There is a convention from the children’s book field that is being applied to graphic novels. A convention I think should be changed.

This convention of author and illustrator credit is shared by the entire children's book publishing industry. Authors write the text and illustrators provide the graphics. This convention is a well-established one with the Library of Congress.

With graphic novels, illustrators receive illustrator's credit but do not share author credit as a co-author with the writer. If there were two writers there would be co-author credit. Unfortunately, graphic novels are being treated like children’s books as far as the Library of Congress is concerned. From a practical standpoint this translates to who receives credit that is first seen on sites that sell books, like Amazon or Barnes and Noble for example. Also, librarians have been strong supporters of graphic novels.

In children’s books, the illustrator is considered someone who helps to tell the story and often add visual details that the author did not necessarily consider or suggest. I’m going to use a very simple and general example. The writer writes ”See Spot run.” The illustrator would draw Spot running.

Unlike the children’s book industry, those of us doing graphic novels (and comics) do a lot more than just add visual details. Even if we don’t actually co-plot/co-script with the writer, we do research, organize, pace and consider the mood and gestures (physical, psychological and symbolic) that we want to communicate in the story.

In the hands of a lesser talent the graphic novel could fall flat. Using the same script an illustrator who understands storytelling could lift that graphic novel to great heights. Not that much is added to the story when the illustrator draws Spot running in a children’s book. There can be an argument about what was the first graphic novel. However, we can all agree that it wasn’t until Will Eisner's "A Contract with God," that we started thinking of and accepting that format as a graphic novel.

The illustrator's method of creating the drawings for a graphic novel does not diminish the author's contribution, however the illustrators contribution as a storyteller should be recognized also. Not just as the person who draws pretty pictures.

This is definitely new territory for all involved and I feel requires a different way of looking at things as well. In this case, with the graphic novel, the artist is the visual storyteller and is a co-author of the final product and as such should receive a co-author credit. The written story and the visual story can't be subtracted from the other without the whole book suffering. Especially, in this case, if the art is taken away you don't have a graphic novel which is a selling point.

Some authors supply a scene description for each panel. The authors are not given co-illustrator credit, nor should they be. The whole point is that BOTH parties contribute to the authorship, one as writer; one as illustrator. So it’s really the language that needs to be clarified. So if someone is looking through the card catalog at the library and see these books they should see both names as authors. The title page of the book can divvy up who is the writer and who is the illustrator.

Anyone feel the same or against this?

Seems to me, if the illustrator wants co-author credit, then the above situation demands the writer be given co-illustrator credit. "Writing is easy. You just stare at a blank page until blood forms on your forehead." The artist at least gets to work from a "skeleton"; the writer has to not only look at an unfertilized egg, he/she/it then has to hatch said "egg" as a "single Parent" and help guide it so that it grows up into a fine "person" who will do good in the world.

Did J.K Rowling create Harry Potter, or was it her as well as the illustrator?

Completely agree with Grasshopper.

The writer creates plot, characterisation, dialogue, pacing and often detailed scene descriptions. It is his story that the artist then brings to life. I see no grounds for considering the artist to be co-author.

As an amateur writer myself, I honestly find this suggestion rather offensive in fact, as it seems to me to devalue the role of the writer and tacitly claim that the role of the artist is more important. Were anyone to overtly state that, I would vehemently disagree, and I do so here.

Without both writer and artist, there would be no story. To devalue either at the expense of the other is absolutely, totally and categorically wrong, IMO.

I hear you Mr Simpson! I come at this from both sides. I wanted to tell stories in comics so I learned to draw and to tell stories visually to be a true comic book author. Unlike Rowlings who is fully capable of producing a finished product in her own medium a person who could not make a comic on their own to save their life should not be so quick to take offense that their collaborator that they depend on in conveying that narrative would like some credit as co-author. Harry Potter does not depend on the illustrations and is quite capable in existing in full form without them. Your comic cannot.

In fact I'm really quite surprised that someone would so slight an artist's contribution to the final comic that way by denying a simple co-author listing. Authorship is not just a term denoting the writer but the creator of any work. And certainly the artist often plays a huge role in the creation of the final work. It just seems so egotistical to want to grab all credit and accuse the other for being greedy for simply wanting a share. I think there are cases of work-for hire contracts where author would be specified; or in the case of manga assistants where a primary creator may be so dominant in all aspects of the work where one individual would take sole credit as author. I notice that looking on Amazon many collaborations say "by:" and then list the names of the scriptwriter and artist[s]. In the case of New X-Men they do this for the individual trades but for the omnibus collection of Grant Morrison's run just list Grant Morrison.

