Talk:Graphic novel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Graphic novel has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's importance scale.

I removed Dragon Ball Z from 'related artforms' because this is obviously incorrect. If there is a notable graphic novel titled 'Dragon Ball Z' it could be added to the list of GNs, but I don't know that this is the case. ike9898 22:01, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Novel vs. comic-strip/book reprints 2 Notable examples 3 Manga 4 Maus and Palestine 5 Derision of the term 6 Sabre 7 Reversion 8 European comics are not per se graphic novels 9 Merge with comic book 10 Removals 11 Hypothetical situations 12 Categorized list of graphic novels 12.1 Notably reviewed 13 Criticism section 14 A really run-on, confusing paragraph

[edit] Novel vs. comic-strip/book reprints

Just to open this for discussion, since it seems to be the elephant in the room: Can a collection of comic strips or comic books in book format constitute a "graphic novel"?

If so, would a collection of, say, Steve Canyon adventure-comic strips, in a trade-paper book be a "graphic novel"? Would a hardcover collection of Frank Cho's Liberty Meadows be a "graphic novel"? Would a collection of strips without a continuing story, such as the recently released Peanuts hardcovers be a "graphic novel"? If so, why; if not, why not?

Extending this question, would, say, a six-issue collected trade-paper of a recent, self-contained Spider-Man story arc be considered a "graphic novel"?

In the 19th century, Dickins and others would serialize a novel in newspapers before collecting them as a novel -- "A Christmas Carol," for instance. Does this analogy hold true today, or was that a relic of its time no longer applicable?

Any ideas?

• This is currently being discussed over at Category talk:Graphic novels. General consensus seems to be that the term is so loosely defined, it means all your examples above are graphic novels. Wikipedia isn't here to set rules, merely record the facts, and at the moment, the facts are that some people will say they are, and some people will say they aren't.
• (Also, it'd be really handy if you signed up for an account, so that you could sign your comments.) Steve block 15:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the above; I will look into that discussion. It would be awkward to sign up under my name. I don't mean to be mysterious; simply that I'm a public figure (not Don MCGregor, Paul Gulacy, or anyone whose name I would ever enter). My IP address IDs me, insofar any changes/additions are certainly not secretive; if my changes/additions are deemed offensive, I'm sure the Wikimedia Foundation could simply block it. Thank you for understanding.

[edit] Notable examples

Should the Notable examples section be made into a separate page? This list is quite long, and sort of hampers the article's presentation. A couple notable examples could be included in the text (First graphic novel, best selling graphic novel, etc.), and this list could be moved to List of graphic novels, which could be set to NOT redirect to List of comic books. —siroχo 06:53, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it should be merged into list of comic books. Most of the graphic novels listed are actually reprints of comic book magazines; and many of the comic books at list of comic books are non-magazine format comics from outside of the US. If there exists both list of graphic novels and list of comic books, there will be substantial overlap between the two. -Sean Curtin 07:37, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Good point. Perhaps that should be done, and things like Maus that don't fit into list of comic books should be left on this page, along with an obvious link to List of comic books. Also, list of comic books could be updated to include whether or not the comics were compiled into graphic novels. —siroχo 10:50, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • But Maus is a comic book. -Sean Curtin 21:28, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Question of definition. I guess it could be considered a book in comic form =S, as far as I have understood it, "comic books" generally refer to short magazines in A5(?) size, like Spider-Man, Batman and Archie.
        • I'd agree that the list should be moved to List of graphic novels, which should definitely not be set to redirect to List of comic books. There should be overlap between the two, but the two are seperate publishing forms, and that should be recognised. Steve block 20:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manga

I think it's a little absurd (and POV) to mandate <!-- Leave works of manga in the list of manga. --> yet include stuff like DC and Marvel comics. Personally, I'd rather see neither Japanese nor American mainstream comics in this list, but I'm not going to summarily remove all of them. Instead, I've added Ghost in the Shell by Masamune Shirow — most definitely a graphic novel and a manga. • Benc • 06:54, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So we've got Ghost in the Shell and Nausicaa on the list, but where does it end? Where do you draw the line? "Graphic novel" is too ambiguous of a term. Viz is marketing Bleach (manga) as a Graphic Novel. That's definitely "mainstream," so does it go on the list? There are many many works of manga that could be on this list, but for the sake of categorization, I would leave manga in the list of manga. - mako 08:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the distinction is between mainstream and non mainstream, it's a distinction that troubles all publishing mediums. The literary novel is probably just as ambiguous a term. I think the distinction here is between something that is primarily a collection of stories, such as a New X-Men collection or a manga collection, and a story that works as a standalone story with mature themes, has depth, probably being multi-layered. That doesn't mean a graphic novel can not be composed of a series of collections, as is the case with Cerebus. I would be wary, though, in utilising a publishers marketing strategy in deciding the merits of a particular work.

Also, does this have to be a definitive list, or just a general guide? Steve block 12:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

About "mainstream," I was just referring back to Benc's comment. About manga, most manga has a storyline, whether mature or not. And I would see this list as a general guide. - mako 02:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I was tackling Benc's comments as much as yours with regards "mainstream". With regards manga having storylines, I would tend to be of the opinion that most manga could probably be defined as graphic novels, as long as they are a finite story. I think whether it merits the term notable depends on the themes and layers of the work. And by mature I meant that it needed to be addressing themes aimed at literate readers. It does tend to get complicated because the tradition in the US is different to that in Japan, or even my own UK where we wouldn't dream of calling a collection of Beano strips a Graphic Novel.

"Where does it end ?"" This is just a list of notable graphic novels. It can be Japanese/US/EU/..., mainstream/independant, ... This list is just a general guide. A definitive list is impossible to write and does not even exist ! We should just add what we believe is a notable graphic novel, forgetting every other issue. Lvr 15:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I've never heard of half the stuff currently on the list. Accordingly, I could add a bunch of manga that most comic-oriented folks have never heard of, but are very well-known in Japan. Notability is a hard thing to pin down, considering that there are many different audiences. - mako 01:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure there would be a huge problem if you added a few examples of the most notable manga, regardless of whether I've heard of them or not, as long as you felt they were notable. Someone could always disagree and remove them at some point. Most of the entries on the list I would certainly call notable, although I'm not convinced myself that Books Of Magic is, and that Sin City and Road To Perdition's places are probably only merited by the movie adaptations of them, which make them notable to a wider audience rather than any intrinsic artistic endeavour. But then that's the thing about artistic valuations, I guess. It's all about consensus building.

