Talk:Graphic novel

	Graphic novel was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed June 9, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted August 31, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Novels High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

I am sympathetic to Emperor's position that the entire thing should be deleted as it doesn't add anything. However, I think a reasonable compromise would be to include the part of the quote that actually is criticism of typical graphic novels (that they are more of a compendium of serial comics rather than a true "novel"), but to leave out the endorsement for the Mr.T graphic novel. The endorsement is just spammy as hell. It's like, "Other graphics novels suck, but the one I am trying to sell is awesome!" Nuh-uh. Not gonna happen. That is not criticism, that is advertising.

If the IP and Featsoffact are not willing to compromise, I am going to side with Emperor and help to revert the entire quote. I will not tolerate the endorsement for a particular graphic novel in the Criticism section. But if we can come to a compromise, that would be great! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to help reaching a compromise instead of continuing the back-and-forth, I have semi-protected the page for a week. Fram (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said it adds nothing (just pointing out the differences between a graphic novel and trade paperback (comics)) and is overspill from Chris Bunting and Mr. T (comics) (specifically the one written by Chris Bunting), hence the repeated insertion of the mention of Chris Bunting's Mr. T graphic novel. So this is only part of a broader issue. I have done what I can here and elsewhere and step back from the editing of this entry (and I will have to step aside on the others too - so if anyone is interested in keeping an eye on this then feel free). (Emperor (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I asked for a checkuser for the 172.*.*.* IP and it is confirmed: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Featsoffact. Could someone double check the edit history for WP:3RR. I was involved with reverting some of those edits so would like a second party to confirm them. (Emperor (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There are no recent 3RRs even combining the two (you have to go back like a week, and a 3RR report that is that stale is a little sketchy). I'll keep an eye on the page and if another 3RR comes up and I have the time, I can put it together. --Jaysweet (talk) 03:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this 3 reverts in 24 hours?:

• 10:09, 12 March 2008 172.200.220.223 [1]
• 20:08, 12 March 2008 172.200.220.223 [2]
• 09:20, 13 March 2008 172.143.110.130 [3]

I might have got it wrong though. (Emperor (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Attn: Featsoffact -- If there is one thing I have no patience for on Wikipedia, it is people who continuously edit war without attempting to reach consensus on the Talk page. This is not acceptable behavior.

At least two users (myself and Emperor) have expressed concern that the quote you have added under "Criticism" is more of an endorsement of a particular graphic novel rather than a criticism of the genre. I, for one, would like to find a compromise, and would invite you to engage us here and try to allay our concerns. For instance, I have already suggested that the quote might be acceptable if we just left off the sentence contrasting the Mr. T graphic novel from others in the genre.

Let me make you this offer: If you engage on the Talk page and at least make a good faith attempt to reach a consensus, then I will stop reverting your changes. I think that is a very fair deal. Okay? Hope to hear from you soon! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to drop them a note on their talk page. (Emperor (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Featsoffact has now been notified on his or her Talk page. After offering the carrot on Saturday and having it turned down, I now present to you the stick: Any further additions of the quote in question (about which three editors have now expressed concern) without at least some basic attempt to engage in consensus building will be considered a deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia and could result in a block. I'm sorry it has come to this, as I think a compromise solution was (and still is) very doable. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I am frustrated as this guy really seems to be hounding me, simple as. I'm sure it would be considered illegal harassment in any other setting and it is close here. I am speaking to numerous bodies about what I can do, in the meantime the quote is a terrific, contemporary, perspective on the graphic novel and I think it deserves mention. It surely can't be an advert- titles are mentioned throughout the article, in lots more detail! I would like the quote returned and if anyone but the aforementioned wants the so-called advert part taken out I can agree on that even though this is all his doing so he gets his way.--Featsoffact (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am comfortable with the way you have added the quote, although I am very uncomfortable with how long it took to get you to the negotiating table. Earlier in this thread, Emperor expressed a willingness to back off from the articles in question, so unless anyone else objects to the quote, we may have a compromise.

FWIW, I do not think there is any evidence that Emperor was Wikistalking you or anything like that, I think he just spotted the same quote being added to multiple articles (see below) and had concerns about it. I often do the same thing, in fact: If I see someone make an edit that I suspect might be an attempt to push a particular agenda, I'll check their Contribution history to see if they made any similar edits elsewhere, and if they did I will also revert those. If the conflict escalates, then one party should step aside, and I think that's exactly what Emperor did, and I find no fault with his timing. I really see no wrong-doing on his part.

