ORIGINS of the American Comic Book 0

[Sqeggs]

A (tentative) observation: The ebbs and flows in the popularity of superhero comics during their first 40 years were driven in part -- mainly? -- by changes in the comic buying population.

 

Young men, 18 to 25 years old, in the armed forces, separated from their families, with time on their hands, and with limited entertainment options were a ready market for superhero books but would have been much less interested in funny animal or other comic books. Those men returned to civilian life, completing college, entering the workforce, and starting families were unlikely to still be interested in comic books. Hence, the rise and fall of superhero comics during the 1940s.

 

The baby boom beginning in 1946 provided an audience for books aimed at young children. Hence, the enormous popularity of WDC&S and other funny animal books in the 1950s and the struggles of superhero books.

 

Baby boomers moving into their preteen and early teen years found Spiderman and the Fantastic Four more interesting -- and way cooler -- than Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge. Hence, the revival in sales of superhero books relative to funny animal books during the 1960s.

 

Baby boomers moving into their mid to late teen years tired of the rather naive stories found in 1960s Marvel and DC and drifted away from comics. Hence, the sales declines in superhero books post-1969.

 

Data and supporting multiple regression results available on request.

[Cat-Man_America]

 

It's similar with the pulps, though even more exagerrated. There are probably only about a dozen or so Hero Pulps, yet hero pulp collectors have traditionally dominated that marketplace. And despite the fact the hero pulp didn't exist for the first 40 years of pulp production, died out in less than 20 years, and produced only a few titles, there are many in that environment who would contend that the hero pulp was the defining genre of that form.

 

[font:Times New Roman]I would suggest that hero pulps died for the same reason that most other pulps gradually disappeared, ...the success of smaller, more convenient, easily transportable digests (blame John W. Campbell) and mass market paperbacks. SF and romance pulps held on longest, but by the late 40's the format was already on life-support.

 

For years the Shadow pulp was published twice monthly, and the Shadow is about as close to a costumed superhero as ever existed in the pulps given the character's exotic mental powers, disguised appearance and cape (cloak). How many solo character or other genre pulps were published twice monthly?

 

When discussing pulps, I'm not persuaded that the quantity of books on the market at any given time present a good snapshot of hero genre popularity. There were quite a few that crossed-over into other genres (such as detective, WWI flying aces, G-Men, spies, etc.) that could arguably be described as hero pulps. For that reason, it seems to me that pulps are more difficult to label by genre than comics. My

 

Tim, these discussions are substantive, interesting and informative. Clearly the viewpoints that you and Bob are providing add immensely to this thread, varied perspectives and semantical differences notwithstanding.

 

My views are more along the lines that have been expressed by West, Bill, Richard and others, but I'd never dismiss the scholarship that you and Bob contribute. If I've learned one thing over the years it's that passionate folks can reach different conclusions from historical data. That's part of the rich tapestry of debate.

 

Although I'm a devoted GA superhero comic collector, I'm also passionate about SF, hero pulps and cover art...

 

 

 

 

 

 

... and have some scholarship in those areas as well. [/font]

[BLBcomics-migration]

Whether the origins of comics started with Famous Funnies or from some obscure book from century's past, I think we can all agree that comics did not start with the Superhero. That said, there is no denying it's influence.

 

The fact is, Superheroes have been the driving force of comics for the past 50+ years. There is no evidence to lead us that some other genre other than the Superhero will dominate the next 50 years.

 

Some of the old timers can probably remember when Superheroes were in the minority on the stands. However, as time marches on, no one will be around to talk about the "glory days" of seeing more romance books than superhero books for sale. To be honest, I'd bet those old timers would say those times were less exciting than the Golder Age era or the Superhero resurgence of the 60's.

 

History is often based more on one's perspective, more so than actual events. Clearly Bob's perspective is far different than most others.

