Before we look forward to the grisly and agonising
death of the term 'graphic novel,' we should allow its
short
and futile life to flash before its eyes one last time
as we look back to the reason why people saw the need to
hash
together this ill-fitting moniker in the first place. Many
early long strip cartoon books have retrospectively been
daubed with the term 'graphic novel' upon reprint in an
attempt to jump on the rickety bandwagon of this supposedly
cool label. Some ludicrous claims have also been made of
cartoons appearing in newspapers way back in the late 1800s
as being early graphic novels. However, the first contemporary
usage of the term appears to have arisen around the early
70s.
So what is a graphic novel?
Now, fans of graphic
novels, please look away now and read a bit of spiderman
or something... okay, the
rest of you... it's a comic. A long one, but don't laugh,
these comics are not funny at all... they are very, very
serious indeed and don't you forget it.
Now because a lot of misunderstood young people
didn't want to explain their comics to their prehistoric
parents and hated the way people looked down on the term
'comic' they decided to conjure up a far more grown-up and
mature sounding name to call their comics... and so they
decided to call them 'graphic novels.'
Aww, bless.
Okay, let's try and put the flippancy down for
a tiny while and pretend there's a serious debate to be
had here. Yes, it is true that many of the works that fall
under the term 'graphic novel' are not childish comics.
They are longer highly-finished artistic works with much
deeper storylines that explore mature themes.
So readers of these 'more mature' comics felt
patronised and looked down upon for being seen as reading
comics. But why did the originators of this term demonstrate
their own ignorance by hijacking a completely inappropriate
term to try and wrap some borrowed respectability around
these publications?
Even many within the comic industry
flinch away from the term 'graphic novel' and treat it
as a
shallow marketing ploy.
A novel is an extensive work of fictional prose
that explores the depth of the human character and mines
the complexities of human thought. Does a graphic novel
offer the same rich texture of cognitive material on a
parallel
with the great literary novel?
A novel has no visual information to impart
and so stokes the readers imagination in order to paint
a vivid panorama of the world in which its plot unfolds.
Part of the skill of the graphic novel is the artist's skillful
depiction of the scenes and characters that populate the
framed rows within the pages. As soon as you look at the
first square of the comic strip then the scene is already
painted within our mind and we quickly move into the speech
and dialogue of characters and events that are displayed
for us to witness. A novel starts with the blank emptiness
of the completely uninformed mind and slowly drips information
into the brain, word by word, and as dark blindness fades
over time the entire picture emerges in full solidity. The
scenes of a 'graphic novel' are presented flat, as is --
they are merely viewed. The scenes in a novel have to be
read, contemplated, interpreted and imagined.
So are 'graphic novels' shallow childish pieces
of worthless pulp?
No, there are some very deep and intricate plots
that deserve respect. But these aren't novels. In just the
same way that any movie based upon a novel isn't a film
novel. A novel turned into a film is properly referred to
as an adaptation. Why do we call them this? Because the
methods of presenting the plot and characterisation within
each are worlds apart. A novel will pause outside of time
to explore a single notion of thought for many pages in
a way a film cannot achieve. Similarly a panoramic vista
of an epic scene upon the big screen can present a vast
experience instantaneously that a novel would have to take
a long time to paint an accurate image of.
But are the subtle nuances deftly displayed
in the subtle expressions of a skilled actor shallow just
because we are shown the scene and not left to visualise
it for ourselves? Obviously not. Films can be very deep
and thought provoking, but the mechanisms of how they unfold
plot and characters are a world apart from the way in which
a novel imparts its contents. Everyone that watches the
film will see the same lead character. Everyone that reads
the same novel will see an entirely different lead character.
And while we have films under our scrutiny,
lets us draw graphic novels alongside for a comparison between
the two. Both films and graphic novels present the characters
and action visually and in both we view the scene from an
angle and distance selected by the creator.
So there is a much greater link between 'graphic
novels' and films. Should we maybe call them 'illustrated
screenplays' or 'storyboards'?
If the whole point of the term was to prevent
people looking down upon the art form then why steal a highly-regarded
word from the literary community and hence invite these
past masters at sharpened criticism to compare mature comics
side-by-side with the likes of Joyce and Kafka?
So what of the term 'novel'?
Nowadays its meaning has been diluted down to simply
be used to refer to a long
fictional book, but its true meaning is far more sepcific.
Up until the 18th Century, the predominant fictional
works
were romances. These were long epics that told of fantastical
tales of brave warriors in distant lands. At around this
time some writers began producing works that featured
far
more ordinary aspects of everyday life and so generally
explored the inner workings of man (thoughts, emotions,
motivations etc.). The term novel, literally meaning "new"
from nouvelle (French) or "novella" (Italian), was used
to distinguish this new form of literature from the traditional
romances. In simple terms, a romance was a long work of
fictional prose where extraordinary characters did extraordinary
things and a novel was a long work of fictional prose where
ordinary characters did ordinary things.
So, when we think of the plots and characters
to most 'graphic novels,' is there maybe a far more accurate
name that has perhaps been overlooked? Are these illustrated
works actually 'graphic romances'?
But try telling the fans of 'graphic novels'
that what they are in fact reading is technically a graphic
romance.
Their reaction?
It's comic.
