ORIGINS of the American Comic Book 0

[RedFury]

Bob, I love Dell comics, I really do. But why are you using sales figures as your measuring stick? Surely the best way to measure the importance of a comic book character is their impact on pop culture?

 

And as great as Dell books were, they were mostly about characters that originated in other media. Super-heroes originated in comics.

[Bookery]

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.

 

Not marginalizing anything... just putting things into proper historical perspective. There is a big difference.

 

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.

 

But how does this change anything I said? We were talking historical roots... not present day. Obviously super-heroes dominate now. I said as much. And I even explained how they came to dominate. In fact, if you re-read my post, you see I pretty much talked only up through the 1960s, because that I felt, is the part of history that is constantly being distorted. There is little debate of what happened with super-heroes after that.

 

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

 

Again, it's not about minimalizing anything. It's about the truth. Super-heroes were non-existent in much of the '30s. They were a major genre in the early '40s (but were never the dominant one). They were virtually non-existent again through most of the 1950s. They re-emerged again, big-time, in the 1960s (but again, I maintain, even during this time, they were not the dominant sellers... that would still be Dell/Gold Key, Classics and Archie). Finally, in the 1970s they took full reign as the dominant comic book genre, where they remain to this day.

 

Super-heroes are indeed fascinating, precisely because ONLY comic books took them to heart. There were no super-hero novels during much of this time (well... one). There were no super-hero pulps. There were only a few super-hero serials in the golden-age... there were more films just about Tarzan than all of the super-hero serials combined.

 

So yes... super-heroes are very important and rightly studied because of their exclusivity to the comic format for much of comics' formative years. They are important in their own right... they don't have to have additional mythologies added to them to hoist their import and regard.

 

It's like trying to argue that the myth of Washington chopping down a cherry tree is actually more historically important than anything Washington actually did in the Revolution or as President.

 

[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.

 

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.

 

Clearly you have done much more research into the tidbits and anecdotes that dot the timeline of comics history throughout time. I applaud you for that.

 

You've taught me much in that area. I concede that.

 

But, it doesn't take a scholar to see what is obvious. The old adage "their are none so blind as those who will not see" is quite appropriate here, as it relates to your position.

 

Dell hasn't been relevant in decades. When have superheroes, in one form or another been irrelevant since their inception? Never.

 

You didn't address the obvious, instead mine responses for minutae you can point out about articles that casually mentioned somehthing or sales figures during a certain time period.

 

As Todd so rightly pointed out, the impact on pop culture from the superhero genre has been seismic. Comics, books, radio, televison, motion pictures, toys, merchadising, clothing, etc. It is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Can you not concede that at long last?

 

I was in a pajama store in King of Prussia the other day looking for a "onesy" for one of my seven grandchildren. I wanted a Batman one of course. The manager said they were completely sold out, and that the Batman onesies outsold ALL other licensed characters COMBINED!

 

Is it coming into focus for you now?

[mrmyst]

Obadiah Oldbuck onesies.... gotta get me one.

[Bookery]

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.

 

Again, this simply is demonstrably untrue. Super-heroes did not dominate sales probably until the 1970s... possibly about 1968 when Marvel was able to substantially boost its hero-title output.

[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.

 

Again, this simply is demonstrably untrue. Super-heroes did not dominate sales probably until the 1970s... possibly about 1968 when Marvel was able to substantially boost its hero-title output.

Super heroes didn't dominate during the WWII years? Marvel and DC didn't dominate in the 1960s? Really?

[Bookery]

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

 

Nope. They were not the main force in the 1800s. They were not the main force in the Platinum Age. They were not the main force in the 1930s, nor the 40s, nor the 50s. They were coming along in the 1960s, but probably were not even then the main force.

 

From the '70s on... yes, they are the main force.

 

 

[sacentaur]

Obadiah Oldbuck onesies.... gotta get me one.

 

Whoa, steady there son... talk like that can earn you a furious PM from BLB with payment information.

[mrmyst]

Obadiah Oldbuck onesies.... gotta get me one.

 

Whoa, steady there son... talk like that can earn you a furious PM from BLB with payment information.

[Bookery]

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.

 

Again, this simply is demonstrably untrue. Super-heroes did not dominate sales probably until the 1970s... possibly about 1968 when Marvel was able to substantially boost its hero-title output.

Super heroes didn't dominate during the WWII years? Marvel and DC didn't dominate in the 1960s? Really?

