "graphic music video" or "graphic comics series" includes sex
and/or violence.
>The term 'graphic
>novel' is not sinonymous(sp)
synonymous :)
>with 'comics'. A graphic novel is a
>self-contained story in one volume, not a piece of a continuing
>episodic story.
Well, mmmaybe. What about a stitched-and-bound comic book that is part
of a series? The first that comes to mind is the series of Batman
comic books, "Red Rain," "Bloodstorm," and "Crimson Mist" (in which he
fights Dracula, becomes a vampire, and takes blood as evil monster,
respectively). All were first published as books, not magazines. Does
this not make them graphic novels in your eyes?
>Puting the word 'novel' in the name makes perfect sense,
>to me. It gives teh stories a sense of class, of legitimacy. (etc)
Good point, but what if it's NOT a novel?
>>And what
>>do you call a book of sequential art that's *non* fiction, like MAUS
>>or PALESTINE?
>First, MAUS is semi-biographical fiction. Spiegleman(sp) did take a
>few dramatic licenses with the story. Above and beyond the animal
>imagery, he also specifically noted, in an interview on the CD-ROM,
>that the character 'Art' in the story is -not- Art Spiegleman.
I've always wanted one of those, but never could get my hands on
one... is it still in print? (Pretty expensive too, BTW -- $30 to find
out about a series of books I already own? I mean, as a magazine
article or mini-book it would have been $10, tops.)
>'Sequential art', though a wonderful descriptive
>term in the world of theory, isn't a term many people are going to
>recognise.
Agreed.
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>On shelves across the room from me are softcover printings of {squints}
>Stuck Rubber Baby, Goodbye Chunky Rice, Lost Girl, Understanding Comics,
>Reinventing Comics, The New Adventures of Abraham Lincoln, You Are Here, I
>Die At Midnight, The Wizard's Tale, Our Cancer Year, Dignifying Science,
>Bull's Balls, Heartthrobs, Pedro and Me, Why I Hate Saturn, The Cowboy Wally
>Show, To the Heart of the Storm, Last Day in Vietnam, Son of Superman, Life
>on Another Planet, Violent Cases, Cave-In, Back Alley Graffiti, A Contract
>with God, The Courageous Princess, A History of Violence, Banks/Eubanks,
>Faith: A Fable, The Moon Looked Down and Laughed, Arkham Asylum, Colossus,
>Black Candy, Bearskin, Gregory (and sequels), Seven Miles a Second, The
>Dome: Ground Zero, The Broccoli Agenda, Littlegreyman, and more.
Where do you live? :)
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>I like the term "novel" for this reason. It carries some weight, and many
>of these books deserve that. If someone doesn't care for "graphic" as the
>adjective, what about "illustrated novel"?
I think they're comics novels.
>I know that "illustrated" is
>typically used to describe books for children, but to my knowledge those
>aren't usually called "novels".
Yes, but what I don't like about "illustrated" is it give short shrift
to the art. The weight of an illustrated children's book is generally
carried by the text. The pictures ILLUSTRATE the text. They don't
dance in and out as illustrated in UNDERSTANDING COMICS.
>"Sequential art" is to a
>"graphic/illustrated novel" as "prose" is to a conventional "novel"... and
>if someone asked you about a book you just bought, you wouldn't tell them
>that it's "a book of prose". {smile}
Right-o, mate!
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>Only if you want her to think you're an idiot. If you want her to like
>you, you just say some titles, and if she likes them, you have something
>in common, if not, well, she might be intrigued. If she makes fun of
>you, who needs her anyway.
Yeah, like
"What're you reading?"
"Prose."
Todd VerBeek
>>"Sequential Art". :)
Our friend Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo said:
>Yeah, but if it's gonna comics that we're "Understanding," it's comic
>books we're reading.
>
>Speaking of which, what kind of book *is* UNDERSTANDING COMICS if not
>a "comic book"? Answer me that.
It's a non-fiction book. A media theory book, to be more precise. What
would you call it if he'd done it in all in text? That's what kind of book
it is.
If you want a general term for publications =in this medium= which aren't
fiction, what's wrong with "illustrated book"?
You seem to me to have the same problem as the folks who keep wanting "trade
paperback" to mean "reprint of a bunch of monthly comics": it's all well and
good as in-group slang or jargon, but it doesn't work when you deal with all
the people out there who didn't get your memo about what the phrase is
supposed to mean now. They'll either assume you mean the same thing
everybody else means by it and misunderstand you, or they'll figure you've
got some ideosyncratic meaning of your own and decide you're not worth
trying to understand.
It's not =impossible= to arbitrarily change the meaning of a word or phrase,
but it's incredibly difficult. Untold thousands of people have been trying
for over a decade now simply to change "queer" from a pejorative into
something positive (or at least nonjudgmental) - not really trying to change
its denotation, just it's connotations - and they've been only marginally
effective. And there are a lot more homosexuals (and more widely
distributed among the population) than there are comics fans.
