Lifestyle

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 944

Next

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next

jonasgrumby

jonasgrumby

Portland, OR
April 2004

OCT 15, 2005 01:30 AM

I don't care much about the name, other than the fact that none of the common ones are particularly descriptive. "Comics" isn't much better than "funnies" -- the term originally described comic strips, and collections of strips, that were actually meant to be funny. The name stuck, even as the content changed.

"Graphic novels" might be better if the term actually described fictional stuff. But even Harvey Pekar's collections are called "graphic novels" -- even though they're autobiographical nonfiction.

Will Eisner liked "sequential art," which is pretty descriptive, but sucks any sense of fun out of the enterprise.

So yeah, I still use "comics" more often than not, but every now and then it makes me cringe a little.

attn_ho

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY
February 2004

OCT 15, 2005 01:58 AM

hmm. seems like ive read this article before. yeah, 5 years ago, and ten years ago. maye even 15 years ago. in 5 years, i expect another 'omg! comics are like mature and stuff!'

Vaux

Vaux

I'm lost
January 2008

OCT 15, 2005 02:20 AM

jonasgrumby said:
"Graphic novels" might be better if the term actually described fictional stuff. But even Harvey Pekar's collections are called "graphic novels" -- even though they're autobiographical nonfiction.


Graphic novels works for me. What bugs me is that all graphic novels get lumped together instead of being seperated into different categories: like, "Graphic novel: Autobiographies" or "Graphic Novel: Science Fiction". I recognize that there aren't enough books made in North America alone to support different subsections like that, but at least it would make things a lot more reasonable to me. After all, it's not like you walk into B&N and grab a random book under "Novel" and start expecting to enjoy it, right?

I can dream...

(edited to fix a [/ mistake thingie)

[Edited on Oct 15, 2005 by Vauxhall]

SomethingStupid

SomethingStupid

North Hollywood, CA
March 2004

OCT 16, 2005 02:40 AM

Keith said:
Neil Gaiman calls them "comics", and that's good enough for me. "Graphic novels" always struck me as a euphemism for people in denial. "Comics" is a perfectly honorable word with a wonderful traditiom, and, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase "graphic novel" was coined for people who A) would never read comics anyway or B) have an overinflated ego. It was coined to differentiate between "art" and Batman and Superman. Well, Batman and Superman are art, too. Some kind of person would say "Well, I've read some 'graphic novels', but I don't read comics." Probably the same kind of person who might read the New Yorker. So... yeah.

Comics.


P.S. No offense to you, Susannah. I'm addressing the source article.

[Edited on Oct 14, 2005 by Keith]



I was with you right up until the end. The New Yorker is easily my favorite magazine. But yes, the term "graphic novels" makes me cringe.

toothpickmoe

toothpickmoe

Los Angeles, CA
May 2004

OCT 16, 2005 03:14 AM

Vauxhall said:

jonasgrumby said:
"Graphic novels" might be better if the term actually described fictional stuff. But even Harvey Pekar's collections are called "graphic novels" -- even though they're autobiographical nonfiction.


Graphic novels works for me. What bugs me is that all graphic novels get lumped together instead of being seperated into different categories: like, "Graphic novel: Autobiographies" or "Graphic Novel: Science Fiction". I recognize that there aren't enough books made in North America alone to support different subsections like that, but at least it would make things a lot more reasonable to me. After all, it's not like you walk into B&N and grab a random book under "Novel" and start expecting to enjoy it, right?

I can dream...



This is a good point and need to be reposted, dammit.

blackwell

blackwell

United Kingdom
October 2004

OCT 16, 2005 09:03 AM

The difficulty of graphic novels limits their potential audience, in contrast to the blissfully easeful, still all-conquering movies, but that is not a debility; rather, it gives them the opalescent sheen of avant-gardism.



Obviously he hasn't read Scott McCloud's informative book Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art.


Keith

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK
August 2002

OCT 16, 2005 09:05 AM

TedKoppel said:

Keith said:
Neil Gaiman calls them "comics", and that's good enough for me. "Graphic novels" always struck me as a euphemism for people in denial. "Comics" is a perfectly honorable word with a wonderful traditiom, and, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase "graphic novel" was coined for people who A) would never read comics anyway or B) have an overinflated ego. It was coined to differentiate between "art" and Batman and Superman. Well, Batman and Superman are art, too. Some kind of person would say "Well, I've read some 'graphic novels', but I don't read comics." Probably the same kind of person who might read the New Yorker. So... yeah.

