What was the first true graphic novel? Post examples!

[Theagenes]

There was an interesting OT dicussion in the HA Auction thread about which book should be considered the first graphic novel---a label that usually goes to It Rhymes with Lust. In order to keep from derailing the HA thread I've started this new one to continue the graphic novel discussion. Here are some the posts from the other thread.

 

 

My only point is that the notion that "It Rhymes With Lust" is the "first" graphic novel seems pretty absurd given that it came out in 1950, and almost 20 years earlier in 1931 a San Francisco cartoonist put out a semi-autobiographical book about the experiences of four immigrants to the United States (a topic very similar to those explored by Will Eisner four or five decades later in his graphic novels). But, if there's a better candidate for a true "comic format" graphic novel than Henry Kiyama's Manga Yonin Shoshei, I don't know what it is.

I missed these messages the first time around, but I really appreciate those sharing their knowledge on this subject. So I take it Henry Kiyama's "graphic novel" just slightly predates Lynn Ward's "graphic novels," but only by a couple years. Both sound very cool indeed.

 

I suppose that pretty much eliminates the possibility of "It Rhymes With Lust" holding the title of First Graphic Novel. However, is it fair to say "It Rhymes With Lust" is the first graphic novel of the pop-culture, mass-market comic book era?

 

It is interesting to note that the year of "It Rhymes With Lust," there were several other similar books that followed it, including (I think) "Mansion of Evil," "Hollywood Romance," and "Four Frightened Women" (or something like that) from Dell. All told, I think there are about 6 such books. What triggered this in 1950? I think that might be the same year that the "Out of This World" pulps were released which contained interior comic-book pages.

[Theagenes]

I would suggest the 1929 Tarzan Illustrated Book by Hal Foster should be considered as one of the first, if not the first, true graphic novels as well. It is, after a complete novel (Tarzan of the Apes) in comic strip format.

 

Good point. similar nods could be given to classic comics which quite literally turned novels into comic book form. And I am sure the historians here could point to many one-shots that either transformed a novel into comic form (maltese falcon) or told a novelistic story in comic form (anarcho(?)

 

True, but the Tarzan Illustrated Book is actually a book, not a comic book. And it dates to 1929.

[Theagenes]

I'd say no. It's a comic strip reprint collection, like the Little Nemo and other similar collections in prior years.

 

The other candidates for "First Graphic Novel" are composed of original material that was first published as one work, not reprinted collections of daily or weekly newspaper comic strips.

 

So is Watchmen a graphic novel? Or Maus? Or Dark Knight Returns? Or V fo Vendetta?

 

The first Tarzan strip was not an typical ongoing strip, but a serialized comic adaptation of a novel that was then collected in book form.

[Theagenes]

This would qualify:

 

[Theagenes]

Coming in late -- I hope this wasn't already mentioned.

 

If the Tarzan book doesn't qualify, don't forget Milt Gross' "He Done Her Wrong" from 1930.

 

 

Jack

 

[Theagenes]

 

So is Watchmen a graphic novel? Or Maus? Or Dark Knight Returns? Or V fo Vendetta?

 

The first Tarzan strip was not an typical ongoing strip, but a serialized comic adaptation of a novel that was then collected in book form.

 

Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns and V for Vendetta each appeared first as serialized comic books. The books that subsequently issued those stories are IMHO properly referred to as "collected editions." Those works were no conceived of or published as single "novels." To the contrary, the storytelling for Watchmen, as an example, was very much a product of its comic book format with cliff hangers and extra content that do not translate nearly as well in the collected edition as the comic books.

 

I know Maus first appeared in Raw, so I think the same analysis applies. But, as I sit here I don't know whether it was originally conceived as a novel, and then serialized in Raw, or was conceived as a story to be presented in monthly comic form, and then collected. In any event, Maus is a work of non-fiction.

 

I think that distinction is very important. Comic collectors now tend to use the term "graphic novel" to refer to a format (softcover or hardcover) without properly distinguishing between material that was conceived as a single novel versus material conceived as a series of comic book issues. Is a Marvel Masterworks volume collecting a run of a comic title a "graphic novel"? I think we all agree it is not. Is a book collecting a work conceived and originally published as a limited series a "graphic novel"? I think we should agree its not.