I'm thinking about separating out the manga into a subsidiary list, and further elaborating on the relationship between graphic novels and manga, the marketing terms, etc. - mako 20:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Toulouse Lautrec's art style was influenced by japanese woodblock prints, not manga. Art style and means of telling a story are two completely different things. Wareware 19:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. This is the reason why lists are always removed on sight when an article becomes an FAC. They're impossible to delimit and they're of very limited value to people without prior knowledge. For the most part they're compiled only because people don't know how and what to summarize. The simple solution is; remove them from the article and list the most relevant examples in the text instead.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maus and Palestine

The definition doesn't really work at least for those two works. They may have POV, but they are asserted to be a description of real events in book/comic form. The fact that they may have added dialog for flow or description doesn't alter that--they would be rather similar to oral history which, while flawed, is not fiction. Graphic book? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:37, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is a some discussion of this over at the WikiProject Comics talk page. However you cut it, Maus has to be counted as a Graphic Novel, if only because it has for so long been understood as a signal work in this category. Representing the characters as cats and mice is probably enough to qualify it as fiction, though as I recall, it showed up on both "fiction" and "nonfiction" bestseller lists. In practice, a book-length narrative in comics form (including "Louis Riel" or "Palestine" or "Persepolis" ) seems to qualify as a GN. --BTfromLA 23:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, please see the project page. I'm wondering though...maybe fiction is not an important part of the definition. Maybe it just has to be an extended story, fiction or not. ike9898 01:36, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I took out all the "fictional"s in my edit of 21:07, 23 Dec 2004. Rand 02:39, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not to be facetious, but the use of animals to represent real humans doesn't make the work fiction any more than using human actors (or drawings of humans) make a recreation of an historical event fiction. Then we have works like Animal Farm which could easily be depicted as a comic book using the designated animals. Animal Farm is more fiction than Maus is, in the sense that the events as well as the identity of the actors are fictionalised, but Animal Farm is not exactly fiction. Perhaps we could there are subclasses of allegorical graphic novel or historical graphic novel. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:03, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Animal Farm is unambiguously a work of fiction; contrast it with, say, Down and Out in Paris and London. "Fiction" does not mean fantasy disconnected from real events. That said, if the entry grows, having a subheading (but not a separate entry) like "historical", or "journalistic" or "autobiographical" graphic novel makes sense to me, as a way of surveying the field. --BTfromLA 17:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS--Using human actors DOES make a recreation of an event fiction. The movie "The Aviator," for example, is fiction. A film made up exclusively of original film of Howard Hughes and comments from people who knew him would be nonfiction (the word "documentary" is usually applied to films). The idea that movies with actors are considered a reliable source of historical information is a real collapse-of-civilization problem, in my view.

Not necessarily. Yes, you are not seeing the actual event with the real people. If you tried to pass it off as the actual event, that would be a fiction. If the recreation accurately depicts the events, then it is an historical play. The fact that movie-makers bastardize history with their own POV and the guileless public swallows it doesn't mean that all such presentations must be fiction simply because the people in it are actors, any more than a history book is fiction because it consists of words describing an event, rather than the event itself. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If actors are hired to, say, read the arguments in the Federalist papers—using the actual words of the historical personages they are representing—I guess I'd agree that is more historical reportage than fiction. But that strikes me as a rather special case; most films or theatrical portrayals of historical people and events are heavily fictionalized--events are compressed, dialogue invented, etc., in the service of drama (and commercial viability). And there's the question of the way that the "presence" and emotional "tone" of the figures are interpreted by actors and via editing. Of course, the line between fiction and fact is blurry, and there may actually be an interesting question here that is relevant to the "graphic novel" topic: is the interpretive invention required to portray events in comics such that it imposes a layer of fiction on the material? In other words, does a comics treatment (or a movie treatment, with actors) of a story involve a sort of imaginitive visual intervention that renders jounalism or history into fiction, in a way that writing alone does not? --BTfromLA 21:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Animal Farm IS A WORK OF FICTION. (And not because of the animals!) ike9898 19:30, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, but your evaluation shows why Animal Form is not fiction. It is a political tract (which may be fiction) that satirizes real events and people and comes to controversial conclusions. A Trotskyist and a Stalinist will certainly disagree on whether its fiction; likewise, a modern-day socialist who thinks it affirms Capitalism at the expense of Communism is apt to view it as fiction. Hamlet's "play within a play" was certainly fiction (in the context of the story) but showed a "real" event in sufficient detail to discomfort King Claudius. So the play within surely pretended to be fiction, but wasn't quite. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you have a mistaken understanding of "fiction." It sounds as if you are confusing fiction with escapist fantasy. I don't understand how there's any basis for thinking there's some sort of contradiction between "fiction" and an expression of ideas about real events in the world. A Trotskyist and a Stalinist may disagree about the value of Orwell's characterization of events, but even if a reader declares the book to be profoundly true and accurate, it still remains a work of fiction--the settings, dialogue, plot, characters; they are all imaginitive constructions that would not exist but for Orwell.--BTfromLA 21:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't think I'm mistaken. I think I'm trying to say that there are gradations in what we consider fiction, and fact, as well. Maybe I'm misreading him, but I would gues when Ike9898 says "Animal Farm IS A WORK OF FICTION" he is not taking your usage, but saying that the interpretation of its factual elements are wrong. Now these are semantic differences, but I believe they're important semantic differences and related to the current discussion.

To take a current political issue, Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 is almost universally described as a documentary, which would definitely make it non-fiction. In fact, many consider the term documentary to imply a higher state of reality: "It just documents what is." I haven't seen the film, but I understand that one much-talked about element is that Moore indicates that the White House flew Saudis out of the country, implicitly at Bush's orders or consent, but Richard Clarke, the prominent Bush critic acknowledged that he, and he alone, ordered the evacuation of Saudi nationals. So that part, at least, of Moore's film is a fiction. Juxtiposition of real events to create a context other than those they originally existed in could also be said to create a fiction, yet we don't call Moore's entire film fiction.

To make my point explicitly, you have:

• Fiction: a Superman comic book, say, though it may contain representations of real people or events;
• Fictionalized biography: the names and events have been changed but are easily recognizable, and clearly fictional elements are introduced. An example is Bob Fosse's All That Jazz, a semi-autobiography in which he is called "Joe Gideon" but a great deal in it is accurate to his life and work, including his own death. We might also put Maus in this category.
• Allegorical biography: the people and events are almost all directly recognizable, and the allegory may be correct, false, or an interpretation in between. Animal Farm.
• Historical fiction: A fictional story that contains real people and real events, but the plot is fictional and the events may altered, juxtiposed, parts invented, historical figures interacting the characters: The Gangs of New York movie.

Each example takes a step away from pure fiction (you may argue on the order) but I think it represents real issues that could help our discussion. In fact, perhaps the problem is the word novel (which is kind of unavoidable) rather than fiction.

I think we're getting away from the point. We should try to reach a consensus on: 1) Can a work of non-fiction be considered a novel? I vote yes 2) What types of long form non-fiction are definently not novels? I believe that Understanding Comics is not a novel because it does not tell a story.

I think the consensus answers to these questions will help refine our definition of graphic novel.ike9898 00:43, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I wish I had a copy of the OED, but:

novel: extended fictional work in prose; usually in the form of a story"

a printed and bound book that is an extended work of fiction; "his bookcases were filled with nothing but novels"; "he burned all the novels" [www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn]

an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events [1]

graphic novel: a fictional story for adults that is presented in comic-strip format and published as a book" [2]

Seems like novel = fiction. Where does that leave us? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If a comic book can be defined as neither comical nor a book, can't a 'graphic novel' be defined as neither fiction nor novelistic? I've come to think "long-form comic book" nails it - and therefore includes Understanding & Reinventing Comics, Maus, Palestine. The cover of my copy of Eisner's work says "A Contract With God, and other Tenement Stories" and "A Graphic Novel". It's a collection of stories!

