What do Citizen Kane, The Matrix, and Meet the Spartans have in common?
What do War & Peace, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, and The Destroyer Volume 11: Kill or CURE have in common?
What do Persepolis, Jack Staff, and Tyrese Gibson’s MAYHEM! have in common?
I imagine the answer to the first two questions is obvious to pretty much anyone who’s familiar with films and novels.1 Unfortunately, I don’t need to imagine getting into an argument over what I believe is the obvious answer to the third.
I understand why Will Eisner came up with2 the term/format of the “graphic novel.” He wanted a “real” book publisher to publish his comics3. Comics at the time carried the stigma of being throw-away entertainment for kids. Getting a traditional novel publisher interested meant convincing one or more of them that the comics being offered up for publication were, in fact, something other than comics.
Fair enough. I’d call my feet tits if I thought it’d convince someone to give me money to touch them. I’m not proud.4 But I’d like to think that when I got out of the long, scalding hot shower I’d take after having whatever’s at the ends of my legs fondled, I’d be able to recognize that my feet aren’t breasts.
It’s frustrating to me to see writers and artists I respect giving more than the minimum lip service required to the notion that their work in the medium of comics is something other than comics work.
In his (Revised) Graphic Novel Manifesto, Eddie Campbell states: “The goal of the graphic novelist is to take the form of the comic book, which has become an embarrassment, and raise it to a more ambitious and meaningful level.”
(EDITED TO ADD: I’ve since been informed by someone who’d know that the Manifesto in question is intended as a work of comedy–a context I’m embarrassed to admit I missed due to clearly insufficient research on my part. I thank Mr. Campbell for clarifying the matter in the comments {which anyone who can be bothered to read my blathering should definitely check out}, and apologize for inadvertently misrepresenting his position.)
I’m all for more ambitious and meaningful comics. And I can even see how someone of Campbell’s stature could perceive a medium that includes the work of Alex Toth, Jack Kirby, and Bernie Krigstein, among many, many others, an embarrassment, irrevocably connected in the public’s mind with the stereotypical “Biff! Bam! Pow!” Adam West Batman image as it seemingly is, even to this day. The still widespread perception that comics are for kids is problematic (most North American comics not being for kids is also problematic for entirely different reasons, but that’s another post.)
I submit to you that the solution to the problem isn’t to create a new term for comic books,5 but to create more and better work in the comic medium–while making sure as many people as possible know that’s the medium the work is in.
As a comic book, From Hell elevates the comic book medium. As a graphic novel, it diminishes the comic book medium, in the same way Margaret Atwood insisting A Handmaid’s Tale isn’t science fiction diminishes science fiction. Both situations encourage those who don’t know what a comic/sci-fi is to believe the comics/sci-fi they’re consuming is something else. They are given no incentive to seek out good comics or sci-fi, because they aren’t interested in comics and sci-fi. The fact that they just enjoyed those very things is immaterial to their future reading choices, because they don’t understand what they just read was the very thing they’re predisposed to believe they’ve no interest in reading.
That’s not entirely an apples to apples comparison, as comics are a medium and science fiction is a genre6. But the point is that some comics will be embarrassing to people who want their comic work taken seriously for its literary or artistic merit for as long as there are comics. And whatever necessarily arbitrary distinction one tries to make between comics and graphic novels won’t change the fact that there will be some graphic novels that will embarrass creators who want their graphic novel work taken seriously for its artistic or literary merit, too. Because the distinction is arbitrary, and it’s an arbitrary distinction I suspect many would be unwilling, unable, or simply unprepared to make, even if there were widespread agreement on what the distinction should be7.
A year or two back, I was contacted about editing a series of graphic novels for a corporate client. Each of the graphic novels was to contain a central theme educating the reader about the client’s product; each was to reveal that theme in a humourous way; and each graphic novel was to consist of a row of three to four panels.
I tried to explain to the client that what they were describing would more accurately be called a comic strip. The client was quite insistent that they didn’t want comics, strips or otherwise. They wanted graphic novels. Four panel graphic novels.