Comics.


P.S. No offense to you, Susannah. I'm addressing the source article.

[Edited on Oct 14, 2005 by Keith]



I was with you right up until the end. The New Yorker is easily my favorite magazine. But yes, the term "graphic novels" makes me cringe.



I like the New Yorker, too. Also one of my favorites, along with the Atlantic Monthly. But still.

EndedBen

EndedBen

Grand Rapids, MI
August 2004

OCT 16, 2005 09:12 AM

SukoShukia said:
I actually prefer the term Graphic Novel when referring to more literary works. I think it's important to make a distinction between monthly superhero books and something by Chris Ware or Craig Thompson.



Fuck THAT shit. What do those shitbags do that's more impressive or important than what Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Joss Whedon, Frank Miller or Alan Moore do every single month, year in and year out? More literary works? Give me a goddamn break. Read Watchmen (which slummed it as a monthly book!) and tell me that's not literary. On the flipside, Blankets was one big Death Cab For Cutie song.

''Graphic Novels'' are for intellectual bullies who can't bring themselves to read ''comics''. Go blow yourselves, we don't want you.

[Edited on Oct 16, 2005 by SuperNintendo]

Meridon

Meridon

I'm lost
September 2005

OCT 16, 2005 09:22 AM

Something else Neil Gaiman's said was lamenting the fact that most comics are for adults now. If kids aren't reading comics, the art form might die out.

EndedBen

EndedBen

Grand Rapids, MI
August 2004

OCT 16, 2005 09:25 AM

Meridon said:
Something else Neil Gaiman's said was lamenting the fact that most comics are for adults now. If kids aren't reading comics, the art form might die out.



As long as there's bored kids drawing on math tests, there will always be cartoonists.

Manchester_Black

Manchester_Black

Edmonton, AB
March 2004

OCT 16, 2005 09:27 AM

SuperNintendo said:

SukoShukia said:
I actually prefer the term Graphic Novel when referring to more literary works. I think it's important to make a distinction between monthly superhero books and something by Chris Ware or Craig Thompson.



Fuck THAT shit. What do those shitbags do that's any more impressive than what Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Joss Whedon, Frank Miller or Alan Moore do every single month, year in and year out? More literary works? Give me a goddamn break. Read Watchmen (which slummed it as a monthly book!) and tell me that's not literary. Blankets was one big Death Cab For Cutie song.

''Graphic Novels'' are for intellectual bullies who can't bring themselves to read ''comics''. Go blow yourselves.



[Edited on Oct 16, 2005 by SuperNintendo]



True that. I get to hear it all the time at my work- there's actually one regular who comes in who works at the local paper and he tells me that they don't have problems running reviews on 'graphic novels' but the second it has a ptoagonist with spandex or superpowers it loses any literary merit in their eyes, and it frustrates the hell out of him. Tell me that reading Batman:Arkham Asylum doesn't have literary merit when you compare it to the almost standard indie GN thats essentially an autobiography with often subpar art and a somewhat cookie cutter sense of emo filled ennui. Not to say there isn't good stuff in that genre, but I don't think there's nearly enough people who read that stuff with the hypercritical dissecting and nitpicking they hold superhero books up to.

blackwell

blackwell

United Kingdom
October 2004

OCT 16, 2005 09:53 AM

There's a stigma and a number of embarrassing connotations associated with the term 'comic books.' Consequently it's unsurprising that the mainstream media waste column inches justifying to their readers why they review a comic books.

Arete

Arete

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

OCT 16, 2005 05:05 PM

blackwell said:

The difficulty of graphic novels limits their potential audience, in contrast to the blissfully easeful, still all-conquering movies, but that is not a debility; rather, it gives them the opalescent sheen of avant-gardism.



Obviously he hasn't read Scott McCloud's informative book Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art.





i have that book, its incredibly informative. and surprisingly theory-based...

Pepelepew

Pepelepew

Oak Forest, IL
August 2005

OCT 16, 2005 05:11 PM

Sweet I will have to look into those I am big fan of graphic novels.