 

A graphic novel, as popularized by Will Eisner, is a work conceived and published as a single unified work of literary aspirations.

 

We're way OT here, but it's an interesting discussion, probably worthy of it's own thread. But you've helped make my point for me. The material in the Illustrated Tarzan Book was in fact conceived as a complete "picturized novel" from the beginning. It's a comic adaptation of the novel Tarzan of the Apes that was not originally intended to be a typical ongoing comic strip. In fact the strips weren't dated, but numbered so that newspapers that picked it up late could start at the beginning. After it was serialized in the newspapers it was immediately collected in a book format---just like many prose novels of that time were serialized in newspapers and magazines just prior to publication in book form. It is every bit as much of a graphic novel as Maus is.

[RedFury]

Even if you limited the selection criteria to books that came out in 1950, you might have a hard time anointing It Rhymes With Lust the first graphic novel. The same year saw the publication of 2 Dell graphic novels (Four Frightened Women and Twice Loved), 1 Fawcett (Mansion of Evil), another St John (besides It Rhymes With Lust they also published The Case of the Winking Buddha), and 2 from Comic Media (Honeymoon Romance #1-2).

[Theagenes]

 

So is Watchmen a graphic novel? Or Maus? Or Dark Knight Returns? Or V fo Vendetta?

 

The first Tarzan strip was not an typical ongoing strip, but a serialized comic adaptation of a novel that was then collected in book form.

 

Watchmen, Dark Knight Returns and V for Vendetta each appeared first as serialized comic books. The books that subsequently issued those stories are IMHO properly referred to as "collected editions." Those works were no conceived of or published as single "novels." To the contrary, the storytelling for Watchmen, as an example, was very much a product of its comic book format with cliff hangers and extra content that do not translate nearly as well in the collected edition as the comic books.

 

I know Maus first appeared in Raw, so I think the same analysis applies. But, as I sit here I don't know whether it was originally conceived as a novel, and then serialized in Raw, or was conceived as a story to be presented in monthly comic form, and then collected. In any event, Maus is a work of non-fiction.

 

I think that distinction is very important. Comic collectors now tend to use the term "graphic novel" to refer to a format (softcover or hardcover) without properly distinguishing between material that was conceived as a single novel versus material conceived as a series of comic book issues. Is a Marvel Masterworks volume collecting a run of a comic title a "graphic novel"? I think we all agree it is not. Is a book collecting a work conceived and originally published as a limited series a "graphic novel"? I think we should agree its not.

 

A graphic novel, as popularized by Will Eisner, is a work conceived and published as a single unified work of literary aspirations.

 

We're way OT here, but it's an interesting discussion, probably worthy of it's own thread. But you've helped make my point for me. The material in the Illustrated Tarzan Book was in fact conceived as a complete "picturized novel" from the beginning. It's a comic adaptation of the novel Tarzan of the Apes that was not originally intended to be a typical ongoing comic strip. In fact the strips weren't dated, but numbered so that newspapers that picked it up late could start at the beginning. After it was serialized in the newspapers it was immediately collected in a book format---just like many prose novels of that time were serialized in newspapers and magazines just prior to publication in book form. It is every bit as much of a graphic novel as Maus is.

 

And sfcityduck, I would just add that I completely agree with you that Henry Kiyama's Four Immigrants Manga is a true graphic novel. I think there is no doubt about that. But do you realize that he originally intended to have it published as a serialized newspaper strip, just like the "picturaized" Tarzan novel? It was only after he failed to get it in a newspaper that he went ahead and published it in book form. I think that trying to make a distinction between the two works is really splitting hairs. But the bottom line is that the Illustrated Tarzan Book is a complete novel in comic strip form published as a book and it came out two years earlier than Four Immigrants Manga.

[Doohickamabob]

Even if you limited the selection criteria to books that came out in 1950, you might have a hard time anointing It Rhymes With Lust the first graphic novel. The same year saw the publication of 2 Dell graphic novels (Four Frightened Women and Twice Loved), 1 Fawcett (Mansion of Evil), another St John (besides It Rhymes With Lust they also published The Case of the Winking Buddha), and 2 from Comic Media (Honeymoon Romance #1-2).