That’s what those who’ve tried to elevate comics to the level of serious literature by creating a new and, from an artistic standpoint, unnecessary term have gotten from the public for their effort: a complete lack of any recognition of a qualitative (or even quantitative) difference between a graphic novel, a comic book, a trade paperback, and/or a comic strip.8
At the end of his Manifesto, Campbell returns the idea of the graphic novel to its original context, that of a marketing tool–a context in which the term had, and continues to have, a positive value for the comics creator. Says Mr. Campbell: “The graphic novelist reserves the right to deny any or all of the above if it means a quick sale.”
The use of the term graphic novel to describe comics has enabled a huge number of sales, to publishers, potential readers, and the Hollywood moneyhandlers who arguably keep the North American comics industry solvent (or at least inspire people to continue creating and publishing work inside it, if only for the worst reasons.) But at the end of the day, a graphic novel’s just another word for a comic book.9
There are more and better comics being made today than ever before. Instead of being embarrassed by those examples of the medium that display modest (or no) ambition, I’d prefer comics creators acknowledge what’s gone before, celebrate what’s been accomplished in the medium so far, and embrace the possibilities of what’s yet to come.
Unless, of course, doing so would interfere with a quick sale. In that case, here’s your four panel graphic novel; where’s my cheque?
-Foley 10
- For those who aren’t familiar with those things, the answers are “They’re all films” and “They’re all novels” respectively; “They’re all stories told in the same medium” is a perfectly reasonable answer to both. [↩]
- or co-opted, depending on whose version of events you believe [↩]
- Considering the way comics creators were treated by the major comics companies of the time, you really can’t blame him. [↩]
- I’m also not wealthy. [↩]
- though that ship’s already sailed and it ain’t coming back to the dock. [↩]
- regardless of what my local mass market bookstore thinks [↩]
- and there isn’t, as far as I can tell [↩]
- Well, that and a shelf at the local chain bookstore, a topic I may revisit in a future post if some politician fails to say something suitably moronic in the next few weeks. [↩]
- At least in Canada and the United States. Over in his blog, Campbell has suggested the term “comic book” may carry substantially more baggage in a European context than it does in the one I tend to experience it in. [↩]
- “Co-writer” of the “graphic novel” Cowboys & Aliens. Which we still don’t talk about. [↩]
Related Articles
17 users responded in this post
Thanks for the word ‘stature’, but a couple of notes, or nits. For the record, I have always believed arguing about names and terms is a waste of time. I wrote the ‘manifesto’ in an attempt to solve a problem. Specifically, the big article in The NY Times Sunday mag had just appeared and there was a long debate in the Comics Journal forum about why journalists always get it wrong. I proposed that they get it wrong because we feed it to them wrong. Especially we feed it to them as a confused muddle. As a humorous solution I suggested everybody get together and agree on basic principles. I suggested a list of them. Others suggested changes, and I made the changes in a spirit of collaboration. Where it was requested for reuse or reprint I asked that the context be explained. But inevitably it got lifted out of context and came to look like an actual manifesto. It was never meant to be that. I regard it as a work of humour. I removed it from the wikipedia page on the subject of me on the grounds that it reproduced an entire copyrighted work.
I can see several places in your article where I feel you would be adding to the kind of confusion I was railing against. There are four completely separate and mutually exclusive notions as to what a ‘graphic novel’ is; to side with one of these and give all your reasons does not help to clarify a muddled situation; you’re are just upping the overall noise. I would also say you are unaware of the kinds of marketing difficulties that Eisner had to deal with and that I still have to deal with, and to insist that it’s ‘all just comics’ is regressive thinking.
There’s a place for the comic book/graphic novel distinction, similar to the distinction between a short story and a novel.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t get used that way.
I attempt to distinguish between comic books and graphic novels by identifying “graphic novel” as a self-contained storyline, separate or mostly so from a larger continuity. There are series of novels, let’s say the Bernie Rhodenbarr series from Lawrence Block, that have their own continuities, but each is a standalone tale.
