Improve the Overstreet

[PovertyRow]

The answer to that question is: YES! Pulps are the direct parents to the Comic Book. Many Pulps were published by companies who would ,soon after Superman's apperance, begin publishing thier own comics. Many a writer or artist from the Pulp world would cross-over or end up in the Comic Book business (Frank Paul, Alex Schomburg,Edmond Hamilton,..). Many Pulp characters would be reborn in Comics (Tarzan, Shadow, Green Lama,,...) just to name a few comparisons. I'd be happy to do research and write a full article, but they wouldn't be able to use it anyway, as there's no room!

 

Fuel, I agree 100% but also disagree and here is why. COmic books are based on visual panels that carry the story. Often an individual panel has no text at all - just the image.

 

I DO appreciate and recognize the various publishers and their pulp titles where the self-same publishers and titles made their way into comics.

 

But the coire, at least to me, of comic books is using panel art to further the story. But the core of pulp mags are a dynamite cover but when you open it, well, you get basicallyh all text. With the exception of the ocassional pulp that actually had a "comic book" (aka panel story) within, all you get is a short story. One could equate the Strand Magazine Sherlock Holmes stories to any Sherlock Holmes based comic book and say the Strand was the parent of these.

 

But nto my (perhaps warped) thinking, the pulps only shared three things: Covers, publishers and contributors. But the pulps lacked the most vital thing - the thing that makes the word "panelologist" a reality.

 

Such is my poor take.

[Forbush-Man]

The answer to that question is: YES! Pulps are the direct parents to the Comic Book. Many Pulps were published by companies who would ,soon after Superman's apperance, begin publishing thier own comics. Many a writer or artist from the Pulp world would cross-over or end up in the Comic Book business (Frank Paul, Alex Schomburg,Edmond Hamilton,..). Many Pulp characters would be reborn in Comics (Tarzan, Shadow, Green Lama,,...) just to name a few comparisons. I'd be happy to do research and write a full article, but they wouldn't be able to use it anyway, as there's no room!

 

Fuel, I agree 100% but also disagree and here is why. COmic books are based on visual panels that carry the story. Often an individual panel has no text at all - just the image.

 

I DO appreciate and recognize the various publishers and their pulp titles where the self-same publishers and titles made their way into comics.

 

But the coire, at least to me, of comic books is using panel art to further the story. But the core of pulp mags are a dynamite cover but when you open it, well, you get basicallyh all text. With the exception of the ocassional pulp that actually had a "comic book" (aka panel story) within, all you get is a short story. One could equate the Strand Magazine Sherlock Holmes stories to any Sherlock Holmes based comic book and say the Strand was the parent of these.

 

But nto my (perhaps warped) thinking, the pulps only shared three things: Covers, publishers and contributors. But the pulps lacked the most vital thing - the thing that makes the word "panelologist" a reality.

 

Such is my poor take.

 

And a mighty poor take it is, oh Ancient One! Note that I stated that Pulps are the direct "Parents",.....not the direct "Clones" of the Comic Book!

 

Consider the Lillies of the Field,....No! Scratch that, let's try this:

 

Many moons ago, people imigrated from the Old World to America. These people became foriegn-born Americans and used the Old World trades they had learned to support themselves. Thier children who were born in America became first generation American. The children spke English with no foriegn accent. The children often chose to not follow the trade of thier Father's and chose new directions in which to support themselves. Are the Children and the Parents now not related, as they are so different?

 

Also, if panels make a comic book, then comic strips are directly related to the Comic Book?!? Even though comic strips have no cover, not stapled together, not thier own publication but just a feature of a larger publication,

 

Lastly, Pulps are most similar to Big Little Books: Comic Cover, text & illustrations every few pages.

[PovertyRow]

Friend Fuel, I shall begin with this atrocity!

 

Also, if panels make a comic book, then comic strips are directly related to the Comic Book?!? Even though comic strips have no cover, not stapled together, not thier own publication but just a feature of a larger publication,

 

The FORMAT is not the art. Can we agree with that? What I mean by this is that if you be sayng that the format of bulk paper not saddled stitched with no special cover BUT uses panels of art to convey a story is LESS important than pure text that IS stapled with a cool cover and no relevance to a previous puiblisher is MORE important then I have to ask you: What makes a comic book a comic book?

 

To me, a comic book is an art form that uses PANELS and text to convery a story )hence the "panelogist" reference. It is also why The Yellow Kid is so valued. But if their are no panels of art would you call such a thing a "comic book"? And if so, how?