 

Yes, really. Are you not reading any of the historical data presented throughout this thread? I mean... what do you want me to say? I think, maybe by 1968, heroes finally dominated comics sales... as Gold Key began to fade, as did Charlton and Classics. Archie, I'm sure, still out-sold them, even then, however.

 

Super-heroes were big during WW2, and their very splashy covers were easy to utilize by media in stories about comics. But they did not dominate, at least in terms of sales. The published numbers are out there. But I don't even need to read those to know, after 30 years in the business, the numbers that still show up from those eras.

 

Assuming there was no prejudice in paper drives of WW2 as to what got pulped and what didn't, clearly far more copies abound today of Walt Disney, Looney Tunes, appearances by Li'l Abner, Popeye, Katzenjammer Kids, Classics, and others than there are of any of the super-hero titles (though Captain Marvel is the one hero title that made a fair shot at competing at those levels).

 

 

[VintageComics]

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

 

Nope. They were not the main force in the 1800s. They were not the main force in the Platinum Age. They were not the main force in the 1930s, nor the 40s, nor the 50s. They were coming along in the 1960s, but probably were not even then the main force.

 

From the '70s on... yes, they are the main force.

 

 

Although I'm not nearly as knowledgeable as most of you guys, I too was under the impression that superheroes did not carry comics alone, and my understanding mirrors Bookery's and BLB's that in the 1930's, 1940's and 1950,s (was unsure about the 1960's) that Superheros were popular but not the most popular comics. I thought that was a given.

 

I was under the impression that the humour titles (Disney, Archie, etc) outsold superheroes during the Golden Age...and Superman was clearly outsold by Captain Marvel.

 

Bob, I love Dell comics, I really do. But why are you using sales figures as your measuring stick?

 

Todd, I thought sales figures would be an accurate measuring stick because for one, it's unbiased, meaning they are numbers not opinions. It shows what was hot during each respective time period, and would also show which vector or direction readership would have taken through the years.

 

Obviously if there is a pattern of high sales and popularity over a series of either titles or publications those were take precedent over those that were either flops or near forgotten.

 

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

Bob, I love Dell comics, I really do. But why are you using sales figures as your measuring stick? Surely the best way to measure the importance of a comic book character is their impact on pop culture?

 

And as great as Dell books were, they were mostly about characters that originated in other media. Super-heroes originated in comics.

 

yes, no argument there per se. Ever. Regarding super-heroes originated in comics, however, super hero in comics dates back further than most are aware of here.

 

if one was to grab hold of an Overstreet for the past decade, turn to the Platinum article, i have OPG #42 handy, turn in that one to page 352, one will see at the top of the page Hugo Hercules 1902-03 by one J. Koerner from the Chicago Tribune.

 

The sample strip printed in OPG for some years now has super heroic Hugo Hercules throwing a burning two story house some distance in to Lake Michigan thereby solving the "fire" though one might wonder about what happens to the people clearly hanging out of the house's windows -

 

on another note as I think of it: Philip Wylie sued Donenfeld, Siegel & Shuster, et al for plaigerism re his 1930 novel Gladiator being direct "inspiration" for Superman.

 

Interesting tidbit to explore is Wylie's main super heroic character in Gladiator is also named "Hugo." Wylie was a young kid growing up in Chicago when the 1902 comic strip Hugo Hercules had its run in the Chicago Tribune.

 

Super heroic characters in comics have other earlier appearances in comics as well - before we get to Superman in Action Comics #1

 

As far as Siegel and Shuster creating Superman goes, I might humbly direct interested souls towards "The Big Bang Theory of Comic Book History" in the much lamented ceased publication zine Comic Book Marketplace #50, August, 1997

 

as well as Comics Buyer's Guide #1029 and an earlier issue of CBM the number eludes me both dated in 1996 which each contain an article of mine titled "The First Superman Cover" about my research in to this puppy http://www.ebay.com/itm/FIRST-SUPERMAN-1-1933-SIEGEL-AND-SHUSTER-COVER-DONE-ORIGINAL-ART-/230958252728?pt=US_Comic_Books&hash=item35c62f42b8 I used to have the original art to back when I was a "silly" (ie aka s t u p i d) teenager still in high school.

 

I had sent this article to both Don Thompson at CBG (who published EVERY missive I ever sent him for what that is worth) and Gary Carter at CBM. Each published two thirds of it, and by some stroke of "luck" each left out a different third of it. One has to score both to read it in its entirety. Both cited spacial concerns at the time.