What works better is the introduction of a =new= term into people's
vocabulary. It's best if it has some familiar elements to help people
figure it out upon first encounter. This is where "graphic novel" came
from: people know what a "novel" is, and they know what "graphics" are.
Granted, it's still open to misinterpretation, which is why it's not
perfect. But at least someone who's guessing is aware that they're
guessing, as contrasted with someone who thinks they know what you mean
because they =know= what a "comic book" is. (This is why, while "queer"
remains an epithet, the new term "transgender" [refering to transsexuals,
transvestites, hermaphrodites, etc.] is steadily making its way into the
public vocabulary and legislation, even without as much effort behind it.)
Todd VerBeek
>>On shelves across the room from me are softcover printings of {squints}
>>Stuck Rubber Baby, Goodbye Chunky Rice, Lost Girl, Understanding Comics,
>>Reinventing Comics, The New Adventures of Abraham Lincoln, You Are Here, I
>>Die At Midnight, The Wizard's Tale, Our Cancer Year, Dignifying Science,
>>Bull's Balls, Heartthrobs, Pedro and Me, Why I Hate Saturn, The Cowboy Wally
>>Show, To the Heart of the Storm, Last Day in Vietnam, Son of Superman, Life
>>on Another Planet, Violent Cases, Cave-In, Back Alley Graffiti, A Contract
>>with God, The Courageous Princess, A History of Violence, Banks/Eubanks,
>>Faith: A Fable, The Moon Looked Down and Laughed, Arkham Asylum, Colossus,
>>Black Candy, Bearskin, Gregory (and sequels), Seven Miles a Second, The
>>Dome: Ground Zero, The Broccoli Agenda, Littlegreyman, and more.
Our friend Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo said:
>Where do you live? :)
About a quarter mile from Yesterdog and the Intersection. Second house
after the Brandywine. {smile}
Todd VerBeek
>>I like the term "novel" for this reason. It carries some weight, and many
>>of these books deserve that. If someone doesn't care for "graphic" as the
>>adjective, what about "illustrated novel"?
Our friend Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo said:
>I think they're comics novels.
{shrug} At least that term has the, er... novelty that "comic book" lacks.
That is, people won't think you're talking about something else when you say
it. (The plural "comics" as an adjective sounds funny, though.)
>>I know that "illustrated" is
>>typically used to describe books for children, but to my knowledge those
>>aren't usually called "novels".
>Yes, but what I don't like about "illustrated" is it give short shrift
>to the art. The weight of an illustrated children's book is generally
>carried by the text. The pictures ILLUSTRATE the text. They don't
>dance in and out as illustrated
{raised eyebrow}
>in UNDERSTANDING COMICS.
This is probably why Donna Barr prefers to call them "drawn". The problems
I have with that are that it excludes painting, digital media, and other
means of rendering images (which "illustrated" includes), it's a peculiar
use of an irregular verb form as an adjective, and it's just aurally
awkward. ("What's a 'drong book'?")
What about "pictorial"? Or "visual"?
Todd VerBeek
>>hmm, my problem is that certain folks in the industry use the term "Trade
>>paperback" to mean reprints.
Our friend Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo said:
>Well, it's as good a term as any.
No, it really isn't. A term that has some connection to what you're talking
about would be much better. Like "reprint". Or "collection". Or "reprint
collection".
Just grabbing a term that A) doesn't actually describe what you're talking
about (why "trade"?), and B) has its own established meaning already in wide
use, and then saying that it now means something else is just begging to be
misunderstood.
>I find it very useful.
I find kitchen knives very useful at tightening screws. That doesn't mean
we should start calling them "screwdrivers".
>And as an
>acronym -- "TPB" -- it works even better. Plenty of acronyms have less
>to do with the real spelled-out meaning than this one here. (Sorry, no
>examples. But I know they're out there.)
But in the publishing industry "TPB" retains the original meaning which it
abbreviates. It has the advantage that most consumers aren't likely to be
misled by it, but it still doesn't describe anything, and it'll still cause
confusion when people encounter the same abbreviation elsewhere in
publishing and it means something entirely different.
>And most computer acronyms are more well-known than their original
>meanings. "Modem," anyone? (Actually that's not an acronym; it's an
>abbreviation, for "modulator-demodulator." But you know what I mean)
(Neither is "TPB" an acronym; it's an abbreviation. An acronym is an
abbreviation that's pronounced as a word, like the abbreviation for
"Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus", or for "Situation Normal:
All Fucked Up", or whatever S.H.I.E.L.D. stands for. Oh, and "modem" is a
contraction.)
Todd VerBeek
>>Try telling someone that Dark Knight Returns isn't a comic book "No! It is a
>>GRAPHIC NOVEL godammit!", and watch as they look at you as they reserve a room
>>in the loony bin with your name on it.