 

then comic strips are directly related to the Comic Book? Absolutely! (See my Yellow Kid ref). The "strip format" IS what a comic book is. The use of graphic panels along with text to convey a story. But the text is not sole in the comic book. Yes, a well written story will further a comjic but equally well-redered art must accompany. And well rendered art must accompany well written text.

 

But, if there are no graphic (or art) panels there is no comic book.

 

Here is a KEY point in the midst of my drivel: Baker, Colan, Kirby, Ditko, Elias, LB Cole, Wood, Davis, Ayers, Heck and such artists - how much did they contribute to the the pulps as opposed to how much did they contribute to the comics?

 

And a final thought - to me tghe Pulps could have amazing covers. And yes, the publishers and titles ARE sometimes a real surprise to the comic book collector (I will just use PLANET as an example).

 

But that is simply, IMHO, not enough. To me the pulps are more rfeflections of the Book marfket: a way to get fantsatic fictgion to the masses but in the form of text fiction.

 

I WILL say, without prevarication (to quote Poe's THE GOLD BUG) that pulps may well have furthered the short story. And that the short story seques nicely with comic books.

 

But the real thing with comic books is the combination of art and tyext to further/convey a story.

 

And Fuel!

[Forbush-Man]

Friend Fuel, I shall begin with this atrocity!

 

Also, if panels make a comic book, then comic strips are directly related to the Comic Book?!? Even though comic strips have no cover, not stapled together, not thier own publication but just a feature of a larger publication,

 

The FORMAT is not the art. Can we agree with that? What I mean by this is that if you be sayng that the format of bulk paper not saddled stitched with no special cover BUT uses panels of art to convey a story is LESS important than pure text that IS stapled with a cool cover and no relevance to a previous puiblisher is MORE important then I have to ask you: What makes a comic book a comic book?

 

To me, a comic book is an art form that uses PANELS and text to convery a story )hence the "panelogist" reference. It is also why The Yellow Kid is so valued. But if their are no panels of art would you call such a thing a "comic book"? And if so, how?

 

then comic strips are directly related to the Comic Book? Absolutely! (See my Yellow Kid ref). The "strip format" IS what a comic book is. The use of graphic panels along with text to convey a story. But the text is not sole in the comic book. Yes, a well written story will further a comjic but equally well-redered art must accompany. And well rendered art must accompany well written text.

 

But, if there are no graphic (or art) panels there is no comic book.

 

Here is a KEY point in the midst of my drivel: Baker, Colan, Kirby, Ditko, Elias, LB Cole, Wood, Davis, Ayers, Heck and such artists - how much did they contribute to the the pulps as opposed to how much did they contribute to the comics?

 

And a final thought - to me tghe Pulps could have amazing covers. And yes, the publishers and titles ARE sometimes a real surprise to the comic book collector (I will just use PLANET as an example).

 

But that is simply, IMHO, not enough. To me the pulps are more rfeflections of the Book marfket: a way to get fantsatic fictgion to the masses but in the form of text fiction.

 

I WILL say, without prevarication (to quote Poe's THE GOLD BUG) that pulps may well have furthered the short story. And that the short story seques nicely with comic books.

 

But the real thing with comic books is the combination of art and tyext to further/convey a story.

 

And Fuel!

 

While I appreciate your argument (and the vast amount of time it took for you to stew it) I am afraid I will now have to unvail my most Secretest Weapon upon yea: Are you prepared to face a man who is well over four feet tall? Let it be said now, and forever more,.....YOU'VE BEEN SERVED!

 

To quote Jim Steranko's History of the Comics, Volume I:

 

"The times were changing. Cars were going faster, so were trains and planes. Assembly lines and automation began to spread through industry. Living, in general, had accelerated considerably. Pulp publishers searched for a new way to show their wares and discovered the comic book.

 

Comics could tell a story faster and with less intellectual drag on the reader. Almost at once, they converted to the new medium.

 

Pulp major-domo Martin Goodman applied the dime novel formula to his Timely Comics. So did Fiction House and turned their Planet, Jungle and Wings pulps into comic titles. Standard Publications applied their "thrilling" ans "startling" adjectives to the Neador comics group. Fawcett followed suit. Donefeld switched from pulps to comics. Artists and writers did likewise and massed their talents for the niagara of comics to be launched momentarily.

 

The pulp heroes had maintained a vast secret society for preserving law and order. Now their day was over.

But the country still needed a good .10¢ hero.

 

The comic industry was offically about to be born!"

