Fixed.
Yes.

Edit to add: Well, a hardcover, or hardcover trade, or collection, or something; but not a graphic novel.

I don't "insist" on that, exactly; it's just my personal definition. I'd probably just call it a "hardcover" -- maybe "hardcover collection" -- but yeah. (Wouldn't call it a hardcover TPB because of the conflict with the "PB" side of that.)

...but there's no value judgement as part of that. I don't look at TPBs as being inferior to graphic novels. They're just different.

Yeah I don't look at Trade Paperbacks as being lesser stories/products than Graphic Novels (I own way more Trade Paperbacks), they're just different categories that I think get lumped together by many.

Out of curiosity what would you call "a self-contained story initially published in a smaller-than-normal-size-comic format"?

They are much less common, but do, of course, exist.

One shot is the common term if I'm understanding you correctly.

"TPB" is a meaningless term in the context of graphic novels. It has nothing specifically to do with comic books. A softcover graphic novel is also a trade paperback.

A trade paperback is any softcover book that is not a mass market paperback. A mass market paperback, MMPB, is a paperback book with the dimensions of about 4" x 7". A "trade paperback" is a softcover book of a different, usually larger, size intended for bookstores and not mass market retailers like grocery stores. MMPBs are all cut at a standard size to fit into racks.

In early days of collecting comic books into compilations, they were called "trade paperbacks" because that's what they were. And then comic book people thought that a "trade paperback" was a term specifically created to describe compilations of comic books and it has stuck ever since. I've even heard people refer to hardcover collections of comic books as "hardcover trades," which is kind of ridiculous.

I don't think anybody is making a value judgment, so sorry if I came off that way.

To me, TPB or hardcover speaks to the physical format of the package. Graphic novel speaks to the nature of the content. And it seems completely silly to differentiate between the content of Watchmen depending on whether you're talking about the original issues, the TPB reprint, or the hardcover Absolute. Any which way, it is a complete novel -- i.e. a longform narrative with a beginning, middle, and end.

And I know it's been said before, but I will again point to something like Oliver Twist, Lord Jim, the Three Musketeers, or Treasure Island -- all of which were originally serialized. I've never heard anybody argue that any of those is not a novel.

One difference in my head -- and this is not meant to try to change anyone's mind -- is that while I've long been aware of those having originally been published in a serialized form, I've only ever seen them as novels. Meanwhile, I'm old enough to have been introduced to Watchmen in single issues (too young to have appreciated it, but I owned #3 back then anyway, rape and all), and that's still the first thing that springs to mind when I think of the series.

I guess there's also a difference in my eyes between a novel having been originally serialized in a newspaper or magazine alongside a lot of other unrelated content, and Watchmen having always been published on its own (...which means V for Vendetta might be a better example?), not that this is something I'd ever really thought about.

I'm also old enough to remember when Marvel (and probably other companies) touted "original graphic novels", and I guess my concept of what a "graphic novel" is remains based on that.

Again, though, this is just my internal classification. I'm not trying to force it on anyone else, I won't be offended if someone disagrees with me, and I don't care what anyone else calls 'em since we all know what each other is talking about. I might correct someone if they called a random issue of Green Arrow a "graphic novel" or a regular issue of a monthly book a "one shot" or an "annual", but otherwise, whatever. To me, it's just noting where the material originated. They're all comics at the end of the day.

If you want a more heated argument from me, argue about what differentiates an EP from an album.

I don't see why this is really such an issue. Regardless of whether the term existed before comics (I don't think anyone said it was strictly a comic term) it's still what collected comics typically are (unless they're hardcover) and what they're typically referred to so why are you even arguing this?

In the late 80's my friend's mom went to Waldenbooks to get him a birthday present. When she asked the staff where their graphic novels were, they sent her to the Erotica section.

Because you have it in your head that there's some kind of distinction between a "graphic novel" and a "trade paperback" when all a trade paperback is is a type of book and has absolutely nothing to do with the contents.

The usage of "trade paperback" in comic circles to mean "collection" is so, so, so incredibly, inescapably, inarguably widespread and has been for at least fifteen years now that the proper definition doesn't really matter anymore. Terminology is defined by usage. C'mon, even Marvel uses "trade" as a shorthand for "collection" rather than format/binding.

I understand that it might be frustrating to you (are you in the publishing industry?), and I certainly have my own pet peeves along those lines, but I don't think a statistically significant number of people in the comic world use "trade paperback" the way you do.

