Comic Books/Graphic Novels: What is the difference?

[AIEEE!]

Hello everyone and what a cool forum,

This is my first post on this lovely forum. This is a two part question. The second question is unrelated to the first but there is not enough space in the subject line to fit both my questions in there.

1) Why do they have separate names for comic books and graphic novels? What is the difference between the two, are they not essentially the same exact thing ? I read comics as a youth and a few recently and I started reading graphic novels off and on about 2 years ago. I for one see absolutely no difference between comic books and graphic novels. They both have all of the ingredients of comic book: plots, expositions, climaxes, resolutions, and conflicts. The only difference I see between a graphic novel and a comic book is the way the look but the contents are the exact same. Also with American graphic novels you need to read them backwards which, according to publishers of Japanese graphic novels for Americans, is to " make the graphic novel feel like its uniquely Japanese to Americans". If they really want to make them feel Japanese then why not go all the way and use actual Japanese. It does not make any sense to me because reading a graphic novel forward gets the same job done. If they are the same then they should call them the same don't you think?

2) While over my fathers' house awhile back I told him in passing conversation that I was at first hesitant about reading comic books again since my youth and that I recently started reading graphic novels as well. I told him I found them to be just as exciting and fun, interesting, involving, and even as complex as some books. I tried to give him examples but his logic seemed to beat me, it just appears to me that comic books and graphic novels just don't seem to reach that level of involvement and complexity at all when compared to even the simplest of novels. I just haven't found a graphic novel/comic book that is really, really complex. If you can give me some ideas of some graphic novels/ comic books that are the most complex you know of it really would give me some great ammunition to try and defeat my fathers statement, plus I would love to read them. He told me that I was an idiot for reading comic books and graphic novels at my age ( I am age 29) and that I should grow up and read real fiction which actually improves your intelligence, he said comic and graphic novels do not help increase your intelligence, do not challenge you the way a novel does and are full of pictures which in most cases are not real art but simply illustration. I would also like to prove him wrong by presenting him with graphic novels/comics that contain art rather then just illustration. I have come across one or two graphic novels with art but most just have pictures that are used to carry the story along and have no real aesthetic value of their own. He has a degree in English and a bunch of other degrees and according to Mensa he is a genius. He took the Mensa IQ test and was accepted into Mensa but declined (he just took the test for fun I suppose) because he believed anyone that flaunts about how intelligent they are are not really intelligent and that the IQ testing did not in his opinion reflect true genius or even real intelligence at all. Anyway considering his genius IQ and his degrees, especially his English degree, I'm inclined to think that maybe he is right, maybe comic books and graphic novels should be left to children and young adults. Should I stop reading comic books and graphic novels because they are essentially written for young people and do you all think I need to grow up and never read graphic novels and comic books again? Are you ever really too old to read comics or graphic novels?

Thanks for all of your replies in advance. I really appreciate any advice, information and/or answers you may have so very much. Thank you

 

[Pyan]

Hi, Aieeee, and welcome to the Chrons.
Can I suggest you mosey over to our Intro thread, and tell us a bit more about yourself?...

About your posers above:

1) I would have thought that the difference was that comic books tended to be original art and story, whereas a graphic novel is usually an adaptation of a previously printed non-graphic story. (Doubtless there are exceptions, which is why I say "tended" and "usually"...)

2) Don't be influenced in your choice - read what you enjoy! And the age thing is totally irrelevant - I'm way past my quinquagenary,but still re-read my precious collection of "Asterix" books, most of which I bought when they cost the princely sum of 95p (about $1.50)...

 

[Vladd67]

I think it is all in your point of view, I have a few graphic novels, but my wife talks dismissively of reading comics.

 

[woodsman]

Welcome

I think that graphic novels were/are generally written and published in one go. that is to say not split into issues and published over a period. Of course we then have collections of issues e.g. Watchmen which are collected into graphic Novels so the distinction is blurred.
This isn't official in any way: just my two p.

As to the other - Maus (highly recommended) won a Pulitzer (some sort of serious journalism award) and Watchmen often pops up on best 100 books list - most notably in Time. So, I'd say it can be serious. Secondly as Pyan (a fount of general wisdom) said, do what you like. Recently I discovered the teaching resources section of the uni library, so in between reading ecology and politics papers I sneak of and indulge myself with a few chapters of A Wizard of Earthsea* - I enjoy it, it doesn't harm my intellect** at all. Asterix is hilarious and highly recommended.


* I actually think that despite being a children's book, this offering of Le Guin's is the best prose I've ever read.

** the jury is out on the actual possibility of such a thing occurring - does negative intelligence exist?

 

[The Procrastinator]

I would seriously recommend "From Hell" - a graphic novel about the Jack the Ripper murders (by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell) - as a very fine example of the graphic novel playing to its strengths. Of course there are heaps of comics passing themselves off as graphic novels, but to my mind, what the graphic novel should be is a fully realised story told in graphic form. (In reality the distinctions are completely blurred if not nonexistent, but I like to maintain these little delusions.)