 

Sounds like The Pulps were going through Child-Birth to me!

 

Hi Pov.

[PovertyRow]

Well JEEZE it took YOU long enough to basically cite a quote! I mean, really!

 

ANYWAY - to address that CITED AFTER SOME TIME QUOTE - So what? I will cite this tidbit "Artists and writers did likewise and massed their talents for the niagara of comics to be launched momentarily." So what was the percentage of artists? They werf basically used for a cover and maybe some ocassional B&W interior art but the ratio or writing to art comparing pulp to comics? Care to comment on that ratio?

 

And to quote Steranko Pulp publishers searched for a new way to show their wares and discovered the comic book.

 

May I accent a particular piece of what Steranko said? a new way

 

New way - as in not having been done before.

 

Yes - the CONCEPT of these fast paced stories of the unusual were in pulps. But they were also, long before pulps, in the short stories of Poe, Collins, James, de Maupassant, Verne, Welles, Gogol, Lovecraft, Stoker and on and on. We are talking about IDEAS here. The IDEA of a fast paced adventure/thriller and even horror story long pre-dated the pulps. And the pulp presentation was, by bthe pulp time, and old presentation, with so many short stories having been published prior to the pulps. The pulps were a way to get the short story to the masses cheaply. But certinaly not a new art form.

 

The use of art and text mutually to convey a story? To me that is a comic book.

[Forbush-Man]

One more thing regarding this:

 

Here is a KEY point in the midst of my drivel: Baker, Colan, Kirby, Ditko, Elias, LB Cole, Wood, Davis, Ayers, Heck and such artists - how much did they contribute to the the pulps as opposed to how much did they contribute to the comics?

 

Both Comics & Pulps were well into publication by the time these names came along.

 

The original argument (I mean "friendly argument" ) was from my statement that the Pulps were the direct parents of the Comic Book.

[PovertyRow]

One more thing regarding this:

 

Here is a KEY point in the midst of my drivel: Baker, Colan, Kirby, Ditko, Elias, LB Cole, Wood, Davis, Ayers, Heck and such artists - how much did they contribute to the the pulps as opposed to how much did they contribute to the comics?

 

Both Comics & Pulps were well into publication by the time these names came along.

 

The original argument (I mean "friendly argument" ) was from my statement that the Pulps were the direct parents of the Comic Book.

 

OK (and jeeze yes this is a friendly argument! I LONG for such arguments where perceptions are compared like this. No trash on you).

 

BUT - we are not talking about the mutual time shared by pulps and comics. We are talking about the concept of pulps being the parent of comic books than strips were, with a bit of attention ot the fact that simply because strips were not stapoled etc. they have less provenance!

 

[Forbush-Man]

One more thing regarding this:

 

Here is a KEY point in the midst of my drivel: Baker, Colan, Kirby, Ditko, Elias, LB Cole, Wood, Davis, Ayers, Heck and such artists - how much did they contribute to the the pulps as opposed to how much did they contribute to the comics?

 

Both Comics & Pulps were well into publication by the time these names came along.

 

The original argument (I mean "friendly argument" ) was from my statement that the Pulps were the direct parents of the Comic Book.

 

OK (and jeeze yes this is a friendly argument! I LONG for such arguments where perceptions are compared like this. No trash on you).

 

BUT - we are not talking about the mutual time shared by pulps and comics. We are talking about the concept of pulps being the parent of comic books than strips were, with a bit of attention ot the fact that simply because strips were not stapoled etc. they have less provenance!

 

 

It took me a while to respond to your post, please forgive me: I most assueredly must have fallen asleep upon reading your reply!

 

With that having been said, on we go!

 

My dear POV,

 

Are we going round with the chicken or the egg? Is discovery the same or less than invention? To this I ask you: Why is a Frog?

 

Granted, the world's first Comic Book, Funnies on Parade, (Eastern Color Prinitng Company, 1933) was published by a publisher not associated with Pulp Magazines, Comic Books none the less become the foster child of the Pulp Publisher: The Pulp Publisher adopted (Parented) the new medium.

 

"Major Malcolm Wheeler-Nicolson, Cavalry Officer, Sprtsman, adventurer and Pulp-Fiction Writer concieved the idea of commisioning original work for a line of Comic Books in 1934." - from 25th Overstreet Price Guide.

 

He (The Major) gave birth to National Comics, better known today as DC Comics.

 

Between 1934 & 1938 a number of comics were published, but in 1938 things wake up with the coming of "The Superman"!

