Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[BLBcomics-migration]

Ok, been away for a while, read thru this thread, and am still flabbergasted that there are some, a minority to be sure, who insist on stating that comicbooks before Action #1, Detective #1, Famous Funnies #1, Funnies On Parade, where ever you want to start in what I consider the Modern Format Period of wraparound sidestapled magazines cannot be considered in the same breath as what is contained in my Victorian and Platinum Era sections of the Overstreet Price Guide

 

Bob.......Welcome back!!!

 

It's great to see you on the boards here once again, after a much too long absence.

 

If we are including the Platinum and Victorian Ages, should we not also go further back and also include the Pioneer Age? Some of the illustrations presented in the OS indicates some similarity and even overlap with repsect to some of the Victorian Age books?

 

Hello and i would be here more often if there were not so many crazies here with nothing else beeter to do than dream up ways to insult people here, hence, i push back like it comes at me

 

to every one else i apologize once agin

 

I do think the "pioneer" concept in the Overstreet for the most part, while interesting, has nothing to do with figuring out origins of sequential comic strips. I find that article to be mroe of a "showcase" for what the guy who wrote it has for sale

 

For a truly scholarly look-see at this period, track down David Kunzle's HISTORY OF THE COMIC STRIP Vol One 1450-1825 and VOL Two 1825-1890s - both huge gerber Photo Journal size tomes just on Euro comics, where the comic strip was invented and then brought over to America by immigrants and distributors.

 

best

 

Robert Beerbohm

[ft88]

What about

The Comical Adventures of the Little Woman, Her Dog and the Peddler?

 

Mulitple panels on some pages... text below the comic illustrations.... beats OO by about 20 years too.

 

Gee, if it weren't for THIS book there would have never been an OO and hence no comic industry!! This is the most important book ever (sounds stupid doesn't it??).

 

BLB

 

Here you go, it starts on page 27 of this thread. The long of the short of it was that it ground down into the details of word balloons, continuing books and other petty belly button lint.

 

Ed

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

 

Here you go, it starts on page 27 of this thread. The long of the short of it was that it ground down into the details of word balloons, continuing books and other petty belly button lint.

 

Ed

 

Hi ed

 

Oh, Andy Konkykru's bugpowder.com site

 

- i have met him many times at Angouleme comics festival

 

- we have discussed this in the past on my Plat site

 

- not considered a sequential comic strip, more a poem with pictures

 

Just like the Billy Vidkin's from 1849 i picture in the newest Overstreet as a pseudo-contender for being the first original American comic strip story

 

This is from a reprint booklet - i have a fe wof these collecting early stuff like this - dates are unknown, guessed at

 

robert beerbohm

[showcase4]

 

Here you go, it starts on page 27 of this thread. The long of the short of it was that it ground down into the details of word balloons, continuing books and other petty belly button lint.

 

Ed

 

Hi ed

 

Oh, Andy Konkykru's bugpowder.com site

 

- i have met him many times at Angouleme comics festival

 

- we have discussed this in the past on my Plat site

 

- not considered a sequential comic strip, more a poem with pictures

 

 

 

Here it is...direct from the Godfather himself...not a comic book.

Thanks for your responses Bob...it is nice to have the input of a internationally renowned and respected comics historian.

Perhaps in the future, as knowledge spreads, so will enlightenment.

[ShoNuff-migration]

I have no agenda on where prices go...

 

[ShoNuff-migration]

Is there a way to read BLB's post through an insult filter?

I took one of his posts and typed it backwards.

 

It said, "Know that the dark one will provide you with riches. Worship him and he will insure maximum profits on Obadiahs."

[gifflefunk]

It is wraparound, 40 pages long, about mad magazine size, one long sequential story combining words and pictures, just no word balloons

 

I've always been amazed at how cavalierly you dismiss one of the key components that separate comics from captioned cartoons and picture stories. The merging of dialogue into the artwork is what separates a comic from an illustration with captioned text.

 

i have tracked down the origin of teh Yellow Kid "first comic strip" myth...

