I love graphic novels because it is a nice break from the normal type of book. Its like the difference between watching a TV show (on dvd of course) and watching a movie. Well, maybe that analogue doesn't work as well on paper as it does in my head... But my point is that it is a change, not for better, not for worse. But a change in the telling of a story. In a graphic novel the author is using pictures to convey some things that may be difficult to convey in a plain novel (plain isn't bad). How often have you seen a movie that is based on a book and been pissed off because the movie didn't fit with you idea for the book? I know that I have for almost every book turned movie. In fact I have taken the stance that they are different and thus should be viewed differently and not in light of each other.
Before Persepolis I had never heard of a autobiography graphic novel (tongue twister eh?). That is a type of book I would never expect to see in a graphical form. But it works very well, but also detracts. It works because it gives the reader a better mental pictures of what is going on. But it detracts because I think the reader will take it less seriously. And now I have run out of ideas so I'll leave it on that note.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting, Anthony. Why can't a graphic novel be "high art" in the same way as regular novels?
I believe Stephen King said the great fault of movies is they must reveal in detail what can be insinuated in a book. Author, to some degree, can rely on the reader's own experiences regarding the details (a seedy bar) without outlining the particulars. But movies do not come with that luxury, therefore, they will always have inadequacies that do not meet the reader's expectations. However, other times, they may surpass them. Ara 13, Author of Drawers & Booths, an IPPY "Outstanding Book of the Year."
Post a Comment