 

West,

I think I have read too many comics. Mayebe it was visiting with legendary comics collector Ernie McGee NJ starting back in 1971. He was in his 80s then, born in 1884, began seriously collecting comics in 1914. It was his Yellow Kid complete run which Jack Herbet NYC bought from Ernie's daughters in 1976 after his death, who in turn donated that YK run upon his death to Bill Blackbeard SF, who, in turn, used it to make the 1995 Yellow Kid book Kitchen published

 

or, Bill Blackbeard himself, another long time friend now passed on. A couple hundred treks in to his San Francisco Academy of Comic Art

 

Or simply the years I spent traveling to major holdings of 1800s comics stuff making the OPG indexes of Vict and Plat - seeing the wealth of fable created by thousands of comics creators I never knew existed until i went on my quest once I read about 1800s comics in a 1946 Gersham Legman article

 

For a very long time I used to believe like the many of the contrary postings I have read here. Then i saw "the light" - the light of Comics Truth

 

I believed the mantra taught for a long time:

YK first comic strip in 1895,

FF first comic book in 1934.

 

then went thru a (short) period of feeling maybe everything one thought one knew was wrong. Now, I have been a bit fascinated with the concentration on of importance attached to "super hero" comics supposedly 'saving' American comic books. To me, that remains simply silly, and not seeking to cause umbrage in any one when I uses the term.

 

In the 20s and 30s comic strips artists were some of the highest paid entertainers in the country. I have pictures of 20,000 fans swarming to see George McManus in 1923, one might almost call it a comics festival, or some such term one might want to use.

 

If Donenfeld had never published Action Comics #1, George Delacorte would still have entered in to his comic book publishing contracts.

 

The later was "there" pioneering original material news stand comics periodicals since the the late 1920s. When Delacorte sold out his 50-50 partnership in Famous Funnies and began putting Popular Comics together by mid 1935, Gaines came to work for him as editor, whom in turn, hired a teenaged Shelly Mayer. Hence, there still would have been a Scribbly....

 

The comic "book" magazine industry would still havbe evolved with or without Superman and his "spawn"

 

I also think the side stiched periodical comics magazine is a dinosaur slowly finally on its was out as a viable publishing format except for a very few titles as e-book delivery continues to accelerate via generational change in entertainment delivery systems.

[Cat-Man_America]

Whether the origins of comics started with Famous Funnies or from some obscure book from century's past, I think we can all agree that comics did not start with the Superhero. That said, there is no denying it's influence.

 

The fact is, Superheroes have been the driving force of comics for the past 50+ years. There is no evidence to lead us that some other genre other than the Superhero will dominate the next 50 years.

 

Some of the old timers can probably remember when Superheroes were in the minority on the stands. However, as time marches on, no one will be around to talk about the "glory days" of seeing more romance books than superhero books for sale. To be honest, I'd bet those old timers would say those times were less exciting than the Golder Age era or the Superhero resurgence of the 60's.

 

History is often based more on one's perspective, more so than actual events. Clearly Bob's perspective is far different than most others.

 

West,

I think I have read too many comics. Mayebe it was visiting with legendary comics collector Ernie McGee NJ starting back in 1971. He was in his 80s then, born in 1884, began seriously collecting comics in 1914. It was his Yellow Kid complete run which Jack Herbet NYC bought from Ernie's daughters in 1976 after his death, who in turn donated that YK run upon his death to Bill Blackbeard SF, who, in turn, used it to make the 1995 Yellow Kid book Kitchen published

 

or, Bill Blackbeard himself, another long time friend now passed on. A couple hundred treks in to his San Francisco Academy of Comic Art

 

Or simply the years I spent traveling to major holdings of 1800s comics stuff making the OPG indexes of Vict and Plat - seeing the wealth of fable created by thousands of comics creators I never knew existed until i went on my quest once I read about 1800s comics in a 1946 Gersham Legman article

 

For a very long time I used to believe like the many of the contrary postings I have read here. Then i saw "the light" - the light of Comics Truth

 

I believed the mantra taught for a long time:

YK first comic strip in 1895,

FF first comic book in 1934.

 

then went thru a (short) period of feeling maybe everything one thought one knew was wrong. Now, I have been a bit fascinated with the concentration on of importance attached to "super hero" comics supposedly 'saving' American comic books. To me, that remains simply silly, and not seeking to cause umbrage in any one when I uses the term.

 

In the 20s and 30s comic strips artists were some of the highest paid entertainers in the country. I have pictures of 20,000 fans swarming to see George McManus in 1923, one might almost call it a comics festival, or some such term one might want to use.

 

If Donenfeld had never published Action Comics #1, George Delacorte would still have entered in to his comic book publishing contracts.

