Most of the time it's basically synonymous with either "Youtuber/Video Creator" or "Streamer", but why not just say that instead?
Most of the time it's basically synonymous with either "Youtuber/Video Creator" or "Streamer", but why not just say that instead?
It is, occasionally, useful to have a broad umbrella term.
Calling him a "content creator" would communicate none of those things, he could be sculptor, juggler and flautist for all I know.
(As an aside - the distinction between "graphic novels" and "comic books" is another pet peeve of mine - if a term can be summed up as "like this other thing, but but for grown ups", then maybe the "other thing" should just be respected by everybody instead of trying to reverse no true Scotsman the perceived good bits into another category)
> Calling him a "content creator" would communicate none of those things, he could be sculptor, juggler and flautist for all I know.
And some people are that madly multimedia, albeit none I can think of off the top of my head.
> (As an aside - the distinction between "graphic novels" and "comic books" is another pet peeve of mine - if a term can be summed up as "like this other thing, but but for grown ups", then maybe the "other thing" should just be respected by everybody instead of trying to reverse no true Scotsman the perceived good bits into another category)
I've certainly seen "graphic novel" used that way, but I prefer to use it to refer to works with defined end-points, as opposed to open-ended series; you can certainly talk about Neil's run on Miracleman as a distinct entity, but Miracleman itself is ongoing with no defined endpoint, unlike, say, Sandman or, to use another author, Watchmen. Of course, reality intrudes and decrees that both of those will get sequels, and might yet continue to get sequels, but I still think the distinction is useful enough. For one thing, in a graphic novel, the main character can get killed off for real because the property doesn't have to continue for another half-century or longer.