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."

The New Universe and Jim Shooter

Someone was telling me the other day that they were going to be getting Warren Ellis' New Universal from Amazon. I naturally asked if I could borrow it when they had finished reading it. After all, Ellis has written some great comics and I am interested in anything he'd have written. (See earlier entry detailing my writer-driven philosophy).

I had heard about NU a while back and read a few articles about it. Too many articles went on and on about how bad Marvel's original New Universe was. It wasn't all that bad.

After all, how bad could it have been? It featured Star Brand by Jim Shooter and John Romita Jr. Few will argue that notion that JR Jr. is one of the top artists in comics. But people seem to routinely slam Mr. Shooter. This is not only unfair, it's revisionist history.

Let's see, I'll recount some of the terrible comics that Shooter wrote. The Avengers in the 160's and 170's - anyone remember the Korvac saga?.

Daredevil in the 130's, 140's and 150's. Anyone remember the great DD/Bullseye battle in 146 with the fantastic Gil Kane art? And the great issues with the Paladin that led to the issues where Maxwell Glenn committed suicide because of wrongdoings he committed while under the control of the Purple Man?

Yes, the Purple Man - the same character that Bendis used in Alias.

And Star Brand. Lest anyone miss the point here, these issues are excellent and should be part of any DD or Avenger fan's collection.

Shooter also oversaw an era of Marvel Comics as EIC that generated some of the best comics ever. Think Chris Claremont & John Byrne X-Men, Roger Stern & John Romita Jr. Amazing Spider-Man, Frank Miller Daredevil...the list goes on.

So maybe it's time to give the man some credit.

After all, he was the guy behind New Universe....which seems to be the thing that the many critics hit him with.

So, let's see...in addition to Shooter & Romita Jr. on Star Brand, we had Peter David writing Justice. That's right, Peter David writing Justice. And it was great. He also wrote a couple of issues of something called Merc or something like that. While I can't remember the exact title, I remember it was good.

A lot of New Universe wasn't all that spectacular. But it wasn't a total loss. And if you find some issues of Star Brand or Justice in the 50 cent boxes, grab a few. They're really good.

And so was Mr. Shooter.

Likes & Dislikes - the Likes, part 1

In an earlier entry I took shots at a few writers. In the interest of being objective, here is an honest entry to praise work by those slighted writers. In truth, the dislike stated in that earlier entry is pretty much reserved for the ideas and arcs mentioned there.

As I mentioned, I liked Brian Michael Bendis' take on Daredevil. I was relieved when he took over, because I did not care for the Kevin Smith or David Mack issues. The Bob Gale issues were okay, but it was obvious when Bendis took over that they (Marvel) were just killing time.

Bendis handled the supporting cast in a great way. It was about time that Foggy Nelson got the credit for being the great character he always was. Frank Miller touched on it during his too-short tenure, but Bendis really brought him to life. It was also nice to see Ben Urich used as a significant player in this series. Whether or not the Luke Cage/Iron Fist/Jessica Jones thing is going to be worthwhile in the years to come is debatable. For now, they are valid characters, pretty much singly because BMB wants them to be.

Speaking of Jessica Jones reminds me how much I enjoyed Alias. That was a pleasant surprise, as I pretty much fished all the issues I have out of the dollar boxes. An excellent read, and one of the most interesting portrayals of Captain America I've read in recent years.

And, of course, how could I talk about Bendis without mentioning Jinx and Powers? Jinx was something I came across at the recommendation of a guy who ran a shop I frequented in the early 90s. I was looking for something new and interesting (and if you remember the comics landscape in the early 90s....it was kinda slim pickings).

Jinx was published by Caliber Comics and wasn't one of those "must have" titles. But I got it on this recommendation. And I liked it. Excellent noir reading. Pick it up if you haven't already - especially if you are a Bendis fan. Powers was a lot of fun and presented some interesting ideas about superheroes in general. If you're interested in a sort of deconstruction of superheroes, this is worth your time.

Now on to Greg Rucka. I had no interest in collecting Detective Comics at the time - but I found five consecutive issues at the 3 for $1.75 store. So I took a chance. The art was interesting, and the stories looked intriguing. Little did I know that Detective would soon become a "must have" title for me. It still ticks me off that I can't find issue 756 for a decent price. The run was excellent up until the "Bruce Wayne Murderer" arc. It was good after that, but I liked it a lot more before that.