 

The later was "there" pioneering original material news stand comics periodicals since the the late 1920s. When Delacorte sold out his 50-50 partnership in Famous Funnies and began putting Popular Comics together by mid 1935, Gaines came to work for him as editor, whom in turn, hired a teenaged Shelly Mayer. Hence, there still would have been a Scribbly....

 

The comic "book" magazine industry would still havbe evolved with or without Superman and his "spawn"

 

I also think the side stiched periodical comics magazine is a dinosaur slowly finally on its was out as a viable publishing format except for a very few titles as e-book delivery continues to accelerate via generational change in entertainment delivery systems.

 

[font:Times New Roman]This was never the mantra that I was taught, nor does it coincide with my own research.

 

If memory serves, the Yellow Kid has always been portrayed as the first regularly appearing color newspaper comic, ...that's a far cry from the first comic strip, B&W sequential art or whatever. That still holds true, until proven otherwise. Furthermore, along the comic continuum, the Yellow Kid is much closer to both newspaper comic strips and the comic book by heritage, color being an important element in that evolution from a historical perspective.

 

Famous Funnies is still regarded as the first comic book because comic books as we know them are essentially not books, but rather periodicals. This is one of the ironic paradoxes of the genre, the other obvious one being that most comics (at least the well known, popular comics) are not really comic (in the comedic sense)[/font].

[Bookery]

I would suggest that hero pulps died for the same reason that most other pulps gradually disappeared, ...the success of smaller, more convenient, easily transportable digests (blame John W. Campbell) and mass market paperbacks. SF and romance pulps held on longest, but by the late 40's the format was already on life-support.

 

The hero pulps from S&S attempted the move to digest format as well, but without success. They also took their heroes off of the covers and downplayed them in their own magazines! This is another factor in the rise and fall of genres and titles that adds to historical complexity. We tend to assume the success of titles is entirely due to public demand for them. But this isn't always the case. Sometimes titles or concepts fail simply because of editorial ineptitude. Street & Smith, always tamer with their covers than say Popular or Fiction House, nevertheless decided they weren't "staid" enough, and took the flashy heroes off the covers in favor of more "literary" abstractions and simple designs. It was probably also cheaper than paying artists for full-art paintings. But I doubt if this helped their sales any, especially to the core audiences they'd already developed.

 

In paperbacks, there are numerous cases of new art directors (who seemed to change every couple of years) yanking great artists and artwork off of certain lines to replace them with their own "more distinguished" sensibilities. Even if sales decreased, egos seemed to be in play and often bad decisions stayed in place for long periods.

 

For years the Shadow pulp was published twice monthly, and the Shadow is about as close to a costumed superhero as ever existed in the pulps given the character's exotic mental powers, disguised appearance and cape (cloak). How many solo character or other genre pulps were published twice monthly?

 

When discussing pulps, I'm not persuaded that the quantity of books on the market at any given time present a good snapshot of hero genre popularity. There were quite a few that crossed-over into other genres (such as detective, WWI flying aces, G-Men, spies, etc.) that could arguably be described as hero pulps. For that reason, it seems to me that pulps are more difficult to label by genre than comics. My

 

There is no doubt The Shadow was one of the major success stories for the pulps while they lasted. The Shadow was also aided by being a spin-off from an already popular radio show. But in pulps, unlike comics, I don't think there is one genre that you can say symbolizes the form. Which is more important... Astounding Stories or Black Mask? The massively popular Argosy, or Weird Tales?

 

I think folks are misunderstanding me, or maybe merging my posts with Bob's. I find Bob's posts fascinating, but I don't really have an opinion on them beyond the obvious fact that there is an American comic book tradition of some sort going back to the mid-1800s, and that it appears fairly substantial. But I simply don't know enough about Victorian comics to offer further debate on the various controversies.

 

I also agree that probably from the mid-50s on, the world wide perception of the prototypical comic character would overwhelmingly have been Superman (except now, I suspect it might be Spider-Man). I think (but can't prove) that in the 50s this was due to the Superman TV show, however, and not the comics which were in severe decline at the time.