• A graphic novel is a long-form comic book. Graphic novels are not necessarily fiction as the term implies; long form comic book story collections, anthologies and documentaries are considered graphic novels. ??? Rand 04:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ike9898 and Rand--however we parse the definition of fiction, in practice book-length narrative comics like Persepolis and Maus are known as "Graphic Novels," and it would be inappropriate for us to rule them out. I think our second--marketing related--definition is sufficient to alleviate confusion about this. I would agree that McCloud's didactic comics don't qualify on grounds that they don't tell a story (although even that could be argued--but there is something different in what they expect from the reader than the other works mentioned here. Maybe it relates to the "suspension of disbelief," the entry into an imaginary world of events). --BTfromLA 17:28, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Derision of the term

I'm not very well-connected with the comic book community, but I seem to think that the term "graphic novel" is often mocked by outsiders as a glorified synonym for comic book. Any thoughts on this, or am I just imagining things from my own personal parallel universe? --BDD 03:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

• And some have really latched on to it as a "safe" or acceptable way to refer to comics. This is what's so frustrating about terminology - no definition is going to be valid for everybody, and few could accurately describe the opinions of even a majority. -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:19, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I thought so (glad I'm not crazy). Is this kind of occurrence frequent enough to merit mention here? --BDD 12:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't think so, although I've never heard or seen the mockery. Steve block 20:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sabre

I removed the text italicised below because I don't think the publication date of 1978 makes it notable in the sense it is being used since we already have three examples of the form which utilise the term with prior publication dates of 1976. It's also disputable that a standard of a single narrative in "regular" book format exists within the form as of now.

Text removed: Sabre: Slow Fade of an Endangered Species by writer Don McGregor and artist Paul Gulacy was published in October 1978, and although it was labeled a "graphic album" and was, at 38 story-pages, shorter than most "graphic novels," it fit the standard of a single narrative in "regular" book format. Steve block

I am reinserting it since, as it came out the same year as A Contract With God, it is absolutely of historical note. It was the first such example in the United States of superheroic adventure fiction sold in comic-book shops, a point I thought wasn't necessary to add but which may make its importance clearer. No one else in the U.S. -- not Marvel, not DC, no one -- was the first to create an original character designed EXPRESSLY for publication as a graphic novel.;

• Since there are three works published in 1976 it's not historically notable for coming out in 1978. The new wording makes the notability much clearer, thank you. Steve block 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

I've reverted the page because I don't think the text regarding Sabre being historically important for being the first character created for a graphic novel holds water anymore, given that the page has a prior example with Gil Kane's His Name is...Savage.

As for Sabre setting a form for the graphic novel, since there still isn't any agreement on that form, that can't really be accurate.

• His Name Is...Savage (and I'm the one who added the previuosly unmentioned Kane work to the History section, so I do respect and unknoweldge it) was in magazine form. MAGAZINE. That's like Creepy, Eerie, Vampirella. Or, more similarly. to Marvel's two 1968 magazines titled The Spectacular Spider-Man (not the later comic book, but two Warren-like magazines, the first black-and-white insider, the second in color). So are these two Spider-Man magazines graphic novels? Contrary to the statement you make, there IS agreement that a graphic novel is in book form -- unless you'd like to go and delete the first line of this entry: "Graphic novel" (sometimes abbreviated GN) is a term for a kind of book...."

This continuing denial of Sabre's historic importance is disturbing. The creators of Sabre are not major names like Eisner or Kane, yet why should that stop a historian from giving Sabre credit as the remarkable breaththrough that is was. WHO was doing graphic novels at the time? There was Eisner. There was a Silver Surfer trade paperback. And there was Sabre. In 1978, that was it. Eclipse Books was doing something no one else was doing -- creating an original heroic-fantasy character specifically for the graphic novel format: a comic-book in book form.

However, to compromise, I edited the "standard" phrase and substitued a more general description that simply states a concrete fact of its physical form.

Now I'm not advocating the following, but just to make a point: You want to delete something, delete Beyond Time and Again, a copy of which I own: It's just a collection of comic strips -- no different than a Steve Canyon or Dick Tracy collected edition. HOWEVER, I have enough respect for the contributor who included it as a proto-source (and few things in culture erupt full-blown -- there's no concensus of where electric blues, rockabilly and C&W morphed into rock-n-roll), that's fine with this humble contributor. I even ADDED historically important details to the Beyond Time and Again mention.

I've asked before, and I'll ask again: In America, where comic books originated (as did jazz and exceeding small number of other indiginous arts), who created an original heroic-fiction character specifically for the medium of a comic-book in book form before this? 24.215.163.254 2:37 PM EST, June 11, 2005

And I've explained this before, and I'll explain it again: That isn't anyone's (except maybe yours) definition of "graphic novel", so it's not relevant to this article. Yes, the statement that Sabre was the first "original heroic-fiction character specifically for the medium of a comic-book in book form" is a fact. Yes, it's important. But it's important to the article about Sabre. And the one about Eclipse. And the one about McGregor. That's where these declarations belong. In this article, all it really warrants is the same attention that other like-a-graphic-novels that no one actually called a "graphic novel" at the time: They each got a sentence. I'm sorry if you think this is some conspiracy to deny McGregor and Gulacy and Eclipse credit, but it's not. It doesn't matter whether they "deserve" it more or "need" it more than Kane or Eisner. That's for the Wikipedia reader to judge, not its editors. Tverbeek 20:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I did not write that lead sentence, actually.

Whether the historical facts I cite are relevant to a section titled "History" is up to the readers, as you say. What makes your observations as a reader more relevant than mine? I don't necessarily agree with the Metzger citation, or the collected Euro comic-strip books, but I'm certainly not going to disrespect the contributors who felt they belonged here as important background for perspective. Rather than deleting them, I added to them, to HELP that contributor provide perspective and nuance. I'm confused and saddened about why an addition of perhaps two sentences bother you so much, takes so much of your time and energy. Wouldn't it be good to live and let live, and respect each other's judgment? Clarifying or correcting each other's work is necessary and important. Deleting things just because you don't like them is not in the cooperative, live and let live spirit of this wonderful enterprise. Please, in all well-meant sincerity, consider this. You, I and others are taking our valuable time and knowledge to work together on this. What an incredible thing that is. 24.215.163.254 8:18PM EST, June 11, 2005

You're either deliberately misinterpreting me or just not reading very carefully. I did not say to put it all in and let the readers decide what's relevant. The topic of the article determines what's relevant to the article. Is this definition of "graphic novel" you keep insisting we apply to Sabre a widely-accepted one? If so, it's relevant. If not, it's just your opinion. "I think so" is not a valid reason for including something in an article. It has to be something that people in general agree belongs. Wikipedia is not a "live and let live" group hug; it's more of a crucible where material is relentlessly reviewed and revised until opinions are purged and only the agreed-upon facts emerge. I'm sorry that my strong concern for keeping Wikipedia articles readable and to-the-point - which sometimes means taking borderline cruft out - "confuses and saddens" you, but I'm not quite prepared to give in on that point. Tverbeek 03:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I find it troubling that you believe your "I think so" is more authoritative than another person's. What in the facts abouts Sabre makes it less-than-important historically? The facts are that it was the first of its kind; that even at 38 pages, it's a much denser story than the much more ballyhoed A Contract with God (which came out the very same month, so it's not as if Contract came out first) in that Contract often uses a whole page for a single panel; and Contract is a collection of short stories and not a "novel" in the accepted sense. I'm certainly not creating a definition of "graphic novel"; do a google search and you'll see Sabre referred to as that over and over again. What is your take on these points?

