Comments on: Graphic Novels v. Novels

By: Allison Gibbons

Allison Gibbons — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:32:40 +0000

I’m experimenting with a media that is, to say the least, plastic and for want of a subject in which to at least begin a description of this media, I have called it a graphic novel (if you view the site, Present at the Creation of Furniture is a full length piece with a brief preview on the site) but been told it is NOT. So I am thinking of narrative art at this point although I like sequential art although I’m not sure an audience would pick up on that..I’ve also thought of picture narrative but am still not satisfied with any of the above terms. In using a website a linear narrative doesn’t really cut it totally. I would be greatful for anyones opinion on my attempts.

By: Brian W

Brian W — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 05:33:42 +0000

I tried pinning this one down 4 years ago in my college weekly entertainment paper and took a course on the subject at UIUC. I tend to agree with the intended ending upon conception theory and like the idea of including storyarcs intended to be read outside of a longing ongoing narrative. My understanding since then has been that “trade paperback” is the proper term for collections of single issues comprising a storyarc and that this is what should be used for most collections billed at your local Barnes & Noble Booksellers at “graphic novels.”

However, I’ve long since given up on arguing this subject, as Marvel and DC advertisements, as well as coverage in Publishers Weekly seems to hold the term “graphic novel” up as a very large and inclusive tent that will allow most anything with comics in it all into the category. I have to figure this is ultimately all that matters; as how such stories are marketed is what is going cause the widest proliferation of the use of the term. So all the above is probably a mute point in the scheme of things.

By: Derik

Derik — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 21:22:28 +0000

Thanks for commenting, Chris.

I am still unclear why sequential art would be necessarily more tied to linearity than prose.

By: Chris Tamarri

Chris Tamarri — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:34:20 +0000

Part of the problem with the term “graphic novel” is that it’s appropriating a term that itself isn’t perfectly defined, as you’ve pointed out. There are certainly many ways of identifying a novel (graphic of otherwise), some of which might even be contradictory. When I spoke about linearity, I didn’t neccessarily mean narrative linearity; I don’t think it’s neccessary that in any given bit of plot, the characters must be aware of and responding to the moment right before. However, I think a novel has to be able to support cognitive linearity on the part of the reader. When you finish a novel, you should be able to look back to where you started (whether with plot, character, theme, whatever element(s) the writer’s focusing on) and identify where you’ve finished, and describe how you got from one point to another. Certainly the most obvious way to make this identification is with plot, but there are ways to go around as well (Ulysses, I’m looking at you).

The easiest way to identify a novel is through size, but I think there’s something more fundamental in the content between the two. And where the term “graphic novel” fails is where it’s applied to collections which were never concieved of as single units, at least not before commercial interests were applied.