 

Fiction House enters with Jumbo Comics, in 1938. Fawcett, Red Circle (Timely) and Dell (all Pulp Publishers) quickly follow suit. Title upon title is created. Writers and artists previously working the Pulp field begin to work more and more on the Comic Book. The major players responsible for publishing Comic Books were the Pulp Publisher.

[PovertyRow]

Well first, I KNOW who Nicholson was but thank you for the reminder.

 

And for all ther rest, I have to ask - what did these publishers LOOK to in creating their comic books? Were they inspired to create comic books because of their pulp magazines? Or were they inspired to create comic books because they realized that the panelogical telling of a story was profitable?

 

I will not disagree, and in fact agreed with you, that some of the pulp publishers and even titles made their way into comic books.

 

But to me, to call something the parent of comic books has to entail an inspiration for such. And, to me, the inspiratrion for these pulp publishersw was not the pulp magazine but the panel art that they were seeing sell so well.

[Forbush-Man]

Well first, I KNOW who Nicholson was but thank you for the reminder.

 

And for all ther rest, I have to ask - what did these publishers LOOK to in creating their comic books? Were they inspired to create comic books because of their pulp magazines? Or were they inspired to create comic books because they realized that the panelogical telling of a story was profitable?

 

I will not disagree, and in fact agreed with you, that some of the pulp publishers and even titles made their way into comic books.

 

But to me, to call something the parent of comic books has to entail an inspiration for such. And, to me, the inspiratrion for these pulp publishersw was not the pulp magazine but the panel art that they were seeing sell so well.

 

Nope, the only REAL inspiration for these Publisher's was money , what would sell. The only truely inspired creation during this time was "The Superman"!

 

Everything beyond that was imitation of one form or another to make bucks. End of story.

[Forbush-Man]

Well first, I KNOW who Nicholson was but thank you for the reminder.

 

And for all ther rest, I have to ask - what did these publishers LOOK to in creating their comic books? Were they inspired to create comic books because of their pulp magazines? Or were they inspired to create comic books because they realized that the panelogical telling of a story was profitable?

 

I will not disagree, and in fact agreed with you, that some of the pulp publishers and even titles made their way into comic books.

 

But to me, to call something the parent of comic books has to entail an inspiration for such. And, to me, the inspiratrion for these pulp publishersw was not the pulp magazine but the panel art that they were seeing sell so well.

 

Nope, the only REAL inspiration for these Publisher's was money , what would sell. The only truely inspired creation during this time was "The Superman"!

 

Everything beyond that was imitation of one form or another to make bucks. End of story.

 

Actually, we agreed on the money part.

[PovertyRow]

Well first, I KNOW who Nicholson was but thank you for the reminder.

 

And for all ther rest, I have to ask - what did these publishers LOOK to in creating their comic books? Were they inspired to create comic books because of their pulp magazines? Or were they inspired to create comic books because they realized that the panelogical telling of a story was profitable?

 

I will not disagree, and in fact agreed with you, that some of the pulp publishers and even titles made their way into comic books.

 

But to me, to call something the parent of comic books has to entail an inspiration for such. And, to me, the inspiratrion for these pulp publishersw was not the pulp magazine but the panel art that they were seeing sell so well.

 

Nope, the only REAL inspiration for these Publisher's was money , what would sell. The only truely inspired creation during this time was "The Superman"!

 

Everything beyond that was imitation of one form or another to make bucks. End of story.

 

What do you MEAN Nope, the only REAL inspiration for these Publisher's was money.

 

Didn't I just say that And, to me, the inspiratrion for these pulp publishersw was not the pulp magazine but the panel art that they were seeing sell so well.

 

SELL SO WELL? What "NOPE"???

 

Now I will agree that the parents of comics may well have come out of the pulp mags, but the inspiration that created comkics did not - THAT came out of the preceding panel art. And this is why I cannot say that pulp magazines were the parent of comics. The pulp magazine businesspeople were, but not the magazines. VERY different thing!

 

::edited to add the trailing end-of-bold to the right place - sorry

[Forbush-Man]

,....And the one truely inspired character, "The Superman", was published by a former Pulp-Fiction Writer.

 

I WON !!!

 

[PovertyRow]

,....And the one truely inspired character, "The Superman", was published by a former Pulp-Fiction Writer.

 

I WON !!!

 

 

Dang it no no no! So your saying that if the first automobile was manufactured by a former fountain pen maker that the fountain pen was the parfent of the automobile?

