ORIGINS of the American Comic Book 0

[mrmyst]

 

 

[ciorac]

That doesn't sway me from the belief though that, value aside, the advent of the superhero (particularly the arrival of Superman) was the catalyst and economic engine to drive comics into the millions of sales per month that really created the industry as a whole. Hence, their importance is inarguable to a large degree.

 

Superman is important, yes.

But I disagree with much of the rest.

 

As comics are now dominated by super-hero creators and collectors, there is a continual effort to re-write history in their favor. But the facts don't support the super-hype.

 

Comics were thriving and expanding constantly since their latest-format incarnation in 1933. Superman simply led to the explosion of a new genre within the comic book. That doesn't mean comic books weren't thriving, and wouldn't thrive, without it. Take any given genre away from the motion picture... the gangster film, the romance, the western, the musical... film history would be very different, surely, but cinema would have thrived nonetheless.

 

As has been pointed out, Action comics didn't have all that much impact on comics sales overall, though it certainly was an important title for the DC/National house. But the comparative scarcity today of early Action issues compared to contemporaneous issues of King Comics, Famous Funnies, Feature Comics, Tip Top, Sparkler, Popular, etc., shows that even a year or more into Action, its sales still lagged many other titles.

 

Superman #1 was a major leap in sales figures, and certainly began a scramble for copycat concepts. But this seems like an anomaly at the time that bears more scrutiny... what was there about this issue that suddenly brought such massive interest in this character... the design?, the marketing?... it would be fascinating to know.

 

Even for all that, it was primarily 3 comics publishers that took super-heroes to heart... DC/All-American, Fawcett, and Quality. Others dabbled in and out of them, as they did with many genres. Even powerhouse Dell tried some original characters briefly, but soon gave up on them. And as has been pointed out, the first wave of super-heroes began falling by the wayside as soon as WW2 ended.

And even during this hey-day, after Superman #1s success, the character quickly dropped in popularity behind Captain Marvel and other Fawcett titles.

 

If there was any one truly major source for comics success in the 1940s it would have to lie at the footsteps of Dell in general, and probably Walt Disney in particular. I think it is safe to assume that the creation or non-creation of a Superman would have had no effect whatsoever on Disney's decision to go big into comics, as they did with every crossover medium opportunity they came across.

 

After that, the often-overlooked juggernaut of Classic Illustrated was a dominant force in comics through the 1960s, as were Archie, western, and other humor characters. Super-heroes fared rather poorly even in the '40s against these other genres, and were almost obliterated in the 1950s.

 

The comeback of the super-hero in the 1960s is, fairly obviously, a comeback by default, as TV had replaced most other genres by offering a free alternative to comics. The budget and technological constraints of the medium at the time made competing with super-heroes impossible, and so they (along with Archie and Harvey) continued to thrive into the 1970s and beyond, though "thriving" in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc., meant surviving with publication numbers far below any previously seen in the industry.

 

Superman is to super-hero comics what "Little Caesar" was to the gangster film. The character's importance is huge. But mythology has tended to turn "huge import" into "all import", and history simply doesn't support that.

 

Huge fan of yours Tim. But I hate to break it to you. You are just plain wrong. Wrong as two left feet.

 

On the contrary, people have tried to marginalize the impact of superheroes on the evolution of American comic books as time has gone on.

 

I know you make a living in the hobby and specialize in Pulps and other esoterica.. That's very cool. But you must not get out of the midwest much.

 

I travel the world all the time. 153,000 miles in the air last year alone. Everywhere I go I see Batman, Superman, Spider-Man. Not much else. Certainly not pulp heroes or even much Disney. Although Disney characters like Mickey and Donald do have extensive notoriety around the world. But not even close to the big three superheroes.

 

Heck, even Iron Man is on full display in the Frankfurt airport. Full size statue in Terminal 1.

 

Sure superheroes, other than Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman took a hiatus in the 50s, but what decade since the 30s have they not been extremely prevalent? Answer? None.

 

So trying to minimize their importance on the evolution of the medium and pop culture in general is difficult for me to get my head around

[Straw-Man]

I just checked box office mojo's all-time domestic chart. 6 of the top 25 movies, unadjusted, are comic superhero films---essentially 25%. just not thinking that's by default, cuz westerns were big on tv in the 50's.

