In Defense of The (Graphic) Novel
Many conversations I've had have spurred the idea for this discourse in my mind, but as I think on the topic now, two really stick out.
The first was between my boyfriend and me.
Me: "I'm reading this Graphic Novel for my GLBTQ YA Lit class and - "
Boyfriend: "Wait... Graphic Novel? You mean comic?"
Me: "No, I mean Graphic Novel."
Boyfriend: "Comic."
Me: "Graphic Novel."
Boyfriend: "Comic! Comics - books with frames and pictures and not many words! Comics!"
Me: "..."
And the second, between a young patron in the public library where I worked at the time and me.
Young patron: "Where can I find the Bone books please?"
Me: "Sure, they're over in the Graphic Novels section in the Teen Area."
Young patron: "Oh, they're not that graphic..."
What went wrong in these interactions? Where is the disconnect between the item we're describing when we say "Graphic Novel" and the term we chose, and what's the difference between this and the "comics" we grew up with? Perhaps the issue truly lies with the terminology rather then the concept.
In my mind, the term Graphic Novel allows for the fact that, yes, these titles are not the traditional "book." The tell their story through both pictures and words, and often rely more on the visual aspects then the text. But to me they're more then that. Many classic titles have been re-imagined into the Graphic Novel format, and this makes them more readily accessible to readers that may not have ever been exposed to these books before. From the mindset of a book lover and someone who'd love to impart that love on all the patrons I meet, I'm thrilled by the response Graphic Novels have received and their wide readership. The public library where I used to work held copies of everything from Shakespeare to recounts of Civil War battles in "Graphic Novel" format, and the circulation of these items was fantastic.
According to Robin Brenner, writing for The Horn Book Magazine, the difference between a comic and a graphic novel is "most simply, length. A comic and a graphic novel are told via the same format, officially called sequential art: the combination of text, panels, and images. Comic strips, comic books, and graphic novels are in this sense all the same thing, but comic books stretch a story out to about thirty pages, whereas graphic novels can be as long as six hundred pages."
Brenner goes on to detail some common misconceptions about Graphic Novels and the one I'd like to highlight relates to the second conversation which began this discourse. Brenner notes that many people may believe that "Graphic Novels" are termed as such because of their focus on violence or explicit sex. Brenner counters that "Like many previous formats, graphic novels are painted with the extremes of what’s available. There are comics with R- or X-rated content, but they are not the bulk of what’s available, nor are those titles intended for younger audiences." This apparently common misconception of the meaning we indented for the concept of a "Graphic Novel" indicates to me that the term "graphic" was a really bad choice.
It seems to me, while the terms we've chosen for these concepts make perfect sense to the librarians, they do not always make sense to the patron. And, since we're here to serve the patron - who cares what the librarian thinks? We should do a better job of explaining terms we use to describe the materials we offer, and try to break down the misconceptions we've created by using the terms we have used, thereby making one more step towards giving the patron the best experience in the library that we can.
Referenced:
http://www.hbook.com/magazine/articles/2006/mar06_brenner.asp
Discuss
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
Many conversations I've had have spurred the idea for this discourse in my mind, but as I think on the topic now, two really stick out.
The first was between my boyfriend and me.
Me: "I'm reading this Graphic Novel for my GLBTQ YA Lit class and - "
Boyfriend: "Wait... Graphic Novel? You mean comic?"
Me: "No, I mean Graphic Novel."
Boyfriend: "Comic."
Me: "Graphic Novel."
Boyfriend: "Comic! Comics - books with frames and pictures and not many words! Comics!"
Me: "..."
And the second, between a young patron in the public library where I worked at the time and me.
Young patron: "Where can I find the Bone books please?"
Me: "Sure, they're over in the Graphic Novels section in the Teen Area."
Young patron: "Oh, they're not that graphic..."
What went wrong in these interactions? Where is the disconnect between the item we're describing when we say "Graphic Novel" and the term we chose, and what's the difference between this and the "comics" we grew up with? Perhaps the issue truly lies with the terminology rather then the concept.
In my mind, the term Graphic Novel allows for the fact that, yes, these titles are not the traditional "book." The tell their story through both pictures and words, and often rely more on the visual aspects then the text. But to me they're more then that. Many classic titles have been re-imagined into the Graphic Novel format, and this makes them more readily accessible to readers that may not have ever been exposed to these books before. From the mindset of a book lover and someone who'd love to impart that love on all the patrons I meet, I'm thrilled by the response Graphic Novels have received and their wide readership. The public library where I used to work held copies of everything from Shakespeare to recounts of Civil War battles in "Graphic Novel" format, and the circulation of these items was fantastic.
According to Robin Brenner, writing for The Horn Book Magazine, the difference between a comic and a graphic novel is "most simply, length. A comic and a graphic novel are told via the same format, officially called sequential art: the combination of text, panels, and images. Comic strips, comic books, and graphic novels are in this sense all the same thing, but comic books stretch a story out to about thirty pages, whereas graphic novels can be as long as six hundred pages."
Brenner goes on to detail some common misconceptions about Graphic Novels and the one I'd like to highlight relates to the second conversation which began this discourse. Brenner notes that many people may believe that "Graphic Novels" are termed as such because of their focus on violence or explicit sex. Brenner counters that "Like many previous formats, graphic novels are painted with the extremes of what’s available. There are comics with R- or X-rated content, but they are not the bulk of what’s available, nor are those titles intended for younger audiences." This apparently common misconception of the meaning we indented for the concept of a "Graphic Novel" indicates to me that the term "graphic" was a really bad choice.
It seems to me, while the terms we've chosen for these concepts make perfect sense to the librarians, they do not always make sense to the patron. And, since we're here to serve the patron - who cares what the librarian thinks? We should do a better job of explaining terms we use to describe the materials we offer, and try to break down the misconceptions we've created by using the terms we have used, thereby making one more step towards giving the patron the best experience in the library that we can.
Referenced:
http://www.hbook.com/magazine/articles/2006/mar06_brenner.asp
Discuss
Add this link to...
Tell a friend
Bury
A real-time/social tool for librarians. You may submit, vote, and discuss any post from the library blogsphere.
Comments