 

Inside CBM #50 one will discover that a MAIN influence among many other very non-comics inspiration on Siegel & Shuster were publications by Hugo (there is that name again - Gernsback.

 

In the Action #1 story one can see, if one compares, panels copied directly off Gernsback's Science and Invention magazine covers.

 

Exploding planet Krypton, the rocket carrying Baby Kal-El to Earth, others.

 

So, yes, super hero in comics begins in 1902.

 

Origins of Superman extend far and away outside of comic books or comic strips.

[Bookery]

Bob, I love Dell comics, I really do. But why are you using sales figures as your measuring stick? Surely the best way to measure the importance of a comic book character is their impact on pop culture?

 

And as great as Dell books were, they were mostly about characters that originated in other media. Super-heroes originated in comics.

 

Exactly! This is what makes them important... This is what makes them facinating... This is what makes them collectible. Why must we constantly re-write history and denigrate the truth to praise them even further? Superman didn't save comics in 1938, nor was he even the first super-hero. Super-heroes didn't dominate in the golden-age... that wouldn't happen for another quarter-century. These are simply long-standing and rather silly myths, and the last place they should be perpetrated is on a Board such as this... which should be all about setting the record straight and putting everything into its proper perspective.

 

BTW-- this does, unfortuantely, occur in almost all pop culture history. I wrote a college thesis on correcting the myths surrounding Warner Brothers, the arrival of sound in film, and "The Jazz Singer". The facts are out there, but bad history books continue to this day to reprint the false myths.

 

When it leaked out I was working on a pulp guide, I was told by many high-end collectors there was no need for such a book, because most collectors already knew all about pulps. What I soon discovered, was what they meant was they already knew all about The Shadow and Doc Savage. Many pulp collectors today will tell you that hero pulps dominated their eras too (they never did).

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

Is it coming into focus for you now?

 

What is coming in to focus re your position(s) is you seem to be discussing only right NOW present tense.

 

I have been exploring the gamut of comics history

 

now, you did pose a question, "...When have superheroes, in one form or another been irrelevant since their inception? Never...."

 

well, one can easily stipulate super heroes were never "irrelevant"

 

however, how important in over all comic book sales for huge stretches of time:

 

1) 1945-1962

 

2) 1969-1977

 

are two stretches of time where they were definitely in a sub-set minority re over all sales of all comic books then on the stands.

 

1945-1962 one can glean from the definite documented aercheological evidence

 

1969-1977 I "lived' thru especially from 1972 onwards as a full time comic book chain store co-owner trying to keep the rent & employees paid, acquire new product, etc

 

I can cheerfully stipulate we would have STARVED to death being dependent upon super hero titles for cash flow sustenance till Austin, Bryne, Clairmont X-men began to bring a renewed focus in 1977 to reading well-done super hero comics. Fact.

 

The Direct Market did not break the 5% of total sales in the comic book market until the early 1980s. FACT.

 

So, to sum up, am I to "see" that you have ONLY truly been talking about NOW in this thread about the "evolution" of the the comic book?

 

if so, i humbly apologize for not "seeing" via impersonal limited-consciousness E-Mail what you have been discussing.

 

I would take it further: all what you said in this (and probably earlier) email(s) is what is keeping the venerated two staple side-stitched comic "book" magazine ALIVE for at least a while longer because with out the movies, with out the massive accompanying merchandising, the super hero comic book standing on its own "two feet" might not even exist here in 2013. - -

 

 

 

[Bookery]

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.

 

In no way would I disagree with this. In fact, I wonder if Superman would still be published today if it weren't for the 1950s TV show. When people talk about how famous Superman became, especially in the 1950s on, and how recognized worldwide he is, I think this was in large part due to the TV show, and not the comics of that time, which were faring quite poorly circa 1953. The fact that the show (as was the comic book) was primarily aimed at very young children who were an eager market for advertisers helped immensely.

 

Marvel's popularity was helped immensely by the '60s Saturday morning cartoons (again, aimed at the very young, though the comics themselves aimed at teens). Batman was a fading character when the '60s show hit, revitalizing his popularity (even though, ironically, it juvenilized his adventures and parodied them at a time when the comics were becoming more serious in tone).