 

Prior historians understood the importance of the Yellow Kid/word balloon marriage that turned cartoon strips into comic strips. James Swinnerton, quoted in Narrative Illustration, identifies Outcault as the man responsible for creating the modern trend of using word balloons. This is the reason the Yellow Kid has been identified by other scholars as the starting point and why it is given credit as the first comic strip (and not just another captioned "cartoon" strip). When you strip away the relevance of word balloons you create the impression of a “myth” whereas the reality is more factual than mythical.

 

And yes, I'm sure there were other comic strips using word balloons prior to Outcault somewhere in the history of the United States (although I cannot name one), but it is his strip that is credited, not only by the public at the time, but also by his contemporaries, as being the start of the comic strip. And it is the reprinting of that strip in book form that gives us our first “comic book” in 1897.

 

I do give you credit for researching picture story books, but there is clearly an agenda afoot to call these items "comic books" when the likes of MC Gaines himself only gave Daumier, Doré, Töpffer and Busch credit for their "picture-tales" and "picture books" in Narrative Illustration (1942). Clearly the works of these men were known to him but were not considered comic books. Picture Stories are certainly related to comics from an illustration and sequential art standpoint and they do pre-date comics, which is why Gaines mentions them along with cave etchings and other forms of narrative art that influenced the origins of comic books, but they are not comic books themselves.

[Aman619]

I'm with you in this,. Giffle, but we have to accept that Gains was a salesman and showman....and it would have been in his character to answer an interviewer back in his heyday (with comics taking off as a pop sensation) as a break with the past that (ahem) he created. Having suggested that, it remains for "history to decide whether he was truthful... or embellishing his importance... and further, to decide just which publication was the First comicbook.

 

I truly respect Beerbohm's efforts. He knows quite a lot more than me, and maybe nearly everyone else about this subject. But, I think even HE has just scratched the surface in the last few years, and more research will change the tale. But, I have no basis for that conclusion, just my take.

[showcase4]

that gives us our first “comic book” in 1897.

 

 

Gifflefunk,

I do not have either of my McFadden's Flats copies in hand right now, so maybe someone on the Boards can confirm this point. I'm pretty sure but not 100% that McFadden's Flats has Yellow Kid single image art on one page, with accompanying text on the opposite page, with no use of word balloons. If this is confirmed, then by your own definition, wouldn't The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats NOT be a comic book, even though you have previously referred to it as such?

 

P.S. You have previously called me an "insufficiently_thoughtful_person", and that is highly offensive and inappropriate. Although we have 2 different belief systems, I have always communicated wih you and all fellow Board members with respect. You are obviously very intelligent and educated...too bad you come off as a real jerk at times. Your input to this post has been some of the best by far

[gifflefunk]

You are correct, if McFadden's Flats is solely a book of captioned cartoons prior to the Kid becoming a comic strip then it would not be a comic book. But I'm fairly certain that the book contains both types of illustration as Outcault was evolving his format in 1896.

 

I do know that the December 27, 1896, strip entitled "The Yellow Kid Wrestles With the Tobacco Habit" is a comic strip. And if that is reprinted in the book then we have a winner. If the book only contains the earlier captioned cartoons (i.e. no dialogue as part of the artwork) then I shall refrain from calling it a comic book.

 

BTW, I love this page. Outcault's comic strip along side two cartoon strips.

 

And I apologize for calling you an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. I know nothing about your intelligence level, however, I still think some of your statements were idiotic.

[showcase4]

You are correct, if McFadden's Flats is solely a book of captioned cartoons prior to the Kid becoming a comic strip then it would not be a comic book. But I'm fairly certain that the book contains both types of illustration as Outcault was evolving his format in 1896.

 

I do know that the December 27, 1896, strip entitled "The Yellow Kid Wrestles With the Tobacco Habit" is a comic strip. And if that is reprinted in the book then we have a winner. If the book only contains the earlier captioned cartoons (i.e. no dialogue as part of the artwork) then I shall refrain from calling it a comic book.

 

BTW, I love this page. Outcault's comic strip along side two cartoon strips.

 

And I apologize for calling you an insufficiently_thoughtful_person. I know nothing about your intelligence level, however, I still think some of your statements were idiotic.

