5 ms·

> Some people claim they reserve the term graphic novel for a book appearing originally as a bound volume as opposed to serialized in a comic. These people are

> Some people claim they reserve the term graphic novel for a book appearing originally as a bound volume as opposed to serialized in a comic. These people are probably having you on; they probably also claim to floss thrice daily. Okay, I know this isn't the point of the larger article, and that this makes me a literal Comic Book Guy. But, actually, a graphic novel doesn't have to be released as a graphic novel originally, but it just has to be written to be one. The difference between a graphic novel and an ordinary trade paperback bound volume is that the novel was originally conceived and composed as a single, long-form story, rather than being a collection (either a story arc, or just a series of disconnected issues) from an ongoing series. There are edge cases to this, such as whatever they call the comic equivalent of a stitch-up in book publishing. That's where you take a few stories that were all published separately, and turn them into a novel by adding a frame story, or editing them to seem like they were meant to form a single narrative the whole time. FWIW, those aren't novels by my definition, even if they seem like it, but I wouldn't get mad if somebody disagreed. I've never flossed three times in one day, if someone did that I'd assume they were a robot pretending to be a human.

egypturnash 2y ago
I am a person who has made things that are unambiguously A Graphic Novel by any modern definition that wants to set them apart from other forms of "comics" and I am also very aware that I am making several orders of magnitude less off of my work than my friend whose "graphic novels" are collections of her comic strips that barely have three or four days of continuity. As a category in the world of multinational book publishing conglomerates, two hundred pages of words and pictures that tell a coherent story aimed at a (young) adult reading level are just about indistinguishable from a hundred pages of words and pictures that tell a succession of one- to three-page-long stories aimed at a middle-grade kid. And from a collection of issues of Batman, whether or not those issues form a coherent story. We all fit into the same box on a publisher's spreadsheet. Most of it's taken up by the stuff for kids.
- BryantD 2y ago
  I hate to miss a good chance to compliment an artist, so while it's off topic for your comment allow me to note that I've been enjoying your work for quite a while now -- thank you for what you do.
  - egypturnash 2y ago
    oh hey you're welcome! <3
thaumasiotes 2y ago
> The difference between a graphic novel and an ordinary trade paperback bound volume is that the novel was originally conceived and composed as a single, long-form story, rather than being a collection (either a story arc, or just a series of disconnected issues) from an ongoing series. This doesn't work; by this definition, Charles Dickens never wrote any novels.
- hinkley 2y ago
  Didn’t Jules Verne mostly do serials as well?
- sambeau 2y ago
  You are correct. Dickens didn’t write ‘novels’, he wrote ‘serials’, which are a subtly different thing: they were not composed in one sitting, rather in instalments. The question is, of course, were they conceived and planned as a single entity and in advance. The answer to that is… complicated. But, mostly, no too. Here’s an article about his method: https://www.dickensnotes.com/introduction/general/ https://www.dickensnotes.com/introduction/general/ Much as there’s debate whether you can consider a collection of comics with a single story arc a ‘graphic novel’, we can debate whether a Dicken’s serial published over 18 months is a ‘serial novel’ when republished in a single volume. In my opinion, they both are or they both are not—and I personally tend towards ‘are’.
  - throw4847285 2y ago
    There is the context of how a work was originally composed vs. the context of how it is regularly consumed. Time passes, and the number of people who have encountered Great Expectations or Anna Karenina in a serialized format is totally outstripped by the number of people who read them as "novels." The fact that both of those works were originally serialized becomes a trivia fact. Maybe this is a bad thing, and you lose something by erasing their origins, like trying to watch a network sitcom without understanding what a commercial break is. Or maybe it's not a huge deal, and those books have transcended the publishing trends of their day. I don't know. What I do know is that comics fans are especially fixated on the distinction and it has little to do with those kinds of technicalities. It's about prestige.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

egypturnash 2y ago

I am a person who has made things that are unambiguously A Graphic Novel by any modern definition that wants to set them apart from other forms of "comics" and I am also very aware that I am making several orders of magnitude less off of my work than my friend whose "graphic novels" are collections of her comic strips that barely have three or four days of continuity. As a category in the world of multinational book publishing conglomerates, two hundred pages of words and pictures that tell a coherent story aimed at a (young) adult reading level are just about indistinguishable from a hundred pages of words and pictures that tell a succession of one- to three-page-long stories aimed at a middle-grade kid. And from a collection of issues of Batman, whether or not those issues form a coherent story. We all fit into the same box on a publisher's spreadsheet. Most of it's taken up by the stuff for kids.

BryantD 2y ago
I hate to miss a good chance to compliment an artist, so while it's off topic for your comment allow me to note that I've been enjoying your work for quite a while now -- thank you for what you do.
- egypturnash 2y ago
  oh hey you're welcome! <3

thaumasiotes 2y ago

> The difference between a graphic novel and an ordinary trade paperback bound volume is that the novel was originally conceived and composed as a single, long-form story, rather than being a collection (either a story arc, or just a series of disconnected issues) from an ongoing series. This doesn't work; by this definition, Charles Dickens never wrote any novels.

hinkley 2y ago
Didn’t Jules Verne mostly do serials as well?
sambeau 2y ago
You are correct. Dickens didn’t write ‘novels’, he wrote ‘serials’, which are a subtly different thing: they were not composed in one sitting, rather in instalments. The question is, of course, were they conceived and planned as a single entity and in advance. The answer to that is… complicated. But, mostly, no too. Here’s an article about his method: https://www.dickensnotes.com/introduction/general/ https://www.dickensnotes.com/introduction/general/ Much as there’s debate whether you can consider a collection of comics with a single story arc a ‘graphic novel’, we can debate whether a Dicken’s serial published over 18 months is a ‘serial novel’ when republished in a single volume. In my opinion, they both are or they both are not—and I personally tend towards ‘are’.
- throw4847285 2y ago
  There is the context of how a work was originally composed vs. the context of how it is regularly consumed. Time passes, and the number of people who have encountered Great Expectations or Anna Karenina in a serialized format is totally outstripped by the number of people who read them as "novels." The fact that both of those works were originally serialized becomes a trivia fact. Maybe this is a bad thing, and you lose something by erasing their origins, like trying to watch a network sitcom without understanding what a commercial break is. Or maybe it's not a huge deal, and those books have transcended the publishing trends of their day. I don't know. What I do know is that comics fans are especially fixated on the distinction and it has little to do with those kinds of technicalities. It's about prestige.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]