Also, I'm surprised and concerned by the sarcasm of "group hug." That seems an unecessaily combative way to characterize teamwork and cooperation -- each mind adding facts, nuances and perspective. Again I would give this example: While I may personally disagree with the inclusion of Mezter's Beyond Time and Again, since it's simply a comic-strip collection, I have enough collegial respect for whichever contributor added it that I said, "He considers it relevant, there are factual aspects of it that support this relevancy (such as Metzger's early adoptionn of the phrase "graphic movel" for his work), and I can add these relevant additional facts (such as the length of the book, which is something of much discussion throughout this topic)."

Please have enough respect for your colleagues to give facts to support your contention of why something should or should not be included. Otherwise, it is just saying, to use your phrse, "I think so." What in the Sabre portion of the history is not factual or not important? In the meantime, please accept my thanks for the time, effort and love of the form that you show. 24.215.163.254 8:53PM EST, June 12, 2005

• Nobody's "I think so" puts something into Wikipedia. If I think one thing, and you think a different thing, the rule is that neither thing gets put in as a "fact". When in dispute, you leave it out. (Sorry that doesn't quite rhyme.) So it doesn't matter whether you or I think that Metzger's book is a graphic novel. In fact, if you read carefully, you'll see we aren't saying it's a graphic novel. We're just reporting that he called it a grapic novel, which is a verifiable and objective fact. If McGregor had called Sabre a graphic novel, it'd be listed there as well. Instead he called it a "graphic album" which is close enough for a mention, but not the same thing. Tverbeek 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • The Metzger thing was in response to Steve block 21:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) having said "Since there are three works published in 1976 [Sabre is] not historically notable for coming out in 1978," with appeared to treat Metzer's Beyond and Steranko's Chandler as graphic novels, not just things calling themselves graphic novels. Since then, much clarifcation'sbeen done all around about. No biggie. 24.215.163.254 11:53AM EST, June 13, 2005

• I think the part that isn't important is that it's the first US example of an original heroic-adventure character being conceived expressly for a single form comics narrative for publication in book format. That's important in respect to Sabre, but I'm not convinced it is important to the form of a graphic novel. I mean, do we list all examples of non-heroic character', anthropomorphic characters, and so on, and their respective first works? And it'd be nice to get a cite on it being conceived for the format, because I don't know beyond you telling me that it. Steve block 12:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly. All that stuff: "heroic adventure", "original character", etc. might make it important (and I think they do), but they aren't relevant to the topic of this article. Tverbeek 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • I absolutely do see your point about overextension parsing, Steve block. The American comic book's most pervasive cultural contribution is superhero heroic-adventure (Technically speaking some characters like Batman or The Phantom aren't super, per se, and not all wear masked superhero costumes, so I try not to use the term in this context -- though certainly the wide public calls Batman a superhero). This creates an immediately visible and culturally significant distinction between a work like A Contract with God (ordinary people, naturalistic drama, a precursor to American Splendor) and Sabre (firmly and visibly in the comic-book tradition), both in content and form. Unlike, say, the first Western graphic novel or the first funny-animal graphic novel (which would certainly be interesting if not necessarioy important to know), the first traditional comic-book character/story in graphic-novel form is historically significant.

You're right, too, in that specificity in a general topic can go too far. Steve block made a very sensible move of Eisner background-influence quotes to the Contract with God entry while retaining the important fact of the woodcut Frankenstein's direct influence.

Accordingly, I've shortened the three Sabre sentences to two and moved some information to the Sabre entry.

Having done that, the below might be sueprfluous, but Steve block and Tverbeek bring up thoughtful and important points that deserve discussion.

Having been released at the same time as A Contract with God, Sabre is at least as important in terms of historical firsts. A preponderance of sources online and elsewhere credit the book as "groundbreaking" http://frpeneaud.free.fr/artists/Russell/RussellCollections.html or even (with the kind of understandable overstatement we're collaboratively correcting for here) http://www.bookpalace.com/acatalog/Home_Rare_Books__P___S_292.html "Widely recognised as the first Graphic Novel..." Similarly, Mike Sangiacomo in the newspaper The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer (January 23, 1999) writes, "Don McGregor and Paul Gulacy were 20 years ahead of their time when they did the first comic graphic novel: SABRE." These few of many examples indicate both a wide cultural acknowledgment and the real need for informed sources such as our collaborative Wikipedia efforts at providing specific relevant facts so that people don't overstate.

Steve block makes a GREAT point about "How do we know it was conceived for book form?" That it was published in book form is obvious, but conceived? REAL good question. You prompted me to hunt down source quotes -- and that is SO beautifully in the spirt of this thing, this Wikipedia! I found this quote from a Mile High Comics interview with Don McGregor at [[3]] "Dean originally asked me how I wanted to package SABRE. I told him I wanted to come out in graphic album size, and the format I had in mind was something like Ed April used to do for CARTOONIST SHOWCASE. I wanted a sense of permanence about the book, and that the very look of it said it wasn't just another comic coming out on the stands that much." (Ironically, but with a writerly specificity, he says 38 pages is too short to be a [traditional prose] novel, but that definition would toss out A Contract with God and any number of other things.

Another first-person account comes from Bruce Canwell, in the e-zine Digital Webbing (http://www.digitalwebbing.com/cbem/07.html), who recalls, "In 1978, an envelope arrived in my mailbox bearing Dean's [publisher Dean Mullaney's] Staten Island address. Inside was no letter, no personal communication of any sort . . . [ellipses his] Inside was something better. The envelope contained a one-page advance solicitation. Dean (with his musician brother Jan) had formed a publishing company called "Eclipse Enterprises," [note: not Eclipse Comics] the inaugural release of which was a one-shot titled SABRE, the brainchild of writer Don McGregor and artist Paul Gulacy. Dean was touting SABRE as bigger and better-produced than the standard comic: 8 inches by eleven, black-&-white, 48 pages on heavy stock with a tinted wraparound Gulacy cover."

As previously established, Eclipse used the term "graphic album" rather than "comic book" to describe it. McGregor, for his part, refers to it as a "book" ("...the first Graphic Album ever published for the direct sales market, the book..." "SABRE is a book populated with..." http://www.donmcgregor.com/ http://www.donmcgregor.com/sabre.htm

Whew! Thank you so much for prompting the additional supportive research! 24.215.163.254 10:56AM EST, June 13, 2005

[edit] European comics are not per se graphic novels

Graphic novel is a way too loaded term for the longer, more serious European comics imho. Americans may call them that way, but in Europe the are simply comic books.--Phlebas 17:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the reason why the article was written (before you changed it) to indicate that it was talking about the term "graphic novel" and how it's used (by Americans, for example), not trying to declare what is and is not a graphic novel. Tverbeek 17:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with comic book

This article is a sub-article of comic book, yet the main article is treated though it were merely an expanded disambig and is basically just a one-paragraph lead. This is neither practical nor sensible and makes the information that much harder to find. The term "graphic novel" is merely a rather recent development of the term "comic book" and clearly has connotations that are quite subjective in nature (generally "comic books" are just popular culture while "graphic novels" are considered more serious artforms). Please merge these articles and keep them together until there's enough material to actually necessitate a split.

