Fun Stuff > MAKE

suggest me some graphic novels.

<< < (12/22) > >>

KharBevNor:
There are numerous technical differences between Graphic Novels and Comics. The basic one would be that Graphic Novels are collected, self-contained stories, whereas comics could generally better be described as long sequences of linked episodes or single strips forming a generally ongoing narrative, if that makes any sense. There's a qualitative difference between, say Watchmen, and Spiderman, in the format and scope of the whole thing. There's also a difference between something like 'The Dark Knight Returns' and the Batman newspaper strips. It's also about the way you cut up the narrative of course, but only really in the final presentation. Most graphic novels originally ran as comics. In practicality, it's more a trade term: graphic novels and trade paperbacks are pretty much the same thing.

As for comics and manga, well, different presentation format (now, thank the gods, they've started selling un-flopped manga in english), different visual language (ZZZ versus nose bubbles, different way of approaching panels), largely though not exclusively based in different genres (superheroes and funny animals versus mecha and magical girls), rooted in different artistic traditions (Hogarth versus Hiroshige) though there is crossover both past and present. It makes commercial, as well as artistic sense, to present them as different things. Maybe not so much nowadays, as the two have blurred conspicuously (particularly western comics adopting concepts and aesthetics from manga).

Also, although the term 'graphic novels' might be seen as pretentious, I believe it has been crucial in gaining what literary acceptance exists of the medium. I don't think Maus would have won a Pulitzer if it had been presented as a comic book rather than a graphic novel. The term 'comics' just carries too much baggage from the dark years of the Comics Code. Hell, even back in the old days, underground comics used to call themselves 'comix' to distance themselves from that association. Maybe it's time to claim back the name for the medium, but I don't think so quite yet. Huge inroads have been made in to accepting sequential illustration (now there's a nicely pretentious term) as a legitimate, mature art form. I don't think we're ready just to go back to calling everything comics just yet.

0bsessions:
I think it's definitely the time to stop bastardizing the name, which is why I get so anal about it. Comics are about as close to being a respected medium as they're going to get anytime soon. Comic book movies are one of the most lucrative "genres" out there. Heroes is one of the top rated network series currently airing. The fact that I can go into a bar wearing a Captain America T-Shirt and still talk to people is sign enough for me that it's time to just call them what they are. The term "all ages entertainment" has never been so acceptable as this day and age with the popularity of Harry Potter, Spider-Man and the resurgance of Nintendo. People are starting to accept that something can be kid friendly while still appealing to adults. I don't think I've met a new person in about three years without mentioning that I'm a comic book geek in the first half hour and I really can't say a single person has looked upon that with any disrespect.

MusicScribbles:
0bsessions has a point about how we treat ourselves and our acceptance in loving comics, but Khar, you hit what you were trying to say on the head. You successfully explained the difference between comics, graphic novels, and manga. This has nothing to do with calling the medium, comics. The japanese are completely entitled to calling their similar craft manga, the same as anime, instead of cartoons. Who are we to tell them that since we came up with the idea first, they have to name theirs the same way?
Either way, since I don't want to be involved in an argument about something I love, 0bsessions has every right to claim unwavering loyality to being open about comic geekiness, but this has nothing to do with distinguishing comics and graphic novels. The term was invented to refer to different formats. Comics never used to be released in big, chapter-bound format. Instead, an issue might come out every month. Like novel and novella refer to differently sized stories. Think of the comic, in trade terms, as a short story, and the graphic novel as a full blown, bound, paperback story, or a collection of short books.
So, I agree that they should all just be called comics, but there are still different kinds of comics, and then genres.
Like there are tubs of ice cream, and cones, and then there are flavors.

0bsessions:
You speak as if that's the defined notion of a graphic novel as opposed to simply your own personal viewpoint.

Most of the most widely known and critically acclaimed "graphic novels" are simply collections of comic books. Watchmen and Dark Knight Returns, for example, were originally published in a non-open ended, serialized "mini-series" comic book format before getting the trade paperback treatment and earning the moniker of "graphic novel."

Even Alan Moore, the guy who wrote some of the most well known "Graphic Novels" of all time, like Watchmen and The Killing Joke, doesn't much care for the term:

2000 Alan Moore Interview.

It really is, in my view, a term that's hurting the industry. It separates and causes a mass-media distinction between comic books and "legitimate" literature and further harms the industry's intentions of becoming a largely marketable format.

talon:
anything that Alex Ross is involved with, his art is amazing and he doesn't go along with a bad story, no matter the publisher iv'e never been let down

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page