Jonathan Hunt

Of course, I meant to say that I don't think your comments are less welcome than mine.

Posted : Dec 17, 2013 12:44

Jonathan Hunt

Why lobby for graphic novels? Would it surprise you know that I simply want the most distinguished "picture books" to be recognized, regardless of genre? Since only two of my seven hypothetical Caldecott nominations are graphic novels that means my other five are traditional picture books, so that actually makes me the defender of graphic novels and picture books. :-)

Posted : Dec 12, 2013 04:18

Elisa

Bradin, Thanks for thinking this through and sharing your ideas. I appreciate the viewpoint and look forward to reading your additional responses.

Posted : Dec 12, 2013 06:02

Bradin

Jonathan, thanks again for your response. It's definitely made me think about these issues way more than I ever have before and I appreciate the chance to articulate an argument. Since you numbered your responses, I'll follow suit, and it can be assumed our numbers correspond. 1. If the word "essentially" didn't exist in that first sentence of that first definition, I think it would be difficult to dispute you. But it does exist and it provides just enough wiggle room to dispute your claim that graphic novels are picture books. But I need to clarify my points about length and panels. I think Elisa made goods points that the pages of a picture book are essentially giant panels and the page turns act as gutters. But contrary to how it might appear on the surface, I think that comparison strengthens my argument! Because a more accurate measure of length than page count would be panel count. You asked if Make Way for Ducklings and The Biggest Bear would still qualify as picture books because of their longer-than-average page count, and I would respond with a resounding Yes! If you count up the "panels" in Make Way for Ducklings, for example, it comes to around 31 (depending on where you start to count). In contrast to that, Boxer reaches thirty one panels by page 9 (in a 325-page first volume). If we were to count every panel in that book, I'm sure it would number well over a thousand. So, if someone were to illustrate a thousand individual pages in order tell a story, would it still be a picture book for children? Maybe but doubtful. I think it depends on how it's illustrated, and here's where a big difference lies between picture books and graphic novels, and why I argue that graphic novels are not "essentially" a visual experience. I'm going to use Boxers as an example. It's not hard to imagine the opening panels of the book being illustrated and presented like a picture book, with each individual panel blown up and given its own page. But by the time we get to page 11 (in the original book) or page 38 (in our hypothetical one) that experience starts to break down. It becomes strikingly less about the visual experience and more about the interactions between characters and advancement of plot. As this continues on, page after page, we might become bored and start to question why each illustration even needs its own page, especially when those illustrations play second fiddle to the story's other concerns, like plot and character development. When visuals start to play that supporting role, it's no longer essentially a visual experience but something else. And keep in mind, we're not even describing graphic novels yet, because they take the whole process a step further away by shrinking the pages down into smaller panels and arranging them on the page in such a way that they must be "read" in order to appreciate what's going on. Compare this to a picture book where the illustrations are always its primary concern and it becomes clear: the importance of every single picture over every other concern is what makes the picture book an essential visual experience. And the shorter page or "panel" count allows for this kind of impact, which just isn't possible in a longer graphic novel. So, to answer your question about the difference between Mr. Wuffles and Boxers. Since I must stick strictly to the Caldecott's terms and criteria (if I didn't have to, I could come up with plenty of other reasons why Mr. Wuffles is picture book, but Boxers is not), I would say its presentation and shorter length allow for an essential visual experience that isn't possible to replicate in the much longer, baggier Boxers. 2. I'm tempted to just cede this point to you, since this sentence of the definition doesn't contain a useful qualifier like "essentially" to mount a proper defense. Like I said in my original comment, "collective unity" could be defined in such a way that it would include every artform and artwork under it. (If you included the rest of the sentence, you could probably even make a case for Calvin and Hobbes or Ladybug magazine as picture books--which I think shows how inherently awkward it is to only use the Caldecott's terms and criteria for a definition.) But I still think the difference in "collective unity" between a picture book and a graphic novel is stark enough to give one pause. Again, look at Boxers. I've just started reading it (because of your post), but already there are many characters, plot lines, and themes being introduced. Some of these elements must necessarily stand alone or only relate to a few other parts. You could likely remove a single minor character or situation or even a few panels and the whole thing would still hold together. But in a picture book, each element is utterly necessary to the whole, and removing even the smallest element would cause the whole thing to unravel. That may not be absolutely true with every single picture book, but certainly it is true with the best ones. As for the Newbery, it states blatantly that all forms of writing should be considered. The Caldecott makes no such claim and even goes out of its way to distinguish picture books from other forms of illustrated books. 3. I'm going to recant here and distance myself from my earlier accusation that the burden of proof lies with you. After thinking it over more, I've come to the conclusion that your use of the Caldecott's terms and criteria IS the evidence to your claim, and I think it's sufficient enough that it becomes incumbent on anyone who disagrees with that to disprove it. If we can't, then your claim is probably valid and doesn't need additional evidence to support it. I got hung up on some of the language in your post, which seemed to me like an evasion. I don't think that's the case is anymore--or at least not enough that it invalidates your claim--and I apologize for the accusation. 4. I'm not sure I see the point about considering graphic novels as picture books, if you're not also making a case for them to be recognized. Why ask committee members to look at graphic novels and judge them as picture books, if the defining components of graphic novels make them less effective as children's picture books? Or maybe you think they don't. I'm still wondering about that and would love to hear your answer to the final few questions in my original comment.

