ORIGINS of the American Comic Book 0

[John R]

Great video. Thanks for sharing it!

[Yellow Kid]

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].

 

Yes, in spite of Bob's protests that the Yellow Kid wasn't the first anything, I believe just the opposite. In 1993 I presented a paper at the Popular Culture Association titled, "The Yellow Kid: America's First Comic Character Success Story." I based my position on two main points. The first was that Outcault's character clearly influenced circulation sales during the bitter Pulitzer--Hearst battles in New York City, In fact, the Yellow Kid was so popular that Hearst lured him away from Pulitzer at great expense. The second is that the Yellow Kid was the first comic character to be used successfully in merchandising a wide array of products ranging from dolls, toys, and games to cigarettes and whiskey. The breadth of merchandise featuring the Yellow Kid demonstrated for the first time that a newspaper comic character could sell products. It is true that the Brownies had enjoyed some success in this arena, but they were a children's fantasy feature in a magazine and not a newspaper comic strip until much later, and then the failed in that medium. It is certainly true that the Yellow Kid was not in the fist newspaper comic strips, but I think it is also true that he was the first newspaper comic strip super star and still deserves a seminal place in the history of our field.

[Cat-Man_America]

 

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

 

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]Alas, m'thinks I saw myself in that video as well. Back then I was short, skinny and looked much too young for 19.

 

Thought that I'd grown my hair out by this time, but if that's me ...and it sure looks like me circa '69 and early '70... then I guess my mane didn't grow out until after the con, sometime during my second year of college. I vaguely recall wearing dark turtlenecks which were long out of style and what can only be described as a reverse mullet (shorter in back than in front) that had never been in style!

 

Memory can plays tricks, perhaps it was some other unfortunate soul who was wimpier looking and had an even worse self image. But if that's me then I pop-up a couple of times from side and back, gazing at the GA comic posters on the wall at :50 into the film and then in a room pan from 2:28 - 2:37.

 

Honestly, I don't recall being quite that short, so it may very well be a younger kid. At least I recognize lots of other folks in that film, most notably Joe Bob Williams, David Smith, Buddy Saunders, Bart Bush, etc., ...the list goes on and on.

 

The first comic convention I attended was actually the previous year. I was an Oklahoma resident, but knew nothing of OAF. I'd learned of HoustonCon from fanzines like RBCC.

 

I joined OAF in the summer of '69 having met Bart, Robert and Don at my first HoustonCon. Anecdotally, I hung out with Jerry Weist and Bud Plant most of the time at my first HoustonCon and only learned about the Oklahoma Club on the last day of the show. I think Robert Brown signed me up.

 

In late '70 OAF in their infinite wisdom elected me President of the club! I immediately introduced and passed several tough measures designed to increase club membership! ...It worked, and they promptly voted me outta office.

 

Now I'm really feeling old.

 

[/font]

[Sqeggs]

This has been an illuminating thread. Reading it from the outside, I think something of a consensus has been reached on a key question:

 

Was the appearance of Action 1/Superman crucial to the success of comic books?

 

Before reading this thread and without thinking much about it, I would have said "Yes." I now realize the answer is "No." It appears the contributors to this thread agree (although perhaps not David Merryweather).

 

The crucial evidence is the enormous popularity of non-hero comics from the late 1940s through the 1950s. Particularly funny animal (especially Disney), but also -- as Dr. Love has usefully reminded us in another thread -- romance, as well as crime, horror/sci-fi, and teen humor.

 

What the success of these other genres shows is that stories told in comic book style and sold on newsstands for 10 cents turned out to be a popular form of entertainment. It strains credulity to believe that publishers would not have stumbled on this fact even if there had been no Superman, Batman, or Captain America.

 

An interesting question is: Why was the heyday of comic books relatively fleeting? The spread of television is probably a significant part of the answer but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, in discussing the U.S. economy and U.S. culture, never underestimate the importance of the baby boom.

[Theagenes]

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].

