I feel the same way about people who insist there's a difference between a comic and a graphic novel.

Or webcomics and actual, printed-in-the-newspaper comics*.
[*Most of which just aren't very funny at all, really.]

I know what you're saying, Colesla.  The folks that drive me nuts are the ones who say stuff like "It's not a comic, it's a graphic novel.  It's serious.  Comics are never serious."

I really just hate the term graphic novel. It's something people came up with to MAKE comics sound more serious, and literary and junk. Like, it's a form of self loathing from the people who work on them/read them.

"Comics are for kids/comics are geeky/for people with no lives, let's call them something else so we can not think about what it is that we actually like."

I mean, you don't have to make comics seem better or fancier than they actually ARE. Which is already pretty damn awesome.

I mean, it seems a lot more self respecty, when someone goes "You read COMICS? o.o" to just say "Yes." rather then. "OMFG NO THEY ARE GRAPHIC NOVELS COMICS ARE TEH GAE"

This, exactly.

Maus is a graphic novel; and I would not necessarily consider it a comic.

This is not bashing comics.  I enjoy comics also.  The word comic relates to comedy though; so I can't always see tragic stories as fitting that genre.  Additionally, I think of comics as being serial in nature.  Some comics are non-sequitur (for example, "Non-Sequitur"), but are still published periodically by the same author.  Some have long developing plot lines and recurring themes and characters, unfolding over years, or decades.

The "graphic novel" idea for me relates to something that is a one-shot thing, over 100 pages, released all at once, sequel (or trilogy) possible but not a "series" and with the ability to be either tragic or comedic in nature.

However, I am talking with someone who holds an opposing view and I am conflicted; also nothing makes sense anymore.

Random thought: Random neck pain is unproductive to arguments over semantics of comic book realities.

Maus is a graphic novel; and I would not necessarily consider it a comic.

This is not bashing comics.  I enjoy comics also.  The word comic relates to comedy though; so I can't always see tragic stories as fitting that genre.  Additionally, I think of comics as being serial in nature.  Some comics are non-sequitur (for example, "Non-Sequitur"), but are still published periodically by the same author.  Some have long developing plot lines and recurring themes and characters, unfolding over years, or decades.

The "graphic novel" idea for me relates to something that is a one-shot thing, over 100 pages, released all at once, sequel (or trilogy) possible but not a "series" and with the ability to be either tragic or comedic in nature.

However, I am talking with someone who holds an opposing view and I am conflicted; also nothing makes sense anymore.

Random thought: Random neck pain is unproductive to arguments over semantics of comic book realities.

The word 'comic' no longer relates to comedy. It is the blanket term that has been adopted for the entire art form of putting one picture next to another. It doesn't matter what the content, if it uses the form, it is a comic.

The term came about from early newspaper print comics which were nothing more than a short strip which attempted to be funny.

The term 'graphic novel' was created by comic writers and artists who wanted to do more serious work but feared it would not be taken seriously if the term 'comic' was used to describe it.

So really we're just talking about different genres of the same art form.


Also, I suggest you read 'Understanding Comics' by Scott McCloud. Than you too will be able to discuss comics pretentiously.

ZOMG, CARTOON OR ANIME!!! DON'T YOU ALL KNOW ANYTHING?!?!111uno!peso!!womenarehotwithboobies~!!!

A few good examples of one-shots that I enjoyed, just cause I feel sharing.  Call em comics or call them graphic novels...I just call them really awesome books:

Maus by Art Spiegelman
-Stunningly done holocaust-era memoir...if you know graphic novels you've at least heard of Maus.

A Contract With God by Will Eisner
-The first "graphic novel", Will Eisner is credited with coining the term.  It shows its age a little but its still really good.

Kings In Disguise by James Vance and Dan Burr
-A book about life in the US during the Great Depression

The Fixer, Safe Area Gorazde, and anything else by Joe Sacco
-Called "documentary comics", these two in particular deal with the Bosnian War in the 90s.

Journey Into Mohawk Country by George O'Connor
-A graphic transcription of the notes of a Dutch trader exploring pre-colonial North America

Deogratias by Stassen
-A story about a kid embroiled in the brutal Rwandan civil wars and genocides.

Notable mention:
Black Hole by Charles Burns
-Not a one-shot as it was originally released as a 12-issue series, but it reads much better all pasted together anyhow. 
Plus "funny" is generally the last word to come to mind when you're reading it.

The Poison Diaries by Jane, Duchess of Northumberland
-Less of a graphic novel and more of a book with lots of pictures, the illustrations in it are absolutely beautiful and are entirely what make it worth picking up.  And you might learn a thing or two about botany.

re: graphic novels, apologizing for the double post.

I do not object to serialized stories being gathered and published as "graphic novels" since there is a long history of novels being so serialized prior to release in a single volume.  I read some of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels in Playboy.  Most of the novels of respected genre writers like Zane Grey, Edgar Rice Burroughs and Isaac Asimov first saw print in magazines.  In the Victorian era, people waited eagerly for the latest installment by Charles Dickens.

I do object to most story arcs from ongoing series like Justice League of America or Uncanny X-men being reprinted as "graphic novels."  This smacks of fraud to me, rather like releasing three ordinary episodes of a network sitcom as a new movie.  A graphic novel should be capable of standing alone like any novel.  There should be no prerequisite for reading it unless it is clearly indicated to be a part of a closed system.  This is one of my objections to Joss Whedon's film Serenity, by the way.

On a small and rather pedantic note, most graphic novels are not hard-bound, but paperback.  The hardbacks do exist, but they are in the minority.