In any case, I think all that is behind us now, since we finally have you talking to us on the Talk page. Emperor may wish to weigh in again, and if so we will consider his position. In the meantime, I think the trimmed quote is a reasonable compromise for now, and unless other editors weigh in with objections, I will not revert it. Thanks for listening! --Jaysweet (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am mystified as to how I have been accused of stalking someone - I have edited this entry a number of times in the past and started Mr. T (comics) so both are on my watchlist. I also keep a close eye on British comics and make sure they are properly categorised and have the right talk page headers. Given both these factors I was going to check on the Chris Bunting entry when it appeared (as I'd checked out his blog a number of times for any information whether the Mr. T comic was getting a new home). I did correct misleading edits like the removal of the mention that his piece appeared in the small press section of the Judge Dredd Megazine and I did note their (and the 172.*.*.* IPs - which resolve back to them) focus on inserting mentions Mohawk Media into various entries, including 2 links that resolve to the site at Chris Bunting#External links. The insertion of the quote here added nothing new and we can't include everything anyone has said on the topic so I removed it as it has the whiff of an ad about it - something other editors agreed with: Featsoffact has reverted the edits of 4 users on this page (including myself). When it was clear Featsoffact was going to try and crowbar that quote in by hook or by crook, I backed off from further edits and asked for other members of the comic project to have a look over things - I am happy to leave the final decision to Jaysweet and any other independent editors who express an opinion.

Of course, if you have concerns about my edits you are welcome to report it here: WP:ANI but I am confident a comparison of edit histories will show someone has been trying to "get [their] way" but that someone isn't me - I have been following a normal pattern of general tidying and maintenance edits, and the small proportion connected to Featsoffact are perfectly consistent with the rest of my edits. Of course, I consider reporting this a last resort and hope that the issue can be resolved here without having to bother other people over what should be a minor issue.

The ironic thing is none of this has put me off checking out the Mr T volume when it comes out. (Emperor (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hello- I felt it unfair needing to do so and it only became an issue when he followed me and I thought doing so would only add fuel to the fire. Btw- that quote has been added nowhere else by me. He was following me but that may need to be handled seperetely to this. To be fair, other GNs are mentioned in the article and get far more push than the small mention disputed in that quote!--Featsoffact (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies about the false allegation of adding the same quote... I had checked your contribs a few days ago, and misremembered my conclusions. It is true that you did not add the same quote, but a large number of your edits have made mention of the Mr. T graphic novel or things associated with it -- and given how many people take unfair advantage of Wikipedia in order to promote their pet project, etc., I can see how that would raise concerns. To be honest, I am still a little concerned myself that you may be trying to exploit Wikipedia to promote this graphic novel, but I don't want to make a federal case out of it... and anyway, I do think that it was interesting to compare the practice of compiling serial comics into a "graphic novel" to putting a TV series on DVD and calling it a "movie", so that's why I wanted to find a compromise... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd mention to any of you out there that may view this page that.. No history for graphic novels is given for the last 20 years. Although not alot (If not nothing) has happened, besides many film adaptations, it might be good to maybe fill in this period of time. Regards, someoneacrosstheinternet

I see the comic book article gives links to various non-us comic book traditions, and seems to compare them with what graphic novel seems to mean here. So, should there be mentions and links to those articles here as well as on the comic book page (con: undesirable duplication of information, pro: presumed similarity?) , or would this article be limited to mainly US graphical novels, where the term seems to have some currency? The confusion seems to be present in various articles, say Argentinian comic book artist José Antonio Muñoz,is described as a graphic novel artist , while here there is no mention of him nor of people that influenced him, apart from a passing mention of corto maltese ;and he was Pratt's student; most other articles on artistically ambitious non-US artist (of franco-belgian tradition, or various latin american authors) describe them as comic book artists. So, what should be the convention, and what should be the scope of this article? Aryah (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point that this whole "graphic novel" idea is a strictly American affectation; in most other countries the comic-book form (by whatever cultural moniker) has always had a variety of content, and the idea of making a singular distinction on that basis seems odd. In the US, however, the Wertham hearings and subsequent impact of the CCA on public opinion seems to have created a perceptual divide between different classes of content in comics (poorly defined though it is -- and it totally reeks of snobbery no matter where you draw the line). I'd have to say that all the general references here to comic-books and comic-book history prior to the prominence of this term only serve to further muddy the issue, especially for those who aren't already intimate with the world of comic-books (all those non-readers who now use the term "graphic novel" globally instead of "comic-book" because they think it's some politically correct way of not offending sensitive writers).

