Comments on: Legit, Baby

By: From the PA Bulletin « Teahouse of the Furious Buddha

From the PA Bulletin « Teahouse of the Furious Buddha — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:08:49 +0000

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

By: Oliver Willis

Oliver Willis — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:23:10 +0000

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.

By: TG Chicago

TG Chicago — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:08:43 +0000

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

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:42:23 +0000

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…

By: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:06:38 +0000

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.

By: MH

MH — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:20:56 +0000

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.”

By: MH

MH — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:19:28 +0000

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: Sean D. Martin

Sean D. Martin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:50:07 +0000

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?

By: Amelia

Amelia — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:58:55 +0000

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.