 

Yes, in spite of Bob's protests that the Yellow Kid wasn't the first anything, I believe just the opposite. In 1993 I presented a paper at the Popular Culture Association titled, "The Yellow Kid: America's First Comic Character Success Story." I based my position on two main points. The first was that Outcault's character clearly influenced circulation sales during the bitter Pulitzer--Hearst battles in New York City, In fact, the Yellow Kid was so popular that Hearst lured him away from Pulitzer at great expense. The second is that the Yellow Kid was the first comic character to be used successfully in merchandising a wide array of products ranging from dolls, toys, and games to cigarettes and whiskey. The breadth of merchandise featuring the Yellow Kid demonstrated for the first time that a newspaper comic character could sell products. It is true that the Brownies had enjoyed some success in this arena, but they were a children's fantasy feature in a magazine and not a newspaper comic strip until much later, and then the failed in that medium. It is certainly true that the Yellow Kid was not in the fist newspaper comic strips, but I think it is also true that he was the first newspaper comic strip super star and still deserves a seminal place in the history of our field.

 

No doubt about that Rich. There may have been earlier strips, as we've seen in this thread, but YK is what started the popularity of the artform that it enjoyed in the 20th century, to the point where it was one of the primary forms of entertainment pre-WWII.

[Theagenes]

This has been an illuminating thread. Reading it from the outside, I think something of a consensus has been reached on a key question:

 

Was the appearance of Action 1/Superman crucial to the success of comic books?

 

Before reading this thread and without thinking much about it, I would have said "Yes." I now realize the answer is "No." It appears the contributors to this thread agree (although perhaps not David Merryweather).

 

The crucial evidence is the enormous popularity of non-hero comics from the late 1940s through the 1950s. Particularly funny animal (especially Disney), but also -- as Dr. Love has usefully reminded us in another thread -- romance, as well as crime, horror/sci-fi, and teen humor.

 

What the success of these other genres shows is that stories told in comic book style and sold on newsstands for 10 cents turned out to be a popular form of entertainment. It strains credulity to believe that publishers would not have stumbled on this fact even if there had been no Superman, Batman, or Captain America.

 

An interesting question is: Why was the heyday of comic books relatively fleeting? The spread of television is probably a significant part of the answer but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, in discussing the U.S. economy and U.S. culture, never underestimate the importance of the baby boom.

 

The baby boom is probably part of the equation, for sure.

 

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting. And if not for the appearance of a strong collecting hobby would the medium have survived much past the 60's or 70's? Or would have it gone the way of dime novels and pulps and been completely replaced by TV? The Silver Age or Second Heroic Age may have bought the medium a few extra decades of life in the US at any rate, since all the non-fantastic genres made the switch to TV. Superheros gave the medium a raison d'etre in the 60s through the 80s.

[VintageComics]

What the success of these other genres shows is that stories told in comic book style and sold on newsstands for 10 cents turned out to be a popular form of entertainment. It strains credulity to believe that publishers would not have stumbled on this fact even if there had been no Superman, Batman, or Captain America.

 

An interesting question is: Why was the heyday of comic books relatively fleeting? The spread of television is probably a significant part of the answer but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, in discussing the U.S. economy and U.S. culture, never underestimate the importance of the baby boom.

 

Likely because the human body always gravitates towards doing things with less effort. If it's easier to watch a show than read about one, the masses will gravitate towards the show.

 

I have terrific kids, but I would only call on a 'reader'. She reads non-stop - the rest are 'doers'...she is too mind you, she loves doing stuff, but the rest choose it over reading. Video games, sports, etc. She's a reader to her core...whenever there is a spare moment, she's reading something.

 

You'll never lose the reader but you do lose those that have other avenues to pursue.

 

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting.

 

Yup, have to agree.

 

I came to that conclusion after Tim's post last night.

[Bookery]

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting. And if not for the appearance of a strong collecting hobby would the medium have survived much past the 60's or 70's? Or would have it gone the way of dime novels and pulps and been completely replaced by TV? The Silver Age or Second Heroic Age may have bought the medium a few extra decades of life in the US at any rate, since all the non-fantastic genres made the switch to TV. Superheros gave the medium a raison d'etre in the 60s through the 80s.