[Straw-Man]

and pons--watch your tone.

[ciorac]

and pons--watch your tone.

 

[Cat-Man_America]

That doesn't sway me from the belief though that, value aside, the advent of the superhero (particularly the arrival of Superman) was the catalyst and economic engine to drive comics into the millions of sales per month that really created the industry as a whole. Hence, their importance is inarguable to a large degree.

 

Superman is important, yes.

But I disagree with much of the rest.

 

As comics are now dominated by super-hero creators and collectors, there is a continual effort to re-write history in their favor. But the facts don't support the super-hype.

 

Comics were thriving and expanding constantly since their latest-format incarnation in 1933. Superman simply led to the explosion of a new genre within the comic book. That doesn't mean comic books weren't thriving, and wouldn't thrive, without it. Take any given genre away from the motion picture... the gangster film, the romance, the western, the musical... film history would be very different, surely, but cinema would have thrived nonetheless.

 

As has been pointed out, Action comics didn't have all that much impact on comics sales overall, though it certainly was an important title for the DC/National house. But the comparative scarcity today of early Action issues compared to contemporaneous issues of King Comics, Famous Funnies, Feature Comics, Tip Top, Sparkler, Popular, etc., shows that even a year or more into Action, its sales still lagged many other titles.

 

Superman #1 was a major leap in sales figures, and certainly began a scramble for copycat concepts. But this seems like an anomaly at the time that bears more scrutiny... what was there about this issue that suddenly brought such massive interest in this character... the design?, the marketing?... it would be fascinating to know.

 

Even for all that, it was primarily 3 comics publishers that took super-heroes to heart... DC/All-American, Fawcett, and Quality. Others dabbled in and out of them, as they did with many genres. Even powerhouse Dell tried some original characters briefly, but soon gave up on them. And as has been pointed out, the first wave of super-heroes began falling by the wayside as soon as WW2 ended.

And even during this hey-day, after Superman #1s success, the character quickly dropped in popularity behind Captain Marvel and other Fawcett titles.

 

If there was any one truly major source for comics success in the 1940s it would have to lie at the footsteps of Dell in general, and probably Walt Disney in particular. I think it is safe to assume that the creation or non-creation of a Superman would have had no effect whatsoever on Disney's decision to go big into comics, as they did with every crossover medium opportunity they came across.

 

After that, the often-overlooked juggernaut of Classic Illustrated was a dominant force in comics through the 1960s, as were Archie, western, and other humor characters. Super-heroes fared rather poorly even in the '40s against these other genres, and were almost obliterated in the 1950s.

 

The comeback of the super-hero in the 1960s is, fairly obviously, a comeback by default, as TV had replaced most other genres by offering a free alternative to comics. The budget and technological constraints of the medium at the time made competing with super-heroes impossible, and so they (along with Archie and Harvey) continued to thrive into the 1970s and beyond, though "thriving" in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc., meant surviving with publication numbers far below any previously seen in the industry.

 

Superman is to super-hero comics what "Little Caesar" was to the gangster film. The character's importance is huge. But mythology has tended to turn "huge import" into "all import", and history simply doesn't support that.

 

[font:Times New Roman]

Wow! I can't imagine disagreeing more with your ultimate conclusion. I'm not sure who is trying to rewrite comic history, but something certainly seems askew. Maybe this just needs a bit of fine tuning.

 

I mean no disrespect in contesting your POV, but to dismissively suggest that comics are currently dominated by superheroes ...even though costumed characters have been a driving force in comics since the SA reboot of the genre... or just because creators and/or collectors like it more simply ignores the realities of the market and what fuels interest in superheroes.

 

Ironically, you mentioned gangster movies in the allegorical sense, and television, as a theoretical replacement/substitute for comics (circa 1950's), but failed to grasp the importance of media as a driving force in the long term success of the superhero. In my estimation the value of film and television media in perpetuating an interest in costumed superheroes can't be easily dismissed or understated. Thanks to film & TV, superheroes have become an inseparable part of the mythology.

 

I suppose Timely just dabbled in superheroes and never took them to heart. Is that why you ignored them or did Cap suddenly develop halitosis?