 

Mainly, I part ways with others here only in that I don't believe Action #1 at the time of its release was as earth-shattering a change for the comics industry as has often been historically presented, and it certainly didn't "save" an industry that had nowhere to go but up. I think in 1945 if you asked people what was the most famous comics character, I believe you would get a wide variety of answers, primarily based upon the age of the respondent. Kids would probably say Captain Marvel... little kids might say Mickey Mouse... older adults might cite Tarzan or Little Orphan Annie or Flash Gordon.

 

Super-hereos eventually became the dominant and defining genre of (American) comic books... but it didn't happen overnight... they had to struggle and nearly disappear and rise again before that happened. And they rose both because of proactive reasons (Kirby & Lee and the movement by Marvel to push the hero toward a slightly older audience), and by default (TV rendering westerns and romance and spy stories no longer competitive as a comic genre, and Congress putting pressure on the industry to annihilate the hugely popular crime and horror lines).

 

The prevailing wisdom had always been, in 1938, Superman shows up and creates an industry that otherwise would have died on the vine. I believe, the correct historical record shows that the super-hero fought some hard battles (sometimes between themselves), struggled with adversity, regained its "powers" and eventually emerged triumphant. The history of super-heroes is itself a classic super-hero story.

 

And beyond that, the continued study of comics history keeps showing us just how long that history really was, and that there was a rich variety of genres, formats and experimentation in the form, much of what is being forgotten today... and that would be a true loss.

 

 

 

[MrBedrock]

 

The prevailing wisdom had always been, in 1938, Superman shows up and creates an industry that otherwise would have died on the vine. I believe, the correct historical record shows that the super-hero fought some hard battles (sometimes between themselves), struggled with adversity, regained its "powers" and eventually emerged triumphant. The history of super-heroes is itself a classic super-hero story.

 

And beyond that, the continued study of comics history keeps showing us just how long that history really was, and that there was a rich variety of genres, formats and experimentation in the form, much of what is being forgotten today... and that would be a true loss.

 

 

Part of the reason that that viewpoint is prevailing is that it was set forth by many of the members of early fandom who lived through that time period. The Jerry Bails and G.B. Loves of the world were establishing that prevailing wisdom in the early 1960s, just over twenty years after Action 1 came out. Certainly they were more along the lines of us, collectors, and not the general public, so they had an interest in Superman above and beyond what any Joe Blow buying comics in the late '30s would have had. But every one of those collectors who I have spoken with who remember buying comics when Action 1 came out all say it had a tremendous impact on them and their interest in comics in general. Roy Bonario, our local god-father of collecting, has gone further and said that comics were the currency of youth, bartered for any number of things, and early Superman appearances had more trade value than any other comics...even pre-Superman 1.

[Theagenes]

 

The prevailing wisdom had always been, in 1938, Superman shows up and creates an industry that otherwise would have died on the vine. I believe, the correct historical record shows that the super-hero fought some hard battles (sometimes between themselves), struggled with adversity, regained its "powers" and eventually emerged triumphant. The history of super-heroes is itself a classic super-hero story.

 

And beyond that, the continued study of comics history keeps showing us just how long that history really was, and that there was a rich variety of genres, formats and experimentation in the form, much of what is being forgotten today... and that would be a true loss.

 

 

Part of the reason that that viewpoint is prevailing is that it was set forth by many of the members of early fandom who lived through that time period. The Jerry Bails and G.B. Loves of the world were establishing that prevailing wisdom in the early 1960s, just over twenty years after Action 1 came out. Certainly they were more along the lines of us, collectors, and not the general public, so they had an interest in Superman above and beyond what any Joe Blow buying comics in the late '30s would have had. But every one of those collectors who I have spoken with who remember buying comics when Action 1 came out all say it had a tremendous impact on them and their interest in comics in general. Roy Bonario, our local god-father of collecting, has gone further and said that comics were the currency of youth, bartered for any number of things, and early Superman appearances had more trade value than any other comics...even pre-Superman 1.

 

Now that's interesting. I missed that.

[Bookery]

 

The prevailing wisdom had always been, in 1938, Superman shows up and creates an industry that otherwise would have died on the vine. I believe, the correct historical record shows that the super-hero fought some hard battles (sometimes between themselves), struggled with adversity, regained its "powers" and eventually emerged triumphant. The history of super-heroes is itself a classic super-hero story.

 

And beyond that, the continued study of comics history keeps showing us just how long that history really was, and that there was a rich variety of genres, formats and experimentation in the form, much of what is being forgotten today... and that would be a true loss.