 

I am saying that pulp ficiton spun off as a cheapm and popular way of selling the short story - in text form. Now yes, comic books and pulp mags and short storiues and magazines and novels etc are all part of the publishing industry. But man alive! Let's say Gutenberg was the real parent of the comic book! It has as much relevance!

 

[Forbush-Man]

Now I will agree that the parents of comics may well have come out of the pulp mags, but the inspiration that created comics did not - THAT came out of the preceding panel art. And this is why I cannot say that pulp magazines were the parent of comics. The pulp magazine business people were, but not the magazines. VERY different thing!

 

Pulp Magazine,........Comic Magazine,.... Potato,....PaTa-to !

 

It's obviously a difference of oppinion.

 

For you, the use of panels to tell the story is paramount. I suppose that makes the Newspaper strip the Parent to the Comic Book in your view.

 

To me it's the physical structure (cheap newsprint), colorful covers with costumed heroes, extraordinary powers and often hidden identities which define Pulps and the Comic Book together. That and the fact that Siegal & Shuster were BIG fans of Amazing Stories (The first SciFi Magazine & a Pulp) as well as Doc Savage (Who was refered to as "SUPERMAN Doc Savage-man of Master Mind and Body") as far back as 1933.

[PovertyRow]

For you, the use of panels to tell the story is paramount. I suppose that makes the Newspaper strip the Parent to the Comic Book in your view.

 

Yes, the use of panels and panel art are, to me, paramount to the comic book and its definition. Without these, then we would just have a continuation in text of the costumed heroes, powers etc. And comic books in their present form existed well before Superman made the scene.

 

Yes, pulps DID bring (first or second hand) the things you speak of to comic books. But while your emphasis is on secret identies, powers etc, such were not the sole posession of the pulps. As far as hidden identies and powers - that too is rooted in pre-pulp literature.

 

I defintely see a relationship between pulps and comics, but just do not see them as parenting the comics.

[Forbush-Man]

For you, the use of panels to tell the story is paramount. I suppose that makes the Newspaper strip the Parent to the Comic Book in your view.

 

Yes, the use of panels and panel art are, to me, paramount to the comic book and its definition. Without these, then we would just have a continuation in text of the costumed heroes, powers etc. And comic books in their present form existed well before Superman made the scene.

 

Yes, pulps DID bring (first or second hand) the things you speak of to comic books. But while your emphasis is on secret identies, powers etc, such were not the sole posession of the pulps. As far as hidden identies and powers - that too is rooted in pre-pulp literature.

 

I defintely see a relationship between pulps and comics, but just do not see them as parenting the comics.

 

And I mean it !

 

I'm gonna get a BIG FLY SWATER tomorrow, just you wait an' see!

 

Fuelman, signing off.

[jbcomicbox]

Well first, I KNOW who Nicholson was but thank you for the reminder.

 

And for all ther rest, I have to ask - what did these publishers LOOK to in creating their comic books? Were they inspired to create comic books because of their pulp magazines? Or were they inspired to create comic books because they realized that the panelogical telling of a story was profitable?

 

I will not disagree, and in fact agreed with you, that some of the pulp publishers and even titles made their way into comic books.

 

But to me, to call something the parent of comic books has to entail an inspiration for such. And, to me, the inspiratrion for these pulp publishersw was not the pulp magazine but the panel art that they were seeing sell so well.

 

They were looking to separate dimes from kids. Money. Looking for an alternative to the pulps which were on a down swing

[Forbush-Man]

Yes, pulps DID bring (first or second hand) the things you speak of to comic books. But while your emphasis is on secret identies, powers etc, such were not the sole posession of the pulps. As far as hidden identies and powers - that too is rooted in pre-pulp literature.

 

True, for us to go further into characters with hidden identities or extraordinary powers, we'd have to go back and study Mythology or Pagan religions to explore it further. Pulp Magazines were around for a number of years before the introduction of Tarzan, and yet his appearance in All-Story is the "Holy Grail" of Pulp Collecting (and Tarzan is a reincarnation of a Hercules-type character).

 

I defintely see a relationship between pulps and comics, but just do not see them as parenting the comics.

 

The Pulp publishers "adopted" the new medium, thereby making it their own. They nutured it and gave vastly to it's growth. What is the definition of "Parenting" if not this? If you adopt a child, do you not become the parent of said child, even though you may not be Blood Relations?

 

Morning, POV !

 

(Edited to include Tarzan as a Hercules-type character and correct spelling.)

[precodekeith]

 

So glad to see intelligent debate!

 

Great points by all..... please continue!