I know it when I see it

[muckefuck]

So, members of the Dewey Committee is even as we speak meeting with the leading lights of a niche publishing industry in order to resolve one of the great questions of our time:

Comic book or Graphic novel?

I found this out from my boss, who serves on the Committee. She had with her copies of Akira and The League of Extraordinary Gentleman and was vainly struggling to determine which category each belonged to.

I gave her my two cents, which is that this a Pornography vs. Erotica debate. (That raised her eyebrows a tad!) That is, if I think it's good, it's a graphic novel, otherwise it's just a comic book. I did tentatively suggest some other (arbitrary, inconsistently-applied) criteria, but before I mention these, I'd like to hear a few reactions. After all, this is an issue that's near and dear to many of you overgrown kimature consumers of quality illustrated literature, isn't it?

Fortunately, for some weighty questions, there are definitive answers. If you don't believe me, type "answer to life the universe and everything" into Google.

Comments

[bunj.livejournal.com]

I could see three possible criteria: The first is in what format was it originally published? If it appeared in small installments and was only later compiled into a longer format (such as League) then it is a comic book. If it is first published in the longer format (such as, I think, the most recent Sandman), then it's a graphic novel. The second possibility is to include comic books with finite stories (such as From Hell which had something like a dozen installments and that was it), and which later get collected into one volume, in graphic novels. The third, and most iffy, solution is to include in graphic novels ongoing titles which nonetheless have discreet stories which get collected into volumes (such as League). This leaves the question of what constitutes a 'discreet story'. League is separated into volumes and issues, but I could see other titles being less helpful.

Of course, I'm just talking out of my ass on this one. My knowledge of comics is pretty cursory. I'd love to hear from some of your other readers (including one who is a published comic writer, how would you classify Lone Wolf and Bob?

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Aren't some superhero comics compiled into books every now and then? Do those count as graphic novels?

[lhn.livejournal.com]

I could see three possible criteria: The first is in what format was it originally published? If it appeared in small installments and was only later compiled into a longer format (such as League) then it is a comic book. If it is first published in the longer format (such as, I think, the most recent Sandman), then it's a graphic novel.

I haven't noticed them shelving the Dickens in a different area from the Austen because the former published in serial format first. Ditto the many older science fiction novels that were published in magazines before they were sold as books. Comics come in long and short forms, just like prose works. They've been published in book form, in serial pamphlet form, and sometimes one then the other. (Usually pamphlet->book, but IIRC the volumes of _Lone Wolf and Cub_ came out in Japan as thick paperbacks, then in the US in the 80's in comic-sized bits, then in the 00's in small paperbacks.)

I think it makes sense to handle magazines as magazines and books as books, and to classify books by subject for nonfiction and genre for fiction (assuming the collection's large enough to justify it). I could see just integrating the hardcover and trade paperback graphic works in with the general fiction and nonfiction where appropriate (Sandman in SF, The Cartoon History of the Universe in World History.) But even if not, separating "comic books" and "graphic novels" is like separating "fiction" and "literature". Some places do that, of course, but given the fuzziness of the boundary and the difficulty of settling on definitions-- hi, mollpeartree!-- they might just as well label it "fiction we respect" and "fiction we carry anyway". Ditto with comics and graphic novels, IMHO.

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

it's exactly the pornography vs. erotica debate

pornography + pretentiousness = erotica

comic book + pretentiousness = graphic novel

i always liked the joke that goes "What's the difference between pornography and art? Answer: pornography is in focus."

[rollick.livejournal.com]

Far'zim concerned, if it's a bound book, it's a graphic novel. If it's a floppy little paper thing in the 32-page range, it's a comic book. It's a format distinction, not a content or origin distinction. If it was a content or origin distinction, you'd be analyzing every novel that came through your doors, asking whether it was long enough or weighty enough or original enough to be considered a "novel."