 

Comics in general, and super-heroes in particular, have been very fortunate in the timing of certain media contracts. A few years ago, when comics sales were plummeting to all time lows, along comes new technologies that make multiple big-budget super-hero epics viable for the first time. And again, comic sales begin to rise a bit from the cross-over interest (for now). But Hollywood didn't choose super-hero projects because of their massive appeal to a 1-10th of 1% reading audience. They chose them because they dovetailed perfectly with new CGI and editing technologies, and came with ready-to-play backstories and concepts that easily translated to world-wide audiences.

 

So I'm not sure why you assume I fail to grasp the importance of media tie-ins (I majored in film, btw, and was accepted into the world's most prestigious film directing program in its day, so I'm not entirely unsavvy to film and television history). It's hard to cover all bases (even posts as inadequate as this will be seen as too long to bother reading by many)... but my not covering this and other aspects of hero-history doesn't necesarily mean I am ignorant of them. Not necessarily...

 

Edited April 10, 2013 by Bookery

[BOOT]

Super-heroes originated in comics.

 

This thread reminds me of an old Emo Philips joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!”

He said, “Nobody loves me.”

I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?”

He said, “A Christian.”

I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?”

He said, “Protestant.”

I said, “Me, too! What franchise?”

He said, “Baptist.”

I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Baptist.”

I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.”

 

I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?”

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.”

 

I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?”

 

He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.”

 

I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

 

Everybody here loves comics. Why all the contentiousness?

 

How in the world do you measure the overall "importance" of a particular comic? Facts are facts, while importance is a judgment.

 

The Walking Dead has broken all kinds of rating records. It's from a comic book. It's not about superheroes. How do you measure that importance?

 

Comic books have been a great medium for telling stories of superheroes. But such stories did not start in comic books. Heroes with superhuman abilities have been mythologized as long as humans have told stories.

 

And by the way, Obadiah Oldbuck was the first comic book superhero (invulnerability, super strength, super speed).

 

[Bookery]

Everybody here loves comics. Why all the contentiousness?

 

How in the world do you measure the overall "importance" of a particular comic? Facts are facts, while importance is a judgment.

 

The Walking Dead has broken all kinds of rating records. It's from a comic book. It's not about superheroes. How do you measure that importance?

 

Comic books have been a great medium for telling stories of superheroes. But such stories did not start in comic books. Heroes with superhuman abilities have been mythologized as long as humans have told stories.

 

And by the way, Obadiah Oldbuck was the first comic book superhero (invulnerability, super strength, super speed).

 

I agree to a point, though for my part I don't think I'm being especially contentious. David MerryWeather and Ciorac and I have differing viewpoints (and I don't think we're always arguing on the same topics), but I have no hard feelings toward them because of it... in fact I think this is one of the best threads in GA for some time.

 

I think there is clear animosity toward Bob Beerbohm by some, but it seems it has to do with stuff outside what he is really presenting here, and that is unfortunate because his timelines and data are quite fascinating (and for the most part indisputable). People may disagree with his opinions or conclusions drawn, but even these aren't hysterically out of bounds, as presented, and his information is quite interesting and revealing. And all historians eventually draw conclusions from their research that spark debate and criticism.

 

I love comics, but I love historical fact even more. In fact, I treasure accuracy. Myths are often oversimplifications and shortcuts... the truth is far more complicated and therefore far more interesting. Too often today we see history shredded by media and politicians who have a vested interest in altering the historical record. If we can't at least have truth in something that should be as inoccuous as pop culture, then the world is indeed a sadder place.

 

I have learned a number of things on this thread I never knew before. I can impart a few tidbits here and there of which a few others may be unaware. Opinions, if based on fact and not emotion, should all be worthy of consideration and honest debate, and if derived honestly, should be above ridicule even if disagreed with. Despite a couple of moments, I think for the most part this thread achieves that.

 

[Theagenes]

Everybody here loves comics. Why all the contentiousness?

 

How in the world do you measure the overall "importance" of a particular comic? Facts are facts, while importance is a judgment.

 

The Walking Dead has broken all kinds of rating records. It's from a comic book. It's not about superheroes. How do you measure that importance?

 

Comic books have been a great medium for telling stories of superheroes. But such stories did not start in comic books. Heroes with superhuman abilities have been mythologized as long as humans have told stories.

 

And by the way, Obadiah Oldbuck was the first comic book superhero (invulnerability, super strength, super speed).

 

I agree to a point, though for my part I don't think I'm being especially contentious. David MerryWeather and Ciorac and I have differing viewpoints (and I don't think we're always arguing on the same topics), but I have no hard feelings toward them because of it... in fact I think this is one of the best threads in GA for some time.