I do object to most story arcs from ongoing series like Justice League of America or Uncanny X-men being reprinted as "graphic novels."  This smacks of fraud to me, rather like releasing three ordinary episodes of a network sitcom as a new movie.  A graphic novel should be capable of standing alone like any novel.  There should be no prerequisite for reading it unless it is clearly indicated to be a part of a closed system.  This is one of my objections to Joss Whedon's film Serenity, by the way.

I disagree. Firstly, most well-collected trade paperbacks will cover a general storyline. Perhaps with a few side stories, but non-graphic novels often go off on tangents. In fact, novels are interesting in being a type of storytelling that has some of the most leeway to address things off the main plot within a single story.

Second, comic books didn't exactly invent ongoing stories. Nor did movies. You mentioned written tales including James Bond and Tarzan. Now, you could read these as stand-alone, just as you could read a collection of X-Men or JLA alone, but you'll understand a lot more of what's going on and get a lot more out of it if you've read the previous books.

Orson Scott Card, Anne McCaffrey, Ursula K. LeGuin and so, so, so very many more authors write novels in series form. Some are short, some continue on seemingly forever. That's not even delving into novels based on TV series or movies - the ones that detail adventures supposedly tucked in between the adventures seen on the screen.

Most of the time, you can pick up a book anywhere in the series and enjoy it. There's enough information to understand what's going on for the story, but you'll only have a taste of the larger story.

I know people who watched Serenity first, enjoyed it, then went back to watch Firefly because they enjoyed it. Southland Tales - whether  you liked it or not - was a movie one could watch without reading the comic books that lead up to it, but the comic books were nevertheless part of it (I actually haven't read them, myself...didn't even realize they were out).

Similarly, as a comic geek who doesn't have the time or money to routinely spend money on comics, I tend to just get snippets of the larger story, here and there, out of order. I still enjoy them. The very first graphic novel I owned was a collection of the X-Men plot "Extinction Agenda" - it collected the entire story, in order, throughout the various X-titles the story spanned through.

Ultimately, it was actually easier to read as a graphic novel than as a comic book series (wherein you would have had to follow the plot through different series). It had a beginning, a middle and an end. It could be completely understood. There was history there that I wasn't familiar with, true. There were references to things that had happened just prior to the story. But the story was collected and told in such a manner that it didn't matter: I understood everything I needed to understand to enjoy the story at hand. Besides, many stories - novels, movies and comic books alike - will plop you right into the middle of a world or a group of people with an extensive history. The history will be referenced, but doesn't need to be wholly told to tell the story at hand. That sort of writing is often praised as intelligent, as treating the readers like they're not idiots. Yet Major echoes a common perception that comic books can't be viewed and read in the same light. If that were true, the longer-running comic books - especially Marvel, as DC is constantly coming up with excuses for why the past never happened at all and it's a completely blank slate for the writers to re-do - would never gain any new readers. Many of us weren't born until those series had already started, and TPB's/graphic novels were a lot harder to find, disrespected as they were, than they are now (you don't even have to go to a comic store anymore, they're everywhere). Some storylines didn't even exist in that form.

Coyote: To me, the term "trade paperback" (or the lesser-found "trade hardback") is interchangeable with "graphic novel". TPB is a comic industry term - say it to anyone who doesn't follow comics and they won't know what you're talking about. I don't think I'd know the term if I didn't read Wizard now and then. Same meaning, different social language...or at least, that's how it *should* be. I'm sure there are some TPB's out there that don't have a proper beginning, middle and end. In fact, I know they're out there...but those skinny-ass TPB's are a newer trend, from what I've seen. I'm used to seeing big, thick ones that collect a whole story. I'm actually rather pissed at the ones I'm seeing more and more of, that cut off with a cliffhanger. Those are the ones I think you're talking about. I agree, those aren't graphic novels. They're bullshit, in my opinion. Those determined to have the story in smaller bits will already get it in smaller bits, and those who are okay with waiting can wait for the inevitable larger, proper TPB, the one that can be called a graphic novel. I just get irked at the small TPB's, which look to me like a blatant way to milk more money out of people who will buy the same thing multiple times (which, sadly, the comic book community has been conditioned to do, using various schemes, time and time again).

As I believe I mentioned earlier, I have no problem with a collection of a year's stories in a given title, any more than I object to a DVD of the previous season of a favourite television series.  Having followed series of novels longer than anyone else here, beginning with the twenty-four "Tarzan" books republished by Bantam in the 1960s, I don't really object to novels that are sequels to sequels of sequels.

My quibble here is with the muddled marketing of these collections.  A closed sequence such as Watchmen, Identity Crisis or 52 would, in my opinion, qualify as a graphic novel, in spite of the publishers' penchant for cross-over connections to ongoing series in the latter two cases.  For want of a better term, let's call the alternative a bound collection of an ongoing series.  Trade paperback refers to a format of publishing any book, larger and more impressive than a mass-market paperback, and so lacks the specific reference to sequential graphic stories.

If I go to a store that sells DVDs, there is usually a separate section of compilation DVDs from the one that holds feature film DVDs.  The less specialized the retailer is in DVDs, the less space both take up, but they are separate.  When I go to the local chain bookstore, I find science fiction jumbled in with fantasy and horror, and a few dozen compilations and graphic novels occupying half a shelf of that section.  If I go elsewhere, I find very little for my comics-buying dollar.  I have given up expecting the local retailers to take any time understanding their customers and their stock, so I hope for clear labels from the publishers to guide my selection.  If I find that my purchase is not what I wanted to buy, I reserve the right to be displeased.