Our friend Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo said:
>EXACTLY! It's great to find someone who understands what I mean by
>something!
Perhaps if you weren't so eager to redefine and misappropriate terms without
regard for their established meanings to other people, that wouldn't be so
unusual.
Todd VerBeek
>>BTW, 'Maus' is not in graphic novel section: 'History-WW2' (or similar -
>>on the back it might say something like 'Shelve with...')
>>'Stuck Rubber Baby' is in Gay Issues. So there you go.
Our friend Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo said:
>Personally, I think comic books should be shelved together, because it
>is a different art form. Books about jazz are not next to the jazz CDs
>and the sheet music and the trumpets. All these items are in different
>sections of a music store or different stores altogether.
By this reasoning, comics should be kept in their current speciality store
ghetto. I don't agree.
The reason books about jazz aren't next to the jazz CDs is that they are not
themselves jazz... they're =about= jazz. That's what's different about
them. But Stuck Rubber Baby is fiction just like The Front Runner, Tales of
the City, or A Boy's Own Story is fiction. They're all books containing
fiction. Baby isn't in a fundamentally different art form, any more than
words and pictures are fundamentally distinct (as McCloud explains in
Understanding Comics).
(Actually, the reason books about jazz aren't next to the jazz CDs is that
these used to be in different stores altogether, and no one's tried
arranging the product this way. Perhaps shelving issues make it
impractical. But it's a good idea!)
>It follows
>that people looking for comics (like you and me) could find their gay
>comics, ww2 comics, superhero comics, comics about comics, historical
>comics, biographical comics, and "pictographically configured
>improvisatory romances" ;) (Jimmy Corrigan) in the same place.
And people who are simply looking for gay fiction, WW2 history, biographies,
etc. won't find them at all. This is not a good thing.
KRothst402
<TVer...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>I like the term "novel" for this reason. It carries some weight, and many
>>of these books deserve that. If someone doesn't care for "graphic" as the
>>adjective, what about "illustrated novel"?
Do where does Graphics Illustrated (wasn't that the title of the illustrated
novels back when?) fit into this?
Richard Pace
KRothst402 wrote:
--
Richard Pace
After November 1st The Gallery will be found at
http://www3.sympatico.ca/richardpace/
KRothst402
Right!
So is any issue of Classics Illustrated a graphic novel? It is graphic, and
they were novels.
GrapeApe
>> novels back when?) fit into this?
You must be thinking of "Classics Classified". They know where they fit, by
classification.
--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---
Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!
Elayne Riggs
> I think it's pretty clear by now that comic doesn't mean funny in this
> case.
And that "graphic" doesn't mean the same thing when speaking of drawn
books as it does in other contexts.
- Elayne
Elayne Riggs
> On 22 Nov 2000, Elayne Riggs wrote:
>> Donna Barr has been lobbying for the term "drawn books" for awhile now.
> But they are written and drawn...
Yes, the "books" implies written, and the "drawn" SAYS drawn. :)
- Elayne
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> >Already has.
> Yeah! Doesn't anyone here read YABS?! :)
I was thinking of at least 3 references to comic-geeks claiming the
pamphlets they own/were reading were really GNs in that way geeks claim
things in mainstream media.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> >Try telling someone that Dark Knight Returns isn't a comic book "No! It is a
> >GRAPHIC NOVEL godammit!", and watch as they look at you as they reserve a room
> >in the loony bin with your name on it.
You know, may old comic shop was called the Looney Bin...
> EXACTLY! It's great to find someone who understands what I mean by
> something!
Hey, I understand.
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> No, it really isn't. A term that has some connection to what you're talking
> about would be much better. Like "reprint". Or "collection". Or "reprint
> collection".
RC I can handle.
> Just grabbing a term that A) doesn't actually describe what you're talking
> about (why "trade"?),
Exactly. Why Trade? Why is one call one size Trade and one Mass
Market? Stupid missuse of terms.
> and B) has its own established meaning already in wide
> use,
Wide use in publishing, not in the real world, hense the reason that it
was so easily picked up by some who had no idea it had another meaning.
> and then saying that it now means something else is just begging to be
> misunderstood.
True. But languages are like that.
> >I find it very useful.
> I find kitchen knives very useful at tightening screws. That doesn't mean
> we should start calling them "screwdrivers".
I know people who would. If that was their only "screwdriver" that's what
they'd call it.
> Oh, and "modem" is a
> contraction.)
Wouldn't that be Mo'dem?
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>Perhaps if you weren't so eager to redefine and misappropriate terms without
>regard for their established meanings to other people, that wouldn't be so
>unusual.
(long pause)
Naaaahhhhhh.....
------KOBY.------
alternate response: "Well, maybe if you would eggplant fricasse every
once in a while, so many people wouldn't be transistory involvemental
all the time!"
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>>Personally, I think comic books should be shelved together, because it
>>is a different art form. Books about jazz are not next to the jazz CDs
>>and the sheet music and the trumpets. All these items are in different
>>sections of a music store or different stores altogether.