What you need to look for if you want your dad to take graphic novels a little more seriously are ones that tell a story so effectively in the visual medium that they would need to be severely altered if rendered entirely into words, because the images are an integral part of the storytelling. The same goes for movies that have been designed to work as movies. To turn them into books would damage them (just as many books have been damaged being turned into movies). Most things that call themselves graphic novels are just glorified comics, which basically means the story wouldn't be worth translating into book form anyway, as the images are the bulk of the story's appeal, or the images simply serve as illustrations anyway (a fair criticism of your dad's for many examples I've seen). But there do exist graphic novels where the images not only illustrate the story but also add to it, in fact communicate it in non-verbal ways. "From Hell" is really a classic example of why graphic novels should exist.

Your dad is right in a way to be snobby about graphic novels (and comics) but not entirely correct. Comics and so on should not form the bulk of anyone's reading, as most of them really are very simplistic and I doubt there are enough good ones around anyway. But the good ones make it all worthwhile if you are, like me, a visually oriented person. There is something very satisfying in "reading art". I remember a tremendous graphic novel I came across as a kid, I can't remember who drew it but it was an adaptation of Burrough's earliest Tarzan novels and the artwork was superb. I've never forgotten it (now that I'm thinking about it I may have to try and track it down).

Anyway, what I'm saying is that the concept of the graphic novel should not be dismissed out of hand even if there are heaps of bad ones. A well-done graphic novel has a different purpose to a written novel, just as a painting has a different purpose to an essay, or a movie to a book. Perhaps it cannot convey the same complexities of plot as the purely written form, but as far as evoking nuances of atmosphere, mood or emotion, a picture really can speak a thousand words - and it can add immeasurably to the power of a story when its done well.

Would also like to add, the age thing is ridiculous, quality is quality, and well written/drawn material can work on many levels no matter who its aimed at. I not only have an extensive collection of Asterix (well thumbed, like pyan) but also Tintin, which I will likewise never grow out of. In fact my appreciation for the artwork in these books grows the more I read them.

 

[Magnus85]

1. There is no difference. A comic book is a graphic novel and a graphic novel is a comic book. The word graphic novel was introduced to give collected monthlies (comics) a more mature name than "comic book", so that they could be regarded as real books by snobby people just like your father.

Whatever you want to call it, the truth is that yes, usually comics are aimed at young adults and have fantastical elements to them like fantasy/superheroes/scifi/paranormal stuff.

Which brings us to your second question.

2. I second the recommendation above about From Hell. It is really a literary piece of immense power and depth and where the artwork fuses the story and meaning with several extra layers. Just the sheer size of From Hell tells you that it's serious business. It's a brick.

Getting someone who's initially against the medium to read the thing might be too much to ask, because of its size.

I suggest you buy Warren Ellis' Frankenstein's Womb, which is a "graphic novella" (because it is shorter than a graphic novel).

Two other books which you should really push him to read is Ba & Moon's Daytripper and Maus.

Look for these covers:

If your father doesn't like any of these, you will probably never get him over to the "dark side".


- Magnus

 

[thatollie]

The differnce in terms is highly debatable. I've heard it said that;

a) A graphic novel is such because it doesn't get published in issues before it's released whole.

b) Graphic novels are published as hardbacks.

c) There's no difference.

d) A graphic novel is only one volume, serial volume work is called a Trade Paperback.

I don't know if any of these are right or wrong or both or neither.

 

[Connavar]

There is no difference at all. Graphic Novel is a collection of 5,6 issues of the monthly issues of any series. Its just a mature marketing trick to get non-comic readers. 90% of GN are just collections, a way to sell older monthly issues and not a one story GN.

What you guys who dont read comic books think is Graphic Novel is OGN or Original Graphic Novel. One shot comic story,book.

Comics field is huge and there is adult comics,genres that for any kind of fan. Not everything is fantasy,superhero.

 

[J Riff]

Right. And don't forget Funny Animals, and Classics Illustrated.

 

[Interference]

Welcome to Chorns, it's good here

Graphic Novels are by people who can't afford to make films.

Comics is an industry, like television.

 

[Connavar]

Comics is like books medium sometimes you feel for a fun entertaining genre like superhero and sometimes you want more serious,darker stuff. Stories that end.

Myself i have read mostly european,japanese comics and those in my taste has mostly been mature genre stuff. Not every euro comic is cute classics like Asterix,Tintin. They are great with noir,thrillers french,belgic comics world.

Its American comics that is a bit incestious and dominated too much by Superhero genre. Monthly i read two superhero and 9 non-superhero works. It depends on your taste. Vertigo like comics are my taste. Preacher,Hellblazer type.

There is a new comic book film every month these days and not only superhero stuff. Its not as much taboo as before to read comics.

 

[AIEEE!]

Hey guys,

I just wanted to thank you all again for all your replies, its really got me thinking. Also thanks for the recommendations for the great graphic novels, I just bought them all from Amazon and can't wait to read them. If you have any more recommendations please keep 'em coming.

Cheers ;-)
AIEEE!