While I'm at it, I thought the Jeff Smith quote in the criticisms section was apt, but misleading. Jeff Smith may not have been much of a comic reader until he decided to try the medium himself as an alternative to animation (circa 1990)... that would explain why he thinks of "comic-books" as being infinite serials. That is actually the new trend, while comics of earlier eras were mostly self-contained. Anthologies, even. Or perhaps it was just a poorly-considered response. Ultimately, most accomplished creators in the field seem to dismiss the term as nothing but a marketing blurb. You can add to the list comic-book writer and novelist Peter David, who published a book under the title "How To Write for Graphic Novels" (see the foreword of same for that dismissal). 75.106.96.58 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate choice to start with the first American occurrence when even that graphic novel is stated as being a translation of a european novel. Being as there is a longer history in Europe of novels would it not be better to start with European and move on to how it moved to America?PlexiLexy (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The History section credits William Blake with creating the first graphic novel.  However, a new article on Joseph Franz von Goez makes a credible claim of that title for Goez, based on an earlier publication of a work titled Leonardo und Blandine, which is reproduced in full at the article's cited reference.  Admittedly, the citation is a tad weak (a blog), but the presence of actual images of the work in question is fairly irrefutable.  Thoughts? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the author of the blog is a published authority, we can't use it. And while I haven't seen that blog, I'm just stating that in general, images can always be Photoshopped. Do they or the blog's information appear anywhere else? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source verifies the existence of the book in 1784. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At that source, I see what appears to be a bibliography of some sort, in what appears to be German, that lists things like author and title. From what I can tell, it doesn't say anything about what kind of book it is (aside from any issue over whether it's a reasonable to assume readers of the English-language Wikipedia can read German). All that source ascertains is that a certain book, of which the source says little, appears to have existed.

Everything else comes from a personal blog and could be a hoax. The fact no that no other Web source seems to say anything about this book seems as if it should be a red flag — just because someone says something on the Internet doesn't mean it's true. Wikipedia has been convincingly hoaxed before — pranksters make up thingsfor their own amusement or to claim some made-up "discovery."

I'm not saying that's the case here; the blogger could be a perfectly honest person who's made a startling historical find that no literature professor, literary historian, author or journalist has ever made, and for some reason he's not publishing this in an academic journal or contacting a mass-market historical magazine or even a newspaper about it, but putting it up on a personal blog where no one can peer-review or vet his claim for authenticity. Doesn't that sound the least bit suspicious? --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or... many scholars know about Von Goez's work, but have failed to categorize it as a graphic novel because scholars in 18th century literature tend not also to be scholars of contemporary literary genres??? Just a thought. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize the blogger was blogging from the 18th century. Or that 21st century academics can't write about 18th century books and categorize them as prototypes of a modern form.