It should also be noted that in film many often consider the director as author and not the script writer because he or she controls the final work. I think it is much more complex than writer = author. And ceratinly in many cases it is the artist(s) who translate the script into the comics form we read so perhaps we should just give the credit to the artist I'm not reading scripts here. I'm reading comics and certainly as often noted, in the publics eyes the final visual product is very important in identifying comics.

This really isn't something I'll probably have to deal with directly, though. It only interests me in the sense of how we identify the medium. Generally I think in any good collaboration the strengths of everyone involved come forward and are recognized by the astute reader regardless of the credits. If the writer really is the primary author with little contribution from the artist that becomes apparent. Same with a comics that are more appreciated for the art than the crappy script. The best thing about a collaboration is that multiple people can work together to create something neither could do on their own.

Actually, let me try another explanation. An artist is not a pen or pencil. An artist is the brain that analzyes the subject, forms an opinion and problem solves how to communicate that opinion through his medium. In the Harry Potter example you are talking about two seperate companion works. One is the book by Rowlings. The other is an illustration by the artist. Rowlings is the author of the novel, the artist the author of the illustration.

In comics the subject that the artist is breaking down, analyzing, and then communicating is the script. The final product is not a seperate work but the work itself.Even your text has to be interpreted visually to be worked into that comic. Therefore the writer is also the author of the comic. Like a painter who does a picture of another artist's sculpture.

Teddy,

I think you have it wrong. Writers and artists are two separate people who do two separate jobs. The argument that by taking the script and analyzing what should be put to paper/the page layouts the artist is somehow "co-author" of the material is simply boffo; not true.

I remember reading early Amazing Spider-Man issues after Steve Ditko became co-plotter...until the time when he was acknowledged AS co-plotter, he had simply been artist on the title, and thus that was the only credit he was due to receive (save co-creator credit). I have read many books on many subjects and analyzed the findings recorded therein, yet simply analysis of a subject does not one a scholar make. Likewise, deciding how to lay out a page, design panels and the angles therein...that makes an artist but it does not mean that artists should receive co-authorship of a story/body of work in which they had no actual writing input.

A natural extension of what I just said would be the argument that "I designed how the character would look/dress/show body language/etc, therefore I helped create the physical character"--that argument I have no problem with, and you should forevermore be credited with designing the cast. Still, though...if the artist did not come up with some aspect of the "story" that the writer proposes, (or was not listed AS co-author by the publisher at the beginning of the title/storyline) in all logical conclusion his credit should simply remain that of "Penciller/Inker" or simply "Penciller" or "Inker", which ever may apply.

Heath P. Lail

Actually to correct what I said earlier, I'm guessing the Harry Potter illustration might be covered under copyright as a derivative work in which case "authorship" claims might not fly.

Anyway, I still disagree with the assumption that writer=author. Get rid of the illustrations and Harry Potter is still Harry Potter. Get rid of the illustrations, lettering, and any other visuals and your comic is no longer a comic . It is a script. So go publish that script and say you are a comic book author. The comic is a visual work and the artist had a tremendous role in creating that vision. If it were otherwise you'd all be writing novels or drawing your own comics. I probably won't argue this too much further because quite frankly, I'm not sure I have anything more to back up this opinion but it seems that you are all greatly underestimating how essential a specific comic artist can be to the final work. People always say that a group of pinups is not a comic. Well a script isn't one either.

If you want to use mainstream comics then how are either writer or artists the authors? They are work for hire. Shouldn't the author be "Marvel Comics?"

Also, I would like to know who here writes comics (pro or amateur), who draws them, who does both just to get a sense of where everyone is coming from.

Without the writer there is also no comic, because the artist has nothing to draw. Does that make the writer co-illustrator? Under the logic of 'artist as co-author' it would.

I would not consider that fair to the artist, though, any more than a co-authoring credit is fair to the writer.

What is in essence being argued is that in any staging of a Shakespeare play the director should be credited as co-author with Shakespeare himself, as it is his interpretation of the story we are seeing. There are some terrific directors out there who can add a lot to any play, but the very idea of giving any of them a co-author credit is clearly wrong.

Sure, Shakespeare is unique, but the principle applies, I think.

This really needs to be cleared up: the artist is claiming co-author, not co-scriptwriter. An author can refer to the creator of any work such as a book or painting. So this co-illustrator business is not logical at all.

I think perhaps the answer is simply author gets listed by copyright. All marvel books should list Marvel Entertainment as the author. If the scriptwriter holds the sole copyright he or she is the author. If it is shared then you have co-author listings and if it is the artist then the artist is listed as author.

You cannot 'author' a painting, Teddy. You can create, design, lay out, paint, or probably about a million other things when you are making a painting, but 'author' is a writer-specific term.

Every artist interprets and adds depth to every script; that is not in doubt or in question. There is no doubt whatsoever that the artist is always co-creator of any comic. But that is not the same thing at all as co-author.