 

[Lucky_Lola]

I loudly second the recommendation of Maus by Art Spiegelman. Dark, moving, evocative, and more than a little disturbing, it did indeed win a Pulitzer (in 1992, 'Special Awards and Citations') along with a string of other nods. From the Wiki:

Maus: A Survivor's Tale, by Art Spiegelman, is a memoir of Art Spiegelman listening to his father, Vladek Spiegelman, a Polish Jew and Holocaust survivor, retelling his story. It alternates between descriptions of Vladek's life in Poland before and during the Second World War and Vladek's later life in the Rego Park neighborhood of New York City. The work is a graphic narrative in which Jews are depicted as mice, while Germans are depicted as cats.

I studied this work as part of a university paper on 20th century literature, and I believe it should be required reading for anyone interested in history and literature as a whole. If Maus does not 'challenge' the OP's father, nothing can.

My 2c.

 

[Graves]

'From Hell' as been suggested and seconded several times. 'Maus' as well. Thing about 'Maus', is that the metaphor of the characters are animals in a hierarchy. Jews as Mice, Germans as Cats. It's that simple. In a book, it would probably look a bit like this, "The German Cats played with the jewish mice"- (to put it crudely.) Whereas in the GN, the metaphor is made without necessarily addressing the it (it IS addressed by Spiegelman's character, but only on the debate of the story's composition, it's all quite clever really.) [don't worry, that's not a spoiler] Point is, 'Maus' reveals the status from the outset with a few simple pictures. Furthermore, in some ways, the effect of the picture is sometimes greater than that of the historical images. when I first picked it up (I read it recently) I looked at one page and got really angry with the situation being described, but watching camp footage is strangely detached for me. I studied history, but I'm not a descendant of any one in the camps (that I'm aware of,) so maybe that's just me.

Discussing one person's intellect to another is irrelevant. Some of the top writers are super intelligent. Alan Moore, as mentioned above, with 'Swamp thing', 'From Hell' and 'Watchmen'- is a literary genius. If you don't like Superhero comics there's plenty of alternatives: Epilepsy, Palomar, Alice in Sunderland, maybe 'Y: the last man' etc. If a menser rejectee told me why I shouldn't like a film or a painting I'd seen, I'd tell them to **** off. Subjective thought is a gift, dude... use it! seriously though, if calling a story with pictures a 'Graphic Novel' helps, do it. But feel free to say "I'm reading a good comic", I mean, who cares anyway?

 

[Clansman]

Anything by Alan Moore is brilliant. I still have a few first prints of his Killing Joke, a Batman graphic novel. I think there is a distinction between the two. Graphic novels are typically of much higher production value (bond glossy acid-free paper, hard or soft cover), whereas your standard comic book is printed on paper that is practically newsprint. More adult stories are typically reserved for graphic novels, as they stand up better than the standard comic book.

The Killing Joke, while a Batman story, is not a story for kids, at all, and Moore's writing and the artwork by Brian Bolland and John Higgins are simply brilliant. The joke at the end of the story is also really good.

 

[Graves]

Also check out, 'Stigmata'. Very nice art- not seen in the Marvel/DC works.

 

[GuruGeorge]

Once you go over 22 pages for one book, I think a Comic becomes a Graphic Novels.

 

[Mladen]

Used to be strictly a distinction about format, but I've usually argued that 'comic' and 'graphic novel' refer to different goals. One is disposable and market driven (Superman/X-men is essentially a Law & Order type or House), while there the more artist-driven work could be referred to as a graphic novel. The whole shift in terminology came about because 'comics' is such an inappropriate term, since its derived from 'comic strip', as in a comedic 'strip' in a newspaper.

The connotations for each are helpful for newbies to discern what they are and aren't interested in, but now that the graphic novel term has been co-opted to include anything and everything, its not useful anymore.

Think of it as the way people will use the terms "movie" and "film" to suggest that one is loftier, and the other is not. One is disposable entertainment, the other AIMS for more.

 

[redlantern2051]

There is little to no difference aside from the marketing term caught on in the 80s, ironically when books like dark Knight returns and Watchmen were collected in trades and sold heavily. This in turn lead to a lot of DC and Marvel OGNs thru the 90s, some awesome, some not.

Basically the mainstream US market now collects the monthly issues in a group of about 4-8 issues and calls it a trade - these are a huge part of the modern market.

One of the more amusing things about the terms, to me at least, is you will have people who don't ever read or buy comics, but they will scoff at the term "comics" and extol the virtues of graphic novels. It's eyerolling stuff - but amusing. I always encourage them to pick one up - as a reader and writer I don't care what people call them as long as they are buying and reading!

 

[Wraith01]

They are all Comic Books.

Comics are usually the single issue "floppies" that come out monthly and have 20/22 pages of story and art.
Graphic Novels are big comics anywhere from 64 to 400 pages that tell original stories and didn't come out as monthlies.
Graphic Novels are also collections of monthly comics but are also called trade paperbacks.

In general terms Comic books refer to the single issues and Graphic Novels to the big books.