 

With the exception of the long-running Plastic Man and to a lesser extent Doll-Man, Quality was always a dabbler in the superhero genre, Busy Arnold gradually moving away from costumed characters even before the end of the war, and there's plenty of research to back that up.

 

Bob is laboring under the presumption that I'm coming around to his POV simply because I agree with his point about superheroes fading after WWII. I was agreeing with his observation, which was a good one, but not his overarching premise. Alas, I'm finding no more common ground with his view of the comic continuum than I do with your conclusions about the relevancy of superheroes in the success of comics over the past 75 years.

 

What both you and Bob seem to be overlooking in the evolution of comics is how war derailed the logical development of the super hero genre. WWII had a decisive impact on the implementation of costumed characters as a rallying tool (nationalistic propaganda) and I'd argue that the timing of our involvement in the war may have inadvertently stiffled the evolution of super-villains and serialized stories.

 

The end of the war forced comic publishers to scramble. Sales figures for superheroes slumped as publishers struggled to make them interesting corralling masked robbers and thugs. After four years of patriotic costumed characters battling legions of nazi goons and samurai sword wielding Japanese warriors, the challenge of crime fighting must've seemed rather ho-hum to many readers. Alas, finding worthy adversaries to combat after Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo must've been a tough act to follow.

 

It wouldn't be until the revival of costumed heroes in the late 50's and early 60's that super villains and more complex serialized story-lines would reestablish super heroes as the dominant driving force in comics.

 

Another point of contention: I'm of the opinion that the success of Superman #1 was already determined before the first stand-alone costumed superhero book it's still just a reprint book. I would not trust any quoted DC's sales figures for Action. That book was selling very well long before the decision to release a stand-alone Superman comic. In fact, there had already been a court case fought over copyright infringement with Fox. DC wouldn't have made such an effort to defend the uniqueness of it's intellectual property against imitation without having a foregone conclusion as to the value of that property.

 

I suspect DC juggled the sales figures of Action (co-mingling Action sales with the sales of titles that were losing money) to conceal the success of it's lead character and dissuade copycats (similar to what Timely's publisher Martin Goodman would do several years later to conceal the success of Captain America). Do I have evidence that DC actually did this? No, but it's a sound supposition based on common sense and a solid grasp of marketing strategies.

 

The Little Caesar analogy is interesting and you have a point, but perhaps not the one you thought you were making. There were gangster stars in the silent era (George Bancroft), but they aren't remembered as fondly as Raft, Cagney and Robinson. In retrospect, the transitional films of the silent era are very much like comics before Superman. Earlier comics were popular enough, but not revered as much as the colorful costumed characters which followed because they lack the kind of pizzazz that would take the industry to the next level and sustain it through feast, famine and diversional trends.

 

Given the amount of time I've worked on this it will probably be as irrelevant as paper comics by the time it posts, but we can agree on at least one more point: I'm totally happy with the huge import of superheroes. AFAIC, the mythology is just icing on the cake. [/font] (thumbs u

[Cat-Man_America]

and pons--watch your tone.

 

 

 

[font:Times New Roman]Don't feel bad, Lincoln apparently had a high-pitched voice too.[/font]

[BLBcomics-migration]

That doesn't sway me from the belief though that, value aside, the advent of the superhero (particularly the arrival of Superman) was the catalyst and economic engine to drive comics into the millions of sales per month that really created the industry as a whole. Hence, their importance is inarguable to a large degree.

 

Superman is important, yes.

But I disagree with much of the rest.

 

As comics are now dominated by super-hero creators and collectors, there is a continual effort to re-write history in their favor. But the facts don't support the super-hype.

 

Comics were thriving and expanding constantly since their latest-format incarnation in 1933. Superman simply led to the explosion of a new genre within the comic book. That doesn't mean comic books weren't thriving, and wouldn't thrive, without it. Take any given genre away from the motion picture... the gangster film, the romance, the western, the musical... film history would be very different, surely, but cinema would have thrived nonetheless.

