What is the First Appearance of the ONLY Pulitzer Prize winning comic story?
3 3

15 posts in this topic

On 8/5/2021 at 1:45 AM, sfcityduck said:

Art Spiegelman's Maus is the only comic story or graphic novel to win a Pulitzer.  Which begs a question:

Which of these two comics is the first appearance of that story?

345438199_IMG_1160(004).thumb.jpg.087321e6e1daa7a1336a96a0d368931a.jpg

CGC says Funny Aminals 1 is the "First appearance of Maus by Spiegelman."  But the three page story in Funny Aminals entitled "Maus" is just a simplified prototype of the story what would ultimately appear in the Maus serialization in Raw and the subsequent compilation as a Pulitzer Prize winning graphic novel. None of those three pages were deemed worthy to make it in the graphic novel which won the Pulitzer.

One the other hand, Short Order Comix 1, which CGC doesn't bless with any notation at all, contains the entirety of the comix within the comic that appeared in Part 1 of Maus the graphic novel: Spiegelman's Prisoner on the Hell Planet. Prisoner on the Hell Planet is one of the most powerful parts of Maus, and it is studied by students across the country. Put simply, Short Order Comix 1 is the first time that any pages of the Maus graphic novel that won the Pulitzer Prize ever saw print.

Yet, CGC doesn't recognize that.

I was glad to get back my census topping Short Order Comix 1, but I was sad that CGC didn't follow my request on noting the first appearance of Prisoner on the Hell Planet. Pretty disappointing that we can't get recognition for the first appearance of part of the only graphic novel to win a Pulitzer.

Curious- why would you give credibility to a grading company to decide what is and what’s not a first appearance? You know more than they do. Not a knock on CGC but it is a grading company. Not a reference source for comic book history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/5/2021 at 4:11 PM, bronze johnny said:

Curious- why would you give credibility to a grading company to decide what is and what’s not a first appearance? You know more than they do. Not a knock on CGC but it is a grading company. Not a reference source for comic book history.

It is not about giving CGC credibility to decide, it is hoping that the stuff CGC puts on the label is accurate and complete.  Not too much for a consumer to expect.  They get a lot right, and I've gotten them to change some label notations in the past (and also gotten OPG to change some of its info on listings).  That's part of being a good citizen in this community of comic collectors - ensuring accurate info gets shared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to get copies of both of these books; but I would still say "Funny Aminals" is the first appearance.  "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" is, as you say, an extremely powerful story, but even within "Maus" it's very much a story within a story and would not be recognizable as part of Maus if you didn't already know it was included in the book.  The story in Funny Aminals introduces the concept and conceits that define "Maus" and can be recognized as an early version of the story.

With all that said, I agree that Short Order #1 is an underrated book and the story should be noted on the label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 1:47 AM, sfcityduck said:

It is not about giving CGC credibility to decide, it is hoping that the stuff CGC puts on the label is accurate and complete.  Not too much for a consumer to expect.  They get a lot right, and I've gotten them to change some label notations in the past (and also gotten OPG to change some of its info on listings).  That's part of being a good citizen in this community of comic collectors - ensuring accurate info gets shared.

I don’t disagree with you about ensuring greater accuracy in this hobby. Would put an end to the shenanigans coinciding with extreme speculation. The question I have is what’s the criteria CGC uses to place information on the label other than the grade and pq? If CGC is using Overstreet, then it should reference the Guide on the label as the source of that information on the label. My answer to anyone trying to argue there’s not enough room on the label, is for CGC to have a list of symbols to use where collectors can refer to a webpage on its site for the definitions. For me it’s more significant for CGC to have a defined criteria, especially if it is relying on other sources (which I hope is the case) for label information outside of grading. This of course should begin with something written somewhere (back of label or website?) saying “CGC is a grading company and makes no claim to having expertise in the history of comic books…” That’s the best way we can educate the community of collectors around here(thumbsu

Edited by bronze johnny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 12:17 AM, OtherEric said:

I want to get copies of both of these books; but I would still say "Funny Aminals" is the first appearance.  "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" is, as you say, an extremely powerful story, but even within "Maus" it's very much a story within a story and would not be recognizable as part of Maus if you didn't already know it was included in the book.  The story in Funny Aminals introduces the concept and conceits that define "Maus" and can be recognized as an early version of the story.

With all that said, I agree that Short Order #1 is an underrated book and the story should be noted on the label.

Completely agree. Funny Aminals is clearly the first Maus prototype, a very strong meta-Maus which was the seed out of which Maus grew. Clearly historic.

But, "Prisoner on the Hell Planet" is actually part of Maus. An essential part of Maus that is central to one of the most powerful sequences of the story. It is the first time any part of Maus saw print.

Which would I view as more historically important or valuable?  I rate them pretty equal. Reasonable minds can differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 7:27 AM, bronze johnny said:

I don’t disagree with you about ensuring greater accuracy in this hobby. Would put an end to the shenanigans coinciding with extreme speculation. The question I have is what’s the criteria CGC uses to place information on the label other than the grade and pq? If CGC is using Overstreet, then it should reference the Guide on the label as the source of that information on the label. My answer to anyone trying to argue there’s not enough room on the label, is for CGC to have a list of symbols to use where collectors can refer to a webpage on its site for the definitions. For me it’s more significant for CGC to have a defined criteria, especially if it is relying on other sources (which I hope is the case) for label information outside of grading. This of course should begin with something written somewhere (back of label or website?) saying “CGC is a grading company and makes no claim to having expertise in the history of comic books…” That’s the best way we can educate the community of collectors around here(thumbsu

CGC generally relies on OPG, but CGC has accepted notations I've suggested that include info that is not presently in OPG.  I think if the info is verified to CGC's satisfaction, that's all ok.  I see Heritage get far more things wrong than CGC, so I think they're doing a fine job.  I just prefer more info over less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2021 at 2:37 PM, sfcityduck said:

CGC generally relies on OPG, but CGC has accepted notations I've suggested that include info that is not presently in OPG.  I think if the info is verified to CGC's satisfaction, that's all ok.  I see Heritage get far more things wrong than CGC, so I think they're doing a fine job.  I just prefer more info over less.

You know that CGC generally relies on Overstreet but the average collector doesn’t. We see classic cover designations on labels where Overstreet is not the source along with recommendations made in the Guide not followed by the graders (and we are talking about graders making these decisions or is it someone in customer service?). What do you mean “verified to CGC’s satisfaction?” Who in CGC verifies what’s referenced and what’s not? Again, there’s no criteria used other than ? It’s not enough to borrow from a source. That source should be recognized so that people don’t get the wrong idea that a grading company is the source for comic book history. I’m happy they’re following your suggestions but we all aren’t going to be around forever, which is why it’s important to ensure that future generations have a clear understanding that they will have to rely on themselves and conduct their own research to learn the history of this medium - and not rely on a grading company (one I’ve been happy to rely on since its inception exclusively for its grading) to define it for them based on? I’d be happy if they referenced “Information Per sfcityduck” on the label. Then I’d know it was accurate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/9/2021 at 6:21 PM, Jayman said:

I rarely act impulsively like this but when I read this thread the other day, I checked ebay and got this copy fairly quick for under $30.

Short Order Comix # 1.jpg

Smart call, when I got back my Short Order Comix 1, a day or two before starting this thread, and realized that it was an 8.5 with less than my expected PQ still topped the census, I jumped onto eBay and grabbed a super nice copy of SO 1 (and a bonus 2) for $35.  

Then, and only then, did I start this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
3 3