I think "It Rhymes With Lust" was released earlier in the year than those other titles, hence the claim of it being first. The proximity of all those releases does suggest there's more to the story.

[Theagenes]

Even if you limited the selection criteria to books that came out in 1950, you might have a hard time anointing It Rhymes With Lust the first graphic novel. The same year saw the publication of 2 Dell graphic novels (Four Frightened Women and Twice Loved), 1 Fawcett (Mansion of Evil), another St John (besides It Rhymes With Lust they also published The Case of the Winking Buddha), and 2 from Comic Media (Honeymoon Romance #1-2).

I think "It Rhymes With Lust" was released earlier in the year than those other titles, hence the claim of it being first. The proximity of all those releases does suggest there's more to the story.

 

It is interesting that they all came out that year in one burst of publishing, but then fizzled out.

[BOOT]

There was an interesting OT dicussion in the HA Auction thread about which book should be considered the first graphic novel---a label that usually goes to It Rhymes with Lust.

Theagenes, thanks for starting this thread! Maybe you could start one for people to show off early graphic novels, or just retitle this one. It's an area of collecting that's ripe for development!

 

Rodolphe Töpffer, a Swiss teacher and cartoonist, is generally credited with inventing the comic book/graphic novel. His bibliography, from Wikipedia:

 

* Histoire de M. Jabot - created 1831, first published 1833. It features the adventures of a middle class dandy who attempts to enter contemporary Upper class.

* Monsieur Crépin - first published in 1837. It features the adventures of a father who employs a series of tutors for his children and falls prey to their eccentricities.

* Histoire de M. Vieux Bois - created 1827, first published 1837.

* Monsieur Pencil - created 1831, first published 1840. An escalating series of events beginning with an artist losing his sketch to the blowing wind and almost resulting in a global war.

* Histoire d'Albert - first published in 1845. The adventures of an inexperienced young man in search of a career. After many attempts he ends up as a journalist in support of radical ideas.

* Histoire de Monsieur Cryptogame - first published in 1845. The story of a lepidopterist who goes to great lengths to replace his current lover with a more suitable one.

* Le Docteur Festus- created 1831, first published 1846. A scientist wanders the world, offering his assistance. He is blissfully unaware that disaster marks his path.

 

If you want to limit it to the United States, Histoire de M. Vieux Bois was first reprinted in the United States as a special supplement to Brother Jonathan, titled:

 

The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck

 

Date - 1842

 

There may be earlier graphic novels, but so far these seem to be the pioneers.

 

One could also argue that Obadiah Oldbuck was the first superhero...

 

BTW, the University Press of Mississippi produced a great book collecting all of Töpffer's works with English translation.

 

 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

And sfcityduck, I would just add that I completely agree with you that Henry Kiyama's Four Immigrants Manga is a true graphic novel. I think there is no doubt about that. But do you realize that he originally intended to have it published as a serialized newspaper strip, just like the "picturaized" Tarzan novel? It was only after he failed to get it in a newspaper that he went ahead and published it in book form. I think that trying to make a distinction between the two works is really splitting hairs. But the bottom line is that the Illustrated Tarzan Book is a complete novel in comic strip form published as a book and it came out two years earlier than Four Immigrants Manga.

 

There is a bit of speculation as to how Kiyama originally wanted to publish the story since he died a long time ago and the book wasn't really "discovered" until relatively recently. But, what is not in dispute is that he crafted the whole story as a single coherent whole and drew it all up at once before any part of it was published. In fact, he displayed the story at an art gallery before it was published. While he may have wanted to serialize the story, it was conceived as a single whole and published that way in the first instance.

 

The Foster Tarzan daily strips were a reprint of strips conceived and published as daily newspaper strips. Publication of the strips commenced before they were all drawn. The book was just a collection of those strips. No different than a collection of Terry and the Pirates or any other adventure strip.

 

And, as you point out, it wasn't an original story. It was just an adaptation of a novel. So it hardly can be called the first original graphic novel for two reasons: (1) it's not original, and (2) it's a reprint of newspaper comic strips.

[sfcityduck]

For me Oldbuck doesn't work because it is not done in the classic comic format with word balloons. It's is illustrations with captions, and I think that's a different bird.