 

As has been pointed out, Action comics didn't have all that much impact on comics sales overall, though it certainly was an important title for the DC/National house. But the comparative scarcity today of early Action issues compared to contemporaneous issues of King Comics, Famous Funnies, Feature Comics, Tip Top, Sparkler, Popular, etc., shows that even a year or more into Action, its sales still lagged many other titles.

 

Superman #1 was a major leap in sales figures, and certainly began a scramble for copycat concepts. But this seems like an anomaly at the time that bears more scrutiny... what was there about this issue that suddenly brought such massive interest in this character... the design?, the marketing?... it would be fascinating to know.

 

Even for all that, it was primarily 3 comics publishers that took super-heroes to heart... DC/All-American, Fawcett, and Quality. Others dabbled in and out of them, as they did with many genres. Even powerhouse Dell tried some original characters briefly, but soon gave up on them. And as has been pointed out, the first wave of super-heroes began falling by the wayside as soon as WW2 ended.

And even during this hey-day, after Superman #1s success, the character quickly dropped in popularity behind Captain Marvel and other Fawcett titles.

 

If there was any one truly major source for comics success in the 1940s it would have to lie at the footsteps of Dell in general, and probably Walt Disney in particular. I think it is safe to assume that the creation or non-creation of a Superman would have had no effect whatsoever on Disney's decision to go big into comics, as they did with every crossover medium opportunity they came across.

 

After that, the often-overlooked juggernaut of Classic Illustrated was a dominant force in comics through the 1960s, as were Archie, western, and other humor characters. Super-heroes fared rather poorly even in the '40s against these other genres, and were almost obliterated in the 1950s.

 

The comeback of the super-hero in the 1960s is, fairly obviously, a comeback by default, as TV had replaced most other genres by offering a free alternative to comics. The budget and technological constraints of the medium at the time made competing with super-heroes impossible, and so they (along with Archie and Harvey) continued to thrive into the 1970s and beyond, though "thriving" in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc., meant surviving with publication numbers far below any previously seen in the industry.

 

Superman is to super-hero comics what "Little Caesar" was to the gangster film. The character's importance is huge. But mythology has tended to turn "huge import" into "all import", and history simply doesn't support that.

 

[font:Times New Roman]

Wow! I can't imagine disagreeing more with your ultimate conclusion. I'm not sure who is trying to rewrite comic history, but something certainly seems askew. Maybe this just needs a bit of fine tuning.

 

I mean no disrespect in contesting your POV, but to dismissively suggest that comics are currently dominated by superheroes ...even though costumed characters have been a driving force in comics since the SA reboot of the genre... or just because creators and/or collectors like it more simply ignores the realities of the market and what fuels interest in superheroes.

 

Ironically, you did mention gangster movies in the allegorical sense, and television, as a theoretical substitute for comics, but failed to grasp the importance of media as a driving force in both instances. Alas, the value of film and television media in perpetuating interest in costumed heros can't be understated.

 

I suppose Timely just dabbled in superheroes and never took them to heart. Is that why you ignored them or did Cap suddenly develop halitosis?

 

With the exception of the long-running Plastic Man and to a lesser extend Doll-Man, Quality was always a dabbler in the superhero genre, Busy Arnold gradually moving away from costumed characters even before the end of the war, and there's plenty of research to back that up.

 

Bob is laboring under the presumption that I'm coming around to his POV simply because I agree with his point about superheroes fading after WWII. I was agreeing with his observation, which was a good one, but not his overarching premise. Alas, I don't concur with his view of the comic continuum any more than I concur with your conclusions about the relevance of superheroes in the success of comics over the past 75 years.

 

What both you and Bob seem to be overlooking in the evolution of comics is how war derailed the logical development of the super hero genre. WWII had a decisive impact on the implementation of costumed characters as a rallying tool (nationalistic propaganda) and I'd argue that the timing of our involvement in the war may have inadvertently stiffled the evolution of super-villains and serialized stories.

 

The end of the war forced comic publishers to scramble. Sales figures for superheroes slumped as publishers struggled to make them interesting corralling masked robbers and thugs. After four years of patriotic costumed characters battling legions of nazi goons and samurai sword wielding Japanese warriors, the challenge of crime fighting must've seemed rather ho-hum to many readers. Alas, finding worthy adversaries to combat after Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo must've been a tough act to follow.