See? No need to be sarcastic. It just breeds sarcasm in return. I'm simply making a point that I wrote a serious post asking a legitimate question — which you didn't deign to answer and instead replied with snark. That's not the most constructive response one could have given.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had not intended to be sarcastic, merely to point out a reason why the required scholarship might not be available. I didn't imply that the blogger was writing from the 18th century; I stated that scholars of 18th century literature (scholars alive today who specialize in that branch of literature) might not also be scholars of the modern graphic novel genre. Please assume good faith. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. All good. Starting over. The point I'm making is that one blogger somewhere making a claim does not rise to the standard of a reliable-source citation, whatever the reason may be. If that changes and an RS journalistic source — The Comics Journal, perhaps — confirms and vets this claim in an article, then we can include this claim. I'm sure you can understand how we simply cannot right now, under the self-published sources and related policies/guidelines.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to a short essay in Italian about the graphic novel. The English translation, to which it should have linked, appears here. It appears to be only partly translated — the latter part remain in Italian. More problematically, we have no idea who author Nicola Andreani is or what his credentials are. The essay itself doesn't really add anything to the information already here. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Nicola Andreani. I finished the translation of the article that I written in www.graphicnovel.altervista.org. and that it is a sinthesys of a bigger essay about graphic novel. I think that this essay add something to the information of the term Graphic Novel. In fact it says that graphic novel is not only an american tradition. I think you should reintroduce my link. Thank's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasimenus (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Nicola. I appreciate your coming to the talk page for discussion. Please remember to sign your posts by using a dash followed by four "tildes" (the ~ symbol). I have two questions. First, what does your essay say that is not already said in the article? Second, is there anything on your website that indicates your professional or academic or other sort of authoritative background in the field of comics. This seems to be a fan site, and that's fine — many fans know the subject very well, and fan sites are often used as ELs. But given the level of authorship, footnoting and external links already here, these are both factors. Also, it is very iffy for a person to add their own essay as a link — this makes it seems like self-promotion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work in this page, it was very helpful for my thesis in Modern Literature "The graphic novel: theory and history in the Sequential Literature". My essay is not an history of the term graphic novel, but a theory of the novel that it is applied to the graphic novel. In addiction I find the first graphic novel of all the bigger national schools of Comics in the world. This link is only a little sinthesys of my work. I'm not a fan, but a researcher. I would share my researchs with the community of internet. I would continue my research, so I'm looking for a Ph.D. in Comics, but in Italy doesn't exist (so I'm looking for in America). I collaborate with the magazine Fumo di China, Animals, the publisher Npe and with the Library of Comics of Perugia "La Biblioteca delle Nuvole", I teach Comics in the schools, etc... In the personal information I don't write these things, because I would only share my ideas. -Trasimenus (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)trasimenus[reply]

Could someone who might know more about it add the 1972 comics album Misty, by James McQuade to the early modern years section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.3.195 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at inside pages of this 1941 book here, it's clear that though it's been described as "comic strip-like," that's only true in the Prince Valiant sense: Like Jim Steranko's illustrated novel Chandler: Red Tide, this is little different from any other children's book: A picture per page with text accompanying it. Without a cited authority making a case for this as being in any way anything different from an ordinary children's book vis a vis the graphic novel, its inclusion is simply a POV original-research claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

==This paragraph

In the UK, Titan Books held the license to reprint strips from 2000 AD, including Judge Dredd, beginning in 1981, and Robo-Hunter, 1982. The company also published British collections of American graphic novels—including Swamp Thing, printed in black-and-white rather than in color as originally—and of British newspaper strips, including Modesty Blaise and Garth. Igor Goldkind was the marketing consultant who worked at Titan and moved to 2000 AD and by his own account helped to popularize the term "graphic novel" as a way to help sell the trade paperbacks they were publishing. He said he "stole the term outright from Will Eisner" and that his contribution was to "take the badge (today it's called a 'brand') and explain it, contextualise it and sell it convincingly enough so that bookshop keepers, book distributors and the book trade would accept a new category of 'spine-fiction' on their bookshelves". CITE:"Igor Goldkind Interview", 2000AD Review, June 7, 2005. WebCitation archive

All this seems to be saying is that Titan books published existing comics in book form. I'm not really seeing how that's notable. Comic strips have been reprinted in book form practically since the medium began. And comic-book miniseries were reprinted in "graphic novel" format since at least 1972's Time and Again, mentioned in the article. Igor Goldkind saying "by his own account he helped popularize the term graphic novel" seems self-serving; has anybody else said that? And it doesn't seem accurate in this case, anyway: A reprint collection of comic books is not a graphic novel. She Hulk Volume One collecting issues #1-10 or some such is not a graphic novel. This whole paragraph seems like nothing more than undue-weight aggrandizement of Goldkind. Discussion, please. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Costa book awards: the comic contenders", Rachel Cooke, The Guardian 20 November 2012

"More on this story" now links 3 other articles: "The graphic novel's spectacular rise: from kids' comics to the Costa prize", "Two Costa nominations isn't the full picture for comics", "Costa book awards 2012 shortlists first graphic works". --P64 (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can get ahold of this book, it would be a good source for this article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another great source could be

1. REDIRECT [[Understanding Comics by Scott McCloudUnderstanding Comics by Scott McCloud]]PlexiLexy (talk) 23:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion currently taking place at WP:NFCR#File:Watchmencovers.png regarding the use of this non-free image in the article. The concern is that the image is simply being used for identification and not as the subject of critical commentary per "Cover Art" in WP:NFCI, particularly WP:NFC#cite_note-2. All interested editors are welcome to participate in the discussion and provide further clarification as needed. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear in this footnote if the prose after the cite itself is quoting from Amazing Heroes or is uncited essaying. I would ask anon IP 213.10.112.233 to respond.