 

I think there is clear animosity toward Bob Beerbohm by some, but it seems it has to do with stuff outside what he is really presenting here, and that is unfortunate because his timelines and data are quite fascinating (and for the most part indisputable). People may disagree with his opinions or conclusions drawn, but even these aren't hysterically out of bounds, as presented, and his information is quite interesting and revealing. And all historians eventually draw conclusions from their research that spark debate and criticism.

 

I love comics, but I love historical fact even more. In fact, I treasure accuracy. Myths are often oversimplifications and shortcuts... the truth is far more complicated and therefore far more interesting. Too often today we see history shredded by media and politicians who have a vested interest in altering the historical record. If we can't at least have truth in something that should be as inoccuous as pop culture, then the world is indeed a sadder place.

 

I have learned a number of things on this thread I never knew before. I can impart a few tidbits here and there of which a few others may be unaware. Opinions, if based on fact and not emotion, should all be worthy of consideration and honest debate, and if derived honestly, should be above ridicule even if disagreed with. Despite a couple of moments, I think for the most part this thread achieves that.

 

Tim, I want you to know that I very much appreciate your level-headed posts and your contributions. I very much agree with your sentiments here.

 

Look, I know a lot of you have problems with Bob and there's a lot of history there. I know all the derision thrown his way isn't coming out of a vacuum. But some of us would really like to just discuss the history of comics without all the ad hominem attacks and silly arguments over who would win a fight: Superman or Obadiah. This is particularly disappointing when it comes from people whom I know are incredibly knowledgeable and whom I have tremendous respect for and consider to be friends. So maybe someone should start a "Bob Beerbolm sucks!" thread and take it all there adn let's keep this thread on topic

 

And Bob, the reason people don't take your history posts seriously and treat you like a huckster is because you keep acting like a huckster. Try making a post on comics history without including a link to your eBay store or appealing to us to buy something. There are dedicated places on this forum to hawk your wares -- this isn't it. You can't wear both your dealer hat and your historian hat at the same time and expect people to take your conclusions seriously when they relate to products you are selling.

 

Bob, I have a lot of respect and appreciation for the research you have done, but your posting style makes it very difficult to tease out the interesting factual nuggets from the stream-of-consciouness wall-of-texts posts filled with non-sequitor anecdotes and appeals to authority that, while interesting, are ones we have all heard before.

 

This is pretty savvy and knowledgeable crowd. The reason they aren't convinced by the arguments you're making isn't because they are unaware of your research or haven't read your essays in OPG and CBM -- it's because you haven't made a convincing argument.

 

You like to call yourself a "comic book archaeologist." Well, as someone who is an actual archaeologist and who also does academic work on popular culture, let me tell you what I would like to see in order to be convinced. In archaeology, the artifacts themselves rarely have any intrinsic value -- what matters is context. So far you haven't given us any context with which we can judge your statement that the 1842 Obadiah Oldbuck "launched the American comic book industry." Just pointing to it's existence isn't enough.

 

So how do you know that this book had any significance at all? What is your evidence for that? Töpffer was important and influential as an artist in Europe, sure. But how do you know that this US bootleg of one of his books had any impact over here at all?

 

Do you know how many copies were printed? Where was it sold and distributed? How many people would have actually seen it?

 

Was it reprinted? If so when and how many editions did it go through? You said it was sold in NY up until 1904 -- did you mean it was continually in print until 1904 or that there was a reprint of it in 1904 with no other editions in between? That's a big difference.

 

You said this 1842 edition had a direct influence on the creation of Jeremiah Saddlebags and the other US books from the 1850s. What is your evidence for this?

 

Do you have any secondary sources that refer to this 1842 edition? Are there any reviews of it or mentions of it in trade publications from the 1800s? How about advertisements? Do any of the later comic strip creators from the late 1800s and early 1900s discuss it anywhere (I'm sure Töpffer in general gets mentioned, but what about this 1842 edition in particular)?

 

Bob, these are the kinds of contextual questions that need to be answered before anyone can judge just how important this particular book is. I suspect you have answers to some of these questions, but if no one has seen them outside of a highly-specialized email listserv, then you can't expect people to just accept your conclusions with no evidence.

 

I'm not trying to pick on you. I am truly interested in this subject and I simply want to see formulate your arguments in way that allows us to truly weigh their merit.

[Timely]

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.

 

[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.

 

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