 

 

Part of the reason that that viewpoint is prevailing is that it was set forth by many of the members of early fandom who lived through that time period. The Jerry Bails and G.B. Loves of the world were establishing that prevailing wisdom in the early 1960s, just over twenty years after Action 1 came out. Certainly they were more along the lines of us, collectors, and not the general public, so they had an interest in Superman above and beyond what any Joe Blow buying comics in the late '30s would have had. But every one of those collectors who I have spoken with who remember buying comics when Action 1 came out all say it had a tremendous impact on them and their interest in comics in general. Roy Bonario, our local god-father of collecting, has gone further and said that comics were the currency of youth, bartered for any number of things, and early Superman appearances had more trade value than any other comics...even pre-Superman 1.

 

That's because there is no more intense collector in literature than the sf-fantasy collector. It's the same in the book market. People who loved fantasy, which in earlier times was primarily adolescent boys, certainly gravitated toward that. Ray Bradbury has said that the movie King Kong changed his life... it's what eventually made him a fantasy writer. Many other sf-genre writers tell similar stories, whether their inspiration came from Universal horror movies or Flash Gordon, or even Superman. But of course a big splashy fantasy tale is going to inspire people with a predilection towrd big splashy fantasy tales.

 

Because Weird Tales was a big seller in the 1930s, and because in decades since, H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard have had a huge impact on the fantasy genre, and inspired or created dozens of other authors, doesn't mean that even in their heyday, more Americans would have cited them as an exemplar of American literature than John Steinbeck or Mark Twain.

 

Superman, in the 1940s, was designed for fairly young children. It was expected that as you got older, assuming you still read comics, that you would gravitate toward more complex or teen/adult-oriented comics... whether that was teen humor, or Prince Valiant or Li'l Abner or Pogo or The Spirit...

 

SF (and hero) collectors collect everything in their genre, however. Edgar Rice Burroughs will sit on their shelves next to Arthur C. Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson, and they will continue to enjoy them all.

 

It's purely anecdotal, of course, but my father (born in 1934) remembers owning Superman and Batman comics, but doesn't recall anything specific about them in the early 40s. he does recall, much more fondly, Captain Marvel and Blue Beetle (!). Other septuanegarians I've talked to (and its not been many) never seemed to have read super-heroes much at all... usually it's westerns or Archie they remember.

 

Yes... King Kong had a huge impact on many young boys of the 1930s, and it was a big hit for Hollywood. But it didn't permanently "alter" the cinema landscape, and giant monsters wouldn't stage a major comeback until the 1950s.

 

But yes... I believe you have a good point... history is written by those who take the time to write it... and since the readers of most other genres moved on as they got older, the sf-fantasy crowd stuck with their favorites, collected them, sought out similar collectors, and began to write the narrative, often flawed from their own limited perspetives, that abounds to this day.

 

Mystery fiction was far bigger in the 1930s than was science-fiction... but there was no World Chandler Convention in 1939, or annual conventions featuring Agatha Christie and Rex Stout in which "Wolfie" Awards were given out. The intensity of the sf/fantasy fan shouldn't be confused with overall popularity in America, or even awareness in some cases.

 

[Bookery]

I'm not typical, I'm sure, but I do remember my own personal comics progression. In fact, given time as they came into the store, I could probably put back together nearly my entire comic collection from the '60s, as I recall almost every issue, especially as I come across them. I even had all of my comics still in my possession up until I opened the shop in 1984. I realized then they were too beat up to sell for the most part, and threw almost all of them away the week the doors opened in favor of better copies I was beginning to purchase for the store.

 

I remember, not clearly, but to some extent, dressing up in towel-capes and running around with other neighborhood kids as super-heroes. I'm pretty sure I was usually Batman, and maybe sometimes Green Lantern. Nobody seemed into Superman too much, and no one I knew was into Marvel very much (I don't even think the first 2-3 years of Marvel were even distributed locally in our area). We knew who the Marvel characters were... but that was due to the Saturday cartoons more than the comics.