 

Another great point I hadn't really thought about! Without super-heroes, would there be anything beyond a niche (well... even nichier) core of collectors out there, say along the same lines as BLB collectors today. It occurs to me that perhaps the reason BLBs are so minimally collected today, isn't so much because of the format being unpopular among collectors, as it is that there are so few super-hero titles to be found in them. I think if 2 or 3 dozen super-heroes had crossed over into BLBs, they might have a different collecting landscape today...

 

[VintageComics]

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting. And if not for the appearance of a strong collecting hobby would the medium have survived much past the 60's or 70's? Or would have it gone the way of dime novels and pulps and been completely replaced by TV? The Silver Age or Second Heroic Age may have bought the medium a few extra decades of life in the US at any rate, since all the non-fantastic genres made the switch to TV. Superheros gave the medium a raison d'etre in the 60s through the 80s.

 

Another great point I hadn't really thought about! Without super-heroes, would there be anything beyond a niche (well... even nichier) core of collectors out there, say along the same lines as BLB collectors today. It occurs to me that perhaps the reason BLBs are so minimally collected today, isn't so much because of the format being unpopular among collectors, as it is that there are so few super-hero titles to be found in them. I think if 2 or 3 dozen super-heroes had crossed over into BLBs, they might have a different collecting landscape today...

 

Tim, you've been skirting the point all along without realizing that you'd said it .

 

[Theagenes]

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting. And if not for the appearance of a strong collecting hobby would the medium have survived much past the 60's or 70's? Or would have it gone the way of dime novels and pulps and been completely replaced by TV? The Silver Age or Second Heroic Age may have bought the medium a few extra decades of life in the US at any rate, since all the non-fantastic genres made the switch to TV. Superheros gave the medium a raison d'etre in the 60s through the 80s.

 

Another great point I hadn't really thought about! Without super-heroes, would there be anything beyond a niche (well... even nichier) core of collectors out there, say along the same lines as BLB collectors today. It occurs to me that perhaps the reason BLBs are so minimally collected today, isn't so much because of the format being unpopular among collectors, as it is that there are so few super-hero titles to be found in them. I think if 2 or 3 dozen super-heroes had crossed over into BLBs, they might have a different collecting landscape today...

 

And that dovetails with your point that SF&F fandom gravitates toward collecting for whatever reason. You can see this in the classified ads in the earliest fanzines where from the beginning you had a knowledgeable and sophisticated collecting community. Fans of Romance, Detective, Westerns, etc. just didn't tend to collect like SF&F fans did. So they went from medium to medium -- dime novels to pulps to comics to paperbacks to TV without looking back. But since the superhero genre could only thrive in comics due to special effects limitations, the SF&F fans stuck with the medium and a collecting hobby developed around it in the 60s and 70s. That hobby continued to drive the medium even as other genres disappeared from comics and special effects got better. Today, with the superhero genre now being fully-realized on the big screen, the collecting hobby is the only thing keeping the medium around on life-support, in the US anyway.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Theagenes

[Theagenes]

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting. And if not for the appearance of a strong collecting hobby would the medium have survived much past the 60's or 70's? Or would have it gone the way of dime novels and pulps and been completely replaced by TV? The Silver Age or Second Heroic Age may have bought the medium a few extra decades of life in the US at any rate, since all the non-fantastic genres made the switch to TV. Superheros gave the medium a raison d'etre in the 60s through the 80s.

 

Another great point I hadn't really thought about! Without super-heroes, would there be anything beyond a niche (well... even nichier) core of collectors out there, say along the same lines as BLB collectors today. It occurs to me that perhaps the reason BLBs are so minimally collected today, isn't so much because of the format being unpopular among collectors, as it is that there are so few super-hero titles to be found in them. I think if 2 or 3 dozen super-heroes had crossed over into BLBs, they might have a different collecting landscape today...

 

Tim, you've been skirting the point all along without realizing that you'd said it .

 

 

Exacty. I was just distilling Tim's early thoughts.

[Sqeggs]

This has been an illuminating thread. Reading it from the outside, I think something of a consensus has been reached on a key question:

 

Was the appearance of Action 1/Superman crucial to the success of comic books?