The format distinction seems especially pertinent if you're just trying to decide where and how to shelve the things. I've never been to a library where comic books were actually shelved; they're too fragile, and tend to come apart quickly after running through a certain number of hands. The libraries I've been to that actually carry comic books keep them on a rack in the periodicals section, and like current magazines, they don't circulate. Graphic novels — that is, anything with a binding that's capable of lasting more than a week — were shelved at the appropriate Dewey number in the visual arts area.

[bunj.livejournal.com]

I could see the issue being that comics have properties in common with both novels and magazines, regardless of form. Novels are discreet stories. Even when Dumas was serializing the various Musketeer novels, each one had a distinct identity. Some comics are like that, with clearly delineated storylines, and this is is a structural element which is kept when the issues are collected and bound. Others are open-ended, and are collected in books every year or so, like Tom Strong. Should these be treated like novels, or more like bound issues of magazines?

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

In fact, my boss reacted very positively to the suggestion that one arbitrary method of distinguishing them would be parallel to the entrenched serial vs. monographic distinction in library science. However, this is still a format distinction and Dewey doesn't normally make a point of classifying according to format.

Personally, I can't imagine how this debate got started. After all, as rollick points out, this distinction really isn't relevant to the question of how patrons look for books--which is supposedly the whole basis of classification anyway. My boss asked how comic book stores arrange their inventory and I pointed out that "graphic novels" vs. "comic books" is never a salient distinction to them. The most common first-order division I see is by publisher, and I can't think of a major publisher that produces only one format or the other.

[gopower.livejournal.com]

As noted above, the binding is the first order division for comic book stores and, I imagine, collectors in handling their inventory. You can't shelve/store square-bound books next to magazines.

You can, however, build tiered shelving for books out of storage boxes full of comics. Throw an appropriate sheet over it, tuck in the edges, and its fabulous! Or it would have been if Martha had done it.

[lhn.livejournal.com]

If I'm visualizing this correctly, how do you take the comics out of the storage boxes without disturbing the books they're supporting?

[gopower.livejournal.com]

I said it looked fabulous, not that it was perfect :-(

[lhn.livejournal.com]

Some stores will also have a manga section. Of course, manga isn't really a genre, and it's only sort of a national origin (since I think that non-Japanese material that's done in what's perceived to be a manga-style[1] gets put there), but it is the sort of thing that people will look for to the exclusion of other sorts of sequential-words-n-pictures things[2]. They're also doing quite well (if the shelf-feet devoted to them at Borders are any indication) so the Dewey classification should be prepared to deal with them in some way.

[1] Suggesting that there's a common style to manga or anime is one of those things that apparently causes a certain amount of controversy among those who know and care more about the subject than I do. (Roughly equivalent to, say, suggesting that one computer operating system is superior to another, I mean.)

[2] Calling manga "comics" or "Japanese comics" is another one of those things, or at least it was back when the Usenet newsgroup rec.arts.manga was being debated. (The suggestions that "rec.arts.comics.manga" might be more appropriate and a better use of the namespace-- speaking of classification-- were, shall we say, not greeted with enthusiasm among the group's supporters.)

[prilicla.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm not a cataloger, so I may be missing the point here, but why bother trying to distinguish comic books from graphic novels at all? Isn't most non-genre adult fiction just shelved together in one group, regardless of quality (however defined) or subject matter? If Ernest Hemingway, Tom Clancy, and Danielle Steele can all be shelved together, why can't all of the comic books/graphic novels/whatever?

I guess another approach would be to somehow classify the books by subject matter or genre. Maus and Watchmen do seem like very different sorts of books to me, even though they're both considered graphic novels, as far as I know.

[new-man.livejournal.com]

Maus and Watchmen do seem like very different sorts of books to me, even though they're both considered graphic novels, as far as I know.

Maus was written to be published in a single volume (and it was). Watchmen was originally published in 12 monthly issues. This is just a data point.

[new-man.livejournal.com]

This is, as you say, an inane argument. I disagree that it is the "art/pornography" debate. Charles Dickens, Alexandre Dumas, and Amrk Twain all wrote works which were originally serialized and then collected into single volumes — there's no argument over whether The Three Musketeers is a collection of short stories or a novel.