[...] Spiegelman is a talented guy, certainly. [...] But the idea that, as a comics writer/artist, his work is better or more talented or has done as much to influence and shake up the genre than, among his contemporaries, say, Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Harvey Pekar, or the artists they work with, Dave Gibbons, Dave McKean, and Eddie Campbell, not to mention Mobius, the Hernandez brothers, Kyle Baker, or any one of a dozen others, including, in another area of comics, Neal Adams or Frank Miller, is cause not even for argument but for uproarious laughter at the absurdity of the universe. [...]
The fact that he never mentions the words "Jack Kirby" in some part of that diatribe makes me want to dig up his grave so I can punch him.
He had to leave someone for the "any one of a dozen others" to refer to.
Jack Kirby was not a contemporary of Spiegelman, Moore, et al. He was a trailblazer nearly half a century before they hit the scene.
I agree that graphic novels vs comics is frivolous terminology hairsplitting. I don't think that the merits of an ongoing story vs a self-contained one is necessarily as dismissable though.
What's the proper way to look at works like Spider-Man, which have spanned decades? Can it even be considered one "work" since it's done by so many artists and writers? Or the Simpsons for that matter?
I'm not even taking a stance (or suggesting there's a stance to take), it's just a nice ponderable.
This I'll agree with. I've bitched at some length about how most comics atrophy over time -- but at the same time, I've been quite enjoying Batman lately, so obviously there's a cyclical nature to these things.
The problem is that the distinction isn't cut and dried. Take League of Extraordinary Gentlemen -- it was a self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end that has since spawned two sequels, with a third coming and more likely, and as a series it has no determinate end in sight. By Kazz's definition, is it a comic book or a series of graphic novels? And what the fuck is the difference between a comic book that doesn't end and a series of graphic novels with no determinate end in sight?
And, okay, let's say Batman is a "comic book" under Kazz's definition, because it's been running steadily since 1940. But what about Batman: Cacophony, the 3-issue miniseries by Kevin Smith and Walt Flanagan? It has a consistent creative team, a beginning, a middle, and an end, and spans only those three issues. Is it then a graphic novel?
Let's say it is.
So okay. What about Batman: Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader?, by Neil Gaiman and Andy Kubert? It is also a Batman story with a consistent team, a beginning, a middle, and an end, and spans only two issues.
But wait! While Cacophony was a three-issue miniseries, Whatever Happened? takes place in Batman and Detective Comics, both of which are comic books!
And then you get into stuff like Love and Rockets, which has inconsistent format, inconsistent paper size and page count, but always has the same creative team and which sometimes does and sometimes doesn't have continuity, and whose two major continuing stories break down into arcs which may run only a few pages or span several years' worth of issues, and and and and...
anyway, thad said there wasn't a difference between graphic novels and comic books, so i asked what a graphic novel is, if not a comic book that ends (which is what Watchmen is).
you...didn't actually ask me that at all. But fortunately, I already answered anyway:
"Graphic novel" is a term people use to differentiate between things like Watchmen and things like Spider-Man, as if there's some important distinction there, as if one is art and the other is schlock. Graphic novels are for adults, comics are for kids, or adults with brain damage.
The original distinction between a comic book and a graphic novel, of course, was simply one of format: comics are serialized, include ads, generally run about 24 pages, and are stapled, while graphic novels are bound and of an indeterminate length and format.
I have no problem with the latter, original and purely technical definition. What bothers me is the former, connotative one, which I believe is something elitists use to dismiss, say, Ditko-era Spider-Man or Kirby-era Fantastic Four as somehow inferior to something like Watchmen or Maus.
Don't get me wrong, Watchmen and Maus are fucking fantastic. But anyone who fails to see the genius in Ditko's and Kirby's work has a rod up his ass.