 

I eventually bought some of everything... super-heroes, Uncle Scrooge, Classics Illustrated, Richie Rich and Hot Stuff, and lots and lots of Dell & Gold Key movie tie-ins (they were the endlessly re-playable DVDs of our day). I remember clearly what I considered my all-time favorite comics and the ones I read to death... the Challengers-Doom Patrol crossover whose story was continued and I didn't find until 20 years later (it turns out the Challengers survived... whew!). I liked the big 2-part Starfinger story in Legion. I loved (and destroyed with re-reading) Dell's Creature of the Black Lagoon comic, the 68-page King Kong comic from Gold Key, and the El Dorado adaptation. These are the clearest in my memory because I read them over and over.

 

But at about age 10 I started to gravitate away from super-heroes (as did everyone else I knew), and by 13 I was pretty much out of comics altogether having begun to prefer paperback novels. By 1970-1972 (age 12-14) the only comics I remember buying were some of the Marvel monster reprints, Creepy, Eerie, and scattered issues of Mad and Cracked. This was probably fairly typical of the time, at least in my corner of the world.

 

I think, aside from the soldiers overseas angle, that that was not an atypical progression in the 1940s either. What I was unaware of was just as I was getting out of comics, Marvel was pushing product toward a more adult audience, and in the 1970s Marvel heroes were being avidly read by high school and college students as well. The stories had matured, and it was no longer a kids-only genre.

 

Today, everything has flipped. Adults read super-heroes, and the vast majority of kids want little to do with them!

 

[Theagenes]

the 68-page King Kong comic from Gold Key

 

I had the later 70's treasury version when I was a kid and it was favorite comic. I read it over and over until it was it coverless, tattered wreck.

 

When I got back into collecting as adult it was one of the first things I had to track down. Pure nostalgia.

 

 

[Bookery]

the 68-page King Kong comic from Gold Key

 

I had the later 70's treasury version when I was a kid and it was favorite comic. I read it over and over until it was it coverless, tattered wreck.

 

When I got back into collecting as adult it was one of the first things I had to track down. Pure nostalgia.

 

 

 

My copy probably never looked that good even on the stands! (wire spinner rack at the drug store).

 

For many on these boards, comics were probably a central part of their childhoods. I loved them as a kid, but we didn't think any more about them than other amusements of youth. I had accumulated maybe 300 of them between 1963-1972. But I DO still remember my amazement when saw this issue. It just came out of the blue... standing there, slowly spinning the rack, trying to choose which 3 or 4 issues I would buy with that week's allowance. Then "King Kong" rolls into view. Suddenly, 35 years after the movie's release... here it is! And the art was spectacular. I don't think there's another comic I recall actually seeing on the rack so vividly.

 

"King Kong" rarely showed on TV when I was a kid... and of course, back then, if you had to be somewhere else when it came on, you missed it. But now,I could revisit the story over and over... the action was even grander than in the movie, and it was even in color!

 

[MrBedrock]

Tim, one other tiny thing you have mentioned a few times that I'd like to refute a little (though I think for the most part you are probably correct). You state that Superman probably didn't reach his full popularity until the TV series in the '50s. That may be true but it does ignore the Fleischer cartoon series of the early '40s. I have heard and read that the Fleischer studios was spending around $50,000 per episode on those cartoons, the most money spent per frame on animation up to that time. If that is true they must have felt there was a pretty sizable audience for Superman in general and their Superman cartoons in particular. If nothing else it does show the relative popularity of Superman as a property in 1941.

[Straw-Man]

the 68-page King Kong comic from Gold Key

 

I had the later 70's treasury version when I was a kid and it was favorite comic. I read it over and over until it was it coverless, tattered wreck.

 

When I got back into collecting as adult it was one of the first things I had to track down. Pure nostalgia.

 

 

 

this here is plenty of funny-book. i like it; i like it alot.

[Bookery]

Tim, one other tiny thing you have mentioned a few times that I'd like to refute a little (though I think for the most part you are probably correct). You state that Superman probably didn't reach his full popularity until the TV series in the '50s. That may be true but it does ignore the Fleischer cartoon series of the early '40s. I have heard and read that the Fleischer studios was spending around $50,000 per episode on those cartoons, the most money spent per frame on animation up to that time. If that is true they must have felt there was a pretty sizable audience for Superman in general and their Superman cartoons in particular. If nothing else it does show the relative popularity of Superman as a property in 1941.

