We dare to call them ‘comics’!

I find the proposition interesting. Obviously, the “packaging” will always be disproportionately important in selling the product as the actual content. People buy the book (or, in this case, buy into the concept) before they read it. Still, the short-term benefit of donning the graphic novel misnomer would probably be outweighed by a long-term identity crisis.

It’s odd how people immediately feel confused and anxious about a children’s book simply because the words move from below the drawings up into word balloons. It’s almost as if the confluence of words and art create a confounding ambiguity.

Then again, in the greater sense of the comics revival effort, the “core audience” of long time comics readers now argue over whether a monthly book is actually a book at all or if it’s just a “pamphlet.” This kind of relegation of the medium– from people who are supposed to LOVE it!

If you really think about it, what’s a comic book? I’ve never heard a collected edition of Garfield strips referred to as a “trade” or a comic book, even though it would fit the definition of both categories. Then again, no one seems to have much of a problem with what to call it. Mostly, they probably just call it “a Garfield book” and never give a second thought to it.

It’s a children’s book. Does the fact that the story occurs in sequential panels really confuse that? It seems fairly evident to me. It does feel very apparent that the major challenge the medium faces today is stigma. The demographic of the major body of current readers (males between 20-30) doesn’t help change that, so our fight literally becomes one of the chicken versus the egg. To change the perception, we have to broaden the audience demographic. To broaden that demographic, we must change perceptions and make people more open to the medium. I think the stand you’ve taken puts you on a difficult path, but I believe it’s the right one. Thanks for taking the road less travelled and continuing to make more relevant comics more available to more people!

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by comicsgirl, TOON Books. TOON Books said: Why euphemize “kids’ comics”? http://bit.ly/apMW3M [...]

[...] We dare to call them “comics”! É curioso, mas os autores e editores americanos ainda andam à volta desta questão. [...]

Jim, thanks so much for the support and for your thought-provoking comment. I hope you don’t mind that we’ve excerpted some lines to quote on our Twitter account; we loved how thoroughly you outlined the challenges of changing popular perception of the “comics” category. You’re right to say that in order to reach the broad audience of early readers we want, we first have to fight to increase acceptance of the “comics” name–we don’t want the identity crisis that would come with calling a 36-page vocabulary-controlled children’s book a NOVEL, graphic or not. At TOON, we aim to meet educational standards, not muddle them!

Except for the short long ones (Jack and the Box, Silly Lilly) we shelve them in kids graphic novels. I think it’s a good spot. Older readers pick them up sometimes and enjoy them – they’re easy and funny – and when we lead younger readers over to those shelves to get Luke on the Loose and Zig and Wikki, they get a gander at the longer books that they have to look forward to. It helps that our kids graphic novel section is centrally located and not off in some hideaway.

Thanks so much for your comment, Paula. It gives real insight into the thought process behind shelving books, and we are so impressed with the category of “kids’ graphic novels,” which seems extremely fitting for titles like “BONE.” Still, I have one reservation about this method of categorization: you make a great point that younger readers who are picking up higher-level TOON titles like “Luke on the Loose” or “Zig and Wikki” are also able to check out the longer books that they have to look forward to, but what about the beginning readers who are picking up “Jack and the Box” or “Silly Lilly”? It would be so great if they, too, were able to see the higher-level titles waiting for them, and this only seems achievable by grouping publications like the TOON Books together in “kids’ comics” or “early readers.”

[...] Books, publisher of wonderful graphic novels for kids (although they think they’re too short to be graphic novels), has just launched a special blog for emerging readers featuring the adorable mice Benny and [...]

Silly Lilly and Jack and the Box are in Beginning Readers… I want the very earliest readers, the kids who can manage Jack and the Box, to not be intimidated by more advanced titles – I want them to find Silly Lilly when they are on their way to see Elephant & Piggie and Fly Guy.

When they’re a little more sure of themselves, I’ll steer them over the the kids graphic shelves to get Mo & Jo, and while they’re there they’ll see Lunch Lady and Jellaby, and get used to the idea of longer books being within their reach. The TOON books are great bridge books.

[...] today. I enjoy when movies get made of non-superhero comics (and about that, I clearly agree with TOON Books that we should just call them “comics.” I do, generally) and I’ll be seeing this [...]

[...] do you shelve your Toon Books?  Toon Books wants to know.  As easy reading comic titles, they sort of fall between two categories.  Here at NYPL [...]