.
Enough is enough.
I recently read a thread about the whole “comics” vs. “graphic novels” debate and though I’ve touched on it before (and some of you have responded to it), I’m drawing the line. I refuse to bow to the ignorance of the masses and use the term “graphic novel” just to placate them. Why should I have to comprise my vocabulary because you can’t be bothered to understand what a comic is? I was here first, Johnny-Come-Lately; “Buffy Season 8″ is a comic. “Supernatural Origins” is a comic. “Maus” is a comic - the man who MADE it said so.
I’ve heard the argument that we need to accept the term because it will help bring more people to the medium. Garbage. What happens when we apply the same logic to other aspects of society that aren’t accepted? Revolt and discontent, that’s what. Just ask the homosexual community what they think of the phrase “civil union”.
And don’t feed me the, “It’s all marketing,” line either. The people perpetuating the terminology are not in the industry because the comic industry doesn’t market itself (I know, I’m a retailer). It’s the media that’s painting us with this brush and we need to make them stop. We need to correct them. We need to educate them.
To deal with drug problems, teen pregnancy, AIDS, prostitution and hundreds of other problems, the world at large touts that education is a primary the key to solving these issues yet for some reason the comic industry is prepared to accept a global wedgie and change it’s ways just to be able to walk the same halls as the school bully. Watch “Revenge of the Nerds” again people; we win.
I am making a promise to use the term “graphic novel” only as a curse word from this point on. I sell comics and they will all be referred to as such and I will (politely) correct anyone who requests a “graphic novel”. I will refer to collections of comics as “trade paperbacks” or “collected editions”. I’m am tired of catering to those who choose not to fully accept our medium and are trying to bend it to fit their world, of which we are not really a part of. You came to us, learn our ways (and yes, I know I’m dangerously close to stepping into an immigration debate here but let’s not carried away).
The Shepherd - who chose not to promise to kick people in the junk if they said “graphic novel” figuring it would be bad for business.
Brian Guay said
June 24 2007 @ 11:04 am
Jay, I have a tonne of respect for you man. I think you know this. So in your presence I may even go so far as to try to not use the term graphic novel but I really don’t have a problem with the term.
For years I’ve had a good idea of what I think a graphic novel is; a comic that is of a lofty size of pages.
While it wasn’t published as such to begin with, Watchmen is a graphic novel, to me. From Hell (while I have not started reading it yet) also seems to fit the bill, in my mind.
For myself there is no problem with having different terms of movies, films, shows, short films, motion pictures, feature films or on another side; books, novels, tombs, novella, short stories. So why the problem with comics?
In my mind it’s not the term that people use to talk about comics that is the problem but the manner in which they talk about them.
I say let the terms flow as they may. As more people start to read and accept “graphic novels” the more will look at their graphic novels on the shelf and say “Heh, I guess I read comic books.”
Andrew Foley said
June 26 2007 @ 12:49 am
Of all the things in the industry you could take a stand on, this is the one you choose?
Dude.
The term “graphic novel” was supposedly invented by Will Eisner, one of the most widely respected comic creators ever. It was invented to sell a comic to a publisher that wouldn’t look at a comic. In other words, for marketing reasons.
And it continues to be used for marketing purposes, by those both within and outside of the comic industry (from a creator point of view, the first person that I need to sell something to is a publisher, and if they’re only willing to look at “graphic novels”, well…). I don’t know of any comic creators that fancy themselves “graphic novelists”, but Joe Quesada is currently attempting to brand Marvel’s books as “graphic literature.” There is marketing going on.
And it is working, or everyone outside the medium wouldn’t be jumping on the term and using it to describe anything longer than your average Dilbert comic strip.
As Brian noted, there are different terms for different forms of prose storytelling, largely based on arbitrary length considerations. Why should there be only comic strips and comic books? Why can’t there be a term used to denote something with a different intent than servicing company-owned trademarks for the rest of eternity?
Foley
Happy Harbor Comics said
June 28 2007 @ 6:18 pm
So, that’s two votes against education…
And you both proved my point. The term is not being used for it’s intended purpose. It’s new purpose is to manipulate the public and to REPLACE the existing monicer and that’s not right. Graphic novel is not a description, it’s a marketing tool.
Books have different names to describe what type of book it is, graphic novel is being used to describe everything comics and that is incorrect. People need to be educated about proper terminology.
Brian Guay said
June 28 2007 @ 8:47 pm
I’m voting against education?!
I don’t think so, “Mr. Jay Roe”
The first point I made was that I think that graphic novels exist. I’ve been using the term graphic novel for over 15 years now. Most people in the community have an idea of what that term means to them.
You seemed to be for dropping the term all together! That I don’t understand. I and many others have been using the term graphic novel for some time to describe many of the books I talked about earlier. If so many people use the word and have an idea, albeit informal idea, of what it means, why drop the term altogether.
My second point was that people referring to comics (ie. floppies) as graphic novels is not a problem; the fact that they don’t understand the diversity comics are capable of is!
I don’t care what people call comics when they come asking me about them. I can correct the terminology easily enough. What’s hard to correct is the limited vision most people have of comics.
Should the media be throwing the GN word around like it’s feces at a monkey party? (I don’t know where that came from
)
No but should we drop the word altogether because they refuse to learn what it means.
No.
So to recap, I’m am for education about comics but not for the limiting of the vocabulary I use to talk about them.
And I heard you pause when Tim Lasiuta used the term graphic novel in his interview with you.
(no point there, I got a chuckle since I had just read this post of yours a few days before. Time and a place for everything and he was using the term correctly :))
Brian Guay- FOR EDUCATION!! :):)
Brian Guay said
June 28 2007 @ 8:50 pm
In case you have not seen, the interview you just did is now listed as Shuster Winner, Jay Roe
Did you get married?
Andrew Foley said
June 28 2007 @ 9:27 pm
The term was created to sell comics; it’s continuing to be used to sell comics.
That said, I’m with you. A two page comic is not a graphic novel, a comic is not a graphic novel, and anyone who tries to tell me it is will get an earful.
Personally, I tend to use the term “comic books” for trades, and “floppies” for singles.
A
Kin Leung said
June 29 2007 @ 3:41 pm
i’m a “comic book” geek… but i tell my wife that i am investing in “sequential art” every wednesday because it sounds better than “graphic novels”. who’s going to order calamari, tripe, and escargot if they knew it was squid, cow stomach, and snail? kids read comics and adults read graphic novels. elevating comic books as graphic novels has made it a legitimate form of art, a legitimate form of adult literature, and as a legitimate form of investment. the term graphic novel is more provocative and has increased sales… somehow i don’t find the public’s misperception detrimental to the industry. sometimes it’s this type of debate demonstrates to the public how nerdy and insecure we truly are!