 

Good point! And there were certainly plenty of toy and coloring book and puzzle tie-ins in the '40s. Fawcett put out tons of Marvel Family products as well... though mostly of the paper variety, whereas Superman had wind-up dolls, linens, and other merchandise. I'm surprised DC never got into BLBs (the books, not the Beerbohms). Superman was popular enough in the '40s that he would rank pretty high up the cross-merchandising ladder, perhaps topped only by Hopalong Cassidy, Tarzan, maybe Popeye, not sure... and of course the all-time champion cross-promoter... Disney. Superman was alone, however, cross-promoting from the comic book outward... for others, the comic book was the cross-promotion.

[VintageComics]

That's because there is no more intense collector in literature than the sf-fantasy collector. It's the same in the book market. People who loved fantasy, which in earlier times was primarily adolescent boys, certainly gravitated toward that. Ray Bradbury has said that the movie King Kong changed his life... it's what eventually made him a fantasy writer. Many other sf-genre writers tell similar stories, whether their inspiration came from Universal horror movies or Flash Gordon, or even Superman. But of course a big splashy fantasy tale is going to inspire people with a predilection towrd big splashy fantasy tales.

 

Because Weird Tales was a big seller in the 1930s, and because in decades since, H.P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard have had a huge impact on the fantasy genre, and inspired or created dozens of other authors, doesn't mean that even in their heyday, more Americans would have cited them as an exemplar of American literature than John Steinbeck or Mark Twain.

 

Superman, in the 1940s, was designed for fairly young children. It was expected that as you got older, assuming you still read comics, that you would gravitate toward more complex or teen/adult-oriented comics... whether that was teen humor, or Prince Valiant or Li'l Abner or Pogo or The Spirit...

 

SF (and hero) collectors collect everything in their genre, however. Edgar Rice Burroughs will sit on their shelves next to Arthur C. Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson, and they will continue to enjoy them all.

 

It's purely anecdotal, of course, but my father (born in 1934) remembers owning Superman and Batman comics, but doesn't recall anything specific about them in the early 40s. he does recall, much more fondly, Captain Marvel and Blue Beetle (!). Other septuanegarians I've talked to (and its not been many) never seemed to have read super-heroes much at all... usually it's westerns or Archie they remember.

 

Yes... King Kong had a huge impact on many young boys of the 1930s, and it was a big hit for Hollywood. But it didn't permanently "alter" the cinema landscape, and giant monsters wouldn't stage a major comeback until the 1950s.

 

But yes... I believe you have a good point... history is written by those who take the time to write it... and since the readers of most other genres moved on as they got older, the sf-fantasy crowd stuck with their favorites, collected them, sought out similar collectors, and began to write the narrative, often flawed from their own limited perspetives, that abounds to this day.

 

Mystery fiction was far bigger in the 1930s than was science-fiction... but there was no World Chandler Convention in 1939, or annual conventions featuring Agatha Christie and Rex Stout in which "Wolfie" Awards were given out. The intensity of the sf/fantasy fan shouldn't be confused with overall popularity in America, or even awareness in some cases.

 

I think you just may have hit another nail on the head - the collector was not the target market, it was the reader.

 

Again, I think that a timeline with best selling comics would show which comics were being bought and read on a monthly time line.

 

Is it possible that many readers of non fantasy stuff (funny animal, humour, etc) did not become collectors, mainly because the funny stuff seems to have a "one off" story while fantasy was more intricate and detailed, and had cohesion from issue to issue very possibly causing people to want to collect them.

 

Readers became collectors. Is it possible that fantasy readers became fantasy collectors more often than non fantasy readers becoming non fantasy collectors?

 

I can't answer that for sure as I wasn't there but it makes me think that the answer is a definite maybe.

 

If in fact fantasy collectors dominate the hobby that would definitely give the perspective in hindsight that fantasy was more popular, when in fact Disney and other titles could have outsold them - those readers just weren't around to compare notes as collectors.