[selegue]

 

Rodolphe Töpffer, a Swiss teacher and cartoonist, is generally credited with inventing the comic book/graphic novel. His bibliography, from Wikipedia:

 

 

If you want to limit it to the United States, Histoire de M. Vieux Bois was first reprinted in the United States as a special supplement to Brother Jonathan, titled:

 

The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck

 

Date - 1842

 

There may be earlier graphic novels, but so far these seem to be the pioneers.

 

One could also argue that Obadiah Oldbuck was the first superhero...

 

BTW, the University Press of Mississippi produced a great book collecting all of Töpffer's works with English translation.

 

 

 

JPS

[Theagenes]

And sfcityduck, I would just add that I completely agree with you that Henry Kiyama's Four Immigrants Manga is a true graphic novel. I think there is no doubt about that. But do you realize that he originally intended to have it published as a serialized newspaper strip, just like the "picturaized" Tarzan novel? It was only after he failed to get it in a newspaper that he went ahead and published it in book form. I think that trying to make a distinction between the two works is really splitting hairs. But the bottom line is that the Illustrated Tarzan Book is a complete novel in comic strip form published as a book and it came out two years earlier than Four Immigrants Manga.

 

There is a bit of speculation as to how Kiyama originally wanted to publish the story since he died a long time ago and the book wasn't really "discovered" until relatively recently. But, what is not in dispute is that he crafted the whole story as a single coherent whole and drew it all up at once before any part of it was published. In fact, he displayed the story at an art gallery before it was published. While he may have wanted to serialize the story, it was conceived as a single whole and published that way in the first instance.

 

The Foster Tarzan daily strips were a reprint of strips conceived and published as daily newspaper strips. Publication of the strips commenced before they were all drawn. The book was just a collection of those strips. No different than a collection of Terry and the Pirates or any other adventure strip.

 

You keep moving the goal posts. Originally you said it needed to be conceived as a complete novel. Now it also has to be conceived and completely finished prior to publication?

 

In any case it doesn't because you're flat out wrong about this. I'm sorry but there's no other way to put it. The entire series was completed prior to publication all at once as single coherent whole, to use your words, just like Kiyama. Foster was commissioned by Joseph Neebe, founder of Famous Books and Plays, in 1928 to produce 300 illustrations adapting Tarzan of the Apes (after John Allen St. John turn down the gig). Foster completed the job that fall and then went back to doing advertising work. The strip ran for ten weeks beginning that following January of 1929. Grosset and Dunlap had the book rights from the beginning and published the collected volume that summer. It was planned as a complete project, that would hopefully lead to sequels

 

Since the first series was successful, they decided to do it again by adapting the second book in the series The Return of Tarzan. This was also going to be published in book form as The Tarzan Illustrated Book No. 2, but since Rex Maxon's artwork was so terrible the plans were scrapped. The success of the two serialized novels led to the creation of the Tarzan color Sunday page in 1931 which was a more traditional newspaper strip.

 

But please don't take my word on all this---read Chapter 5 of Brian Kane's biography of Foster for the whole story.

 

I've been trying to explain this to you in several prior posts, but you you don't seem to get it, so let me use all caps. THE FIRST DAILY TARZAN STRIP WAS NOT AN ORDINARY NEWSPAPER STRIP! It was something completely different and it advertised itself as such. It was an illustrated novel---"picturized" is the adjective it used.

 

And, as you point out, it wasn't an original story. It was just an adaptation of a novel. So it hardly can be called the first original graphic novel for two reasons: (1) it's not original, and (2) it's a reprint of newspaper comic strips.

 

When did the question of originality come into play? Who says a graphic novel has to be completely original? Is this a graphic novel?

 

 

 

Or this?

 

 

 

 

Again you keep changing the definition of graphic novel to suit the needs of your argument, making what should be an interesting discussion kind of pointless. At the same time you've narrowed your definition of graphic novel so much that many of the books that everyone considers to be graphic novel (like Watchmen e.g.) would not fit your definition.

 

And as BOOT points out, we should probably be qualiftying this discussion of 20th century graphic novels with the adjective "modern."

[Theagenes]

For me Oldbuck doesn't work because it is not done in the classic comic format with word balloons. It's is illustrations with captions, and I think that's a different bird.

