I am not too familiar with graphic novels. When reading Sabrina the first time, I found myself focusing more on the dialogue much more than the artwork in the panels. It wasn’t until reading the article and realizing the importance of the images, I was fully able to appreciate the way graphic novels tell a story. To me, the pacing of Sabrina is what makes it stand out from other literary works. The use of panels allow for a timeline to shift without the need for much explanation. That is, scene changes are not brought with an announcement and time can be fast-forwarded by using pictures as a kind of montage. What I thought was most interesting is in the way panels create the possibility for multiple character’s timelines to run in parallel. In these ways, Sabrina felt more like watching a film rather than reading a novel. 

When it comes to the article itself, I found it to be very eye opening. Not only in the case of graphic novels, but in novel writing in general. With that being said, I think people become too worried with what/how to label pieces of art. It makes sense that writers might not want their works to be considered a “comic,” but as the author writes, if the term “graphic novel” is to be taken literally, even a well written comic strip (no matter how short) could be considered a graphic novel. I don’t know. It just seems so silly when people put so much energy into labeling things rather than just taking them for what they are.