 

Before reading this thread and without thinking much about it, I would have said "Yes." I now realize the answer is "No." It appears the contributors to this thread agree (although perhaps not David Merryweather).

 

The crucial evidence is the enormous popularity of non-hero comics from the late 1940s through the 1950s. Particularly funny animal (especially Disney), but also -- as Dr. Love has usefully reminded us in another thread -- romance, as well as crime, horror/sci-fi, and teen humor.

 

What the success of these other genres shows is that stories told in comic book style and sold on newsstands for 10 cents turned out to be a popular form of entertainment. It strains credulity to believe that publishers would not have stumbled on this fact even if there had been no Superman, Batman, or Captain America.

 

An interesting question is: Why was the heyday of comic books relatively fleeting? The spread of television is probably a significant part of the answer but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, in discussing the U.S. economy and U.S. culture, never underestimate the importance of the baby boom.

 

The baby boom is probably part of the equation, for sure.

 

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting. And if not for the appearance of a strong collecting hobby would the medium have survived much past the 60's or 70's? Or would have it gone the way of dime novels and pulps and been completely replaced by TV? The Silver Age or Second Heroic Age may have bought the medium a few extra decades of life in the US at any rate, since all the non-fantastic genres made the switch to TV. Superheros gave the medium a raison d'etre in the 60s through the 80s.

 

Good point. In the 1960s, my friends and I collected only superhero comics, mostly Marvel. I can't recall any of my friends having an interest in much else, apart from one kid who had somehow become aware of EC and collected them and another kid with an eccentric love for Dennis the Menace. By the late 1960s, as I became aware of the wider collecting world, I met people with broader collecting interests, but, again, a very heavy concentration on superhero and, to a much lesser extent, Barks ducks.

 

I don't recall ever meeting anyone who collected romance, Archie, Richie Rich, or non-Barks funny animal comics, enormous sellers though these comics were.

 

So, yeah, without superheroes, it seems unlike that most of us would be in the hobby or that CGC and these boards would exist.

[Sqeggs]

What the success of these other genres shows is that stories told in comic book style and sold on newsstands for 10 cents turned out to be a popular form of entertainment. It strains credulity to believe that publishers would not have stumbled on this fact even if there had been no Superman, Batman, or Captain America.

 

An interesting question is: Why was the heyday of comic books relatively fleeting? The spread of television is probably a significant part of the answer but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, in discussing the U.S. economy and U.S. culture, never underestimate the importance of the baby boom.

 

Likely because the human body always gravitates towards doing things with less effort. If it's easier to watch a show than read about one, the masses will gravitate towards the show.

 

I have terrific kids, but I would only call on a 'reader'. She reads non-stop - the rest are 'doers'...she is too mind you, she loves doing stuff, but the rest choose it over reading. Video games, sports, etc. She's a reader to her core...whenever there is a spare moment, she's reading something.

 

You'll never lose the reader but you do lose those that have other avenues to pursue.

 

On your earlier question, the appearance of the Superhero may not have been crucial to success of the comic book industry, I do think that the superhero was crucial to comic book collecting.

 

Yup, have to agree.

 

I came to that conclusion after Tim's post last night.

 

It occurs to me that television may have had similar effects on movies and comic books. The arrival of television in the late 1940s didn't mean immediate doom for movies, but it did start a gradual erosion of movie attendance that accelerated in the 1960s and has never been reversed. North American movie attendance figures for the immediate post-WW II years are amazing. Hollywood is a shadow of what it was in those days.

 

It took time, of course, for televisions to be widely adopted and improvements in broadcast technology steadily improved television's appeal -- color broadcasts, for instance, only became widespread in the mid-1960s. Particularly as the bulk of the baby boom moved out of their preteen years -- knocking the props out from under the funny animal part of the market -- television became difficult for comics to compete with.