I;m Neutral but this is going to reopen a big can'o'worms, you realise? :) [See Category talk:Graphic novels] - SoM 16:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I oppose. We've been through this before at Category talk:Graphic novels and I believe as then, this time no real consensus will be found beyond the fact that a page describing the term is needed, since it clearly means something different to comic book. I don't agree that this page is an expanded disambig, nor that it is a sub article of comic book. Steve block talk 19:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered about whether it gets merged or not (hence the change of vote), but I think that it's indisputably a sub-article of comic book (which in turn is a sub-article of comics), since a GN is a long-form comic book. - SoM 23:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

See below. They're both publications granted. And yes, calling it a long form comic book is a way of describing it, but it doesn't make it so. It's what you get when you define things by commitee. :) Steve block talk 18:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merge. Since this page's actual text is quite a bit longer than comic book, this page has proven useful and important. The mere fact that it is such a subjective term requires a substantial explantion of all the views of usage to comply with NPOV, so nearly all the text would have to be moved to the comic book article, and that article would become dominated by this one, and eventually (probably sooner than later, given the current trends of wikipedia) someone would suggest splitting it off into its own article. A better idea would be to keep this article where it is, and give a short section introducing this topic within comic book.  —siroχo 22:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the merge. They're famously distinct things. The term graphic novel designates something else than comic book. It has its own history, qualities, etc. Might as well merge butter with margarine.--DNicholls 00:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The top level article here is "comic book". Period. "Graphic novel" is merely a development and somewhat generalized subgenre of "comic book" just like bebop is a development of jazz or manga/anime is a particular genre of cartoons. A graphic novel can always be refered to a as a form of comic book, but not the other way around. The comparison to butter/margarine is very misleading since the terms are mutually exclusive. As long as comic book is a tiny sham of an article that's smaller than most of its sub-articles, a large portion of the material used in the sub-articles will be moved to that article. You can either cooperate and actually improve Wikipedia by working together and compromising, or you can insist on this very subtle POV-fight and run double articles 'til someone notices it and points out the inherent silliness.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree that the comic book is the top level. That seems a very American point of view, and ignores the European tradition, which does have a tradition of graphic novels, but not of comic books. You can either respect consensus and compromise or you can insist on this very subtle POV-fight. Steve block talk 14:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

You're the one insisting on the POV, because this is not how other encyclopedias nor dictionaries define the term. Editorial consensus on Wikipedia can certainly decide how articles should be written, but it can't make new definitions. If you don't like that the term "comic book" is used about graphic novels, fine, but don't force this opinion on everyone else. That's a violation of NPOV.

And please don't try to make this into some sort of US-Europe dispute. Comics have been around in Europe since the early 20th century, long before anyone even thought of making a graphic novel, let alone coin the phrase.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you've lost me. First up, a graphic novel is a publication format used for comics, as is a comic book. So to me they are both sub articles of a Publication formats used in comics article. As for definitions, my dictionary defines a graphic novel as a work of literature in the form of a comic strip. It defines a comic strip as a strip cartoon, and a strip cartoon as a series of drawings, e.g. in a magazine, forming a usu humorous narrative. To relate that to definitions consensually agreed upon here at Wikipedia, it defines a graphic novel as a work of literature in the form of comics. Note the absence of the words comic books in all those definitions. Also note, we aren't restricted, as far as I know, to dictionaries and other encyclopedia, we can use any verifiable source, and in fact that is encouraged, so as to eliminate any errors other encyclopedia or dictionaries may have made. And so we can cite [4] where a graphic novel is defined as being book length comics. We can cite Pantheon Books, or at least Chip Kidd writing for Pantheon books [5], who defines them as fiber-board bound collections of full- and partially-colored illustrated picture stories. I can also cite Sabin, Roger (1993). Adult Comics An Introduction. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-04419-7. who writes that the term is used to associate with the European comics scene, where album format comics... have ...long been culturally respectable and read by all ages. Please note this is the basis for my argument that this is a US/European dispute. There is little usage of the term comic book in the European tradition. Note that includes the UK. Also note comics have been around in Europe since the 17th century. Please note it is not that I dislike that the term comic book is used about graphic novels, it is that I question how widely such is done outside of the US, and also why there is a need to merge one back into the other when there are different usages. Eddie Campbell did not write a manifesto about comic books. Book publishers create graphic novel divisions, not comic book divisions, libraries stock graphic novels rather than comic books. Why discuss these things in an article about something other than graphic novel? Steve block talk 08:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Please look at the following definitions of "comic book":

• A book of comics strips or cartoons, often relating a sustained narrative. AHD
• Bound collection of comic strips, usually in chronological sequence, typically telling a single story or a series of different stories. EB

You're making a very good argument for what a graphic novel is, which I don't really disagree with, but the way you're trying to make the term mutually exclusive to "comic book" is not honest. You can't make terms mutually exclusive by only quoting definitions for one the terms. And on the US-Europe issue, what else would we call European comic books? I don't know of any other all-encompassing terms.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Give me a few European examples and I'll tell you what they're called. However, what those terms get translated to is a whole different question, ne c'est pas? Please also note, I'm in no way trying to make it mutually exclusive to the comic book, how can they be, they are publication formats used to present the same artform. It's just that my dictionary doesn't define comic book because it is a British dictionary, and the term isn't common currency here. I also couldn't cite the comic book publishing division of Pantheon books because they don't have one, which actually, I should have cited since it helps my point, and again, I can't cite Sabin since he doesn't utilise the term, or at least it does not appear in the index of the work I cited above, which is the only Sabin I have to hand. But again, that may be evidence of an American/European difference, although it could also be bias on Sabin's part, who knows for sure?

So yes, the terms are somewhat linked, and yes the distinctions are unclear, but what is clear is that there are different distinctions being applied. Why do libraries, bookshops, book publishers and newspapers utilise the term graphic novel rather than comic book? And since they do, doesn't it behoove us to explain what it is? And in a manner differing from a redirect to comic book, which confuses the issue a lot more than a well written article on the graphic novel, something well within our capabilities given the material published on the format. Note that even your sources state they are somewhat different. They define graphic novel as:

• A novel whose narrative is related through a combination of text and art, often in comic-strip form. [6]

which is something different to what they had for comic book, in that a graphic novel is not neccessarily in comic strip form whilst a comic book is, and Britannica says

• Graphic Novels: Not Just Comic Books [7]

which again states they are something differing to comic books. Am I not being more honest in delineating these differences? Steve block talk 17:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

And as to all this throwing around of who is utilising point of view, isn't this a talk page and as such, all is point of view? Or are your opinions of a higher standard? Steve block talk 08:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• I "oppose" it too. Graphic novels and Comic books are just 2 distinct way of publishing the Comic artform. Lvr 10:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• I also strongly oppose. A graphic novel is as different from a comic book as Charles Dickens' novel "A Christmas Carol" is as different from serialized newspaper stories. And just as there are novels that, obviously, did not start out as serialized newspaper stories, so, too, are there graphic novels that did not start out as comic-book stories. User:Tenebrae 11:48AM ET,28 September 2005

I strongly oppose. The two terms are universally understood as distinct within the comics world, as the preceeding amount of objections show. If you just want to mention graphic novels within the comics article then i'm all for it. Its a very worthy element of comics. In addition, I think the above discussion can be transformed into a Graphic novel section exploring the definition of the term. Marc Mywords 07:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I oppose. In short, they're incredibly different from one another and deserve their own articles. Not a giant monolith of garbage featured under "comic books" for people who are too ignorant to see differences.

