Theagenes

Richie Rich dominance was a phenomenon of the early 70s. Here's Harvey in summer 1965 http://www.dcindexes.com/features/timemachine.php?site=harvey&type=cover&month=6&year=1965&sort=alpha Another joke crushed by reality. Actually, without looking them up again, probably a dozen each were Harvey or Archie titles. Although, to be fair, of the 29 super-hero titles that month, 12 had either Superman or Batman in them! I did love Richie Rich when I was a wee thing in the early 70s.

I think in truth the idea that the superhero genre dominated (to use West's term) comics is very much overstated. If there was a period where comics were dominated by superheros it was probably the late 70s through the 80s and into the 90s until the implosion. There were other times when the superhero had a large chunk of the market (early 40s, 60s to early 70s) but didn't dominate. But still that's enough to say to it's up there with only the funny animal genre as far as importance to the comic book medium (and by funny animal I would include Disney, WB, up through TMNT and Sonic the Hedgehog). The importance of the superhero genre in popular culture as a whole is a different issue. I do think it's important to note, as Tim pointed out, that the times in which the superhero genre had the most impact on popular culture came not from superhero comics, but when the superhero genre appeared in other media like film and television. Of course that's true for the funny animal genre too.

West, these are two very different things. 1st, I don't think this discussion really has anyone disagreeing that superheroes were the driving force of the past 50 years - that's pretty much a given - but the past 50 years also have very little bearing on the origins of the American comic book. 2nd, I think it's impossible to know what will be popular 50 years from now. It could be disco. Again. Pretty sure disco is dead... also pretty sure strip reprints are dead too. I wrote what I did because some posters here seem to minimize the superhero genre saying it is second in importance to their own favorite genre. Like I said, it's all about perspective! Actually manga outsells superhero comics today by a huge margin. The superhero genre does not dominate the comic book medium any more. It does do quite well in other media of course. Look at these manga sales numbers for 2012: http://www.saiyanisland.com/2012/12/top-20-manga-series-in-2012-based-on-sales/

I think that on the issue of the importance of the Superhero genre, there is no that much disagreement. People were just arguing different things and sort of talking past one another -- that is the importance of the genre today and during the past few decades and its importance throughout the entire history of the comics medium. I do think it's fair to say that many modern collectors do have a tendency overstate the importance of the Superhero genre prior to its resurgence in the early 60s. People tend to forget that the big grails prior to 1960 were Single Series 20, Feature Book 26, and Four Color 10.