Todd VerBeek <TVer...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>By this reasoning, comics should be kept in their current speciality store
>ghetto. I don't agree.
Not necessarily. In addition to prose, bookstores sell poetry,
coffeetable art books, and magazines. Not to mention the CDs, coffee
and movies... :)
>But Stuck Rubber Baby is fiction just like ... is fiction. They're all
>books containing fiction. Baby isn't in a fundamentally different art
>form....
So what are we all doing here?
Alternate response: So why aren't the movies about the Civil War next
to the Civil War histories and the Civil War historical fiction?
>, any more than words and pictures are fundamentally distinct (as
>McCloud explains in Understanding Comics).
Yes, but he also clearly thinks that the combination of words and
pictures -- "sequential art" or "comics" -- is a form unto itself.
(Damn, wouldn't it be cool if he would take part in these debates?
Even to post just once? But I understand why he doesn't.)
>(Actually, the reason books about jazz aren't next to the jazz CDs is that
>these used to be in different stores altogether, and no one's tried
>arranging the product this way. Perhaps shelving issues make it
>impractical. But it's a good idea!)
Well, it could lead to difficulty when you get to books about jazz
saxophonists vs. books about Charlie Parker, etc.
Shelving issues would make it impractical, as well as theftproofing
devices. Ever notice why the shelves are so low in a CD store? That's
to discourage you from peeling off the theftproof sticker and walking
out with Brittney Spears in your pocket. Apparently books are much
less likely to be stolen.
>>It follows
>>that people looking for comics (like you and me) could find their gay
>>comics, ww2 comics, superhero comics, comics about comics, historical
>>comics, biographical comics, and "pictographically configured
>>improvisatory romances" ;) (Jimmy Corrigan) in the same place.
>
>And people who are simply looking for gay fiction, WW2 history, biographies,
>etc. won't find them at all. This is not a good thing.
Yeah, maybe... but... well, we're kind of whipping a dead horse here.
We both see each other's opinions, so there's no point talking anymore
in this message... :P
>Cheers, Todd
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>>a "comic book"? Answer me that.
>It's a non-fiction book. A media theory book, to be more precise. What
>would you call it if he'd done it in all in text? That's what kind of book
>it is.
Score one for you! :P
>If you want a general term for publications =in this medium= which aren't
>fiction, what's wrong with "illustrated book"?
Because illustrated books are already out there. (Checking shelf)
Here's one. DRUMS by James Boyd, illustrated by N.C. Wyeth.
Illustrated books are books in which the text carries the entire
story, with the illustrations illumaniting certain scenes. This gives
short shrift to the pictures as a storytelling device.
But, on second thought... maybe "illustrated book" isn't so bad. I can
see how "illustrated" could be morphed and redefined... hmm... maybe
we're going to come to (gasp) an agreement!
>You seem to me to have the same problem as the folks who keep wanting "trade
>paperback" to mean "reprint of a bunch of monthly comics": it's all well and
>good as in-group slang or jargon, but it doesn't work when you deal with all
>the people out there who didn't get your memo about what the phrase is
>supposed to mean now. They'll either assume you mean the same thing
>everybody else means by it and misunderstand you, or they'll figure you've
>got some ideosyncratic meaning of your own and decide you're not worth
>trying to understand.
You're right.
>It's not =impossible= to arbitrarily change the meaning of a word or phrase,
>but it's incredibly difficult. Untold thousands of people have been trying
>for over a decade now simply to change "queer" from a pejorative into
>something positive (or at least nonjudgmental) - not really trying to change
>its denotation, just it's connotations - and they've been only marginally
>effective. And there are a lot more homosexuals (and more widely
>distributed among the population) than there are comics fans.
Don't tell Fredrick Wertham that! :)
You've convinced me -- I agree with the rest of your message. I still
don't think "comic book" is completely dead, but now I do think that
"illustrated book" or "graphic novel" might be better to describe the
stuff we love.
I'm still in shock that I've actually been convinced of something in
an online debate... usually these lead to nothing at all being
concluded for anyone!
Well, I can still change my mind... :)
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>No, it really isn't. A term that has some connection to what you're talking
>about would be much better. Like "reprint". Or "collection". Or "reprint
>collection".
Again, I agree thoroughly... what the heck was I smoking? :S
You have made my signature. Rejoice!
------KOBY.------
" 'Reprint'. Or 'collection.' Or 'reprint collection.' "
- Todd VerBeek
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>
>About a quarter mile from Yesterdog and the Intersection. Second house
>after the Brandywine. {smile}
Huh? -k.
Elayne Riggs
> alternate response: "Well, maybe if you would eggplant fricasse every
> once in a while, so many people wouldn't be transistory involvemental
> all the time!"