Arete

Arete

SUICIDEGIRL

I'm lost

OCT 16, 2005 05:12 PM

Invincible said:

SuperNintendo said:

SukoShukia said:
I actually prefer the term Graphic Novel when referring to more literary works. I think it's important to make a distinction between monthly superhero books and something by Chris Ware or Craig Thompson.



Fuck THAT shit. What do those shitbags do that's any more impressive than what Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, Joss Whedon, Frank Miller or Alan Moore do every single month, year in and year out? More literary works? Give me a goddamn break. Read Watchmen (which slummed it as a monthly book!) and tell me that's not literary. Blankets was one big Death Cab For Cutie song.

''Graphic Novels'' are for intellectual bullies who can't bring themselves to read ''comics''. Go blow yourselves.



[Edited on Oct 16, 2005 by SuperNintendo]



True that. I get to hear it all the time at my work- there's actually one regular who comes in who works at the local paper and he tells me that they don't have problems running reviews on 'graphic novels' but the second it has a ptoagonist with spandex or superpowers it loses any literary merit in their eyes, and it frustrates the hell out of him. Tell me that reading Batman:Arkham Asylum doesn't have literary merit when you compare it to the almost standard indie GN thats essentially an autobiography with often subpar art and a somewhat cookie cutter sense of emo filled ennui. Not to say there isn't good stuff in that genre, but I don't think there's nearly enough people who read that stuff with the hypercritical dissecting and nitpicking they hold superhero books up to.




is it possible that we will come to a point at which all comic books will be called "graphic novels"? i think the sloppy distinction that has been made between "comic books" and "graphic novels" is the result of a relatively new genre emerging that combines less traditional content with the form of a comic book. it isn't necessarily a conscious choice on the part of english scholars to term them "graphic novels" in order to make it more paletable. and if it was, trust me, its not working....most english profs will meet your comments regarding graphic novels with a blank stare.

[Edited on Oct 16, 2005 by Arete]

AndersWolleck

AndersWolleck

Astoria, NY
February 2003

OCT 16, 2005 05:50 PM

Keith said:
Neil Gaiman calls them "comics", and that's good enough for me. "Graphic novels" always struck me as a euphemism for people in denial. "Comics" is a perfectly honorable word with a wonderful traditiom, and, as far as I'm concerned, the phrase "graphic novel" was coined for people who A) would never read comics anyway or B) have an overinflated ego. It was coined to differentiate between "art" and Batman and Superman. Well, Batman and Superman are art, too. Some kind of person would say "Well, I've read some 'graphic novels', but I don't read comics." Probably the same kind of person who might read the New Yorker. So... yeah.

Comics.


P.S. No offense to you, Susannah. I'm addressing the source article.

[Edited on Oct 14, 2005 by Keith]




graphic novels are original comics in bound type form

trade paperback is collected comics previously published


Also i am so sick of these articles jabbering on about how comics have grown up. Theyve been printing these since Marvel came on the scene ina big way back in 1961 when FF and spiderman were all the rage on college campuses.

in america comics that are "grown up" will never ever, EVER, be very popular. i love comics but there is stigmistism on them that will always be there. mostly because people are fucking stupid

Toole

Toole

United Kingdom
October 2005

OCT 16, 2005 06:03 PM

I always thought the difference between a comic and a graphic novel was the length? I own tonnes of 2000AD, X-Men, Spiderman, Iron man etc. as well as a good chunk of manga. And I refer to all my issues as comics. If it's a book length comic, it's a graphic novel. As for the first graphic novel I owned, I was bought:



By my eldest brother, from whom I've inhereted almost half my collection of comics. And watchmen is still one of my favourite comics ever smile

Vaux

Vaux

I'm lost
January 2008

OCT 16, 2005 06:44 PM

I figure that the term graphic novel is a marketing term, just so people will start taking an interest in comics again. And if it works, then fine. If not, there's a solid base for readers to work from regardless (ie. comic book shops)...it's just a question of being able to publish a diverse set of works that appeal to a broad range or readers...not just satisfy one or two within a genre.

What I think is interesting is seeing how many people will cite Alan Moore's works as graphic novels...especially since they were all introduced originally on a monthly basis. It's true that the entire work was meant to be read in one sitting, as all good novels are. However, since they were all originally introduced as single monthly issues (or bi-monthly, or whatever), they may have received criticism because they were originally perceived as being just comics.