I agree to a point, though for my part I don't think I'm being especially contentious. David MerryWeather and Ciorac and I have differing viewpoints (and I don't think we're always arguing on the same topics), but I have no hard feelings toward them because of it... in fact I think this is one of the best threads in GA for some time. I think there is clear animosity toward Bob Beerbohm by some, but it seems it has to do with stuff outside what he is really presenting here, and that is unfortunate because his timelines and data are quite fascinating (and for the most part indisputable). People may disagree with his opinions or conclusions drawn, but even these aren't hysterically out of bounds, as presented, and his information is quite interesting and revealing. And all historians eventually draw conclusions from their research that spark debate and criticism. I love comics, but I love historical fact even more. In fact, I treasure accuracy. Myths are often oversimplifications and shortcuts... the truth is far more complicated and therefore far more interesting. Too often today we see history shredded by media and politicians who have a vested interest in altering the historical record. If we can't at least have truth in something that should be as inoccuous as pop culture, then the world is indeed a sadder place. I have learned a number of things on this thread I never knew before. I can impart a few tidbits here and there of which a few others may be unaware. Opinions, if based on fact and not emotion, should all be worthy of consideration and honest debate, and if derived honestly, should be above ridicule even if disagreed with. Despite a couple of moments, I think for the most part this thread achieves that. Tim, I want you to know that I very much appreciate your level-headed posts and your contributions. I very much agree with your sentiments here. Look, I know a lot of you have problems with Bob and there's a lot of history there. I know all the derision thrown his way isn't coming out of a vacuum. But some of us would really like to just discuss the history of comics without all the ad hominem attacks and silly arguments over who would win a fight: Superman or Obadiah. This is particularly disappointing when it comes from people whom I know are incredibly knowledgeable and whom I have tremendous respect for and consider to be friends. So maybe someone should start a "Bob Beerbolm sucks!" thread and take it all there adn let's keep this thread on topic And Bob, the reason people don't take your history posts seriously and treat you like a huckster is because you keep acting like a huckster. Try making a post on comics history without including a link to your eBay store or appealing to us to buy something. There are dedicated places on this forum to hawk your wares -- this isn't it. You can't wear both your dealer hat and your historian hat at the same time and expect people to take your conclusions seriously when they relate to products you are selling. Bob, I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the research you have done, but your posting style makes it very difficult to tease out the interesting factual nuggets from the stream-of-consciouness wall-of-texts posts filled with non-sequitor anecdotes and appeals to authority that, while interesting, are ones we have all heard before. This is pretty savvy and knowledgeable crowd. The reason they aren't convinced by the arguments you're making isn't because they are unaware of your research or haven't read your essays in OPG and CBM -- it's because you haven't made a convincing argument. You like to call yourself a "comic book archaeologist." Well, as someone who is an actual archaeologist and who also does academic work on popular culture, let me tell you what I would like to see in order to be convinced. In archaeology, the artifacts themselves rarely have any intrinsic value -- what matters is context. So far you haven't given us any context with which we can judge your statement that the 1842 Obadiah Oldbuck "launched the American comic book industry." Just pointing to it's existence isn't enough. So how do you know that this book had any significance at all? What is your evidence for that? Töpffer was important and influential as an artist in Europe, sure. But how do you know that this US bootleg of one of his books had any impact over here at all? Do you know how many copies were printed? Where was it sold and distributed? How many people would have actually seen it? Was it reprinted? If so when and how many editions did it go through? You said it was sold in NY up until 1904 -- did you mean it was continually in print until 1904 or that there was a reprint of it in 1904 with no other editions in between? That's a big difference. You said this 1842 edition had a direct influence on the creation of Jeremiah Saddlebags and the other US books from the 1850s. What is your evidence for this? Do you have any secondary sources that refer to this 1842 edition? Are there any reviews of it or mentions of it in trade publications from the 1800s? How about advertisements? Do any of the later comic strip creators from the late 1800s and early 1900s discuss it anywhere (I'm sure Töpffer in general gets mentioned, but what about this 1842 edition in particular)? Bob, these are the kinds of contextual questions that need to be answered before anyone can judge just how important this particular book is. I suspect you have answers to some of these questions, but if no one has seen them outside of a highly-specialized email listserv, then you can't expect people to just accept your conclusions with no evidence. I'm not trying to pick on you. I am truly interested in this subject and I simply want to see formulate your arguments in way that allows us to truly weigh their merit.

This is great stuff. Thank you for sharing this.

I want to play too. Here's a Wilhem Busch strip from an 1872 issue of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Weekly. Kind of sadistic humor as the punchline is a baby being injured by a pair of scissors that gets wrapped up in it's diaper.

That is such a cool association, Todd. There was a great paper on Leigh Brackett by David Schappert in my Anthropology in the Pulps panel at PCA last week. That's him in the middle, while I'm on the right waxing academic about Bran Mak Morn with a cool Virgil Finlay illo on the big screen.

That's very cool!

That was a great post Cat. In fairness to Bob though, he was just saying the physical format (not content) of the dime novel (side-stapled, slick cover, pulp interior) was the pre-cursor to the physical format of the modern Famous Funnies-style comic book (as opposed to the earlier comic tabloids (like 1929 The Funnies) or the Cupples & Leon hc comic strip collections. Bob, I think that this was a great observation and when you first posted it several years ago I was intrigued enough to go pick up a couple of similar dime novels myself. Dime novels were certainly some of the first publications to use the combination of side-stapling, slick covers, and pulp interiors. But, my point in posting the issue of The Ring was to show that by the early 30s when Gaines was inspired to turn a comic tabloid into a comic magazine, dime novels were hardly the only publications using that format. There were plenty of staples+slick cover+pulp interior magazines on the stands alongside the true slicks (stapled with all slick paper) and pulps (slick cover with pulp interior but square-bound). So while dime novels may have been the earliest to use that format they were not necessarily what gave Gaines the idea---it was a common magazine format by that point.