The idea of giving Bruce Wayne a bodyguard was hilarious. Rucka played that hand wonderfully. And it is doubly interesting that the character of Sasha Bordeaux went on to become a larger player in the DC Universe. Rucka was another writer - like Bendis - who used his character's supporting characters brilliantly. His stories made Crispus Allen and Renee Montoya such great characters that you'd think they'd been there all along.

Rucka was also excellent on Gotham Central, a series he shared with Ed Brubaker. It featured a Gotham where Batman was a warily regarded peripheral player, and it focused on the cops who disliked his "interference" in solving crimes.

It is an interesting perspective, as Batman has become such a well-defined character that you don't usually think about how he might be perceived by the cops he sometimes works alongside. The series (what I read of it...about 25 issues) was excellent, and recommended highly.

I hope to complete my collection and read the remainder someday soon. As you probably guessed, I also totally recommend Rucka's Detective issues to anyone who enjoys good comics.

Enter the dollar boxes

I've been collecting (there's that word again) for a long time. Before there was a such thing as a "pull list" and before it was standard practice for stores to set aside the issues you wanted on a weekly basis.

I had taken advantage of this service with two stores (Galaxy Books and El Dorado), and both times, I could not have been happier. They both took into account my writer-driven mania and rarely, if ever, failed to pull books by writers I wanted. This was especially good when my preferred writers would show up in titles I didn't normally get.

After a while, I stopped getting the weekly comic fix for a number of reasons. The main reason was cost - I determined that I didn't want to pay what was becoming higher and higher prices for comic books. I think it was $2.25 or $1.99 per issue at the time.

Anyway, this changed things for me. It was easy to let the shop do all the work. I'd walk in, get my stack, sort it, put back what I didn't want and pay for the rest. Easy.

Then after my epiphany (?), I had to figure out how I would still get comics without the weekly service.

Enter the dollar boxes.

At first, it was just a convention thing. All it took was for me to resist buying new comics when they first came out. I reasoned that after the books were a month or two old, they served no purpose to the shop owners, so they might turn up in dollar boxes at shows.

To a degree, this philosophy worked. I did manage to get some good comics this way. But it sure was/is a spotty way to do it.

But it did bring me back to one of the interesting aspects of collecting comics. The hunt.

Before the shops, there was Clover. Or K-Mart. Or the corner drug store. If the spinner rack didn't have the issue I wanted, there wasn't another option. Had I been able to see the future, I wouldn't have given it a second thought...but as a kid, I would get upset that I couldn't find that issue that I needed. I just wanted to find out how the story ended!

Recently, I have found a few shops that have adopted the dollar box idea, and that's great. South Jersey seems to have a real thriving comic book community. I wonder if other regions have so many good options. There are lot of good places to buy comics here.

My two personal favorites offer great prices, and often, a good selection. One boasts comics for a quarter - many times, it's pretty slim pickings, but sometimes you can find some gems. The other offers comics at 3 for $1.75. They have a very good selection, and if you are a DC fan, it's hard to beat them.

Even though this way of collecting (that word again - I guess I was wrong about "accumulating") leaves holes to fill...it's kind of refreshing to get comics now. I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off - and that's a great thing.

If I paid full price, I'd get 3 comics for $10. On a good day, I can get 40 comics for $10. I think the odds are with you if you can get 13 times the comics with your money.

Collecting...or accumulating?

In an earlier post, I referred to the ownership of comics as "collecting." I'm not sure if "collecting" is the right word. It seems that "accumulating" would be more accurate.

It happened so innocently. My friends and I would go to a comic convention. I'm talking about a time before Wizard Con - when local conventions would have a good number of tables and dealers and you could really find that for which you were looking. It was sad to see these local conventions die such a slow death. But, again, I am getting off topic...

Collecting vs. Accumulating. Here's how it works: You go to a show, and find a dealer or two who've been there and not had many buyers. So they offer their books for 50 cents, 25 cents...10 cents (!) each.

Then you can really go nuts and buy all sorts of things you'd thought of trying, but didn't bother with at full price. I mean, really, how can you go wrong if you pay a quarter or a dime for an issue?

Another way to accumulate lots of issues is to frequent shops that were going out of business. This was happening quite a bit in the early/mid 90's, so my friends and I were fortunate to be able to get a crapload of comics for very reduced rates.

The end result of this is that you accumulate lots of comics. Acquiring them this way doesn't seem like collecting, does it?