• Amazing Heroes, issue 160, March 1989, "Special European Issue!". Having fallen out of favor, the term "Eurocomics" might be misconstrued as derogatory in current understanding, due to its connotations with the popular slang expression "eurotrash" which is derogatory. However, quite the opposite was true at the time, as it was intended by American critics as a means to differentiate European comics from their American counterparts, underscoring the more mature qualities of the former. Graphic novel has become the generally used expression for what once had on occasion been referred to as eurocomic.

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comic book (tebeo el Spanish and gibi en Portuguese): comic magazine, with one or more complete histories or miniseries compiled or isolated or comic strips, charges or cartoons compiled. Etymology (comic book): from the American English, comic book, name given to the first comic magazines in English to be very similar to books, where comic is the alternative spelling of comics and book is tome. Etymology (tebeo): from the Hispanic Spanish, TBO, name of an old infantile comic magazine, whose name was a phonetic adaptation of the expression Te Veo, I see you in English and Eu vejo você in Portuguese. Etymology (gibi): from the Brazilian Portuguese, Gibi, name of an old infantile comic magazine, whose name was a folklore slang, brat or little black.

Graphic novel: comic tome with one or more complete stories or miniseries compiled or isolated or comic strips, cartoons or cartoons compiled.

Fanzine (fanzine even in Spanish and Portuguese): magazine made by amateurs, containing several themes, among them, the comics themselves, science fiction texts, music, poetry and other things. Etymology: from the American English, fanzine, fanatic + magazine, fanatic + revue.

Saviochristi (talk)

• The lead makes it very clear that "graphic novel" and "comic book" are differentiated terms. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading about the idea of what a graphic novel, I found that there isn't a real fine line for it. It just seems to be a type of comic style that's more towards a more mature audience. It interesting to see how graphic novel and comic bled into each other and now formed what we know is superhero comic books. It goes through the history of American and European and the comparison of how each of them sees it differently. What I feel like the article needs articles about the influence of Asian, African and other graphic novels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.140 (talk) 01:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've belatedly removed someone's shameless attempt to pawn off a college student's WP:SELFPUBLISHED paper under the guise of calling the student a "Belgian literary scholar." It was made here by an anon IP, with the obvious possibility that this was the student himself. The person, K. Geeraerts, has not published any books about comics. Clearly, we can find actual published authorities for the kinds of subjective claims this student was making. --Tenebrae (talk)

Trade paperback (comics) (TPB) makes a hard distinction between that term and graphic novel (GN) in the lead by claiming GN is largely original material. GN repeats that in its definition section in nuanced way beside other definitions. I'm not convinced these two terms are distinct enough for separate articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are. One is more a descriptor of content, the other of format, and while there is strong overlap at times, there are many things that fall into one camp but not the other, and many in both. We may need to adjust our definitions; the term "graphic novel" was first placed on serial work, and few will claim that the term "graphic novel does not apply to such originally-serialized material as Maus or Smile... but The Best of Batman should not be considered a GN, at least within the comics realm. (Mainstream book sources are eager to refer to all squarebound comics as "graphic novels". ---Nat Gertler (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem—in general parlance "graphic novel" really has come to mean any square-bound volume of comics, and the idea that anthologies cannot be considered graphic novels is contradicted most prominently by A Contract with God. There is still a minority that bends over backwards to draw a distinction between "graphic novels" and "trade paperbacks", but (a) the exact distinction has always been sbject of debate; and (b) the trend towards calling them all "graphic novels" has been going on for a couple decades now, and is not about to give up steam. The "trade paperback" thing deserves perhaps a mention somewhere in the "grpahic novel" article, but I doubt we'll find a WP:RS that actually gets it right (RSes on comics tend to be un-rigorous and absolutely terrible). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If merged, I agree that the finished article should make a distinction between "Original Graphic Novels" and reprint material. I don't think it would be hard to find RSes that provide a clear definition, but using only the ones that do would be cherry picking. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There shold be a note that there are those who draw a distinction, but we should not report the distinction as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the terms in action in Faster Than a Speeding Bullet: The Rise of the Graphic Novel:

"In 1981 the Elfquest collections in trade paperback format, now published in full color, landed in bookstores. It was the first graphic novel series to push its way out of th ecomic book marketplace."