Well, that does make more sense. And the new technology is an important point. Was that really due to Töppfer though and not Cruikshank or one of the other famous engravers? If so that is really significant and interesting. I do think you're on to something with the dime novel format to comic magazine format, though of course dime novels weren't the only magazines that combined saddle-stitched binding, slick covers, and pulp interiors. Here's a well-known example that I happen to have handy: But your larger point is well-taken. Gaines was just taking a smaller size comic tabloid and slapping on a slick magazine cover with staples like the dime novels and other publications. I also, think a case could be made that it was Superman 1 (and the big PR push in the summer of 39 with the World's Fair, etc.) and not Action 1 that started the superhero comic boom, and thus it is may be more historically signifcant.

I would have to go in to the Plat list archives, type in some key word search trips, re-find the 450 AD word balloon example(s) some one posted there about a decade ago now, then post. Will try to get to it next day or so. The examples were drawn on a wall dating to late Roman Empire period. The words were there with lines drawn around them with a pointed end pointing at who ever was speaking. The wheel is constantly re-invented, what is "new" is most always quite old, is how I see most "innovations" some generations seek to present. Anyway, the comic strip comic books have been around a ga-zillion years now. Obadiah Oldbuck remains more important than Superman. A collector dealer friend pointed out to me last night that I think he said it was on a recent Comic Connect auction which had a Flash Comics #1 sell for approx $70K that a number of Silver Age comics sold for more. The price of some thing has zero to do with its "importance" as an aercheological artifact. But that is all in the eye of the beholder and what one might deem "important" - just an opine from this dinosaur comic book dealer collector working in a hobby which got way out of hand a very long time ago now. Ah, AD, not BC. I missread. I'll see if I can track it down. Bob, on your second paragraph, I would very much agree that a higher monetary value does not necessarily equate with greater historical significance. I would also suggest, however, that being older or even first does not necessarily equate with greater historical significance either. So I would disagree with your statement that OO is more "important" than Superman, simply because Superman has had a far greater impact on popular culture than OO. OO is important and much more important than the character has been given credit for. And you should be given credit for bringing attention to that importance. But that importance is not due to one American bootleg version in 1842, but rather to the fact that it was one of Töpffer's more important comic strip works and due to his influence on the later European comic strip artists like Wilhelm Busch. You can trace a direct line from Töpffer to the Katzenjammer Kids, so there is no doubt he was an important pioneer. But to say OO is more historical significant than Superman is really over-reaching.

It is always nice when professionals chime in with their perspective. Speaking from my own collector's heart, the more I've learned about the evolution of the medium, the more disenchanted I've become with definitions. My own real passion is exploring the spectrum of formats and narrative techniques, the gradient of which eventually led to the publications that all of us enjoy talking about. It's that fascinating and never ending journey through pulps, books, magazines, movies, historical events etc. that keeps my own interest alive. When I dislike definitions so much, it's because they tend to compartmentalize the discussion, culling away all the wonderful blurring and context that I see as the life blood of the hobby. tb, I wouldn't disagree with that at all and in fact your sentiment echos my own. You know the things I collect. I'm fascinated by the Platinum and pre-GA and all the various transitional and experimental formats. The only reason I emphasize defining your terms up front in this particular case is that back in that OO vs Action 1 thread we already spent months and several hundred pages arguing like this: "This is a comic book" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "NO it isn't!! "YES it is!!" Ad infinitum... Ultimately what it came down to was a semantic disagreement about the term "comic book." Some people had a very specific and narrow definition and others had a much broader and more inclusive one. Neither side was wrong--there was just a language barrier. Once that was overcome and understood, I think it became easier to discuss, explore, and appreciate all of these amazing and related media formats regardless of what label you give them. I think the best line of argument in the entire thread was "I know it when I see it". Just like porn.

It is always nice when professionals chime in with their perspective. Speaking from my own collector's heart, the more I've learned about the evolution of the medium, the more disenchanted I've become with definitions. My own real passion is exploring the spectrum of formats and narrative techniques, the gradient of which eventually led to the publications that all of us enjoy talking about. It's that fascinating and never ending journey through pulps, books, magazines, movies, historical events etc. that keeps my own interest alive. When I dislike definitions so much, it's because they tend to compartmentalize the discussion, culling away all the wonderful blurring and context that I see as the life blood of the hobby. tb, I wouldn't disagree with that at all and in fact your sentiment echos my own. You know the things I collect. I'm fascinated by the Platinum and pre-GA and all the various transitional and experimental formats. The only reason I emphasize defining your terms up front in this particular case is that back in that OO vs Action 1 thread we already spent months and several hundred pages arguing like this: "This is a comic book" "No it isn't" "Yes it is" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "NO it isn't!! "YES it is!!" Ad infinitum... Ultimately what it came down to was a semantic disagreement about the term "comic book." Some people had a very specific and narrow definition and others had a much broader and more inclusive one. Neither side was wrong--there was just a language barrier. Once that was overcome and understood, I think it became easier to discuss, explore, and appreciate all of these amazing and related media formats regardless of what label you give them.

