Friend if I'm brutally honest in my eyes there just isn't a real difference. It's just older readers who became insecure about the fact that they're reading comics. I'll accept that most of these collections have become self contained stories, but some of them took years to become like that (e.g. 100 Bullets).Tiny116 said:This: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-graphic-novels-and-comic-books.htmHigherTomorrow said:But Watchmen was released in 12 issues. A graphic novel is essentially a collection of issues or a long comic book.Tiny116 said:I've read Wanted, Watchmen, Wolverine Origin and Old man Logan, House of M and Angel after the fall part one.
Granted some of these may not strictly be graphic Novels, but I read them and am slowly increasing my collection
I think It's to do with the size. Things like Ultimate Spiderman or Uncanny X-men are all comic books fairly short but make up a series.Axolotl said:How is the Watchmen not a comic?
Graphic Novels are much larger, like Watchmen and are stand alone
At least thats how I understand it
Seems to give a good definition of the differences....which are subtle.
Me? I read tons of the stuff. The last thing I read was The Boys volume 3 (which was excellent) and DMZ vol.4 - Public Works. Both I'd recommmend to anyone who hasn't read them.
GothmogII said:Exactly, and when I can find the interview I'll post it, Mr.Alan Moore has a few words about the foolishness of trying to make the distinction between comics and graphic novels (trade paperbacks), in that quite simply there is none, beyond mere technical observations, which have no bearing on the content, the art or story.Ih8pkmn said:Have you read any webcomics of late?
Or looked at a comic book?
then you have read a graphic novel.
now, excuse me. A new page is up, and I have yet to read it.
Alright, okay. I was going to start with going through all these comics you've written. But first a couple of general things about comics. What do you think of the term "graphic novel" that has come into use?
It's a marketing term. I mean, it was one that I never had any sympathy with. The term "comic" does just as well for me. The term "graphic novel" was something that was thought up in the '80s by marketing people and there was a guy called Bill Spicer who used to do a brilliant fanzine back in the sixties called Graphic Story Magazine. He came up with the term "graphic story".
That's got something to recommend it, you know, I can see "graphic story" if you need it to call it something but the thing that happened in the mid-'80s was that there were a couple of things out there that you could just about call a novel. You could just about call Maus a novel, you could probably just about call Watchmen a novel, in terms of density, structure, size, scale, seriousness of theme, stuff like that. The problem is that "graphic novel" just came to mean "expensive comic book" and so what you'd get is people like DC Comics or Marvel comics - because "graphic novels" were ge tting some attention, they'd stick six issues of whatever worthless piece of crap they happened to be publishing lately under a glossy cover and call it The She-Hulk Graphic Novel, you know?
It was that that I think tended to destroy any progress that comics might have made in the mid-'80s. The companies, the marketing people, who are not terribly bright individuals, they're not terribly creative, they don't really have the hang of - well, I mean, they really haven't got the hang of the 1970s yet, so the 21st century is a long way behind them and they think in very short term measures and consequently they were more or less to blame for destroying whatever kind of momentum the comic book picked up in the '80s by immediately using it predictably to sell a load of Batman, Spiderman shit. But no, the term "graphic novel" is not one that I'm over-fond of. It's nothing that I might carry a big crusade against, it doesn't really matter much what they're called but it's not a term that I'm very comfortable with.