I also strongly oppose It's pretty pointless put this it with comic books, both are different from each other. The most ovbious difference it that graphic novels are longer, more complacated, and intened for mostly, teens, young adults, and other older audiences. - User:The Helix

[edit] Removals

I've removed some passages from the article that don't make it any easier to understand for outsiders. I've pasted them below with comments for their removal. Please don't hesitate to resinsert material if you feel it's essential to the article as long as it's not burdened with unnecessary jargon and technical details, but do not auto-revert. That way lies only conflict and edit wars.

''<!-- Note, this article is about the "graphic novel" and the various ways it is used; it does not attempt to cover graphic novels as a topic, to avoid conflicts over what that should include.-->''

This hidden disclaimer I took out of the lead is completely bewildering. I assume it got there because of the bickering on the talkpags. It's intimidating to newbies and with statements like "it does not attempt to cover graphic novels as a topic" it instructs people to not add encyclopedic content, but focus on minor semantic aspects.

Standards for what constitutes a "long-form" work vary. Publishers sometimes designate books of as few as 48 pages as "graphic novels", but whether works this short should be called "novels" is frequently disputed. Some use the term "graphic novella" for works that fit the general sense of the term (i.e. a single, well-developed story), but are less than 100 pages. The fact that books in this range can be published either "perfect-bound" (like a typical "novel") or "saddle-stitched" (like a typical "comic book") adds to the disagreement of whether the term should apply.

Some people refer to works of several hundred or even thousands of pages, published in multiple volumes of hundreds of pages each (e.g. Cerebus the Aardvark, The Sandman), as a single "graphic novel". Others refer to each volume in such an extended work as its own "graphic novel" (e.g. High Society, the second volume of Cerebus; A Season of Mists, the fourth volume of The Sandman). A serialised work of similar length may occasionally be called a "graphic novel" regardless of whether it has been published in collected form, by analogy to the works of writers such as Charles Dickens, which were first serialized and were (arguably) "novels" regardless of their publication format.

Both of these paragraphs are from the section "Definitions", which I simply merged with the lead since... well... the lead is the main definition. Plenty of good examples of comic books, but otherwise just a rather long-winded way of saying the same thing which now is being explained in the rewritten lead.

Controversy surrounding term

There is a controversy about when it is appropriate to use the term. For instance X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills is a graphic novel in the strictest sense, but many members of the literary community feel it is not a "true" graphic novel because it deals with superheroes; leading them to mistakenly believe it is aimed at children (which it is not). Frank Miller's Sin City is sometimes referred to as a "graphic novel" even though it is technically a comic book series that has been collected in trade paperback. Noted comic book writer Neil Gaiman derides the term "graphic novel", saying the difference between a comic book and a graphic novel is like the difference between a hooker and a lady of the evening [8]. Some writer-artists such as Harvey Pekar and Jessica Abel proudly refer to their works as "comic books", pointing out that "comic book" is the medium and not the genre. Art Spiegelman refers to himself as a "cartoonist".

Many comic book fans have pointed out that by lumping superhero comics into the paraliterature subgenre deprives the literary community of writers like Judd Winick, Grant Morrison, and Ann Nocenti.

This text is pretty well-argued, but it looks like it belongs on a chat page and has a very obvious POV in sentences like "...Sin City is sometimes referred to as a "graphic novel"...". The feature film, which is fantastically more notable than the comic, actually describes the work as a graphic novel in the titles. And, frankly, anyone who argues that a novel isn't a novel just because it's published in more than one part is engaged in uninformative hair splitting.

• No-one describes A Study in Scarlet and The Sign of Four as a single "novel," despite the fact that they're both Sherlock Holms books. Similarly, no one disputes that they're novels/novellas despite originally being published in serialised form. But no-one describes their serialised forms as novels, despite containing the same text - it's as much a fact of format as of content. I fail to see why different rules should apply to graphic novel's use of singulars and formats. - SoM 01:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Notable examples

• American Splendor: Our Movie Year by Harvey Pekar (writer), and Robert Crumb, Gary Dumm, Mark Zingarelli and other artists.
• Blackmark by Gil Kane
• Blankets by Craig Thompson
• Bone by Jeff Smith
• Cages by Dave McKean
• City of Glass by Paul Auster, Paul Karasik and David Mazzucchelli
• Cerebus the Aardvark by Dave Sim
• A Contract with God by Will Eisner
• Detectives Inc. by Don McGregor and Marshall Rogers
• Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley
• From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell
• Ghost in the Shell by Masamune Shirow
• Ghost World by Daniel Clowes
• Incal (L'Incal) by Mœbius and Alejandro Jodorowsky
• It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken by Seth
• Locas by Jaime Hernandez
• Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware
• Louis Riel: A Comic-Strip Biography by Chester Brown
• Maus by Art Spiegelman
• Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind by Hayao Miyazaki
• Our Cancer Year by Harvey Pekar, Joyce Brabner and Frank Stack
• Palestine by Joe Sacco
• Palomar by Gilbert Hernandez
• Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi
• Phoenix by Osamu Tezuka
• Road to Perdition by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner
• Sabre by Don McGregor and Paul Gulacy
• Sin City by Frank Miller
• The Books of Magic by Neil Gaiman
• The Sandman by Neil Gaiman
• Stuck Rubber Baby by Howard Cruse
• Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
• When the Wind Blows by Raymond Briggs
• X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills by Chris Claremont
• Berlin and Jar of Fools by Jason Lutes

Lists usually have very limited encyclopedic value, are impossible to reasonably delimit and in this instance it's an obvious bone of contention. I moved the list here, but I welcome reinsertion of the examples if they fit within the confines of informative text.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I've always found lists incredibly useful as a journalist and, in the days before Wiki, as a student. Encyclopedias with lists of countries and capitals, lists of marketing firsts, timelines -- all incredibly useful in both practical terms and as general furtherance of knowledge.

Anecdotally, the way I discovered the Wikipedia is thrugh a Google that found me a Wiki list of fictional TV-show addresses. The light of heaven shown upon me!  :-) I was just saved a good hour-and-a-half of work!