I don't know. I did my paper on Bran Mak Morn.

If it coincides with the Windy City Pulp Con next year (a real possibility) that would make it an awesome vacation!

Bob what is the 450 BCE example? Do you have an image? It sounds pretty cool. Boot, in answer to your question, yes I can read the the translation and follow along more or less, but only because I've taken a number of graduate level classes on Egyptian religion, language, art, and history as well as considerable independent research (my MA thesis was on the cult of Isis in the Roman Empire). It's not really a straightforward prose-style narrative, though it does describe the journey of the deceased (in this case the scribe Ani) through the afterlife. This is depicted with a sequence of scenes or vignettes, so it is sequential art. But it also includes spells and incantations that Ani must say at certain stages in the process.

You forgot the John L. Sullivan Irish whiskey. That was a critical part of the conference.

Last week I helped chair the Pulp Studies sessions at the PCA/ACA conference, where there were five different papers given on Robert E. Howard. I just posted my trip report on my blog. Enjoy! http://www.anageundreamedof.com/2013/04/2013-pcaaca-pulp-studies-trip-report.html

So last week I helped chair the Pulp Studies session at the annual PCA/ACA National Conference in Washington, DC. It was a lot of fun---academic geekery at its best. I just put a trip report on my blog. Enjoy! http://www.anageundreamedof.com/2013/04/2013-pcaaca-pulp-studies-trip-report.html

Bob, welcome back. Jeff Shanks here. I haven't been around as much lately myself so I missed the SF thread until this morning. I just want to wish my best to Katy. On the history of the "comic book" you I and debated this topic here years ago, and it is a fascinating one. But, ultimately it comes down to how one defines the term, and so there are as many "first comic books" as there are definitions for what a "comic book" is. Ultimately, it's a gradient as various forms of media that incorporate art and text evolved and changed over time. I think it's safe to say that when most people today use the word "comic book" they are talking about the modern comic book magazine format, which would make the first one FoP or maybe Detective Dan (if you're okay with the size). You use a much broader definition of "comic book" and that's okay too, just so everyone is clear on definitions. I wanted to comment on a point you made in the SF/Reilly thread about the first use of word balloons being 450 BCE. I'd like to know more about this, but I would also suggest looking at the earlier Egyptian texts for prototypes. I know that Egyption wall painting and carving is often discussed as an early form of sequential art, but I would suggest that you also have examples of prototypical words balloons. Below is reprint of the Ani Papyrus version of the Book of the Dead, which dates to the 19th Dynasty (ca. 1250 BCE). Not only is both the art and text integral to the larger narration and presented in sequential form (even in panels on some parts), but the small groupings of text near the figures heads represent dialogue that the figures are speaking. So while there is no actual "balloon" enclosing the text, those bits of dialogue next to the figures mouths certainly function in exactly the same way that word balloons do. Just something to consider. The cool thing about these New Kingdom versions of the Book of the Dead is that they are not just wall carvings or paintings, but actual books in the form of scrolls. They are also not just one-off works of art, but a book which was produced in many copies. The original Ani Papyrus is actually nearly 80 feet long. This facsimile that I have is the Limited Editions Club version that came out in 1972 and it has a fold-out replica that is 17 feet long. So this would be the Archives/Masterworks reprint version of this ancient comic book.

Awesome!

Great stuff! Love the smoking Santa!

Welcome back BZ!

I'll be headed to DC tomorrow to give a paper on one of the Pulp Studies sessions. Really looking forward to it. This will be the largest Pulp session we've ever had, with five sessions and 16 papers. Just for fun I've turned my older 2011 PCA/ACA paper on Howard's use of the Atlantis theme in creating the Thurian and Hyborian Ages into a video podcast. Enjoy. Creating an Age Undreamed Of