That used to be my favorite one.

Damn. That is not the note I wanted this exchange to end on.

As long as this is not recognized, there will be problems.”

If we’re not drawing too rigid or sharply defined a line between the virtually separate media, I can agree with that.

I certainly see a difference between the approaches of comic companies who deal in the acquisition of intellectual property, and traditional book publishers expanding into the medium, though I’m not sure it’s a distinction that would mean much to a casual reader (for creators, absolutely, and for retailers, ideally.) Then again, I’m not sure how many casual readers there are these days to begin with.

As long as this is not recognized, there will be problems.

As with novels, movies–pretty much every narrative form–all creators in a given medium won’t be working towards the same goals. That doesn’t mean they aren’t still working in the same medium. If anything it means they’re working in different genres, and I’d hope (in vain, for the moment) they’d be filed appropriately according to genre/subject matter, under the name of the creator of the work in question (something that does get complicated in the case of collaborations.)

As for Eisner’s actions, as I met him once for all of three minutes, you surely knew him better than I did. If you say he saw The Spirit and his other work as being in different media, I’ll believe you. However, in the absence of a figure of authority making that claim, I don’t know that I’d ever have considered his decision in those matters to possibly be based on artistic sensibility rather than a business one. DC is better-suited to exploit a franchisable character who wears a mask, Norton can do more with finite, slice-of-life fiction. Both were made with different artistic intents, in different formats and genres, but at the end of the day, again, I look at them and see them as being of a piece, the same way I see Great Expectations and a random Star Wars novelization as being novels. Are they works of equal merit? No. But they are still works of the same medium. Darth Maul: Saboteur doesn’t invalidate or lessen Great Expectations, and in a rational world Captain America shouldn’t have any appreciable effect on sales of, say, HOW TO BE AN ARTIST.

That this isn’t the case is certainly evidence of a system that isn’t functioning properly. I firmly believe that the perception of comics/graphic novels as a genre is a huge problem, one that does a disservice to anyone working in the medium, whatever it’s called, and moreso for creators whose livelihoods are based on work that for whatever reason isn’t supported by the stereotypical direct market retailer. But with all due respect, I’m not convinced the way to fix the problem is to describe From Hell as a graphic novel rather than an historical drama or a horror story. Especially not when Marvel and DC and whoever are just going to come along and claim that The Death of Superman and Spider-Man: Kraven’s Last Hunt are graphic novels, too.

In other words, he saw them as two separate things.

In retrospect, this is better than it currently carrying the stigma of being entertainment for kidults… which makes me sad because it really is a fine medium that doesn’t seem to be able to reach it’s potential as he creative art for the masses.

Sorry for misconstruing and misrepresenting your intent with the manifesto. I’ve added a note to the body of the post that will hopefully clarify things, as well as an apology for presenting the manifesto as something other than it was.

As for adding to the confusion–certainly not my intent, but you may be right. Especially if someone happens to read the post and then come upon the three kinds of graphic novel that are mutually exclusive from what I would prefer to think of as a comic. Off the top of my head, I can only think of one work I’ve personally encountered that was presented to me as a graphic novel that I wouldn’t be comfortable referring to as a comic book (Pascal Blanchet’s WHITE RAPIDS). I’m sure that speaks more to my ignorance of artistic endeavours that I don’t perceive as being to my personal taste and/or simply haven’t yet encountered (and my memory, which is spotty at best.) In an ideal world, having everyone call what could be defined as comics “comics” and leaving the other three types of graphic novel to vie for ownership of the term could theoretically alleviate some confusion on the wider public’s part, at least. Of course, that would require the same kind of wide agreement between invested parties that isn’t likely to be had any time soon.

Marketing a work is one venue in which I absolutely wouldn’t insist “it’s all comics,” on the grounds that bringing as many readers as possible into whatever the medium’s called is a good thing. I find it unfortunate that some people are seemingly only willing to read comics if they’re called something else, but a reader’s a reader and the more, the better.

Out of curiosity, when you speak of marketing difficulties you and Eisner face(d), are you referring to difficulties marketing to publishers, a potential audience, or both?

I dislike the term.

Stuff like, oh, “Countdown to Final Crisis” is not a graphic novel. “Transmetropolitan” is.

But I try to stay away from the whole conversation. My main plan is to tell people whose opinions I actually care about that “hey! Comics are goddamn cool. Read this.” And that has worked out fine for me.