One thing I’ve come to realize about “famous” people is that they are “famous”, in part, because they market themselves well. Hollywood is a prime example… We all know that Academy award winners are not necessarily the best talent, but they are the popular choice at the time. This is not to say they are not capable but “fame” and maintaining “fame” is all about marketing.

So my point is, Will Eisner, who is held in high regard is most likely celebrated in part due to his efforts to establish the medium and himself along with it. In which case…, terms that he might have coined, ie “sequential art” or “graphic novel” serves a purpose. In all fairness, I admit that this is just conjecture… but based on my observations, I’m willing to bet big that I can dig up facts that support my thesis.

The reason I say “sequential art” and “graphic novel” are marketing terms is:

1. The terms are not accurate
2. The inaccuracy is deliberate… but why?

Information can be divided into 2 broad categories:

1. Informative
2. Persuasive

If the motivation is to inform, then what’s wrong with more simpler terms that is universally understood such as “comic book” and “comic book art”. Especially since there is no difference between “comic books” and “graphic novels” other then the production, ie, saddle stitched versus perfect binding. If the intent was to differentiate the “genre” then it doesn’t really work because people associate it more with format.

Let’s examine my claim regarding inaccuracy; I think we can all agree that the comics medium is commercial in nature. Comics are primarily a form of entertainment and not self expression. Technically it’s derived from art and imitates art but it is not art. It is an “applied art” that serves a commercial purpose. By the same token, it is not a novel. As I said in my post regarding Adam Hughes, as skilled and talented as these guys (and gals) are, they are basically assembly line workers, with a deadline and a monthly quota to fill. I know it doesn’t sound glamorous and it doesn’t mean you can’t respect and enjoy their craft… but, it is what it is.

So if the terms do not inform because they are not accurate then they must be persuasive… It’s an attempt to change peoples thinking, thus, it’s marketing.

But why… who? By the people in the industry of course. Comic books have a bad association. My mother does not respect it and the terms still carries with it a stigma that comics are for kids, and grown ups who read it are “dorks”. So how do we change this perception… One way is to drop the “comic book” label. Since the industry is moving toward trades anyways, guys like Frank Miller who are huge advocates of the medium and friends with Will Eisner, started pushing “graphic novel” and “sequential art” as terms in order to disassociate their work from regular comic books.

“Association” is a very effective tool in advertising. Hang out with the cool kids and appear to be cool your self. When the documentary “Super Size Me” came out… the only thing McDonalds could to was dis-associate itself with the phrase. I can’t afford an LV hand bag but if I carried one… perhaps it’s luxury will rub off on me… It’s so simple and yet over time… it can turn thought into action.

But whatever… Either way, I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with these terms but I am disappointed to find the same set of politics in the “comic world” that turned me off from the “art world”. Basically, art speak” is kind of a lie. It is disguised as if to clarify but in reality it complicates… But of course this is more a commentary about people, not the medium.

Clearly you’re very skilled at research and well versed in your subject matter. Thanks for humouring my ramblings ^_^

If I recall correctly, the term “sequential art” was first coined by Will Eisner in his book Comics and Sequential Art (1985) – which, along with Graphic Storytelling and Visual Narrative (1996) provides a general, academic overview of “comics” – and was further elaborated on by Scott McCloud in Understanding Comics (1993) and in Reinventing Comics (2000).

Similarly, “graphic novel” was popularized after it appeared on the paperback version of Eisner’s A Contract with God, and Other Tenement Stories in 1978. While Eisner was not the first person to use this term (or to even create a non-superhero narrative using sequential art), he was responsible for helping to popularize both. I think that Eisner’s use of “graphic novel” was not to elevate non-superhero graphic storytelling to the status of literature and art; rather, I think that the use of “graphic novel” was to differentiate the genre of storytelling (between superhero and non-superhero narratives).

Yet, whenever you bring out these terms, people automatically think that you’re a pompous windbag (which is why I put in that disclaimer). I find that, on both sides, there’s an inferiority/superiority complex when it comes to these terms. People who read only graphic novels look down at those of us who (also) read superhero comics; those of us who read (exclusively) superhero comics look down at those who only read graphic novels (while simultaneously getting annoyed that they’re looked down upon for their reading choices). To me, neither one nor the other is better. They are just different. Regardless of my own feelings on the subject, breaking down the umbrella term “sequential art” into all of its parts (as I attempted to do above), is useful if only to point such things out.

At the moment, digital distribution is a tricky thing for both comic book publishers and book publishers. While recent reports* indicate that 43% of book buyers will either own an e-reader (e.g. Kobo, Kindle, Nook) or a tablet (e.g. iPad, Playbook) – or both – in 2011, there is very little indication that people will stop buying or reading print books (below 1% stated that they’d read only digital books). As a result, publishers have had to take a “wait and see” approach.

Digital diversification, it appears, will be a slow and steady change process. As a result, publishers can’t just jump into digital distribution and hope for the best; in an industry that is struggling in terms of pleasing old readers and attracting new ones (as comics is), that would be suicide. It also doesn’t help that a lot of the eBook readers are greyscale/black & white only – most comic fans want colour (which are more expensive).

I think there will be a gradual shift more competitive price points or bonuses when it comes to purchasing individual issues (so that they’re not just imitating print) in the next year or two. Same day digital release is a good starting point, to test out the waters, so to speak as it will help DC (and the rest of the industry) to accurately gauge interest and establish a baseline to determine if the demand for digital distribution is as promising as its potential presents it to be. I think what DC and Marvel have started to do, in terms of digital channel distribution, is a good start.

*http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/retailing/article/47051-lots-more-of-the-same.html

The term “comic” really refers to comedy. In reference to “comic books”, it’s an abbreviation.

• A “graphic novel” is a visual novel.
• A “trade” is a collected comic book arc.

But really, there is very little difference here since a collected arc could also be a novel.

I agree that the term “sequential art”, and even “graphic novel” is pompous. These are actually marketing terms. It’s a way to acquire respect from the greater population by trying to associate the medium with “art” and literary “novels”. Illustrators are not considered artists because they operate commercially… but whatever… “does a rose by any other name smell as sweet…?”.

Digital comics refer to comic books you read using a computer or some electronic device.

Currently, digital comics are nothing more then scanned print versions. The problem with digital comics are:

1. They imitate print.
2. They require a computer (or some gadget) to read (and in the case of Marvel, it requires an internet connection and the use of their proprietary browser). So much for lazy Sundays at a beach or the cottage.

Over time, technology and behaviour will change but currently, digital comics do not take advantage of the fact that they are… “digital” probably due to lack of vision and the fact that is costs money to be truly digital.

I think where DC and Marvel went wrong is that they failed to stay relevant and instil meaning to what they do. Marvel should have made a push to become another Disney. Disney’s position has always been about bringing dreams and imagination to life. 50 year’s later… they are one of the world largest conglomerate.

Stan had it right when he coined phrases like “Make Mine Marvel”. Hindsight is 20/20… but in the same way that Kodak missed out (again) while companies like Fuji and Sony jumped on digital photography, Marvel is DC had the potential to become an entertainment empire instead of being bought out by one.

Hey Scott… I really think you should post my comment about Jeffery Jones. 3-4 post about Gene Colan but not a mention about a founding member of the Studio? But more than that, censorship or selective posting is very anti-blog in spirit which is a turn off. I may not be the most eloquent person… but dude, think of the big picture. First you start blocking my comments… then comic fans are suddenly herded like cattle and locked away in cages for simply having an opinion. You may have put us on a path toward a new global order… Is this what you want?