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.
I get into this argument all the time. I have a friend who insists on calling them funny books because of this. Among a lot of the English major suite the it term is serialized literature. Which I find pretentious as well. I read an interview with Gaiman one time where he mentioned a party he was at. A man asked him what he did and he said he wrote comic books, when he said who he was, the man said oh you write graphic novels where Gaiman insisted that he wrote comic books.
I dislike the term.
Mr. Campbell:
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?
Comics at the time carried the stigma of being throw-away entertainment for kids.
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.
Andrew,
Okay, here’s a marketing problem. My local Border’s here in Australia files all the ‘graphic novels’ (so designated) A-Z by character. My Alec will probably get file under ‘A” because there is an identifiable character. My Leotard will be elsewhere in the section. Somebody like Speigelman has made himself enough of a character to get filed under ‘S’, and he doesn’t have so many books that it might be a problem. If Campbell had made himself enough of a celebrity, he could hope to find himself between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Captain America. Is the explanation to simply say ‘well it’s all comics’?
Under the marketing question there is obviously a deeper issue. But let’s start by recognizing that there’s something cockeyed in the system. There are clearly two different kinds of things getting mixed up here. After thirty years making the same kinds of books, why isn’t Campbell a recognized author? It’s not a difference in size, between short story and novel, or between TPB and OGN. Two different kinds of animals have been shoved in the same cage. It may add up to just an argument about words to you, but I’ve got books out there whose potential readers cannot find them. One of the last things Eisner did was to switch all his books from DC to Norton. Why do you think he did that?
ps. EMPHASIS. The problem is not about FILING or naming terms. these are symptoms of a deeper problem.
pps oops, RE Eisner. I said ‘all’ his books, what I meant was: The Spirit, being a comic book, remains with the comic book company (DC), while the graphic novels are now with a literary publisher (Norton).
In other words, he saw them as two separate things.
Re: the bookstore problem. No, I don’t think the solution is to say “it’s all comics” but rather that “it’s all comic books” with the emphasis on the book portion of the phrase. I agree wholeheartedly that a system which sees Alec shelved next to Astonishing X-Men is messed up (in fact an earlier draft of my post went on a fairly significant tangent about my quixotic efforts to get my local Chapters/Indigo {the major Canadian book chain} to recognize that graphic novels, comics, and manga aren’t genres unto themselves and shouldn’t be shelved in a manner I can only compare to audiobooks.)
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.
“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.”
yes, but we virtually have two separate media (but let’s not draw a rigid straight line). One is character driven. If i draw a batman book i know I’m contributing to the huge mythos of batman, which is owned by a company. it’s not really an eddie campbell book (but let’s not rule a sharply defined line… there are many things within the grey area). The other is author driven. It belongs TO the author. Forget about the term ‘graphic novel’ (i’ve been saying that for years now, but everybody, including yourself, still quotes my 2004 ‘manifesto’) it is no longer salvageable. It means a different thing to the comic book companies from what it means to the book companies who are doing comics, such as First Second.
As long as this is not recognized, there will be problems.
actually, I don’t know what I’m arguing about. It’s all shit.
enjoy yer comic books.
Eddie
“It means a different thing to the comic book companies from what it means to the book companies who are doing comics, such as First Second.
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.
“actually, I don’t know what I’m arguing about. It’s all shit.
enjoy yer comic books.”
Damn. That is not the note I wanted this exchange to end on.
I quite enjoyed the conversation you two were having! 🙂
I agree that it was a nice conversation, even if Mr. Campbell’s understandable frustration with the subject got the best of him. This debate is necessary, and reconsidering the terminology that involves this genre is an ongoing process.
Isn’t “Kill or CURE” the one where Harold Smith gets oustered by some dude and he has to go to ground and spy his way back to the usurper, who Harold kills by throwing a pen through the guy’s eye into his brain?
That used to be my favorite one.