Uh no. I don't know how many times I've said it by now. While I understand that a Trade Paperback isn't a strictly comic term it's a very commonly used term among comic fans and what a lot of collected comics are released as. You seem to think that I think that the term Trade Paperback only refers to comics which I haven't once said. It's not really that hard to understand. Also I still do maintain a difference between Trade Paperbacks and Graphic Novels. Trade Paperbacks are normally more collected monthly issues whereas a Graphic Novel is more typically a longer one shot story that was specially released in that format.

For instance of some difference I'll just take Batman as an example. Some Batman Graphic Novels I can think of off the top of my head include: Batman: The Killing Joke, Batman: The Man Who Laughs, and Batman: Noel. All of these stories were written as one shot issues that were specially written as one story and weren't released in monthly Batman comics.

Whereas some Batman Trade Paperbacks include: Batman: Knightfall, Batman: Knightquest, and Batman: KnightsEnd among countless others. These were all released as monthly issues of Batman and Detective Comics (probably other monthly's that I'm not thinking of make up these particular Trades as well) and were later collected in one larger format or Trade Paperback.

No, I'm not involved in the publishing industry, but I am a book collector.

It's one of those weird language things that has crept into the popular lexicon, like referring to any adhesive bandage as a "Band-Aid" or any disposable tissue as a "Kleenex" when the popular terms are actually trademarked names for a specific product, but are popularly used for any similar product.

It bugs me for a couple of reasons.

First, it is reflective of the myopic and insular nature of the comics industry and fandom. On a similar note, I remember reading an article about getting autographs from creators (Wizard? Hero Illustrated?) and the gist of the piece was that it would be awkward to bring a typewriter to a signing for a writer to sign, or a pen or drawing table for an artist to sign, so they would have to sign the comic book they created. Which seemed like a really bizarre line of thinking (would I want Clive Barker to sign a typewriter or my first edition of Imajica?) until I realized it was probably written by someone only familiar with sports memorabilia. Thus the misappropriation of the term distances the comics industry from being real publishers disseminating artistic works and pushes them into the realm of trading cards and autographed baseballs.

Second, I believe it diminishes works that have been serialized. It's the idea that something like Sandman can't be referred to as a "graphic novel" because it was originally serialized. It would be like saying that the works of Dickens aren't actual novels because they were initially serialized in periodicals, or that Stephen King's Green Mile isn't a novel because it was first published in six little paperbacks.

At some point, a long time ago, "original graphic novel" got shortened to simply "graphic novel," and "trade paperback" became exclusively a collection of previously serialized material. When pieces of shit like Excalibur: Weird War III and Dazzler: The Movie can carry the prestige of being a graphic novel, but Promethea and From Hell are just "trades" something is very, very wrong.

My take on this has been and always will be pretty simply that at some point it became easier for guys in their 20s and later to get laid if they said they read "graphic novels" instead of saying "comic books" because the latter has a juvenile connotation in society.

They are the same medium as well put in a post earlier in this thread. Even if something originates as a "graphic novel," it is just a longer comic book with better binding. It is sort of like arguing a short film is not a film, but a feature length film is a film.

This is why it bugs me, especially the second reason.

Another thought -- I recently read the very fun "7 Against Chaos" by Harlan Ellison and Paul Chadwick (it's a great piece of sci-fi space-opera adventure that I definitely recommend to anybody who likes something like the original Star Wars). 7 Against Chaos was originally intended for publication as a four-issue limited series. At some point, it was decided to publish it as a single hardcover, but it's still paced as a four issue series, with very obvious break points at each quarter of the book. Is it a graphic novel? For me and Josh, obviously it is, but for those of you who separate the world into graphic novels -- which are original content -- and TPBs -- which aren't -- I assume you would say it is, but only because DC happened to decide to publish it in one format rather than another? That seems bizarre to me.

I would, but I also don't attach any prestige to the term "graphic novel". I don't use it as an assessment of the content. If I refer to Dazzler: The Movie as a "graphic novel" and vol. 1 of The Unwritten as a "collection" or "trade", I am in no way diminishing the value of The Unwritten or suggesting that the Dazzler book is any more worthy.

There isn't a generally accepted definition of what a "graphic novel" is the way that there is for "trade paperback" in comics circles, so I absolutely see your usage as valid and well-reasoned. I would never argue that you're wrong. It's just not how I use it.

Fair enough. I guess my point of view is that as I sit here in 2013 and decide whether I want to read Dazzler: The Movie or Watchmen, either way, I'm almost certainly going to go to my library or Amazon or wherever and buy a bound collection containing the story, and it makes no difference that 25+ years ago, one was available as single issues and one was not.

(Spoiler Alert: Watchmen is a better read).

This is my line of thought too. I don't think any less of a Trade Paperback versus a Graphic Novel.