Even in the non-professional/student realm, if I wanted to simply, say, buy someone a graphic novel for a gift, I'd want a fast, handy, non-commercial-hype way of learning the notable ones without having to spend an hour wading through reviews. Are you looking for a full-length story, or short stories? Superhero-comics compilations? Or something more alt-comics? As for notable, well, there are objective criteria, such as award-winners, firsts/early examples of, or rare representations of a motif or genre (Western-gothic, gay, Asian-American female). (I'd do a link to manga, noting that it's a large topic with numerous variations of its own.) If there's an entry for a particular thing (as some, like Maus or A Contract with God have), so much the better

My suggestion re: the delimiting problem is to give a couple of headings: "Original graphbic novels" (single story); "Original graphbic novels" (short stories) "Comic book compilations (superhero)" "Compic book compilations (other)". A small notation can be helpful (e.g. "adapted into motion picture")

So the above (and there may be some miscategorization or missing categories, since this is quick'n'dirty, but that can be fixed, and I'm not saying all these are notable, but just for example, and for time's sake I haven't used all of the above) might be:

NOTABLE EXAMPLES

ORIGINAL GRAPHIC NOVELS

• American Splendor: Our Movie Year by Harvey Pekar (writer), and Robert Crumb, Gary Dumm, Mark Zingarelli and other artists.
• Blackmark by Gil Kane
• Blankets by Craig Thompson
• City of Glass by Paul Auster, Paul Karasik and David Mazzucchelli (adaptation of detective novel)
• Detectives Inc. by Don McGregor and Marshall Rogers (1980; early example of form)
• Incal (L'Incal) by Mœbius and Alejandro Jodorowsky
• Road to Perdition by Max Allan Collins and Richard Piers Rayner (adapted into motion picture)
• Sabre by Don McGregor and Paul Gulacy
• Our Cancer Year by Harvey Pekar, Joyce Brabner and Frank Stack
• Palestine by Joe Sacco (non-fiction)
• Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi
• Stuck Rubber Baby by Howard Cruse
• When the Wind Blows by Raymond Briggs (adapted into animated film)

ORIGINAL GRAPHIC NOVELS (SHORT STORIES)

• A Contract with God by Will Eisner

COMIC BOOK COMPILATIONS (SUPERHERO)

• Batman: The Dark Knight Returns by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley
• Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (1987 Hugo Award, only graphic novel to win)

COMIC BOOK COMPILATIONS (OTHER)

• Bone by Jeff Smith
• Cages by Dave McKean
• Cerebus the Aardvark by Dave Sim
• From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell (adapted into motion picture)
• Ghost World by Daniel Clowes (adapted into motion picture)
• Locas by Jaime Hernandez
• Jimmy Corrigan, the Smartest Kid on Earth by Chris Ware
• Maus by Art Spiegelman (non-fiction)
• Palomar by Gilbert Hernandez
• Sin City by Frank Miller (adapted into motion picture)
• The Books of Magic by Neil Gaiman
• The Sandman by Neil Gaiman

-- Tenebrae 14:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypothetical situations

Which of the following situations would (or could) involve categorizing the work in question under Category:Graphic Novels?

• The author says it's not a graphic novel. Everyone else says it is.
• The author says it's a graphic novel. Everyone else says it isn't.
• The author hates and doesn't use the term "graphic novel", but it is used in reference to the work by everyone else.
• The author exclusively uses the term "graphic novel" for his work, but everyone else consistently calls it a comic book.

The difference between the first two and the second two is whether the author rejects the term altogether, or whether he just disagrees with the public on which of his works are or aren't "graphic novels". -Silence 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a thorny subject you bring up and perhaps the best place to address it is on the talk page of the work in question. I can't really give a hypothetical answer, sorry. Steve block talk 13:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I brought this here when it was brought up on Talk:The Sandman (DC Comics Modern Age) precisely because I was hoping that Wikipedia had some sort of consensus on how to handle this in general, considering the very existence of a "graphic novels" category. But OK, the comic in question is Gaiman's The Sandman. -Silence 15:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've replied over there. We have debated the merits of the category somewhere, and I think we vaguely decided to be guided by the book store and library categorisation. I would think if someone can cite well enough that the term is used with reference to the individual work, it should be categorised as such. Steve block talk 16:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorized list of graphic novels

After posting suggestions above at "Removals" and contacting a couple of contributors (all without response), I've done the fairly time-consuming task of compiling a list of notable graphic novels, alphabetized in strict categories intended to address the issue of runaway lists: A graphic novel has either won an Eisner or a Hugo or it hasn't. It's either been made into a movie or it hasn't. And like that.

Some that fell through the cracks have otherwise been reviewed in such mainstream national publications (including two newspapers, the NY Times and Wash. Post, which have national editions). Commented-out are those for which I could not yet find such reviews or otherwise categorize; please do go in and do what you can. Any corrections or ISBNs (the latter of which I'm working on) would be valuable. I hope this categorized list proves useful to people unfamiliar with the form and looking for good examples to read, choose as gifts, etc. -- Tenebrae 00:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notably reviewed

I think the notably reviewed section of the list is unmaintainable, if I'm honest. How do we define which papers constitute notable, for starters, all the sources listed on the page thus far are US, which smacks a little of bias, and if we open it up to include International papers then it becomes unmaintainable given that The Guardian tends to review very many graphic novels in comparison with the rest of the press. I would propose that this part of the list be removed, especially as it seems to have started from a somewhat POV place anyway, given that you state you want to catch works missed by the above criteria. Also, can the Eisner and Harvey lists not be moved to Eisner Award and Harvey Award with a link provided in the article? This would allow people to contextualise the awards. Steve block talk 09:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just thought, we also have List of movies based on comic books which perhaps could be linked to as well. Not meaning to rain on your parade, sorry. Steve block talk 09:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the articles at Harvey Award and Eisner Award already contain this info, do we need it duplicated? Steve block talk 10:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Howdy. Yeah, the "notably reviewed" part is problemmatic and I guess I'd vote to excise it. The rationale was to include important stuff that fell through the cracks, but I guess there are other ways of doing that.

I'd propose, to keep this page relatively short and clear, moving this list to (as you suggested earlier) a separate "List of" page. The reason I think this would be helpful to newcomers to graphic novels is that it'd be a road map of significant books in a clear, uncluttered way. They'll always be listed in, as you rightly note, contextualized fashion on the awards pages. While those very long awards pages are comprehensive, that virtue makes it possibly confusing or off-putting to someone simply trying to get a recommendation. For analogy, someone who enjoys movies might like a list of significant films, including Oscar winners, without having to look through the whole Academy Awards list. This might sense? -- Tenebrae 15:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite work out if we should create a Lists of graphic novels page and put List of award winning graphic novels and List of graphic novels adapted into films on it, or have the two as two seperate lists. Note the names are just ones I made up and don't have to be definitive. I think if we put as many awards on the award winning page as possible, that would be a useful exercise and should justify it as a research page. Steve block talk 16:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds pretty sensible. I'd vote for that. Would the list be more useful if there were a qualifier such as "notable" or "significant" in the name, to avoid that page becoming an unwieldly list of anything and everything? I'm thinking of the page "List of comics creators" that has columns and columns of obscure red names. On a related topic, I've just bought the original 1971 Blackmark paperback. You'd think it would go for a lot of money, but it seems to sell for about four bucks online. -- Tenebrae 02:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that I think about, I guess the heading might be "List of award-winning graphic novels", which would pretty much take care of the delimiting question. What does everyone think? -- Tenebrae 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been open to comments for not quite a fortnight, so if there's no groundswell of support otherwise, I'd like to go with Steve block's suggestion of placing the list (minus the troublesome "Notably reviewed" section) into a separate "See also" category, "List of award-winning graphic novels". The award part should afford the delimiting so needed. Any thoughts or comments over the next few days? -- Tenebrae 03:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Following discussion and posting for comments from Nov. 29 to now, almost a month, I am following the evident consensus to move the graphic novels list to List of grahic novels - award-winning, and removing the problemmatic "notably reviewed". -- Tenebrae 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section

RE:

When The Comics Journal asked the cartoonist Seth why he describes his comic It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken as "a picture novella", he responded that "I could have just put "a comic book"... It goes without saying that I didn't want to use the term graphic novel."