No, no, no. It goes, "Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other
hand, water is water! And East is East and West is West and if you take
cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes
than rhubarb does. Now, uh... Now you tell me what you know." (- Groucho)
Geez, I gotta teach you youngsters everything. ;)
- Elayne
Justin Bacon
writes:
>I like the term "novel" for this reason. It carries some weight, and many
>of these books deserve that. If someone doesn't care for "graphic" as the
>adjective, what about "illustrated novel"?
My objection to "illustrated" is that you illustrate something which stands by
itself otherwise. A comic has no form without its graphic component.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
(KRothst402) writes:
>So is any issue of Classics Illustrated a graphic novel? It is graphic, and
>they were novels.
Was this the series of classic stories adapted to comics? Then, yes, graphic
novel (or, at least, graphic novella).
Justin Bacon
Peter Destructo <ko...@softhome.netCNY-TOC> writes:
>"What do you like to read?" "Graphic novels."
>To the untrained ear, this sounds like "pulp violence novels."
In twenty years on this planet I have never -- not once -- had someone assume
that when I said "graphic novel" I actually ment "pulp violence novels".
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
Peter Destructo <ko...@softhome.netCNY-TOC> writes:
>tria...@aol.com (Justin Bacon) wrote:
>>Think Maya Angelou.
>
>(thinking...thinking...)
>*FZZZZZT*
>
>Error
Was there a need to let the entire newsgroup know that your brain is so totally
inept that it can't process a name without running into a brick wall?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
writes:
>If you want a general term for publications =in this medium= which aren't
>fiction, what's wrong with "illustrated book"?
illustrate: 1. to make clear or explain, as by examples or comparisons; 2. to
furnish (books, etc.) with explanatory or decorative drawings, pictures, etc.
Neither of those definitions fit comics.
graphic: 1. describing or described in realistic detail; 2. of those arts
(graphic arts) that include any form of visual artistic representation, esp.
painting, drawing, etching, etc.
The first does not fit comics. The second most assuredly does.
Graphic novel (or, depending, graphic nonfiction, graphic biography, graphic
textbook, etc.) is the best term yet suggested (outside of the traditional
"comic book").
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Elayne Riggs
> illustrate: 1. to make clear or explain, as by examples or comparisons; 2. to
> furnish (books, etc.) with explanatory or decorative drawings, pictures, etc.
> Neither of those definitions fit comics.
The way many people on Usenet talk about comic book art as being merely an
adjunct to the writing, it certainly seems to at times. :)
- Elayne
Killans - First And Last And Always
I almost never see that. What I do see on Usenet is a healthy appreciation
of the way writing and art (are supposed to) work together to tell a story
- as opposed to the writing being a useless adjunct to the pin-up pictures,
which is an attidude that's still prevalent in the comic fanbase at large.
Mike
--
"Seeing a Maiden show is like watching a Lloyd Webber musical about these
ever-so slightly effeminate Vikings who fall through a wormhole in the
space-time continuum into a post-apocalyptic future where they capture a
giant ape and teach it to sing and dance." - Steven Wells
Elayne Riggs
> Like Colouring book, picture book, phone book...
Coloring and picture books are illustrated rather than drawn. Not being
Donna I can only take a stab at a guess, but it would be that "drawn"
implies, or should imply, that sequential visual storytelling is taking
place, which you don't generally have with illustrations.
- Elayne
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
*FZZZZZT*
Error, rephrase query
-k.
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>The way many people on Usenet talk about comic book art as being merely an
>adjunct to the writing, it certainly seems to at times. :)
Who says that? Lemme at 'im! -koby
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
It's one of those words that if you say it over and over again, it
doesn't seem like a word anymore.
Y'know?
Drawn drawn drawn drawn drawn drawn drawn
------KOBY.------
" 'Reprint.' Or 'collection.' Or 'reprint collection.' " - Todd
VerBeek
****Visit Kobyland!****
http://kobyland.cjb.net
with rare Cartoon Network MP3s and funny quotes
Elayne Riggs
Heh. Who DOESN'T seem to have that opinion around here? ;)
Seriously, check Dejanews. Or just check any review, wherein the writing
and plot is pretty much reviewed to death and the art is barely mentioned.
- Elayne
KRothst402
>>>The way many people on Usenet talk about comic book art as being merely an
>>>adjunct to the writing, it certainly seems to at times. :)
I'm guilty of that. After all, you read a comic book, and reading is the
operative word here. The words are paramount I think. The art hopefully
enhances it all. Bad art will make a great story merely good, great art will
die at the hands of a bad story.
The idea with fiction I think is to engage the mind; that comes through
stories. Of course, you can have a story with no words, but be it
michaelangelo or stick figures doing the telling there, it would be the writing
of that story that gives it its heart.
