3 ms·

> 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-

> 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.

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.