Posted : Dec 12, 2013 01:19

Jonathan Hunt

1. Since two thirds of the story in a graphic novel is conveyed visually, I think that makes them essentially visual experiences in any reading of the term, and that is never truer than when you compare graphic novels with prose novels. You may find picture books to be superior visual experiences, and I would expect your arguments and choices to be filtered through that viewpoint. What I take exception to is the assertion that we must all adopt that viewpoint from the outset of our discussion, and not even consider graphic novels in relation to the criteria. But you seem to have backed off this stance. 2. I find that the range of visual experiences within the respective fields of picture books and graphic novels to be just as great as the differences between them. For example, I have read picture books with panels and speech balloons and I have read graphic novels without either of those features. I have read picture books that read more like illustrated books (FABLES is the example Robin cited earlier this year), and graphic novels that are virtually wordless. Is THE ARRIVAL by Shaun Tan a picture book or a graphic novel? I think you kind of admit this when you start talking about what happens in the "best" picture books. You seem to be implying that some picture books are not worthy of the appellation, correct? 3. Consensus kind of dictates who has the burden of proof. If the make-up of the committee is such that the majority of people are not open to considering graphic novels as picture books, then it's a lost cause--and vice versa. It's entirely possible, but extremely unlikely, that you would have fifteen people who are open the idea of recognizing graphic novels. They would still have to come to consensus on which book(s) to recognize, and having at least four excellent candidates in BOXERS/SAINTS, MARCH, BLUFFTON, and THE GREAT AMERICAN DUST BOWL could well divide even the most open-minded committee. 4. As I replied to K.T. below, I haven't decided which picture book is the most distinguished of the year, but I'm all about finding excellence within the field of picture books, whatever they may be, and if that means that it's a graphic novel or a book of photography or computer-generated artwork then so be it. I've never pushed this issue before because I've never found graphic novels that were distinguished according to the criteria, and who knows if I ever will again. Maybe this year is just an aberration. As part of my thinking process, I would love to have a discussion about these books in terms of the criteria--so that I can be persuaded one way or another. I don't have an agenda beyond wanting the most excellent "picture books" recognized. Clearly, I don't think that the defining components of graphic novels make them less effective as children's picture books--at least, that's not an a priori assumption. I would need to consider a case by case basis, and when that happens I may find myself hypothetically voting for three conventional picture books.