Johanna Draper Carlson
> Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo <ko...@softhome.netcny-toc> happened to
> mention:
>>> The way many people on Usenet talk about comic book art as being merely an
>>> adjunct to the writing, it certainly seems to at times. :)
>
>
> Heh. Who DOESN'T seem to have that opinion around here? ;)
Oh, lots of people. But that isn't as easy to joke about. :)
> Seriously, check Dejanews. Or just check any review, wherein the writing
> and plot is pretty much reviewed to death and the art is barely mentioned.
Based on this, I would guess that you haven't read many reviews here lately.
I, for one, even include a specific labeled section commenting on the art in
my recommendations.
Johanna Draper Carlson joh...@comicsworthreading.com
Reviews of Comics Worth Reading -- http://www.comicsworthreading.com
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> "Duggy (Paul Duggan)" <jc12...@jcu.edu.au> happened to mention:
> > On 22 Nov 2000, Elayne Riggs wrote:
> >> Donna Barr has been lobbying for the term "drawn books" for awhile now.
> > But they are written and drawn...
> Yes, the "books" implies written, and the "drawn" SAYS drawn. :)
Like Colouring book, picture book, phone book...
---
owene...@my-deja.com
kroth...@aol.com (KRothst402) wrote:
> >> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>>The way many people on Usenet talk about comic book art as being
merely an
> >>>adjunct to the writing, it certainly seems to at times. :)
>
the
> operative word here. The words are paramount I think. The art
hopefully
> enhances it all. Bad art will make a great story merely good, great
art will
> die at the hands of a bad story.
The problem with this is that story doesn't equal words.
What happens and how it happens is a big (or probably bigger) part of
many stories than what is said. Bad art can literally stop you seeing
the story leaving you with only the verbal part of it. A bad script
with good art should still leave you with an understanding of what has
happened, the mood of the scene, the body language and personality of
the characters and everything that didn't involve talking. Bad art can
take away as much or more than a bad script. An artist who can't tell a
story can literally leave you not know what happened.
A story where every event is spelt out in dialogue or narration is a
rather hamfisted unsubtle one. Imagine taking a great movie and just
running the dialogue, you wouldn't think you had the same story in fact
you would have lost a huge part of the story. The same SHOULD be the
same in comics. (Excuse my shouting it wasn't to make a point at your
expense but simply because in many comics the visuals aren't actually
doing their job very well)
Now this isn't as big a problem as it should be in mainstream comics
because many writers have come to expect artists to get in their way
and work at duplicating the visual information in the words but that is
just an acceptance of the potential strength (or damage) of the visual
not a vindication of the supremacy of words.
This is probably a side effect of comics being split into an assembly
line to aid production, not only doesn't the writer have any command
over how the story is told (only what is said, a very different thing)
but the demands of the system have often led to artists skimping on the
storytelling part of their job.
>
> The idea with fiction I think is to engage the mind; that comes
through
> stories. Of course, you can have a story with no words, but be it
> michaelangelo or stick figures doing the telling there, it would be
the writing
> of that story that gives it its heart.
Sure writing or story is paramount but a huge proportion of what we
consider the writing is being done by the artist. Your comment above
about the words being paramount is a very different thing and is a view
that RAC seems to put forward a lot.
A view that is tellingly almost the complete opposite of that taken by
most efforts at serious criticism of comics where the visual capacity
to tell a story is king (generally in the hands of a single cartoonist
not a writer penciller inker letterer conveyor belt.) Those comics who
take art (as in artistic merit not simply the drawings) seriously tend
to be led by visuals. Its a visual medium after all.
Owen Erasmus
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
O_v
message...
>I'm guilty of that. After all, you read a comic book, and reading is
>the operative word here. The words are paramount I think. The art
>hopefully enhances it all. Bad art will make a great story merely good,
>great art will die at the hands of a bad story.
I agree with all this, but I don't think art takes a back seat to writing.
Indeed, they both have to compliment and bolster each other up equally. A
comic (or whatever) made up of great writing but dreadful art is as much of
a failure as a comic filled with stupendous art and dreadful writing.
--
O_v
Remember Otakuboy!
See the abridged history: http://otakuboy.com
Elayne Riggs
>>> Elayne Riggs <fire...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>The way many people on Usenet talk about comic book art as being merely an
>>>>adjunct to the writing, it certainly seems to at times. :)
> I'm guilty of that.
Oh heck, I think more Usenetters than not are guilty of it. In a text-
based medium, a bias toward text is to be expected.
> After all, you read a comic book, and reading is the
> operative word here.
People "read" art as well, Ken. But I don't think the art-reading
vocabulary of many Usenetters is as strong as their text-reading one.
Again, to be expected.
> The words are paramount I think. The art hopefully
> enhances it all.
I disagree, obviously. I think both should have equal importance.
- Elayne
Duggy (Paul Duggan)
> >> Yes, the "books" implies written, and the "drawn" SAYS drawn. :)
> > Like Colouring book, picture book, phone book...
> Donna I can only take a stab at a guess, but it would be that "drawn"
> implies, or should imply, that sequential visual storytelling is taking
> place, which you don't generally have with illustrations.