 

It wouldn't be until the revival of costumed heroes in the late 50's and early 60's that super villains and more complex serialized story-lines would reestablish super heroes as the dominant driving force in comics.

 

Another point of contention: I'm of the opinion that the success of Superman #1 was already determined before the first stand-alone costumed superhero book it's still just a reprint book. I would not trust any quoted DC's sales figures for Action. That book was selling very well long before the decision to release a stand-alone Superman comic. In fact, there had already been a court case fought over copyright infringement with Fox. DC wouldn't have made such an effort to defend the uniqueness of it's intellectual property against imitation without having a foregone conclusion as to the value of that property.

 

I suspect DC juggled the sales figures of Action (co-mingling Action sales with the sales of titles that were losing money) to conceal the success of it's lead character and dissuade copycats (similar to what Timely's publisher Martin Goodman would do several years later to conceal the success of Captain America). Do I have evidence that DC actually did this? No, but it's a sound supposition based on common sense and a solid grasp of marketing strategies.

 

The Little Caesar analogy is interesting and you have a point, but perhaps not the one you thought you were making. There were gangster stars in the silent era (George Bancroft), but they aren't remembered as fondly as Raft, Cagney and Robinson. In retrospect, the transitional films of the silent era are very much like comics before Superman. Earlier comics were popular enough, but not revered as much as the colorful costumed characters which followed because they lack the kind of pizzazz that would take the industry to the next level and sustain it through feast, famine and diversional trends.

 

Given the amount of time I've worked on this it will probably be as irrelevant as paper comics by the time it posts, but we can agree on at least one more point: I'm totally happy with the huge import of superheroes. AFAIC, the mythology is just icing on the cake. [/font] (thumbs u

 

Some observations on some of what you wrote, not all, and in no particular order:

 

1) I am not laboring under any presumptions from any one coming around to "my" point of view. This is a view held by a LOT of world class comics historians, many of whom constantly contact me to obtain my humble opines & thoughts on what ever it is they are researching. Some how I am now in the acknowledgments of over 200 books on comics.

 

I have done my own research into origins and evolutions of comic strip books in conjunction with many researcher friends, most of whom have neverbeen on these CGC boards. I have come to my own conclusions based on preponderance of evidence developed. Every one is entitled to their own opines, but not their own facts, so the saying goes. Am not tooting a horn here, though I am sure some will choose to see such, more power to you, knock yourself out.

 

2) I got my "final" sales figures on Action Comics 1 thru 17 plus the frst few Superman comics sales figures from one Mike Uslan back in the mid 1990s during my first major primary data quest, might have heard of him. He got the data going thru DC archives, back when he was a DC woodchuck intern along with Paul Levitz, another old friend from whom I was buying Comic Reader wholesale from him.

 

Mike had foresight to buy movie rights to Batman and some other National Periodical Publications aka DC Comics back in the 1970s. Got those rights for dirt at the time in retrospect, but I digress.....

 

3) Donenfeld had zero idea Superman was pulling in readers to Action until later looking at #1, #7, #10, the #15 onwards.

 

I have a question as I am too lazy to look at files, etc. What issue of Action was on sale when Superman #1 was issued?

 

4) Reasons for the "super" heroic comics fighting Nazis and Japanese on the covers and inside is much of the print of those issues were beign shipped directly into US Armed forces PX outlets. There was a "captive" audience of some 12 million men in need of light entertainment propaganda.

 

with the discharge of all those millions of military men, along with the ending of the war, interest in super heroic type comic books plummeted like a brick in water

 

5) Donenfeld had no idea of the top out sell thru potential of Superman #1. half a million the first print run. A couple more print runs later, it tops out at just under a million.

 

6) No doubt about it, Superman caused quite a stir beginning in 1939. There was a short lived fad in superheroics , but that was also directly fueled by World War Two.

 

7) Martin Goodman was publishing a LOT of stuff besides his small corral of super hero comics. For example, he also quickly got in to the teen romance humor field early on once Archie began taking off. Patsy Walker seems to have been outselling Millie the Model back then based on comparing how hard each title number is to score these days which has seen a reversal of collecting popularity I have witnessed.

