What’s the Difference Between “Pictorial” and “Graphic”?
by T. Hodler
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Don’t mistake this astonishing work [The Arrival] by Australia’s Shaun Tan for a picture book, even though it consists of nothing but pictures. At 128 pages, it’s what could be called a pictorial novel, since the usual label — graphic novel — suggests more of a manga- or comic-style book, bristling with text.
–Elizabeth Ward, The Washington Post
Oh good, another category! If this catches on, we’re in for a new round of many, many wonderful arguments. Where’s Eddie Campbell?
UPDATE: Campbell responds (!)
Labels: bloggers, clueless critics, Eddie Campbell, Shaun Tan
who ya gonna call!?
Thanks for the heads up. I’ll read and comment at eddiecampbell.blogspot.com before close of business today.
Eddie Campbell,
semantic troubleshooter.
ask for a quote
man does the arrival fucking stink!
Sammy, Do you mean comics’ arrival into the mainstream media stinks? Or the work in question stinks? I’m either seeing your comment as a very clever pun or very dickish and unproductive. I’ll assume it’s the former, ‘cause I heart you.
This doesn’t seem like a big deal. The reviewer was obviously casting about for a category for this book, and none seemed quite right. Reviewers of movies and books do this all the time, right?
…and, by the way, to answer the title of the post: ‘Graphic’ implies visual signage of various sorts – diagrams, signs, illustrations, as well as letters and words. ‘Pictorial’ refers to pictures. (Or at least, that’s my understanding of the two words.)
Hey Zed —
Thanks for your comment.
You’re right, it’s not a big deal. I didn’t mean to imply that it was.
There are plenty of wordless comics and/or “graphic novels” around, and no one felt the need to give them a new category before, but it doesn’t really bother me if someone else disagrees. I just thought the review was funny.
Sammy, Jed —
I haven’t read The Arrival, and have no opinion about it, but I am curious about what makes it great/stink.