I aim to talk about comics quite a bit here, so I figured I should get this out right from the start:
I use the word 'comics' to cover just about every kind of comic book/graphic novel/manga/etc you could think of.
I hate this movement to start calling all comics 'graphic novels'. It is silly and inaccurate to do so. A graphic novel is a specific type of comic. It is, in my best estimation, envisioned to be one extended story, presented in a single volume. Now many of the best comics are graphic novels, but deciding to call all comics 'graphic novels' is to miss the point of the format almost entirely.
A comic can be a single issue, a trade paperback, a digest sized collection, a hard back, a short strip, a web comic, a graphic novel, and probably much more. There are so many types of comics that the term 'graphic novel' excludes. Comics are great because of these varieties. The form is ripe for experimentation. Creators in comics can get away with a lot more when their potential audience is a fraction of what a TV show or film audience would be.
Promo Art for Scott Pilgrim Volume 3
Another major component of modern comics is serialized story telling. Stories are paced specifically so that they can be enjoyed in short installments (and then again as a whole). The cliff hanger ending has become a staple for many series, and an effective one at that. When I get to the end of an issue of "Walking Dead" and realize I have to wait another month to find out what happens next, that affects how I enjoy the story. Now, someone else might read every issue of the Walking Dead in one sitting, and it will still be the same story, but their reading experience will be decidedly different than mine. Therefore, series like this cannot accurately be described as graphic novels.
Cover to Walking Dead #48
There seems to be this embarrassment over terms like 'comic' or 'comic book' that lingers from days long past starting with the admittedly simple stories that birthed the form, or from when Seduction of the Innocent and the surrounding controversy over content nearly destroyed comics decades ago, or perhaps it's all Adam West's fault. Since that time comics have proven their value many times over with such widely accepted classics as "Watchmen" and "Sandman." Why can't the fans embrace these terms? The fear may be that other more casual audiences will never take anything called 'comics' seriously because of associations with the "Batman" television series of the '60s and other campy artifacts. This is clearly not the case with huge film successes like "The Dark Knight" showing how willing a broad audience is to accept comics ideas if not their more traditional ink on paper presentation. This problem certainly has little to do with what we call them though.
If more people simply referred to all comics, including works like "Watchmen" and "Sandman," as comics, maybe more positive associations would arise. There is nothing flawed about comics, so why this semantic shuffle of the last few years. There is also nothing wrong with some works being referred to as 'graphic novels,' but that is just one small portion of what comics can be. It doesn't serve the medium to adopt a phrase that edges out all those other types of work. If you are still not convinced, let us at least settle on the much more agreeable phrase 'graphic fiction' that leaves room for the variety of presentations comics come in. And then we can move to the much more productive argument over how best to get a broader audience to pay attention to the great stuff happening in all types of modern comics.
Asterios Polyp, a recent graphic novel by David Mazzucchelli
No comments:
Post a Comment