 

Goodman also was publishing a proliferating stable of funny animal comics as was National once they launched Real Screen Comics

 

8) Arnold was also much larger in to super hero than Plastic Man and/or Doll Man. One leaves out the "super" team of Blackhawk in Military as well as own title, Kid Eternity in Hit as well as own title, Capt Triumph in Crack who got to 1949 before turning western, Midnight in Smash when title ends #85 in 1949 as well

 

- am probably leaving some one out, that was without research Gerber's absolutelly essential photo journal guide to covers and dates published of each title. In as much as his Reilly collection "info" is a farce, most of the rest of his labors of love developing his two volume set remains the pinnacle research tool develving in to all of this stuff. At least more me it is. Faster than researching on google even -

 

9) there is an excellent argument to be made that if World War Two had not come along, many of the super heroic types would not have been developed at all. It would be fun to sit down and make up two lists:

 

a) super heroics types who were not hyper patroitic many replete with flag emblems

 

b) those who were strictly created to appeal to patriots entering and/or already in the military such as Captain America who took on Hitler the first ish.

 

10) It remains an indisputable fact that some how comic books THRIVED big time from 1945 thru 1962 with out hardly ANY super heroic types. Fact that for what 17 years there super heroic type comic books were like a pimple on the butt of the comic book business.

 

The all time best selling on-going comic book title issue in, issue out was and remains Walt Disney's Comics and Stories which peaked out at over 4 million an issue for some years. Single issues sold to that many individuals and/or families

 

Looney Tunes sold over 3 million an issue for years as well. They remain common as dirt in the comics collecting world and most likely are over-priced in OPG. -

 

Discount oddity blips like the Jim Lee X-men #1 slick comic book which sold five different covers in to a speculator market. Or that 1991 'death' of Superman which was a 7.5 million in all formats marketing success. Warner's pushed two things that season: Death of Supes and the Madonna Sex book.

 

11) In spite of the success of comic books per se, for many decades until TV pulled away consciousness and attention span, newspaper comics were being read and unfolding story lines followed by over 80% of the entire USA population. I am too lazy right this sec to look up exact figures I have per marketing studies I have collected original primary source artifacts for.

 

These number percents hold from the 20s thru in to the 50s. Strips like Pogo influenced Presidential politics

 

After that, interest in continuity in newspaper strips waned as comic strips like Peanuts took hold. Doonesbury back in its hey-day being an exception to that rule in the 70s

 

12) every one is cheerfully entitled to their own opines, like I have stated many times previously. But not their own facts.

 

Maybe i should pose a query here then: If not a "comic book" what is one supposed to call The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck first printing published by Wilson & Co in 1842?

 

One would HAVE to see what Topffer's creation looks like in its first printing state before being able to make a logical informed naming of this popular culture artifact which launched the comic book business in America

 

Topffer's comic strip book creations also launched comic strip book businesses with their own original material in at least six other countries around the same time according to the world wide consortium of comics scholars who gathered together in the "Plat" yahoogroups.com list I started up in 1999 originally as an off-shoot of the "comics scholars" e-list which is currently housed out of the University of Florida under the auspices of a long time friend of mine, Prof Don Ault.

 

I first met Don the first month we opened that first Comics & Comix location near UC-Berkeley back in August 1972. He was teaching a upper level English course on Carl Barks that year I tried to get in to audit as a non-student. The class was full, no room, much to my long time regret.

 

Don also presented a lecture at Berkeleycon 73 from whence the Reilly collection surfaced. small world.......

 

[ciorac]

Small world indeed Bob.

 

Imagine how microscopic the world of comics would be without the advent of the superhero. If it would still exist at all.

[BLBcomics-migration]

Small world indeed Bob.

 

Imagine how microscopic the world of comics would be without the advent of the superhero. If it would still exist at all.

 

That is all you came away with from my last post?

 

One can "imagine" all one wants to if one chooses to, but, Bill, that statement is simply silly on the face of it, simply by examining the published evidence of well over a century of comic book production.

[ciorac]

Small world indeed Bob.

 

Imagine how microscopic the world of comics would be without the advent of the superhero. If it would still exist at all.

 

That is all you came away with from my last post?