Here we have "trade paberback", "graphic novel", and "collection" referring to the exact same thing over the span of two sentences. In my experience, despite the volume of the voices of the minority that "trade paperback" is somehow distinct from "graphic novel", rationales have been muddled and actual usage does not conform to this distinction. We also quickly run into problems: is Cerebus a "trade paperback" because it's a collection of self-contained stories, but Jaka's Story a "graphic novel" because it was conceived and executed as one story? Again, a vocal minority will argue the boundaries amongst themselves while most people will simply ignore this, just as people didn't stop calling Maus a graphic novel even though it was a collected non-fiction serial and Spiegelman disliked the term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about not using Wikipedia's voice. I also found this source that clearly says the definition of "Graphic Novel" is evolving and controversial. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to check back in on this discussion. A Contract With God was always intended to be a single work, to the best of my understanding.... and when dealing with the term "graphic novel", one also has to bring up The First Kingdom, an early wielder of the term even though it was only serialized at the time and for long after. That intended single work allows, say, ElfQuest volume 1 (the collection of a single five-issue story) to be a TPB and a GN, but a The Year's Best Comics volume or Origins of Marvel Comics to be TPBs but not GNs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge template since the conversation stalled without consensus. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me introduce you to Giannina Braschi who wrote "United States of Banana" (a book) and some other stuff, including poems. She's adding her book and herself all over Wikipedia.

Giannina Braschi wordpress personal page states that her book "United States of Banana" would be made into a graphic novel by an artist in 2017. As of now, it's release has been delayed - set to be released in 2021. Her personal wordpress is here: https://gianninabraschi.wordpress.com/2017/04/30/new-release-swedish-comic-book-of-united-states-of-banana/ She's been promoting her book by adding it all over Wikipedia. I think this should not be on this article since the "graphic novel" of Giannina Braschi's United States of Banana doesn't even exist yet.

Mentioning this author here with a book that is to be co-authored, that isn't even published yet gives UNDUE WP:WEIGHT and is WP:PROMOTIONAL to Giannina Braschi. What about, for example, all the other latinx writers recommended by this library that are not mentioned in this wikipedia articlle - who already have graphic novels published? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is mostly about the terminology. The terminology debate should be shortened by at least half. Most of the article should be about the substance, which is the graphic novels. 150.108.60.12 (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And even the opener says "not to be confused with Comic book", when it is very much to be "confused" with comic books. They are at most shaded versions of each other, and there are many cases which are at least arguably both. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems a bit unclear of whether to interpret "graphic novel" as a publishing form or literary genre, or both, I think. And it gets even more confusing and muddled when it tries to compare with the situation in other European countries. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been repeated attempts to link a reference to the book The Complete Idiot's Guide to Creating a Graphic Novel to a scan of the book hosted online. As one of the authors of that book, and a copyright holder in it (all rights held by the publisher were reverted to the authors), I can tell you that that copy is not licensed. Per WP:COPYVIOEL, that URL should not be reinserted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the infobox uses a picture of a relatively recent edition of A Contract with God. Would not this cover, from the original year of release, better represent Eisner advancing the term when it was not in common usage? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, the opening sentence says that a graphic novel must be fictional. The second sentence claims that applying it to non-fiction is controversial... and does so without any sources. The closest thing I can find to anything supporting this in the article is a quoted Merriam-Webster definition... but if you follow the source listed, you'll find that the definition makes no claim about it being fiction, merely a "a story that is presented in comic-strip format and published as a book." (That "story" requirement may knock out, say, Understanding Comics, but not March, Maus, Persopolis, etc.) That definition has been in place since at least September 2017, and even the prior definition does not require "fiction". I'm not going to edit it myself due to a slight WP:COI (one of the sources used in discussing the term is my writing), but can someone else review this concern and change the opening sentences (as well as the later M-W citation) if they agree? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]