Graphic Novel or Comic Book?

OK - so maybe it's just me. It usually is. But it's a big pet peeve of mine to see people writing about comic books and refusing to refer to them as such. It happens a lot in newspapers.

Amazingly, there are some papers that have recurring "comic of the week" type articles. A lot different from the 80s & 90s where it was a rare occurance indeed to see any articles about comics.

Now, they're a bit more prominent. And a lot of them will go to great lengths to tell you the difference between a graphic novel and a comic book. Or they'll simply make the distinction with no reality-based qualifier.

For example, this from the October 26th newspaper "The Independent" : "If it wasn"t for Watchmen, I would have missed out on other great graphic novel writers like Garth Ennis, Ed Brubaker and Frank Miller."

Look, I think it's nice that people will condescend to consider comics a viable topic for a newspaper article....but please - Last I checked, Ennis, Brubaker and Miller are all comic book writers - not "graphic novel writers"...whatever that means.

Even Sony Pictures is doing it - a promo site for "30 Days Of Night" says "Based on the Graphic Novel." Well, it's sort of accurate - but the graphic novel is "based on" the comic book mini-series that it reprints.

So let's see - what is the difference between a comic book and a graphic novel?

Here's the New York Sun attempting to clarify: "It's been decades since comic books outgrew the simple dichotomy of good and evil forces facing off in a superpowerful universe, but it's taken many of us a while to realize it. In recent years, the scope of the graphic novel has grown to cover subjects ranging from the holocaust to epilepsy and rape. On Friday, the closing night feature at the 45th New York Film Festival proves how far so-called "comic books" have traveled."

Note the use of "comic books" in the first sentence in a fairly condescending tone. Then in comes "graphic novel" in the second sentence, letting all readers know that you are not brain dead if you read pages that have words & pictures together.

They cover subjects ranging from "the holocaust to epilepsy and rape" ??? Oh wow! You mean that they are a legitimate form of entertainment? Why is this part of the sentence necessary? Why is it a shock that comic books (sorry, graphic novels) would contain themes and ideas that might cause a person to think?

Oh, it's because "the 45th New York Film Festival proves how far so-called "comic books" have traveled."

Note how "comic books" is in quotes. That's how it was in the article (it was published on October 11th if you want to look it up). In quotes. As though this is a euphemism for something. You know, "comic books" - insert air quotes here.

Here's more from the article: But Chris Staros, a publisher at Top Shelf Productions, said the medium wasn't ready to capitalize on the interest at that point. "Back in 1986 when ‘Watchmen' and ‘The Dark Night Returns' and ‘Maus' came out, comic books got a lot of notoriety," Mr. Staros said. "But there wasn't the fuel to add to the fire at that point." Today, he said, "I don't have to explain what a graphic novel is anymore."

Apparently you do, because Watchmen and Dark Knight were both printed as comic books and collected into a reprint volume. They are comic books, not graphic novels.

I suppose if I were to actually legitimize this idiotic attempt to differentiate between the two things, I'd say that a graphic novel is an original piece of work that was not originally published in serialized comic book installments.

Arkham Asylum would be an example. As would Elektra Lives. Despite what Sony Picutres thinks, 30 Days of Night is not a graphic novel. You've probably already figured out that Watchmen and Dark Knight are not graphic novels either. They are, simply, great comic books.

But then, so are a lot of "graphic novels."