2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

The only distinction I observe IS the format. The story content can be--and in the case of Sandman--is identical.

Comic books definitely have their advantages; it's great fun to plan out a story with a monthly cliffhanger. Can't really do that in a graphic novel, unless it too is published monthly.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context

Nice to have a 'normal' topic to think about again after the last two months.

As the writer/artist of a graphic novel (www.greasemonkeybook.com) I can offer something on this. First, I'll agree with the others that the term 'comic book' has been applied as a negative for far too long. How many times have you heard this sentence: Is this literature or a glorified novel?

What? Never? That's because people don't draw a distinction in that case. Literature is a content term, and Novel is a format term. Ditto 'comic book.' It's a format. In the strictest sense it says nothing about content. But over the years it's become shorthand for 'low art' or 'juvenile fiction.' It doesn't help that the format has been used for precisely those purposes on many occasions.

The reason for this abuse lies in their accessibility. They're not difficult or extraordinarily expensive to make. Therefore, just about anyone with resources can make one. In that way, they are like blogs. Anyone with resources can write a blog. That isn't a value judgment. But you will find that as accessibility goes up, the standards change. And not always for the better. But we certainly gain access to a much greater variety of thought in the bargain.

Anyway, graphic novels are conceptually no better or worse than comics. Some literally are comics in the sense that they offer collections of material previously published as periodicals. But a project that was conceived and executed as a graphic novel has a different aesthetic. It's packaged more like a movie with a distinct story arc that is meant to be self-contained (unless, of course, it's part of a series).

Thus, the biggest difference between comic books and graphic novels lies in the economics of their format. Comic books are usually produced monthly with a cash flow to reflect the schedule. Graphic novels work more like prose novels; there may be an advance (though usually there isn't) with a payoff upon delivery to a publisher and royalties several months later. An original graphic novel almost always represents a huge investment of personal time and passion with no guarantee of compensation. That, in my opinion, makes them all worthy of a second look.

posted 4 years, 7 months ago
view in context