Since when did "comic book" become such a bad word? Nowadays it's popping up more and more. The opening credits of The Walking Dead on AMC read, "Based upon the graphic novel series by..." The Walking Dead comes out as a monthly comic book series. As in single issue. It's a comic book, sure it's an long ongoing story, but they aren't graphic novels. A graphic novel in the purest definition is a front to back story in which told in a single volume most usually self-contained, and not a collected edition of numerous single issues, even if they are apart of an ongoing story. If it were just released as volumes and never single issues, ding ding! Graphic novel.
The film version of Watchmen, again you see right on the movie poster, "Based on the acclaimed Graphic Novel." Watchmen was originally released as a limited mini series in single issues. Is it so shameful to refer to something as a (gasp) comic book? Is there any sort of sophistication to the word? How differently would a conversation go if you choose the word "graphic novel" in place of comic book?
The simple answer should be, who cares? Read what you like. Call it whatever you'd like. As a proud comic reader for years and years, It just irks the hell out of me when someone says they read graphic novels or hearing them referred to as such when they aren't. It's a lame buzzword used by mainstream media and movie studios but you'll hear it quite a bit in real life. It's the "cool" thing to call them. Fables is a comic book series, not a graphic novel series. Preacher is a comic book series, Y: The Last Man is a comic book series. Sandman is a comic book series. A Contract With God? Graphic novel. Maus? Yep, you guessed it. Graphic novel.
Maybe I'm just full of that stereotypical nerd rage, maybe I am just over-protective of the things I love. Maybe it's the sleep deprivation. Just let this be known, it doesn't make you sound cooler when you tell people you read "graphic novels." Let's get that straight, you read comics. Everyone knows people who read comics are total losers!
Follow my incoherent ramblings about comics and other rad stuff at @davescheidt.
Follow Dave Scheidt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davescheidt
Sara Benincasa: World's Biggest The Walking Dead Fan
I understand times are tough for comic shops, I am good friends with more the a few comic shop owners and it is indeed really bad out there. I think that's the most important that needs to happen with comics is for it to gain new readers, but clever phrasing isn't going to keep our shops open.
Definitions are based on what the general public uses.
There are numerous examples of literary classics which were either serialized or originally published as short stories (Oliver Twist, Martian Chronicles). We consider them novels.
A haiku is just as significant as an epic poem. A cartoon panel, comic strip, a comic book, a graphic novel all share the same basic techniques and mechanics.
Then there's the author's intent... if Watchmen was created as a finite work in twelve chapters, published sequentially, then isn't it more like a highly structured novel?
What of comic books which contain two stories? Is it then a comic anthology? What if it is not comical, but deadly serious?
A better term would be "comic periodical", as it is a magazine, not a book. Which is what a graphic novel is.
Maus, technically, is a graphic memoir, not a novel, as it is non-fiction.
As for "comic book" being a dirty word, yeah, it is, ever since the 1950s. That's why Eisner used "graphic novel". By using a new term, you throw away all the negative connotations. Yes, you must educate the public about the new definition, but then you also get to introduce them to examples.
Call it whatever you wish, as long as you enjoy it.
It's a lame buzzword used by the comics industry to sell comics to people who might be adverse to picking up a comic book. It has since been picked up and used by the mainstream media and movie studios but its origins are as a publishing marketing term. Will Eisner used it to describe ACWG specifically because he thought he wouldn't be able to call the OGN a comic book and have a major publisher take him seriously. Igor Goldkind was one of the first people to use "graphic novel" as a way to sell trade paperback collections to bookshops (and people who might buy the book but would never be seen dead in their local comic store).
"A Contract With God? Sandman? Graphic novel. Maus? Yep, you guessed it. Graphic novel."
A Contract With God is an OGN but Sandman and Maus aren't (although amongst the Sandman spin-offs is a graphic novel, as well as an illustrated novel and a manga version).
This just seems pendantic to me. The graphic novel is the "permanent form" of the series these days. One wonders how freaked out you'd be in 10 years if you saw the title card "Based on the Comixology Download."
Some other bits and bobs:
1) "Trade Paperback" is a term borrowed from the mainstream publishing world that has to do with a printing format, not content, so there's no use saying "the meaning of words shouldn't change over time to fit usage"
3) Some of the most famous NON-graphic novels in history started out as serials in magazines (e.g. "Great Expectations") so saying that something can't be a novel because of it's original format doesn't really hold water either
I will stipulate that "Waiting for the Trade" sounds much better than "Waiting for the Graphic Novel" and for that reason alone, I'm in favor of maintaining the dual terminology.
I own a comic shop and it's the people that have never read a comic coming in after seeing the Walking Dead or Watchmen or Iron Man that keep the business alive. The average comic reader is skewing older and older; without new interest (and from a wider demographic) the entire industry will satgnate and die.