Skip to content


Graphic novels vs comic books

It’s only a pet peeve, but for want of a better forum to spout off about it, I’m going to subject you to my geeky vitriol.

Almost every day, in my role as a bookseller, I hear someone exclaim “Oh, look!  They have comic books!”  From my lofty perch behind the counter, I try to patiently explain that the display of reasonably-priced product they are looking at is not, in fact, one of comic books but graphic novels.

Sometimes I’m ignored.  Occasionally, people will shrug and say “whatever.”  Most often, however, I am asked to explain the difference between the two.  To date, my answer has been consistent and based on nothing but my own personal opinion that the difference lies in the binding.  I hold that comic books are the traditional saddle stitched (held together with staples in the spine) comic magazines, while graphic novels are bound like books — either in a hardcover or tradepaper book format.

Although this answer satisfies most curious individuals, I’ve decided I need someone with more authority to back me up on this argument.  I also want to slap down the “whatever” people to make them realize that there is indeed a fundamental difference.

It might not matter to them, but it matters to me.

Thus begins my search for support for my thesis (sure, I could look for counter-arguments, but I come from the Michael Moore school of debate). 

When searching for THE voice of graphic novels, comic books and all things wild and wonderful, the first and often only person to look to is Neil Gaiman.  Trust Neil.  He’ll have something to say.  In fact, he says it in answering a question:

I’ve been trying to figure out if there’s actually some meaningful difference between a “comic book” and a “graphic novel.” Sandman started off its life as 76 comic books, but now it seems almost univerally referred to as a series of graphic novels. Are graphic novels just comics that someone, somewhere believes are art? Does a comic become a graphic novel when its collected? Is it just an arbitrary term that people can feel free to use however they please?

Yes.

No, there’s no meaningful difference. For some reason the term “big thick collected or original comic published in book form” has never really caught on, while “Graphic Novel” did.

It’s a sales category, and a clue to where in the bookstore (or comic shop) you can buy the story. Sandman was indeed 76 comic books, and you can still find those issues on eBay, and on the walls and back-issue bins at comic stores. But if you want to read the story now, the easy way is as a series of ten graphic novels. That’s how they stay in print.

Then there are weirder things. My book with Dave McKean, “THE WOLVES IN THE WALLS”, is a children’s book in Barnes and Noble, but it’s a graphic novel in Borders. This is because it was bought by the children’s buyer (who decides what goes into the children’s section) at B&N, but by the graphic novel buyer at Borders.

There you go.  It’s a “big thick collected or original comic published in book form.”  That seems to imply that it is the format that is the important aspect to consider when trying to determine if something is a comic book or graphic novel.  Thus, I am able to forego purchasing my, say, Spider-Man monthly comics with the idea of purchasing the same story arc bundled into a sturdier tradepaper format at some point down the road.

Simple.  But, as with anything worth knowing, there’s more to the story…

Diamond Comics is the world’s largest distributor of English-language comics, graphic novels, and related pop-culture merchandise.  According to their website:

A comic book or “pamphlet” is the traditional periodical form most people are familiar with. A comic book can stand on its own or be a part of a series. A series is also sometimes called a “title,” which refers to the entire series, not a single, discrete unit.

Sometimes, multiple issues of a series are collected into one volume. It can be hardcover or softcover. Softcover editions are often called “trade paperbacks,” or just “trades,” regardless of size. A hardcover or a softcover can also be called a “graphic novel.”

When a story is published in the hardcover or soft cover format first (that is, without periodical serialization), it is referred to as a graphic novel and only a graphic novel.

Many of these terms are inter-changeable, as you can see. A “graphic novel” can refer to a hardcover or soft cover, to a reprint collection or an original story. Similarly, all of the formats referenced can be called “comics” or “comic books.”

Sigh.  I was sure that this blurb would back up my argument — and it did, right up to the last sentence.  But I think they threw that in there just to make sure they didn’t offend any geeks who might have differing views on the issue.

Next up:  “geeks” vs “nerds”.

Would you like to share this post?
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Posterous
  • Twitter

Posted in Modern Life.

Tagged with , .


11 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Grant Hamilton says

    I always considered the “graphic novel” format to be a subset of the “comic book” genre. Similarly, “novels” in general are a subset of “books” in general.

    Two questions for you to satisfy my curiosity:
    1) Does a “graphic novel” have to be fictional? Could it be, say, a biography?
    2) What about a graphic novel that is published, then later broken up into comic book components? Would you refer to these as “comic books” in your opinion? Or would they be more like “chapters”?

  2. Pat J says

    The battle between “graphic novel” and “comic book” strikes me as being about as unwinnable as the tripartite one between “geek”, “nerd”, and “dorkwad”.

    Grant
    Does a “graphic novel” have to be fictional? Could it be, say, a biography?

    See Louis Riel by Chester Brown for that. (Though, to be fair, it’s a fictionalized biography.)

  3. T. Keith Edmunds says

    Graphic novels can be all sorts of things. Pat mentioned “Louis Riel,” but there is also a graphic novel biography of Che and numerous memoirs in the format. Granted, the “novel” part of “graphic novel” then causes all sorts of other grumblings. I don’t want to deal with them. I only wanted to make the break between graphic novels and comics.

    I can’t immediately think of an instance where a graphic novel was broken into comic books, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it had happened. I would call this “a serialization of a graphic novel into comic book form.” How does that strike you?

  4. Grant Hamilton says

    @Pat: That’s precisely the one I was thinking of. Although, you’re right, it has numerous fictional elements.

    @Keith: That strikes me as over-wordy. Could we call them “chap-book comics”?

    Let’s all be thankful that no one calls them “Grapp-Hick” novels.

    • Pat J says

      Let’s all be thankful that no one calls them “Grapp-Hick” novels.

      …which made me flash back to Quantum Mechanics, and its punningly-named bra-ket notation.

  5. Colin Corneau says

    I guess I’m a geek (and a tardy one, at that) for getting beat to the punch on answering “Che” and “Louis Riel” for biographical comic novels. I have both of ‘em and they’re great. In fact, a former acquaintance of mine who taught university First Nations studies borrowed the Louis Riel novel to look into using it for her course.

    As to slack-jaws not knowing the difference…well, their money is the same colour as anyone else’s, no?

    • Grant Hamilton says

      Actually no, Colin — American money is different colours than Canadian money.

      I kid!!

  6. michelle buhr says

    your definition would make archie digests… :D graphic novels?

  7. Colin Corneau says

    Only if Archie were a conflicted, morally-ambiguous anti-hero roaming a post-apocalyptic landscape.

    And wouldn’t that be just the coolest.

    • Grant Hamilton says

      I would buy that Archie!

      No seriously, that would be a fantastic reimagining.

  8. Colin Corneau says

    I always saw a re-imagining of Archie comics as having Moose imprisoned for stalking Midge, and maybe beating Reggie so badly as to cause his hospitalization.

    Seriously — that guy’s insane jealousy of Midge had “abuser” written all over it.

    Jughead had to have had some kind of drug problem, and Ethel would somehow be revealed as his transsexual alter-ego.