Aside from the confusing double-quotes within double-quotes, this needs a citation or a link (which issue of Comics Journal was it?), but more importantly, fuller context: "It goes without saying" says nothing. - Tenebrae 10:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Does it really need a citation? It was issue 193. I've added the next sentence of the quote -- basically, Seth is another creator who finds "graphic novel" unnecessary. Patabongo 12:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of widespread mainstream attention for graphic novels: I think it's generally accepted that Maus, DKR and Watchmen were the important works in that regard. Eddie Campbell's How To Be An Artist agrees with that, Dave Sim has said so, Neil Gaiman agrees (although he also adds Love And Rockets to the list). Maybe I should add something about that in the 'History' section? Patabongo 12:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at broadening that out, using Sabin's Adult Comics as a crutch. He certainly cites them as "the big 3". I'll try and pull some more together soonish, if anyone else fancies bashing away feel free, not that you need my invitation. I'm aware some of the links hit redirects and some are unnecessary, but it's late and I'm off to bed. I couldn't really find much on DC's GN line, to be honest and I wasn't a big DC fan pre crisis. I've got stuff on the Gollancz line that was around the early 90's, Faith Brooker was the editor, Small Killing and Mr Punch came from them, Harper Collins also had a bash with a Hobbit adaptation, but yeah, that's stuff to get folded into the early 90s, I guess pick our way through to Corrigan winning the Guardian First Book prize and the rise in coverage since, um, the millenium? Steve block talk 00:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(also, while I'm online) The part about a distinction between tpbs and gns -- it's true that comic publishers make that distinction, but comic shops and book stores with comic sections generally don't. You probably will find a section marked "Graphic Novels", but rarely (and never in my experience) a "Trade Paperback" section. It's also not a distinction consistently made by wikipedia; like, the entry on Watchmen describes it as being "later republished as a graphic novel". Patabongo 12:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

RE:

Others have taken issue with his example, noting that publishers and booksellers distingish between trade paperback collections and graphic novels.

I think we need a cite here, otherwise it falls foul of WP:AWW. Patabongo 13:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A really run-on, confusing paragraph

Could the writer of this long one-sentence paragraph, or someone who understands exactly what it's sayiing, clarify and streamline this a bit?

Meanwhile, in continental Europe, the tradition of collecting serials of popular strips such as Tintin or Asterix had allowed a system to develop which saw works developed as long form narratives but pre-published as serials; by the 1970s this move in turn allowed creators to become marketable in their own right, auteurs capable of sustaining sales on the strength of their name.

Is it saying something like

Concurrently, in continental Europe, the tradition of collecting such comic strips as Tintin and Asterix in book form spurred the development of long narratives that appeared in books before being serialized in newspapers. By the 1970s, these book collections had proven popular enough that the books could be marketd on the strength of the cartoonists' names.

I'm also unclear on the second sentence's significance. Peanuts paperback collections in the 1960s, for instance, were popular on the strength of both the comic strip and of Charles Schultz. And small-press publishers in the U.S. were collecting adventure strips such as Steve Canyon, which of course had long-form narratives. What's the signficance of these Euro collections? Is it that (as the graf appears to be saying) that they came out in advance of the strips' npublication in newspapers? -- Tenebrae 14:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Latter point first. In Europe, (including the UK) the tradition is to refer to all stories in the comics form as comic strips. The collections of Tintin strips referred to isn't of newspaper strips, but a collection of episoides of the storyline which were serialised in an anthology. It's more akin to collections of Daredevil or Spiderman, something which didn't happen until the eighties in the US. I'm not sure I wholly want to rewrite in order to cater to an American audience, that's endemic of systematic bias. I did write that paragraph, I guess I do have a taste for semi-colons at the minute; something I'll have to shake off.

• For the first point, how's this: "Concurrently, in continental Europe, the tradition of collecting popular serialised strips such as Tintin and Asterix in book form spurred the development of long narratives that appeared in books before being serialized in anthologies. By the 1970s, these book collections had proven popular enough that the creators become marketable in their own right, auteurs capable of sustaining sales on the strength of their name." Steve block talk 16:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Of course, I'd also like to point out my paragraph is perfectly punctuated by a semi-colon as it is, and is thus not a run-on sentence. Steve block talk 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, more clarification after more thought. What's being said is this: in continental Europe, the tradition for collecting serials of popular strips such as Tintin or Asterix had allowed a system to develop which saw works developed as long form narratives. These long form narratives were then pre-published as serials, namely serialised in anthologies. This in turn created a system which allowed allowed creators to become marketable in their own right, auteurs capable of sustaining sales on the strength of their name.

• This is significant because in the U.S. comic book artists, who are analogous to Herge, were not considered marketable; for example, Steve Engleheart had awful trouble getting a book deal in the late 1970's, and comic book collections were not commonly marketed at this point on the strength of the author's name. At least not to my knowledge. That's only just happened, in the last decade or so, mainly on the back of Neil Gaiman and Alan Moore's success. Steve block talk 16:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hiya, Steve. Thanks for the well-thought-out response. It may just be me, but I'm still confused. I'm not familiar with the term "pre-published", and I'm getting lost with where these strips are being published initially. Magazines? Newspapers? One of the earlier versions of this paragraph mentions "long narratives that appeared in books before being serialized in anthologies". I'm not sure what's meant by "books" as opposed to "anthologies", since anthologies are generally in book form.

I think I'm also maybe confused by the passive voice ("had allowed a system to develop which saw works developed as..." as opposed to, say, "led to works being developed as").

Sorry to be a pain. I hope I'm not being confusing in turn. Thanks again for responding so quickly and well. -- Tenebrae 19:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We really have a cultural thingummyjig here. In Europe, our form of comic books are referred to as comics, and were magazines typically of the same the width and breadth as a tabloid newspaper, i.e a U.S. comic book opened out, since a US comic book is half tabloid size. They were anthologies, running perhaps four "strips" an issue, meaning four stories, each of which were serialised parts of a whole story. The Eagle is a famous British comic, Pilote was one that ran in France. DC and Marvel tried something along these lines with Action Comics and Marvel Comics Presents in the, um, early nineties, was it? So the anthologies are comics, magazines which are roughly analogous to the comic book. The "book" format is where the story is collected as a whole, and is typicaly similar to a trade paperback, you're familiar with Tintin books, yeah? The earlier strips would have first been serialised in a comic, hence the term pre-published. I'm not certain that they were published in book form before they were serialised, which is why I rewrote it, since the sources I found stated they were serialised first and then collected. The passive voice is something I do tend to adopt when writing on wikipedia, to be honest. That's just a style thing. Feel free to rewrite, and if the gist of what you say is wrong I'll soon correct it. Does that help? I added stuff to Comic book and Comics a while back that might help, and there's British comic too. I have to get round to working on those articles again soon, there's still so many cultural differences regarding the word comics that's it's hard to communicate at times. Steve block talk 21:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)