 

If you want to disqualify THe Illustated Tarzan Book from consideration this is a far better reason then any other you've given.

[sfcityduck]

 

You keep moving the goal posts. Originally you said it needed to be conceived as a complete novel. Now it also has to be conceived and completely finished prior to publication? ...

 

At the same time you've narrowed your definition of graphic novel so much that many of the books that everyone considers to be graphic novel (like Watchmen e.g.) would not fit your definition.

 

You are right that I am refining my thoughts on what the criteria should be for the first "graphic novel." Where I come from, give and take, flexibility in thinking, adapting your position to new thoughts and ideas, are all good things. I'm not one of those people who makes my first impression of an issue my last position on it.

 

Which is why I think you are making a compelling argument about the Foster book. I'd agree with you had it not been first printed as a comic strip. As I understand it, Foster was hired to create a daily strip and he did so. Maxon took that over from him (and kept on with the daily strip even after Foster came back on baord for the Sunday). If Foster instead was hired to create a novelization, and his work was conceived with the intent of being published in book form, then your argument becomes much stronger.

 

Our only point of disagreement at that point is that I don't view Watchmen as a "graphic novel" in the true sense of the word. It was a comic book series that written and drafted for monthly publication, and only was "collected" as a book due to marketing impetus after the fact. To me, a true "graphic novel" must be conceived and published in that format in the first instance.

 

Otherwise, everything is a "graphic novel" if you just change the format. That makes the term meaningless. There should be a distinction between a collected edition and a "graphic novel." Spirit Archives v. 1 is a collected edition. A Contract With God is a graphic novel.

[sfcityduck]

For me Oldbuck doesn't work because it is not done in the classic comic format with word balloons. It's is illustrations with captions, and I think that's a different bird.

 

If you want to disqualify THe Illustated Tarzan Book from consideration this is a far better reason then any other you've given.

 

True.

[Theagenes]

 

You keep moving the goal posts. Originally you said it needed to be conceived as a complete novel. Now it also has to be conceived and completely finished prior to publication? ...

 

At the same time you've narrowed your definition of graphic novel so much that many of the books that everyone considers to be graphic novel (like Watchmen e.g.) would not fit your definition.

 

You are right that I am refining my thoughts on what the criteria should be for the first "graphic novel." Where I come from, give and take, flexibility in thinking, adapting your position to new thoughts and ideas, are all good things. I'm not one of those people who makes my first impression of an issue my last position on it.

 

Which is why I think you are making a compelling argument about the Foster book. I'd agree with you had it not been first printed as a comic strip. As I understand it, Foster was hired to create a daily strip and he did so. Maxon took that over from him (and kept on with the daily strip even after Foster came back on baord for the Sunday). If Foster instead was hired to create a novelization, and his work was conceived with the intent of being published in book form, then your argument becomes much stronger.

 

Our only point of disagreement at that point is that I don't view Watchmen as a "graphic novel" in the true sense of the word. It was a comic book series that written and drafted for monthly publication, and only was "collected" as a book due to marketing impetus after the fact. To me, a true "graphic novel" must be conceived and published in that format in the first instance.

 

Otherwise, everything is a "graphic novel" if you just change the format. That makes the term meaningless. There should be a distinction between a collected edition and a "graphic novel." Spirit Archives v. 1 is a collected edition. A Contract With God is a graphic novel.

 

I guess that's the point I was trying to make. The Tarzan strip was originally conceived as not as a typical newspaper strip, but as a series of serialized illustrated novels that would also be published in book form. After the first two serializations Tarzan of the Apes by Foster and The Return of Tarzan by Maxon and the single book, the original plans were changed and it became a regular ongoing newspaper strip (Both dailies and sundays by Maxon at first, before Foster came back and took over the sunday).

 

As I said a better reason to disqualify it is the lack of word balloons. To some people this matters, but to others it doesn't. I go back and forth on the issue.

 

[dgillock]

Just to stir the pot, I would like to throw Lynd Ward's name into the mix -- particularly his very "graphic" novel Gods' Man. from 1929. Thoughts? Does the lack of text discount this work or does it make it even more relevant to this discussion?