I'd have to say that an illustration expands on the text... (it
illustrates the story), where as something that is drawn means it's a
picture that has been drawn... IMHO, of course, but I can't see any
mention of sequential visual storytelling in either term.
No matter what you call them they are still (in the uninformed mind) comic
books. Using another term just makes you sound like you are ashame of
what you're reading.
KRothst402
>> The words are paramount I think. The art hopefully
>> enhances it all.
>
>I disagree, obviously. I think both should have equal importance.
See, I came to the conclusion that the words were most important (or rather the
writing is most important) years ago and didn't even realize it. You would
read a comic monthly, and say it was Capt America by Steve Englehart and Sal
Buscema. I think Sal was always reliably good and could draw anything. I
loved the comic. Then the next month, Sal is gone and Frank Robbins is the
artist. It is a shock to the eyes for a while, but then you adjust and you
still are following the story (or at least I was anyway). So the art enhanced
the story. but the story was where it was at.
Or Avengers by Steve Englehart and Bob Brown. Brown was a highly competent
artist. He is replaced by Buscema, and then he is replaced by Perez. The art
changes, but the story stays on course. No average issue was worse than any
other. Is Perez the best artist of the three? I would say so. Did Perez
contribute to the best issues? No, I would say Buscema did.
About the only time when art can become so powerful as to take over is when the
artist is so excellent or so poor as to make a reader take notice. Neal Adams
draws Batman one month, and Irv Novick does the next. You notice the
difference because Adams is so far above Novick.
But when you have regular competent artists, the books rise and fall on the
story. The Superman books spent the 90s being a weekly and having four
seperate artists. All were somewhere in the same level, so it didn't really
make a difference whether Jon Bog or Dan Jurgens or Tom Grummett or Ordway or
Immonen or whoever was doing the art. Even now on Avengers, Perez is being
replaced by Alan Davis, and yet the story will go on. It will not be a new
story though. However, if Perez stayed and Kurt Busiek left, it would be the
beginning of a new story I would think.
Elayne Riggs
>>> The words are paramount I think. The art hopefully
>>> enhances it all.
>>
>>I disagree, obviously. I think both should have equal importance.
> See, I came to the conclusion that the words were most important (or rather the
> writing is most important) years ago and didn't even realize it. You would
> read a comic monthly, and say it was Capt America by Steve Englehart and Sal
> Buscema.
Well, some people just say that because it's the order in the credit box
(which in turn often reflects the order in which the comic was produced).
But my husband always remembers comics first by the artist, then the
writer. That's how our TPBs are filed as well, by artist.
> About the only time when art can become so powerful as to take over...
You are, of course, just speaking of your perceptions.
- Elayne
Koby TIB ~ formerly Peter Destructo
>Or Avengers by Steve Englehart and Bob Brown. Brown was a highly competent
>artist. He is replaced by Buscema, and then he is replaced by Perez. The art
See, this is why you have to get out of assembly line comics. (BTW, I
always thought "Assembly Line Comix" would be a great name for a
small-press label... Take note, folks!)
When you start reading comic book guys Will Eisner, Chris Ware, Art
Spiegelman, or comic strip guys George Herriman (Krazy Kat), E.C.
Segar (Thimble Theater [Popeye]), or Bill Watterson, a harmony between
the art and the words comes out.
When the writer can't draw, I don't care how wonderful he is -- his
writing will NOT lead to ingenious pictorial storytelling. The
pictures would be good, sure, but, as you said, not particularly
important.
There are definitely exceptions -- Alan Moore comes to mind. But for
the most part, the best comics result when the artist and writer are
embodied in one person.
Find this out for yourself. Start with COMICS AND SEQUENTIAL ART, by
Will Eisner. It's probably in the library. Read it! Particularly the
part on the visual language of comics, with the grid of one man in six
different poses saying the same thing on each row of boxes. "I'm
sorry," "Goodbye," etc. It'll blow your mind!
owene...@my-deja.com
> See, this is why you have to get out of assembly line comics. (BTW, I
> always thought "Assembly Line Comix" would be a great name for a
> small-press label... Take note, folks!)
I can understand the misconception though, when you are dealing with a
writer, penciller, inker situation the writer probably does have a
large influence. If the penciller is drawing what the writer directs
(ie full script) then you are not only relying on the writer for the
words but also the visual direction. To use a film reference the
penciller becomes the camera and lighting guys with the writer the
director and script writer. In that process the writer is paramount but
he is also writing visually not simply producing dialogue.
However as you point out very few of the best comics were written that
way, many of the better super hero comics were written with the artist
plotting and the writer adding words (Kirby or Ditko for example) and
many of the best comics are the product of a single vision.
> When you start reading comic book guys Will Eisner, Chris Ware, Art
> Spiegelman, or comic strip guys George Herriman (Krazy Kat), E.C.