I think what truly ends up defining something as a graphic novel is time. History and solid discussions on the literary merits of various works will help broaden horizons and add to the cultural value of the work. So I guess, in a kinda high-handed way, I'm really glad this discussion even exists smile

Toole

Toole

United Kingdom
October 2005

OCT 16, 2005 06:58 PM

Vauxhall said:
What I think is interesting is seeing how many people will cite Alan Moore's works as graphic novels...especially since they were all introduced originally on a monthly basis. It's true that the entire work was meant to be read in one sitting, as all good novels are. However, since they were all originally introduced as single monthly issues (or bi-monthly, or whatever), they may have received criticism because they were originally perceived as being just comics.



Dickens originally wrote in installments in newspapers, but they're still considered novels by everyone nowadays. The fact that something is serialised doesn't necesserily mean anything, it's all part of one work.

As far as the defenitions of comic and graphic novel go, a lot of people seem to have misinterpreted it. A graphic novel is just a long comic. I consider my 'armor wars' book a graphic novel, the same way that I consider 'dark knight returns', 'wathcmen' or 'akira' to be graphic novels. It's all about the published length, not the artistic merit.

As for the comic genre as a whole, it's grown up with it's audience. Traditional comica aimed at the youth are failing, because they aer not the comic generation and rely on other sources of entertainment (I don't know a lot of people my age who read comics or graphic novels). Generation X was the comic generation, generation Y is the computer game generation. Generation X (loathe as I am to use the term, it's conveniant) are now becoming the new artists and philosophers of western society and are now publishing their work in a medium suited to them, and their ideas are similarly aimed at members of their own generation, and therefore comics are an ideal medium. I'm glad of the increasing maturity in comics, because I'm beginning to get a little bored of the same old stuff in brainless comics, and prefer something that gives me something the chew on for a while instead.

Are comic artists the philosphers of the 21st century? The other way around? Or am I talking a load of rubbish? tongue

Vaux

Vaux

I'm lost
January 2008

OCT 16, 2005 08:03 PM

A weirder thought would be using video games as vehicles for philosophy...

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

OCT 17, 2005 01:24 AM

Vauxhall said:

jonasgrumby said:
"Graphic novels" might be better if the term actually described fictional stuff. But even Harvey Pekar's collections are called "graphic novels" -- even though they're autobiographical nonfiction.


Graphic novels works for me. What bugs me is that all graphic novels get lumped together instead of being seperated into different categories: like, "Graphic novel: Autobiographies" or "Graphic Novel: Science Fiction". I recognize that there aren't enough books made in North America alone to support different subsections like that, but at least it would make things a lot more reasonable to me. After all, it's not like you walk into B&N and grab a random book under "Novel" and start expecting to enjoy it, right?

I can dream...

(edited to fix a [/ mistake thingie)

[Edited on Oct 15, 2005 by Vauxhall]



Actually, this has been one of the great things about comics for me. Since it's a relatively small medium outside the usual superhero stuff from Marvel or DC, which these days I mostly read only if a "name" author is writing it (Brian Michael Bendis, J. Michael Straczynski, Warren Ellis, Joss Whedon, etc.), I'm a *lot* less discriminating about what genres I read. And more often than not I enjoy it. I'm fairly sure I'd never have read something like "Blankets" if it hadn't been a graphic novel. Or "Box Office Poison". Or...

I suppose this probably means that I'd like similar things in prose, but there I have so many, to my mind more exciting, competing works in the fields of fantasy and SF, with the occasional foray into horror or hardboiled crime drama.

PacmanJones

PacmanJones

Australia
March 2012

MAR 10, 2012 02:28 PM

Vaux said:
A weirder thought would be using video games as vehicles for philosophy...


Given it's been seven years since this thread ended, I'd like to highlight some of the prominent concepts, particularly this one.

If we pause and think about the game Halo, I'm sure we'd all realise the gravitas of it's social messaging. Gaming, these days, does depend on comic books. Some comic book writers have been approached to help write gaming storyboards. I'd like to think that the video game isnt the death of the comic, but rather the trancendance. We've only had interactive media for a comparably short time, and already we've done some amazing things.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2

Next