Comics Vs Books

You know what annoys the piss out of me? Of course you don’t and probably couldn’t give a crap either, but I’m gonna tell you anyway since this is my blog and you can’t stop me. While you are reading text from this site you are putty in my hands *cue the wicked evil laughter*. I hate it when people refer to comics or graphic novels (and the term grapic novel is in itself ridiculous since a comic is in no way a novel, graphic or otherwise) as books. I was listening to a conversation between a few people about Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. One person was mentioning how he’d read the first few books in the series. Another, “Well, I read the first book and really liked it, haven’t gotten to the others yet.” “Oh, yeah, I loved those books!”, added a third. All the while I’m thinking, “Wasn’t that movie based on a comic?”

Ok, I suppose they are called "Comic BOOKS". Why not books for short? I'll tell you why. It's because everyone in the world already knows that they're called "COMICS" for short. Since BOOKS is already taken...


I have nothing whatsoever against comics. I don’t read them, but it has nothing to do with any sense of superiority. Honestly, it’s because I’m not exposed to them at all. I guess if I had a friend who slapped a stack of graphic novels in my hands and said, “Dude, you HAVE to read these, they’re simply beyond!” then I’d probably read them. And if I enjoyed any I may even seek out other works by the same authors.

Now, when I say that I don't read comics I'm not saying that I've never read them. I’ve had the occasional superhero story opened in my hands. Perhaps it’s because I never started with an episode one and therefore came into the middle of a story, but they never really did much for me. I’ve even tried my hand at a graphic novel or three. I prefer novels. It’s just me.


Now they have the graphic novel and they’re basically completed stories instead of episodics. However, like comics they are shrunk, stunted, and condensed in such a way that all the writing can be wrapped around a series of drawings. I’m sorry, but this is not a book. It is not literature and I’m tired of people considering it to be literature, let alone brilliant literature as I‘ve heard tossed about. I wouldn’t even call anything written with pictures literature. It’s like apples and oranges. It’s easier to compare graphic novels and comic books to screenplays. In fact that’s exactly what they are; exquisitely drawn story boards. No one mistakes a script for a book, so why comics? Actually, maybe that's why a lot of film makers I know are so obsessed with comics.

Neil Gaiman used to write stories for comics, right? Then he realized he was a good writer and crossed over to books. I don’t believe he’s really looked back since.

So, why do people suddenly confuse the term ‘book‘? I say suddenly because it is a fairly recent development. If you called a comic a book ten years ago people would probably have laughed at you. Then they would have made jokes about how comics are books for children or retards or some such. Is it because comic book writing has matured as a genre and now seeks to distance itself from it’s meager beginnings? Or are they at war with those novelists who won’t accept their art as equal to non-pictured stories. Perhaps it’s the influx of comics into Hollywood that’s made comic readers so bold? I don’t know. I don’t really care.

Just please stick to the time honored vernacular of BOOKS and COMICS and don‘t mix the two anymore!

Thank you!

If you enjoyed this article PLEASE subscribe to my blog.
Comments are also MOST WELCOME