On graphic novels
The Von half of vonandmoggy had some discussion of graphic novels and the bad perception thereof here. It got me thinking...
There is something to the concept that reading prose fiction is a more difficult skill than reading graphic novels or watching TV. Certainly I read graphic novels a hell of a lot faster than I read prose fiction.
Graphic novels remove a certain amount of the interaction with the work; TV removes even more. The reader doesn't have to imagine the characters in their head, and, for me, the immersive aspect of that mental labor is an important part of prose fiction.
That said, this doesn't make graphic novels and other visual media inferior; just different. Imagine a scale of "experience for the reader," ranging from "I am in the story and experiencing it as reality" at one end, and "I was easily distracted and completely forgot everything about it within an hour of finishing" at the other end. Let's score the "immersive" end as a 10 and the "forgettable" end as 0.
Prose seems to me to cover the full range of that scale. Not enough books hit 9 or 10, but most regular readers will find books that bring them there--and this, I feel, is what keeps them coming back to read more books.
(The best video games can hit the upper end of that scale on a fairly regular basis because the player has to interact with the medium on a first-person basis. Frankly, I think all writers ought to fear the day video game companies figure out how to put in more complex narratives than bash-the-opposition and/or collect-the-plot-coupon. Ones with solve-the-mystery plots come very close.)
Movies and TV can get to 8 pretty easily, but can never really achieve a 10 because at heart they are passive media: the viewer sits and watches. Superb and creative special effects help boost a movie by giving the viewer's brain something new and unique to deal with. But the buzz wears off as the tech becomes familiar, and subsequent movies can't depend on the SFX alone to engage the viewer.
Graphic novels have more intrinsic interactivity than movies--the reader has to read the dialogue and caption boxes, and can take their time examining the pages. They have to interpret the art to see the flow of movement (which is why a good artist is so crucial).
Prose is, in many ways, more forgiving than other media. A weak story can be supported by interesting description and worldbuilding. Clever dialogue can cover weak characterization. Charismatic characters can hide trite worldbuilding. Because readers are forced to make up more of the material in their own heads, they will automatically patch over minor weaknesses if the story is otherwise appealing to them.
By contrast, visual media are more boolean. TV and movies need better-than-average story and character if they're to be any good at all (which is why so many of them are crap). The viewer will only sit dazzled by the visuals for so long. What they want is something to engage their brain--a puzzle, a unique dramatic conflict, unusual characters, witty dialogue, daring ideas. Give them that, and they'll keep coming back like rats pressing the lever for pellets.
Graphic novels have a similar problem, but it has to be solved on two levels. They also require superior story and characterization if they're to be any good at all. And on top of that, the artist has to figure out how to present the world and action in a way that engages the reader--talking heads and confused action cause a graphic medium to fail.
Graphic novels get added bonus if the art is unique and beautiful, the equivalent of SFX in a static medium. It pulls the reader in to look more closely, engaging more parts of the brain. This is the one way in which a graphic novel of mediocre story and characterization might cause the reader to "patch over" weaknesses as they do with prose fiction.
So, in summary: it seems to me that prose novels are more work, and by this action they are inherently more engaging--having made the investment, the reader is prepared to go where the writer wants to take them. If the book is poorly written such that the reader's work doesn't provide sufficient payoff, then the book fails.
TV/movies get higher minimum score right from the get-go because they are easier to consume, but they need to work a lot harder to get a good score, because the viewer isn't doing any heavy lifting.
Graphic novels start with a score of zero and have to claw their way up for every point. It's very easy to make a bad graphic novel, and very difficult to make a good one. But the very best graphic novels are nearly as engaging as the best prose novels, and far more engaging than most very good novels.
There is something to the concept that reading prose fiction is a more difficult skill than reading graphic novels or watching TV. Certainly I read graphic novels a hell of a lot faster than I read prose fiction.
Graphic novels remove a certain amount of the interaction with the work; TV removes even more. The reader doesn't have to imagine the characters in their head, and, for me, the immersive aspect of that mental labor is an important part of prose fiction.
That said, this doesn't make graphic novels and other visual media inferior; just different. Imagine a scale of "experience for the reader," ranging from "I am in the story and experiencing it as reality" at one end, and "I was easily distracted and completely forgot everything about it within an hour of finishing" at the other end. Let's score the "immersive" end as a 10 and the "forgettable" end as 0.
Prose seems to me to cover the full range of that scale. Not enough books hit 9 or 10, but most regular readers will find books that bring them there--and this, I feel, is what keeps them coming back to read more books.
(The best video games can hit the upper end of that scale on a fairly regular basis because the player has to interact with the medium on a first-person basis. Frankly, I think all writers ought to fear the day video game companies figure out how to put in more complex narratives than bash-the-opposition and/or collect-the-plot-coupon. Ones with solve-the-mystery plots come very close.)
Movies and TV can get to 8 pretty easily, but can never really achieve a 10 because at heart they are passive media: the viewer sits and watches. Superb and creative special effects help boost a movie by giving the viewer's brain something new and unique to deal with. But the buzz wears off as the tech becomes familiar, and subsequent movies can't depend on the SFX alone to engage the viewer.
Graphic novels have more intrinsic interactivity than movies--the reader has to read the dialogue and caption boxes, and can take their time examining the pages. They have to interpret the art to see the flow of movement (which is why a good artist is so crucial).
Prose is, in many ways, more forgiving than other media. A weak story can be supported by interesting description and worldbuilding. Clever dialogue can cover weak characterization. Charismatic characters can hide trite worldbuilding. Because readers are forced to make up more of the material in their own heads, they will automatically patch over minor weaknesses if the story is otherwise appealing to them.
By contrast, visual media are more boolean. TV and movies need better-than-average story and character if they're to be any good at all (which is why so many of them are crap). The viewer will only sit dazzled by the visuals for so long. What they want is something to engage their brain--a puzzle, a unique dramatic conflict, unusual characters, witty dialogue, daring ideas. Give them that, and they'll keep coming back like rats pressing the lever for pellets.
Graphic novels have a similar problem, but it has to be solved on two levels. They also require superior story and characterization if they're to be any good at all. And on top of that, the artist has to figure out how to present the world and action in a way that engages the reader--talking heads and confused action cause a graphic medium to fail.
Graphic novels get added bonus if the art is unique and beautiful, the equivalent of SFX in a static medium. It pulls the reader in to look more closely, engaging more parts of the brain. This is the one way in which a graphic novel of mediocre story and characterization might cause the reader to "patch over" weaknesses as they do with prose fiction.
So, in summary: it seems to me that prose novels are more work, and by this action they are inherently more engaging--having made the investment, the reader is prepared to go where the writer wants to take them. If the book is poorly written such that the reader's work doesn't provide sufficient payoff, then the book fails.
TV/movies get higher minimum score right from the get-go because they are easier to consume, but they need to work a lot harder to get a good score, because the viewer isn't doing any heavy lifting.
Graphic novels start with a score of zero and have to claw their way up for every point. It's very easy to make a bad graphic novel, and very difficult to make a good one. But the very best graphic novels are nearly as engaging as the best prose novels, and far more engaging than most very good novels.