I was having a debate on another forum and thought I would bring it here.

Simple question, do you consider graphic novels to be different than regular comic books?

I say no, to me the medium is comic books, and graphic novels are just one type of longform comic. But in the way that images and words are combined on the page, and pacing is dictated by panels (or lack thereof, depending on the title), they're the same thing.

Thoughts?

To me, all graphic novels are comics, but not all comics are graphic novels.

My definition is based on where the material first originated. I don't consider a Watchmen collection to be a graphic novel since it was originally a stack of 12 individually released comics. Graphic novels originate in that format.

It's not something I really argue, though.

That's a good way of putting it. I generally don't even bother to make the distinction, because most of the comics people think of as graphic novels started out serialized. To me, it's all stories. Some are short, some are long, some are collected together, some aren't.

Graphic novels are what elitist assholes read, who wouldn't be caught dead reading a "comic book"

I had this long debate with my art teacher in college. She hated comic book art, but would read graphic novels. Sorry. Its the same thing.

Graphic novels were a pretentious term coined by the comics industry because they did market research back in the 1980s and found adults had a hard time with "comic books" as a term. They are functionally equivalent products, except one comes out in a monthly format and includes advertising. It was a way to market more mature comics books toward adults, primarily in general bookstores.

I think it is like asking is "TV the same as movies?" They both tell stories by a series of moving images, only one tends to be weekly, shorter in duration and interrupted by commercial breaks.

I really dislike the term "graphic novel", as well as some of the even more pretentious titles certain artistes give to their work, like "A Picture Novella".

I'd hardly call Maus or even Strangers In Paradise "comic books". Maybe the first is a graphic novel, the latter just fueling my lifetime lust for the fictional character of Francine and why I won't

Why not? They are stories told in static images through successive panels. Sounds like a comic book to me.

I think the term graphic novel was useful when people were trying to legitimize reading comics. Now, comic books are legitimate, so the term graphic novel doesn't really have much usefulness anymore.

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Tyner's definition. An original, self-contained, long(er)form work to me is a graphic novel. Even if it originally came out in serialized form. Never stopped Dickens or most 19th century authors. Most books have chapters, anyhow.

Was the phrase coined to "legitimize" comic reading? Oh no doubt. But I think it's really evolved into its own thing. Superman: Earth One is a graphic novel. A tpb collecting Superman issues #424-430 is not. Or is it?

Francine...

And remember, comics/superheroes as MAINSTREAM entertainment (beyond geeks and children) is a relatively new conceit. 25 years ago getting people to take, say, Watchmen or TDKR seriously was a Herculean effort.

I don't disagree, which is why the term graphic novel was useful back then. But again, I say that the medium is "comic books", while graphic novels are just one type of comic.

Assuming Superman 424-430 is a single storyline rather than seven random issues that happen to be collected, then why wouldn't it be a graphic novel under your "even if it originally came out in serialized form" statement?

Maus and SIP are both comic books. They are also graphic novels (arguably a series of novels in the case of SIP).

Anyway, I agree with Supermallet.

I always thought that graphic novels were original stories that were written separately from regular comics or just original stories that use comic like imagery/story-telling. Regular comic monthly's that are collected into a larger volume are trade paperbacks.

Trade paperback simply refers to the physical package -- it's a paperback book that is larger in dimensions than a mass market paperback.

The first graphic novels were original content, but I think any definition of graphic novel that excludes Maus, Dark Knight Returns, Kraven's Last Hunt, Watchmen, or any number of other great works that were originally serialized is a flawed definition.

Yeah I understand but it seems like the term is used often in relation to comic collections. However some people seem to interchange Trade Paperbacks and Graphic Novels as the same which I don't think is necessarily true. Like I said when I think of a volume of collected monthly issues I think of it as a Trade Paperback whereas a Graphic Novel I normally look at as something that was written that way originally or was intended that way.

I think this idea harkens back to when Marvel (and DC a bit, too) were doing "Graphic Novels," which were original stories of about 48-64 pages, published in an over-sized format. Death of Captain Marvel and X-Men: God Loves, Man Kills being notable examples.

As for the distinction between "Graphic Novel" and "Comic Book," I think that a GN has to, in some way, be a self-contained work. So the entirety of The X-Men would be a comic book and not a graphic novel, but The Dark Phoenix Saga and Grant Morrison's entire New X-Men run would be graphic novels.

At any rate, the distinction isn't something that I worry about much. Doesn't keep me up at night.

I agree with the majority here. All graphic novels are comics, not all comics are graphic novels.

Any 1-100+ comics can be collected into a graphic novel. Sometimes, as is the case of Sandman or Strangers in Paradise, many times in many forms sometimes with differing contents. Standard size tradepaperbacks, smaller or larger size tradepaperbacks, hardcovers, under or oversize hardcovers, etc.

And the term graphic novel has an unfortunate history as a hateful/elitist/pseudo-intellectual term that will always be part of any discussion in which it's used.

The wiki article is interesting, and makes me feel old. I remember a big deal being made out of the Lee/Kirby Silver Surfer book.

I just saw that on my bookshelf! I remember it being a big deal too but wasn't thrilled with it overall.

I remember this one much better.

All semantics and no big deal in my mind; but, for me, a graphic novel is a self-contained story initially published in a larger-than-normal-size-comic format.

A collection of previously published comics is never a graphic novel; it's a TPB or collection or some other name.

The Death of Captain Marvel or A Contract with God are graphic novels.

Despite being one of the originators of the term, A Contract With God seems a little odd to be called a graphic novel, because it's not a novel. It's a collection of stories. They're not to the publication,not its no more a novel than a half dozen random Spider-Man issues. And at least those would have the same central character.

That Captain Marvel book has a great story, one of the better original graphic novels.

Yeah I say that if it's a self contained long form story published at once (such as Pride of Bagdad, 1001 Nights of Snowfall) then it's a graphic novel. But as always, trade paperbacks (either full or partial collections of individually published comics) are confused with graphic novels.

So going by that, comics such as V for Vendetta, Watchmen and We3 are still TPBs. But if I talk about them, everything is simply comics.

This thread is vag repellent of the highest order

So for those of you who insist a graphic novel cannot be something that was initially serialized, what do you consider Absolute Watchmen? A hardcover TPB?