[Theagenes]

The interrelationship of different entertainment media and how it affects and is affected by rise and fall of different genres is an interesting discussion. In the pulp thread, where we've been posting a number of weird menace pulps, I just mentioned an interesting Pulp Studies paper from the PCA conference a couple of weeks ago. It was on how the rise of the shudder/weird menace pulps with their lurid, graphic, and misogynistic imagery took place at exactly the same time in the early 30s as the institution of the Hayes Code and the crackdown of the same type of imagery in the film industry. Nature abhors a vacuum I suppose, and as long is there is an interest in a given genre, it's going to find a medium to deliver it -- in the case of the superhero genre it may have kept a medium alive well past its expiration date.

[sacentaur]

Yes, in spite of Bob's protests that the Yellow Kid wasn't the first anything, I believe just the opposite. In 1993 I presented a paper at the Popular Culture Association titled, "The Yellow Kid: America's First Comic Character Success Story." I based my position on two main points. The first was that Outcault's character clearly influenced circulation sales during the bitter Pulitzer--Hearst battles in New York City, In fact, the Yellow Kid was so popular that Hearst lured him away from Pulitzer at great expense. The second is that the Yellow Kid was the first comic character to be used successfully in merchandising a wide array of products ranging from dolls, toys, and games to cigarettes and whiskey. The breadth of merchandise featuring the Yellow Kid demonstrated for the first time that a newspaper comic character could sell products. It is true that the Brownies had enjoyed some success in this arena, but they were a children's fantasy feature in a magazine and not a newspaper comic strip until much later, and then the failed in that medium. It is certainly true that the Yellow Kid was not in the fist newspaper comic strips, but I think it is also true that he was the first newspaper comic strip super star and still deserves a seminal place in the history of our field.

 

What a pleasure to read such a cognitive, compact, and credible post from a subject-matter expert.

 

You really need to post more often, Rich.

[Theagenes]

Yes, in spite of Bob's protests that the Yellow Kid wasn't the first anything, I believe just the opposite. In 1993 I presented a paper at the Popular Culture Association titled, "The Yellow Kid: America's First Comic Character Success Story." I based my position on two main points. The first was that Outcault's character clearly influenced circulation sales during the bitter Pulitzer--Hearst battles in New York City, In fact, the Yellow Kid was so popular that Hearst lured him away from Pulitzer at great expense. The second is that the Yellow Kid was the first comic character to be used successfully in merchandising a wide array of products ranging from dolls, toys, and games to cigarettes and whiskey. The breadth of merchandise featuring the Yellow Kid demonstrated for the first time that a newspaper comic character could sell products. It is true that the Brownies had enjoyed some success in this arena, but they were a children's fantasy feature in a magazine and not a newspaper comic strip until much later, and then the failed in that medium. It is certainly true that the Yellow Kid was not in the fist newspaper comic strips, but I think it is also true that he was the first newspaper comic strip super star and still deserves a seminal place in the history of our field.

 

What a pleasure to read such a cognitive, compact, and credible post from a subject-matter expert.

 

You really need to post more often, Rich.

 

Seconded!

[Bookery]

Speaking of early comic book cross-promotional items, this (badly faded) doll has been buried in the shop here for awhile... it's Foxy Grandpa from 1905.

 

 

 

[Theagenes]

Cool!

[BLBcomics-migration]

Yes, in spite of Bob's protests that the Yellow Kid wasn't the first anything, I believe just the opposite. In 1993 I presented a paper at the Popular Culture Association titled, "The Yellow Kid: America's First Comic Character Success Story." I based my position on two main points. The first was that Outcault's character clearly influenced circulation sales during the bitter Pulitzer--Hearst battles in New York City, In fact, the Yellow Kid was so popular that Hearst lured him away from Pulitzer at great expense. The second is that the Yellow Kid was the first comic character to be used successfully in merchandising a wide array of products ranging from dolls, toys, and games to cigarettes and whiskey. The breadth of merchandise featuring the Yellow Kid demonstrated for the first time that a newspaper comic character could sell products. It is true that the Brownies had enjoyed some success in this arena, but they were a children's fantasy feature in a magazine and not a newspaper comic strip until much later, and then the failed in that medium. It is certainly true that the Yellow Kid was not in the fist newspaper comic strips, but I think it is also true that he was the first newspaper comic strip super star and still deserves a seminal place in the history of our field.