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

HUGO HERCULES 1902 by J. Koerner, Chicago Tribune,

earliest known super hero in the comics,

this page from The Comic Strip Century, 1995,

edited by Bill Blackbeard

[MrBedrock]

Pretty scans, Bob

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

CARICATURE AND OTHER COMIC ART

By James Parton, 1877, Harper & Bros, NYC

First history book written and published in America

about earlier comics & cartoons

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

FORGING A NEW MEDIUM

The Comic Strip in the Nineteenth Century

VUB University Press, 1998,

edited by Pascal Lefevre & Charles Dierick

 

This was the book which inspired me to start the PlatinumAgeComics list on yahoogroups.com in mid 1999. Contains articles by various authors on international scale exploring comic strip evolutions in the 1800s. Interested parties should track this seminal book down. Topffer has a chapter by Thierry Groensteen, then head curator of the Angouleme comics museum in France

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

The prevailing wisdom had always been, in 1938, Superman shows up and creates an industry that otherwise would have died on the vine. I believe, the correct historical record shows that the super-hero fought some hard battles (sometimes between themselves), struggled with adversity, regained its "powers" and eventually emerged triumphant. The history of super-heroes is itself a classic super-hero story.

 

And beyond that, the continued study of comics history keeps showing us just how long that history really was, and that there was a rich variety of genres, formats and experimentation in the form, much of what is being forgotten today... and that would be a true loss.

 

 

Part of the reason that that viewpoint is prevailing is that it was set forth by many of the members of early fandom who lived through that time period. The Jerry Bails and G.B. Loves of the world were establishing that prevailing wisdom in the early 1960s, just over twenty years after Action 1 came out. Certainly they were more along the lines of us, collectors, and not the general public, so they had an interest in Superman above and beyond what any Joe Blow buying comics in the late '30s would have had. But every one of those collectors who I have spoken with who remember buying comics when Action 1 came out all say it had a tremendous impact on them and their interest in comics in general. Roy Bonario, our local god-father of collecting, has gone further and said that comics were the currency of youth, bartered for any number of things, and early Superman appearances had more trade value than any other comics...even pre-Superman 1.

 

back when Jerry Bails was still alive, I used to stay at his home in the Detroit area after long days in my booths at Mike Goldman shows. I inteviewed him extensively on a host of comics history concepts. One thing he was adamant about was the "silly" aspect of Gold Silver Bronze and especially "copper" describing 'ages" of the comic books.

 

He was wont to say "every one' has a "Golden Age of Comics was a youth

 

he always used the

First Heroic Age describing 1938-1945

Second Heroic Age describing 1959-1968.

 

We talked a lot about the concept there ALWAYS would have been a thriving comic book industry sans Superman. Some how the comic book industry THRIVED with out men in tights for some 15 years inbetween the First and Second Heroic ages of the comics.

 

Also, Roy Bonario was brought up here. I would like to take a moment here to publicly thank Roy, Marc Schooley, and others who, at my first comicon ever, Houstoncon 67 held June 17 18 that year, I took a Greyhound bus down there from Fremont here for some 28 non stop hours, leaving out age 14, turning 15 that first day Saturday, my birthday.

 

Trip is, my brother Gary had just died of a leukemia they barely had a name for just three weeks prior. The week of the show I simply announced to my parents I was catching the Greyhound to trek to Houston for something called a comic book convention.

 

Roy and Marc had had a 3.5 page advert in RBCC #47 Oct 1966. My brother gary and mine's very first ad - a ten liner costing a buck to place - was on that last half page of their HUGE ad. The first page of their ad had the cryptic "Houstoncon 67 is coming in June, watch for it" or some such.

 

These Houston guys and other Comics Gurus from around the country who came to this early gathering of the tribes, many of them long gone now, helped me put my grief away for a couple days.

 

I was such a "silly" young teenager lost in his thoughts, i had not paused to think where I might stay the nights of the show, so Bill Wallace let me bunk with him and Anthony Smith. Wonderful people.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHHk4j5t0uw

 

Also, this was just sent to me by long time friend Bruce Shults who placed it on YouTube, footage taken by Don Maris of the first Multicon 70 in Oklahoma City. I saw myself at 25 seconds, 18 years old, sitting behind my booth in long sleeve black shirt talking a deal with some one.

 

Bruce Hershonson is right at the beginning, look for the guy who places his hand in front of his face. Russ Cochran is in it, Bud Plant, Buddy Saunders, John Cawley at 2:25, Bud Plant, Jim Grey, Rick Payne is 13 years old in same frames as a beardless Russ Cochran around the 3:05 second frame

 

Anyway, a neat blast from the past I just received tonight