Posted : Dec 12, 2013 01:19

Bradin

Okay, just one more comment and I'm done. This is your house, so to speak, and I don't want to overstay my welcome (too late?). 1. Where did you get the two thirds from and how was it calculated? What if it were one third or five eighths or exactly one half? Would those constitute an "essentially visual experience in any reading of the term"? Where and how would you draw the line between just a regular old visual experience and one that is essentially so? It's not that I find picture books to be superior visual experiences, but when I look at the language in the Caldecott's terms and criteria--"A 'picture book for children' as distinguished from other books with illustrations, is one that essentially provides the child with a visual experience."--I see only picture books fitting that definition, and graphic novels falling under "other books with illustrations". Elements combine in graphic novels--elements like length, multiple panels juxtaposed in a certain way on the page, illustrations that exist only to support plot and character development, and so forth--to such a degree that the visual experience is diluted with other concerns. In other words, the "novel" half of a "graphic novel" precludes it at the outset from being defined as a children's picture book. I'm not backing off from that. 2. There certainly are a range of visual experiences within defined artforms, and stealing or borrowing elements and techniques from other artforms is common practice. However, just because some picture books borrow heavily from graphic novels or vice versa, doesn't mean we scrap the accepted definitions of either artform, or at least not without good reason. Is the ability to capitalize on some fuzzy language in an award's terms and criteria good reason enough? I don't think it is. Also, just because it's difficult to categorize a particular work--such as The Arrival (I'm assuming, since I haven't read it)--doesn't mean the definitions are null. Contrary to that, exceptions prove the definitions exist and that they apply in all other cases. I'm not sure what you think I'm implying by admitting some picture books have a lesser degree of collective unity than other picture books, but I'm certainly not implying that these picture books are not worthy of being called picture books. "Collective unity" is just one aspect of picture books, among plenty of others. To admit a picture book is lacking in collective unity does not automatically change its identity to something else. It's still a picture book, just not a very good one. If a graphic novel were to somehow have an abundance of "collective unity" (again, something that becomes increasingly difficult to pull off as more elements, such as multiple plot lines and characters, are introduced into the work) that one feature alone would not make it a picture book either. 3. I have not much to say here. I'm not sure how we got on a discussion about the decision-making process of the Caldecott committee. When I brought up the burden of proof stuff, I was referring only to your claim and the disputation that arose from it on this web page. But it's always interesting to hear how decisions are made behind the closed doors of an awards committee. 4. Finally, I sympathize with your desire to find and recognize excellence in artforms other than picture books. But to do so is entirely dependent on first proving graphic novels (or whatever other artform you'd care to include) ARE picture books. I think it was a strong but flawed attempt to only use the Caldecott's terms and criteria to define your case, and it was bolstered by your bold, literalist approach. I know I was nearly convinced by it at first, and I don't doubt you changed the minds of more than a few people. It made me feel unmoored somehow, since it called into question my belief that picture books are a unique artform, so I set about to formulate an argument that would resist your literal approach to language and to provide an "out" for anyone who still believes in a picture book's unique nature. I'll leave it to others to decide how I did, but I know for myself I feel like I'm on solid ground again.

Posted : Dec 12, 2013 01:19

Jonathan Hunt

Why are MR. WUFFLES and BLUEBIRD picture books, but BOXERS/SAINTS and MARCH are graphic novels?

Posted : Dec 11, 2013 06:45

Elisa Gall

I’m not convinced that reading a book written in the comics format (or with graphic novel elements) is all that different from reading picture books. (Like I said in my Odd Duck comment the other day, I think of comics as living underneath the PB umbrella.) Whether one can make sense of visual narrative isn’t dependent on length or medium—it’s dependent on the reader and the specific book. Isn’t the gutter—the space between panels—like that space between PB page turns, when the reader infers the passage of time and anticipates what’s to come? If I took an Elephant and Piggie book—or better yet, This is Not My Hat—and drew boxes around each page spread, it would look just like a comic to me. (Those boxes/panels would be worthless, however, because the design of those books is such that the pages themselves function as panels.) The argument that PBs have more unified elements than graphic novels is hard for me to wrap my head around. Sure, some PBs do. But this goes to your point about looking specifically at every title. If “each book is to be considered as a picture book,” every eligible book—no matter how long it is or if it’s for older kids or younger kids or if it is traditional or atypical—should be considered and discussed. Let the book be evaluated for the work that it is, and trust that the committee will be looking at all of the little pieces to determine whether or not it shines under the lens of the award criteria. You’re absolutely right that PBs are an established artform, and the award stakes are high. I just don't see challenging the status quo as a bad thing. What’s wrong with questioning the “accepted interpretations” and thinking outside of the panels every once in a while?

Posted : Dec 11, 2013 06:45

Martha V. Parravano

Maybe it's early, but I think I just realized that graphic novels are picture books with more page turns. Ie, the panels essentially function as page turns. Has that been obvious to everyone else all along?!

Posted : Dec 11, 2013 06:45

Elisa Gall

Jonathan, You had me at Pshaw. I love how you explained your perspective here, and I agree that the competition is fierce this year for all types of PBs. As far as 2014 goes, I think the B&S two-volume problem is a big one. As Sam pointed out, if there’s no guarantee that it will be read as one work (because of how it can be purchased and checked out), it’s hard to imagine the seal on two separate volumes. Then again, the fact that it is non- traditional makes it stand out for me. The colorist question is interesting. They'd share it, right?

Posted : Dec 09, 2013 09:35