For Superman, life is never easy.
He protects Lois Lane, his city of Metropolis, the United States, the world, the galaxy and, dare I say, the universe at times. He has encountered hundreds of foes—some human, some metahuman, some alian—all wishing his destruction. He has caught dozens of cars and held them aloft. He has carried the massive orb of the Daily Planet on his shoulders numerous times, the symbol of the most important paper in Metropolis!
For graphic novels, life hasn’t been easy either.
In the mid 20th century, comic books were primarily children’s reading. The stories were simple, geared toward that age group, and only a few titles were available. Over time those children grew into reading adults and the landscape of the comic book field began to change, the youngish stories of the past evolving into more complex storylines and grayer characters. Societal and cultural elements creeped in, producing stories with more literary merit. The comic book grew into the 21st century.
For all of those years and even now, there are people who believe the comic book is a lower form of entertainment, beneath novels and movies, still meant for children or the immature. They believe comic books are not literary tales merely wrapped in a different medium. To their argument, some comic books aren’t. Just like some novels are not. Just like some movies are not. Comic books, to them, are colorful representations of our youth and hold no meaningful realization of life’s truths.
The New York Times—the Daily Planet of our world—has now changed that belief, at least partially!
Last week the NY Times announced a new bestseller listing—graphic novels!
The Times will have three different categories—hardcovers, softcovers and manga. The newspaper has already begun the transition to include this new list, featuring an article HERE on March 5th. Upon reading the article I do not know how much Watchmen has to do with this move, Watchmen being one of the most literary and heralded graphic novels of the 20th century. But if a movie is what it takes to bring the merit comic books deserve, then so be it. As I've said, it has been long overdue.
To drive home the point, this holds significant importance for the literary community at large and for comic book readers around the world as a whole. When the Times, considered one of the more prestigious newspapers in the world, begins to highlight the very best of the comic book and graphic novel world in their newspaper, it lends validation to a genre that has been sorely lacking it for decades.
Having been annoyed at the disrespect given to comic books and graphic novels, I cannot believe this day has come.
After years of blockbuster superhero movies, comic books have finally joined the mainstream!
So Superman, take a rest.
Let the New York Times carry you on its shoulders!
For a change!
Well yes and no...
The New York Times bestseller list has always been bunk. It's not based on actual sales figures (such as the USA Today bestseller list). Instead the Times still uses the incredibly inaccurate (and often unfair) bookseller survey method. This was the same methodology Billboard finally ditched back in the 1990s (switching over to actual sales data) because it too often punished independent music that was not receiving wider distribution in big retail chains. If you compare the USA Today and NY Times lists, you'll see how out of skew the Times list often is, mostly due to booksellers (especially the major retailers) overstating "what's selling." Also, the Times will often bump certain titles that appeal to their taste.
But to the point, the Times is doing this for one reason, and it's not to recognize the Graphic Novel as an important literary contribution. It's ad dollars pure and simple. After all, Publishers Weekly has had a graphic novel list for several years now. Book publishers have been slashing budgets this year and one of the major cuts are all those New York Times full-page "bestseller" ads they used to run for their books. Publishers were already cutting dollars in early 2008, which is why the Times split their paperback bestsellers into "Trade Paperback" and "Mass Market" lists. The hope was that with more bestsellers on the list, the publishers would start putting NY Times bestseller ads back in the marketing budget. But since, things have only become worse for publishers, and the ad dollars are not coming in, the Times is banking on all the graphic novel publishers (including the comic book companies) to make up the shortfall in advertising revenue.
And if the New York Times really cared about Graphic Novels as serious works of art, why have they relegated the Graphic Books bestseller list to a blog post instead of listing it with their other bestseller lists? Very half-assed and cynical on their part.
That's all fascinating.
But I don't care. You have an insiders look, kwohrob, a look that 99.9% of people in the country and world don't have. What they see is a distinguished paper showing some love toward graphic novels. If that helps the comic book industry, then I'm all for it.
People pay attention to the Times. The short and sweet of it. And that's why I am happy.
Not much love really in a blog post (especially one timed to coincide with a film release). And as the Times has said themselves, the list won't be in the print edition. Ere's your handout fan boys. Last time I checked, comic book fans didn't need the New York Times for validation.
And it only helps Marvel and DC the way the list is organized (which is why I brought that up). Independent publishers (or just smaller ones without the might of the big Two), won't receive fair play (which again is why Billboard ditched the practice years ago). Something that they're still struggling with these days (as even the Times reports with concern about Diamond Distribution: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/books/27gust.html)
On the fair side, Gustines has done a commendable job of writing about comics in the Times. If anything is written about comic books or their creators, he is usually the one doing it. But considering the Times financial troubles, how long will he last (or the list for that matter).
You bring up a point I willingly did not put in my last post: Why take the time and the money to showcase graphic novels in a print edition list when the entire paper is more than likely going to be moving to an online-only newspaper anyway?
And you are right, comic book fans don't need validation from anywhere but themselves.
I mean, let's get all Dr. Phil now. :)
But come on, be realistic, man. As a geek, fantasy reader and comic book reader, I've been fighting for validation from friends and family for years about what I read. I've even brought a few of them over with me to the dark side. Why is it so bad to fight for respect when the lack of validation out there comes wholly from ignorance? Do we not hate ignorance? Do we not spend our days fighting it in the really real world? Why is it such a bad thing that comic book readers not only entice new readers into the market but also get a little respect for reading comic books that rival Fahrenheit 451 or Animal Farm or 1984, books that are and have been valid in the eyes of the public for years? I see nothing wrong with that.
And I certainly don't advocate people find what they want to read by looking at the Times. That's just stupid, even if people do do it. No, they should look around, make up their own minds, don't be swayed by corporate entities wholly. No, my point is a much larger point than that: That the Times even mentioning comic books in a list might make those who have been critical take another look at graphic novels. I don't care what graphic novels they are as long as they are looking. I think you are focusing too much on the singularity of the issue and not the big picture of why this is important to the comic book industry as a whole. Every point you make is true, but I'm more interested in getting more readers, not the behind the scenes reasons why things are or aren't being done.