Legit, Baby

10:33 pm EST March 15th, 2009 | Comic Books | 9 Comments

Sunday marked the debut of the NY Times Bestseller list for “graphic books”. We here in the real world know them as “graphic novels”. Superman: Braniac comes in just behind Watchmen.

Superman: Braniac

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

9 Responses to “Legit, Baby”

  1. Amelia says:
    March 16, 2009 at 9:58 am

    And we in the even realer world know them as “comics.”

    I disagree with Alan Moore in that I think “graphic novel” is a legit term–it’s not just a BS industry term to “legitimize comics” (as though comics needed to be legitimized! Although granted Will Eisner DID invent the term for that purpose, off the cuff, when pitching “A Contract With God”)–but superhero comics are never graphic novels. The genre does not permit it. They’re always comics.

    I feel very strongly about this.

  2. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 16, 2009 at 11:50 am

    Amelia: but superhero comics are never graphic novels

    Why not? You’re saying form isn’t what’s important, but content. If a 200-page words-and-pictures story is told about life in a tenement or office building, that’s a graphic novel. But if the office building contains the Daily Planet and Superman appears in it, it isn’t?

  3. MH says:
    March 16, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    I think there’s a difference between a story written for a 200-page format, and one written for twelve 22-page formats that happen to be bound together in a collected edition.

  4. MH says:
    March 16, 2009 at 12:20 pm

    I think there’s a difference between a story written for a 200-page format, and one written for twelve 22-page formats that happen to be bound together in a collected edition.

    Like, Peanuts or Calvin and Hobbes collections are not “comic books,” and comic book collections are not “graphic novels.”

  5. Sean D. Martin says:
    March 16, 2009 at 6:06 pm

    MH: I think there’s a difference between a story written for a 200-page format, and one written for twelve 22-page formats that happen to be bound together in a collected edition.

    By that standard, then Watchmen is not a graphic novel. Nor would A Christmas Carol be considered a novel as it was originally published in serialized form. As were many of the Dickens’ very well known “novels”.

    I can’t see how something that was conceived of as a whole, but published one chapter at a time, is any different from something with all the parts published at once. Nor, to return to Amelia’s view, how something suddenly stops being a graphic novel once someone in costume shows up.

    I can’t get the mindset that seems to insist that the label “comic books” keep being applied as if acknowledging the legitimacy of the artform is something that just mustn’t be acknowledged.

  6. Bill says:
    March 16, 2009 at 6:42 pm

    I think that this discussion is just split hairs over semantics. I am GLAD that they are listing this are a legitimate category for books. Writers and artists for graphic novels & comic books deserve far more credit for their work that I think that they get.

    The Scott McCloud books on the topic of comics/graphic novels offers excellent insight in the background of this medium and are definately worth reading…

  7. TG Chicago says:
    March 16, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    It’s not just Dickens. Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment was originally published in 12 monthly installments.

  8. Oliver Willis says:
    March 16, 2009 at 10:23 pm

    Yeah, nowadays the one-issue comic story is the exeception to the norm. The vast majority are 3-4-6 parters and work pretty good as graphic novels, in my opinion. And to exclude superheroes is just arbitrary nuttiness. Folks that look down on superheroes tend to be as silly as the superhero fans that don’t read anything else for no good reason.

  9. From the PA Bulletin « Teahouse of the Furious Buddha says:
    March 17, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    [...] Legitimacy. [...]