> Segar (Thimble Theater [Popeye]), or Bill Watterson, a harmony between
> the art and the words comes out.
>
> When the writer can't draw, I don't care how wonderful he is -- his
> writing will NOT lead to ingenious pictorial storytelling. The
> pictures would be good, sure, but, as you said, not particularly
> important.
And as comics are visual and stories aren't solely limited to what is
said you will be unlikely to produce the very best works that way. You
can produce good comics and you may occasionally produce great ones but
too often you get the kind of situation shown in Understanding Ccomics
with the aims of the writer and artist actually being counterproductive
because what it takes to get yourself noticed as a writer and artist
(witty wordplay and powerful images) dont neccesarily mesh.
>
> There are definitely exceptions -- Alan Moore comes to mind. But for
> the most part, the best comics result when the artist and writer are
> embodied in one person.
Tellingly Moore started out as a cartoonist and his scripts are
supposed to deal with how he sees the visuals in far more depth than
many writers. I think Moore proves that collaboration can produce great
works but he clearly writes visually.
Orion
>story. The Superman books spent the 90s being a weekly and having four
>seperate artists. All were somewhere in the same level, so it didn't really
>make a difference whether Jon Bog or Dan Jurgens or Tom Grummett or Ordway or
>Immonen or whoever was doing the art.
issue by Bog and Janke[sp], and I always looked forward eagerly to
Grummet's pencils. Might just be a matter of taste.
> Even now on Avengers, Perez is being
>replaced by Alan Davis, and yet the story will go on. It will not be a new
>story though. However, if Perez stayed and Kurt Busiek left, it would be the
>beginning of a new story I would think.
I see your point. The transition to a new artist can sometimes be
very soft, but I think you're disregarding how much control an artist
has over the basic aspect of storytelling in a comic. To give you an
example: James Robinson's STARMAN originally had -very- unique,
stylised art (can't recall the pencilor's name, sorry). The art had a
huge effect on the storytelling. Jack Knight's personality and his
appearance meshed perfectly. When that artist left, the new one,
though competant, just wasn't able to capture the same 'feel' for a
good six or seven issues, by which time I left. I liken it to watching
a great TV show (pick one you like, doens't matter), and one day the
entire cast of characters is replaced, the sets are all different, and
the costumes are totally redesigned. The writers are the same, for the
sake of argument the actors are all portraying the characters just as
well as before, but the difference is jarring enough to turn you off.
I had the same text-bias people have been discussing (I'm a Lit.
Major, go figure), but since I've had to write reviews for comics
(www.slushfactory.com!) I've been forced to look more closely as the
techniques and methods of comic art. There's more to it than just
delivering a writer's words. Much more.
O_v
message...
>Or Avengers by Steve Englehart and Bob Brown. Brown was a highly
>competent artist. He is replaced by Buscema, and then he is replaced by
>Perez. The art changes, but the story stays on course. No average
>issue was worse than any other. Is Perez the best artist of the three?
>I would say so. Did Perez contribute to the best issues? No, I would
>say Buscema did.
But doesn't this presume that art has little to do with storytelling?
Perhaps you didn't notice a difference because there was not much of a
difference in those particular artists' storytelling abilities. You can
have terrible skill and great storytelling ability, and you can have vice-
versa.
This is why I don't particularly understand the argument about which has
more weight. An all-words comic book is not a novel any more than a comic
book full of pictures is a series of paintings. You have to have both,
playing off of each other, working together, pull one the other to make a
point, etc.
>About the only time when art can become so powerful as to take over is
>when the artist is so excellent or so poor as to make a reader take
>notice. Neal Adams draws Batman one month, and Irv Novick does the
>next. You notice the difference because Adams is so far above Novick.
I think a comic is a successful when don't particular notice either. Kinda
like read a book and noticing the writing. There is a point when all you
notice is the writing and forget the story...
O_v
Destructo's 30 Nov 2000 message...
>When you start reading comic book guys Will Eisner, Chris Ware, Art
>Spiegelman, or comic strip guys George Herriman (Krazy Kat), E.C.
>Segar (Thimble Theater [Popeye]), or Bill Watterson, a harmony between
>the art and the words comes out.
This is sooo true! HEED THOSE WORDS. Art _and_ words work completely in
tandem in these pieces. A well placed hand on Popeye's chin and a short
statement about a hungry girl communicates yards -- visually, literally,
and emotionally.
Justin Bacon
>I'm guilty of that. After all, you read a comic book, and reading is the
>operative word here. The words are paramount I think. The art hopefully
>enhances it all. Bad art will make a great story merely good, great art will
>die at the hands of a bad story.
Let's remember that, in comics, there is more to the story than just the words.
Bad art makes a great story merely good because the bad art also means bad
storytelling in the art -- an essential element of the comic book suite of
storytelling tools is being crippled.
Nor is it always true that the guy with "writer" as a title is the one coming
up with the plot (either wholly or even in part).
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com