This is by no means me complaining. I always enjoy getting new comics - it reminds me of simpler times when there were less things to worry about.

Of course, accumulating comics in such volume puts me in an interesting position. I now have a lot of comics that I have not had a chance to read yet. And I do get the occasional stack of comics even now, so the collection increases.

But this is a fun problem to have. I guess if I live long enough, I'll find the time to read all the "accumulated" issues.

I guess "Comic Accumulation" doesn't sound as good as "Comic Collection," does it?

Lending/Borrowing

From time to time, I have lent comics to people, thereby inflicting my opinion of what is worth reading on another reader. This is all well and good, as the borrowers were previously readers of comic books and didn't necessarily have to agree with my tastes. I just picked out issues that I thought were worth a second look...or worth a look by someone other than me.

I think this is a great thing. People lend books all the time...why not comics? I've collected comics for years, and been friends with people who collected as well, but the idea of borrowing or lending with my friends never really came up before.

Sure, we would lend/borrow the occasional issues, but for the most part, we would pretty much read our own issues.

If anything, it was me who was doing the lending, as I seemed to have more comics than my friends. Hardly something to boast about, I know. But I was always something of a completist. I'd want to have all the issues before I'd commit to reading a particular run. But that's getting a bit off topic...

Perhaps this lack of lending/borrowing was because we collected the same titles. Or because we didn't overlap all that much...and wouldn't have wanted to read the books we didn't collect.

I know for my part, if someone would tell me about something that was interesting, I would usually just go out and buy it.

With comics being $3 a pop now, that certainly has changed. It's a shame - at that price, one is not as free as one once was to try new titles.

It's too bad that I don't have as close a contact with the fellow collectors I grew up with. I think I'd be more open to borrowing/lending now. I do have someone now that I've borrowed a few things from, but it's kind of few and far between.

Of course, I don't really have the time to read the comics that I've accumulated and haven't had time to read. But if there was something interesting out there that I thought I might want to read, and someone was willing to lend...I'd borrow.

Cancelled Titles

I've had a history of reading titles that would get cancelled. I lament the untimely ends of such books as Aztek, Book of Fate, Xero, Resurrection Man and Quantum and Woody.

And then there was the ongoing saga with Spider-Girl, Black Panther (by Chris Priest) and Captain Marvel. For whatever reason, these three awesome books were just not selling. You'd see ads in Marvel's comics for Captain Marvel that would say something like "the best comic you're not reading."

It was a shame - I knew that all three titles were destined to be cancelled. I'm not going to say that I knew this because I was a fan of them, but it sure seemed that way.

I think that the writers don't get the respect that they deserve.

Peter David was the Captain Marvel writer, and since he left the Hulk (a brilliant take on that character - and a long one, happily), he has taken on other, interesting, and largely ignored comic titles such as Aquaman and Supergirl. Both of which were excellent, even though I had trouble even convincing my friends that this was the case.

Chris Priest's Black Panther was a breath of fresh air. It was clever, interesting and added a layer of depth to a character that was little more than a secondary character in the Marvel Universe. Interesting that he is now a larger part of the Marvel Universe, after Priest's run was concluded. You'd be hard pressed to find people willing to admit it, but it seems clear to me that Priest's take on BP was good enough to make him a viable character - and one worthy of Marvel's current plans.

Tom DeFalco wrote Spider-Girl - and before that (from around issues 251-286), The Amazing Spider-Man. I didn't care for much else that he wrote, but I really enjoyed his work on Spider-releated titles. And this was no exception. It was everything that the Spider-Man titles weren't - it was fun, clever and interesting. It didn't take itself so seriously and wasn't all about how Peter Parker's marriage had failed, and how Peter never has any money or a good job. It was just about Peter and Mary Jane's daughter inheriting the Spider abilities, and her efforts to do good. And be coached by Spider-Man. Sounds good, doesn't it?

If you see these issues in the dollar/50 cent bins, pick 'em up. They're all excellent reads and don't require tons of backstory to keep up.

Likes & Dislikes - the Dislikes

I am writer driven when it comes to choosing comics. Most people seem to be artist driven or character driven. Not me. I don't care who the character is - if Alan Moore, Keith Giffen, Warren Ellis, Christopher Preist, Grant Morrison, Judd Winick, Garth Ennis and especially Peter David or James Robinson wrote it, I would be interested in reading it.