 

One can "imagine" all one wants to if one chooses to, but, Bill, that statement is simply silly on the face of it, simply by examining the published evidence of well over a century of comic book production.

 

Bob, you are the one lacking in imagination. You are so busy connecting the dots that you can't see the forest for the trees. So to speak.

 

Fast forward it 100 years. What will be remembered then?

 

You don't reply to the facts and direct observations in my posts, so why should I return the favor. You keep calling me, or my position silly, that may be true about me, but not my position.

 

Stop thinking I am blinded by superhero bias. My collection is only about 25% superhero so that argument doesn't hold water.

 

You and I are contemporaries for the most part, so we have observed the market for roughly the same amount of time. Thus equally qualified to comment on it.

[mrmyst]

The generally 'accepted' version of what truly is a 'comic book' has been around for 80 years. For about 70 of those years, the overwhelmingly dominant genre in terms of sales has been superheroes. Meanwhile, the 'sunday funnies' have devolved into tiny panels that no longer merit the ad revenues they did 80 years ago. I think it's safe to say that superheroes really 'made' comic books what they are today.

[VintageComics]

Small world indeed Bob.

 

Imagine how microscopic the world of comics would be without the advent of the superhero. If it would still exist at all.

 

That is all you came away with from my last post?

 

One can "imagine" all one wants to if one chooses to, but, Bill, that statement is simply silly on the face of it, simply by examining the published evidence of well over a century of comic book production.

 

Bob, you are the one lacking in imagination. You are so busy connecting the dots that you can't see the forest for the trees. So to speak.

 

Fast forward it 100 years. What will be remembered then?

 

You don't reply to the facts and direct observations in my posts, so why should I return the favor. You keep calling me, or my position silly, that may be true about me, but not my position.

 

Stop thinking I am blinded by superhero bias. My collection is only about 25% superhero so that argument doesn't hold water.

 

You and I are contemporaries for the most part, so we have observed the market for roughly the same amount of time. Thus equally qualified to comment on it.

 

Does anyone have a timeline illustration or graph clearly showing a comparison of sales numbers for many of these publications? (ie. Buster Brown, Action #1, Obadiah, etc).

 

 

[ciorac]

The generally 'accepted' version of what truly is a 'comic book' has been around for 80 years. For about 70 of those years, the overwhelmingly dominant genre in terms of sales has been superheroes. Meanwhile, the 'sunday funnies' have devolved into tiny panels that no longer merit the ad revenues they did 80 years ago. I think it's safe to say that superheroes really 'made' comic books what they are today.

 

(thumbs u

[RedFury]

My wife has absolutely no interest in comic books. So I asked her "What's the first thing you think of when you hear 'comic book'?" She replied "Superman".

 

I then asked "What genre of story do you most associate with comic books?" She said "Super-heroes". And she gave me a look that said "Duh. What else is there?"

 

Super-heroes are the American mythology. To suggest there is anything in comic book history more important than the introductions of the major heroes is ludicrous. If I showed an Obadiah Oldbuck to anybody I know outside of you geeks, I'd get a blank stare. But Superman 1? Batman 1? It doesn't matter who I show it to, there is instant recognition not only of the character but of the importance of the book. It's universal. Ask a kindergartner. They'll set you straight.

[BLBcomics-migration]

Small world indeed Bob.

 

Imagine how microscopic the world of comics would be without the advent of the superhero. If it would still exist at all.

 

That is all you came away with from my last post?

 

One can "imagine" all one wants to if one chooses to, but, Bill, that statement is simply silly on the face of it, simply by examining the published evidence of well over a century of comic book production.

 

Bob, you are the one lacking in imagination. You are so busy connecting the dots that you can't see the forest for the trees. So to speak.

 

Fast forward it 100 years. What will be remembered then?

 

You don't reply to the facts and direct observations in my posts, so why should I return the favor. You keep calling me, or my position silly, that may be true about me, but not my position.

 

Stop thinking I am blinded by superhero bias. My collection is only about 25% superhero so that argument doesn't hold water.

 

You and I are contemporaries for the most part, so we have observed the market for roughly the same amount of time. Thus equally qualified to comment on it.