 

What a pleasure to read such a cognitive, compact, and credible post from a subject-matter expert.

 

You really need to post more often, Rich.

 

Seconded!

 

And I cheerfully "third" as Rich has a wealth of lore he has gleaned over the decades, as have a lot of souls who love the medium of comics.

 

That said, no one in this camp has ever stated Yellow Kid was not, is not, important in the unfolding evolution of the myriad delivery systems of comic art in America. And a simple examination of that pesky concept called "published evidence" still stipulates the Yellow Kid is not "first" of any thing unless one narrows one's parameters to the very narrow definition of raising consciousness of a news paper "war" between Pulitzer and Hearst,

 

while also throwing in for good measure one newspaper tycoon publisher Gordon Bennett who, left out of this "discussion," lured Outcault away from BOTH Pulitzer AND Hearst in 1897 when Outcault launched first Pore Li'l Mose, then Buddy Tucker, then Buster Brown in May 1902. Wasn't till later Hearst lured Outcault back regarding Buster Brown.

 

SOURCES to cooberate for those who need it:

http://john-adcock.blogspot.com/2009/09/richard-fenton-outcault-1863-1928.html

which states at the end of this piece:

"....In 1897 Outcault left The Yellow Kid and Hearst’s employ for James Gordon Bennett’s Herald where he drew L’il Mose and Buddy Tucker. Buster Brown began May 1902 in the Herald, then, when Outcault moved back to Hearst, the Herald continued with a competing Buster Brown under different artists...."

 

as well as this article from 1928 an obit of sorts upon the death of Outcault which in retrospect backed up by much archeological historial research by many souls these past decades has some time dating errors http://www.strippersguide.com/?p=608 but still comes thru spot on re Bennett's publishing Buster Brwown in the beginning before Hearst's superior purchasing power bought Outcault back.

 

Bennett also brought us the magic of Winsor McCay's Little Nemo before Hearst's superior money position also bought McCay over to his camp continuing Little Nemo as a name change with In The Land of Wonderful Dreams, but I digress....

 

Am now presenting "typical" two book covers (both from 1995) simply to illustrate the point that prior to the re-discovery of the 1842 Wilson and Co. Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck by me after reading Gersham Legman's long article on early 1800s comic books in American Notes and Queries Jan 1946 number, Yellow Kid was looked upon as THE "strip" which "....started the comics...."

 

 

and here is the cover to the 1995 Kitchen book which states on its cover, well, one can read it one's own self.

 

"A Centennial Celebration of the Kid Who Started The Comics."

 

 

That concept is patently untrue.

 

Regarding "super star" in comics, since starting the Plat List over on yahoo in 1999, I take a more macro world approach, and if one expands one's consciousness, then "super star" in comics as a "first" falls more so with England's Alley Sloper who was also extensively merchandised with all sorts of "stuff' for the collector to, well, "collect."

 

Agreed to a certain extent, and always so, bringing what used to be (erroneous) "common knowledge" re Yellow Kid being "first" comic strip "....who started the comics..." which permeated USA-centric nationalistic collective consciousness for a long time is obviously very wrong, however, no argument from me ever that Yellow Kid is the "first super star" in AMERICAN newspaper comic strip lexicon lore.

 

That concept, to me and others researching this stuff, is a very very thin slice of the historical pie.

[Bronty]

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.

 

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.

 

Obadiah Oldbuck remains more important than Superman.

 

After seven years, you've got to admire his dedication to his position, as untenable as it is.

 

and showcase4 is already gutted; no $ need to hew that line any longer.

 

as annoying as this whole debate is and as unlikely (frankly Bob) as it was that you were a "reluctant dragon in this passion play" (50k tends to erase reluctance) who cares if Steve paid too much or didn't pay too much. It happens every day, we are all big boys and it is upon us to know and understand what we are buying. As long as Bob didn't lie about what it was he was selling, overpaying is Steve's problem alone and Bob got a nice sale. Even if Bob convinced it was Steve that OO was the first american comic book, well maybe it is, maybe it isn't, that's the subject of debate and it was on Steve to satisfy himself on that front.

 

As long as he was honest I say good for Bob on a nice sale.