Other writers whose work I enjoyed include Frank Miller, Dave Sim and Neil Gaiman. These guys are great, but they either don't do comics anymore (Sim) or they are somewhat infrequent with their output (Gaiman and Miller). I'll usually give them a chance, but the first list of writers are definitely my first choices. I should mention here that a lot of the work that these three creators have done is among my all-time favorite works.

There are some other writers who've done work I've enjoyed, but I can't bring myself to be a totally committed fan of their work because my reaction to their work is unpredicatable at best. Sometimes I like it...sometimes I don't.

The list of dislikes would include Brian Michael Bendis, Greg Rucka, J. Michael Straczynski and Brad Meltzer. I like some of their work, but a lot of it leaves me cold. I am not a fan of revamping or "modernizing" all the classic characters. In my mind, there was nothing wrong with them that couldn't have been fixed without renumbering a series or killing a secondary character.

Recent runs that didn't grab me:

• Ultimate Spider-Man. I felt the actual history was fine as it was. In general, I do wish all Spider-Man writers would do more with that great supporting cast.

I really liked BMB's Daredevil run! But I didn't like his handling of Richard Fisk...I thought the character deserved better - he was the Schemer and the Rose after all. And another "Matt Murdock is Daredevil"? That was done before wasn't it? It was handled pretty well though. Oh yeah, Powers was pretty good as well.

• The end of Rucka's run on Wonder Woman - especially the Max Lord murder. Then, after painting the character into a corner....a new number 1 issue! Must have been the plan all along.

For my tastes, I liked Mr. Rucka's excellent Detective run, and WW before the "Sacrifice" storyline. On the strength of his Detective Comics issues, I'll usually give his works a chance.

• Straczynski gets a lot of rolled eyes from me, but it should be noted that I am a long time Spider-Man fan, and I tend to judge Spidey story arcs mercilessly.

The worst transgression was the recent "Gwen Stacy's kids" story arc. I think this may be my least favorite idea ever presented in Spider-Man. And that's saying something, as Spidey also "boasts" the Clone Saga. I also thought the Morlun story was a bit irritating. Why do writers seem to like the idea of totally overmatching Spider-Man and then having somebody who'd never been seen before whale the tar out of him? This reminded me of Bane and Doomsday.

• Identity Crisis

Just didn't like it. The death was senseless (I agree with Alex Ross, who complained about this series in an issue of Wizard) and the story unnecessary. So the heroes are just as bad as the villains. Thanks for putting that on the table. I just felt that the events that "led" up to the events of IC were inconsistent with the characters involved. I don't really know all that much about Meltzer's later work, as IC has, thus far, prevented me from being interested in checking it out. Very insular of me, I know, but IC just really rubbed me the wrong way.

First Appearance

There are some topics related to comics that come up around the time a comic-based movie is about to be released. For example, one of the topics that caught my eye was repeated discussions (mostly in newspapers) about what is the greatest Batman story ever told.

The answers provided by the writers were often uninspired to say the least. Let's see...here are the usual suspects:

• Arkham Asylum
• Dark Knight
• Year One
• Killing Joke
• The Long Halloween
• Hush

Not to disrespect any of these choices, but they are pretty predictable. I am curious what the long time, dedicated Batman fans think. Of course, these were all watershed stories in the history of the Gotham Guardian

But I'd like to see a list where these choices are strictly forbidden to be on the list. Treat them as a given. Like when any radio station does a "Top Albums of All Time" - just count the Beatles as one entity and exclude them from the Top Ten. Give some other entrants a chance

For my list, it can be a single issue, or an arc found in Detective, Batman, Legends of the Dark Knight or Gotham Knights. It can be a JLA story, or a guest appearance in Superman. It could be a Batman appearance in any title you can think of

Something like this:

• Batman 232, 242-244 (Ra's Al Ghul, by Denny O'Neil & Neal Adams)
• Detective 469-476 inclusive (Steve Englehart & Marshall Rogers)
• Batman & The Outsiders 1-32 (Mike W. Barr & Jim Aparo)
• Detective 743-764 (Greg Rucka & Shawn Martinbrough)
• Detective 400 & 402 (Classic Man-Bat by Frank Robbins & Neal Adams)

I appreciate how challenging this can be. I did this quickly, so I am sure I made a few mistakes in creators and numbers, but it was fun to think of these fine story arcs

I should also point out that if I did this again next week, you might see five completely different entries here.

Anybody else got a list?