 

I thought I had been replying to your posts, your observations. pardon me if I have not, in your eyes. email conversation is prone for misinterpretations as well as not seeing said trees for said forest of words. ie your observations which i evidently have not addressed.

 

I admit up front there is a stretch in the middle of this thread I have not bothered to delve in to even reading. too much peanut gallery troll activity to waste valuable time upon.

 

that said, what facts have you presented I did not expressly reply to?

 

That said, please do not think I am biased against super heroic type comic books. I love em, anything good in any genre.

 

There is "bias" and there is examination of "facts"

 

Facts stipulate

 

1) come 1939, super heroic was a major factor driving comic book sales till WW2 ends as they begin dropping like flies in DDT come 1945 with most gone and the genre a pale shell of itself no later than 1949 when Quality, Timely others give up that ghost

 

2) from 1945, when the genre begins dying big time, up thru 1962, which is a year I peg because there is finally a major number of super heroic type titles hitting the stands, a period of 17 years, super hero is forgotten re the vast majority of comic book sales.

 

3) Post Batman TV show, fueled by all the media hype of said Batman TV show, the super heroic glut sees another implosion which stretches in to the beginnings of another revival after the Byrne X-mens begin making an impact in comics reading consciousness. That is another ten year decade

 

4) One can not speculate logically what will be remembered 100 years from now inasmuch as one might wish to. The only solid foundation upon which to examine this comics business that is what has already been published and examine that evidence.

 

I am also not speculating on the relative knowledge and wisdom any one individual might have on their knowledge (or lack there of) turning in to wisdom on the subject of comics and their very long history as a cultural force in a great many countries.

 

Of course you are qualified to make commentary on the subject. Never hinted you did not. However, I might also have a lot more primary research material on the subject than most folks which goes out far beyond the actual comic books themselves these days of daZe.

 

5) That said, were/are super heroioc type comic books important?

 

sure they were, for short stretches of time. no doubt about it.

 

Were they the MAIN force in comics all this time? Nope.

 

[sacentaur]

Ask a kindergartner. They'll set you straight.

 

It's not complicated.

[Timely]

Were they the MAIN force in comics MOST this time? YEP! (thumbs u

[BLBcomics-migration]

I also might add to every one choosing to read this thread that per Irwin Donenfeld, during the 18 or so hours I interviewed him on tape in his home town over a few years post many a NYC comicon I used to set up at,

 

this son of the original Superman publisher, who told me as a 12 year old in 1938 he read the original Superman art going in to Action Comics #1 onwards, the original Batman art going in to Detective Comics #27 (among many others BTW),

 

groomed to be publisher by his father Harry, and, indeed was National Periodical Publications publisher from 1953, the advent year of the Superman TV show which kept Supermam ALIVE,

 

thru 1968 when Jack Liebowitz machinations forced him out,

 

stated in no uncertain terms,

 

George Delacorte aka DELL COMICS, was OVER 50% of the comic book business all by himself for many years.

 

Main years of Dell Dominance was 1945 once paper shortage allocations began lifting thru 1960 when that firm made a silly mistake raising their cover prices from a dime to 15 cents thereby plummeting their paid sold circulations. Delacorte made a near fatal mistake regarding his previous once thriving comics business.

 

Irwin stated to me in no uncertain terms as we explored this concept over the course of many questions on my part in taped interviews his father as well as himself ALWAYS viewed George Delacorte as their absolute MAIN comic book publisher competitor.

 

Delacorte began publishing and distributing via American News in 1921. He was publishing comic books in the 1920s. Research this, please.

 

He was 50-50 partners with Eastern Color with The Funnies comics periodical, the FIRST news stand regularly published original material comics title beginning in 1928

 

as well as 50-50 partners again with Eastern with the news stand advent of Famous Funnies beginning in 1934.

 

Please some one name Delecorte's impact in to the super heroic title genre? Ever. please......

 

 

[Bookery]

I suppose Timely just dabbled in superheroes and never took them to heart. Is that why you ignored them or did Cap suddenly develop halitosis?

 

Sorry David-- just a typo on my part. I was thinking Timely but typed Quality... didn't even realize it until you pointed it out. But yes, obviously Timely was one of the Big 3 promoting super-heroes.