 

fair enough and accepted ( your apology ). I think what I would like to see would be a match up of 2 learned historians with differing views, educating us all as to their perspective of what is and what is not a "comic book". This post quicky turned from "why is Superman worth so much more than Obadiah Oldbuck" to "That Obadiah Oldbuck thing isn't even a comic book", and that is apparently the hot topic of debate.

 

I spoke to Bob Beerbohm Wednesday night, and he has agreed to become active on this post once he gets back from the Chicago something something Con on Monday, August 7th. I am a collector, not a historian, so it would not make sense for me to be part of a serious historical debate...I think Gifflefunk would make me look about 2" tall when I was done ( and when you're only 5' 6" to start with, getting smaller is quit undesirable).

 

So, Gifflefunk, as the big brain on this post, how would you like to help us all, and share your views and wisdom with a good old fashion debate between Bob Beerbohm and yourself ? I know I'd love to hear both view points at a very deep level, and I'm sure others would also. Are you game?

[showcase4]

...and on more thing ( suprise suprise ). A reprint of Journey to the Gold Diggins by Jeremiah Saddlebags is now on Ebay--I'll link the auction at the end of this post.

Saddlebags is a big, key Victorian age book...2nd only to Oldbuck. It is from 1849, and is the 1st American comic book by American creators --it was drawn here, written here, and published here....not a reprint. Please look at the interior layout, and arrangement of text to art, etc etc.

 

This book never gets accused ( that I have heard ) of not being a comic book, yet it is virtually identical to Obadiah Oldbuck in every way. This is a sign of the inconsistency of the "Victorian Age books are not comic books" argument. Take a look:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Journey-To-The-Gold-...1QQcmdZViewItem

[gifflefunk]

This book never gets accused ( that I have heard ) of not being a comic book, yet it is virtually identical to Obadiah Oldbuck in every way. This is a sign of the inconsistency of the "Victorian Age books are not comic books" argument.

 

Allow me to take this moment to introduce myself and be the first to accuse it of not being a comic book. It looks like another "picture-tale" (I like Gaines' term). I don't see any dialogue embedded into the artwork... hence it contains no comic art therefore it cannot be a comic book. It has cartoon illustrations and text captions... a rather nice picture story.

 

I know Bob uses a different definition for his classification of a comic book. And he uses a nice analogy to compare comic books with "picture-tales". The analogy he has used in the past compares silent movies to talking pictures. An interesting and a compelling enough analogy to sway people to his point of view.

 

However, the analogy I, and many others, operate under is Chocolate and Peanut Butter compared to a Peanut Butter Cup. Chocolate, much like illustration, is the older component piece. Peanut Butter, much like the written word, is the new kid on the block. Once you had Peanut Butter you could pair it up with Chocolate, but until somebody wrapped the Chocolate around the Peanut Butter you didn't have a Peanut Butter Cup!

 

Until you inject the dialogue into the artwork you just have illustrations (chocolate) and text (peanut butter) on a page (plate) and not a comic book (Peanut Butter Cup). Certainly you could eat Chocolate by dipping it in Peanut Butter, but nobody is going to claim that the first person to serve Chocolate and Peanut Butter on the same plate created the first Peanut Butter Cup!

 

So, as far as I'm concerned, Bob has lost sight of the Peanut Butter Cup and has become mired into the history of when Peanut Butter and Chocolate were first served on the same plate. Historically interesting, but it does not mean these things should be considered Peanut Butter Cups!

[Comicdey]

This book never gets accused ( that I have heard ) of not being a comic book, yet it is virtually identical to Obadiah Oldbuck in every way. This is a sign of the inconsistency of the "Victorian Age books are not comic books" argument.

 

Allow me to take this moment to introduce myself and be the first to accuse it of not being a comic book. It looks like another "picture-tale" (I like Gaines' term). I don't see any dialogue embedded into the artwork... hence it contains no comic art therefore it cannot be a comic book. It has cartoon illustrations and text captions... a rather nice picture story.

 

I know Bob uses a different definition for his classification of a comic book. And he uses a nice analogy to compare comic books with "picture-tales". The analogy he has used in the past compares silent movies to talking pictures. An interesting and a compelling enough analogy to sway people to his point of view.

 

However, the analogy I, and many others, operate under is Chocolate and Peanut Butter compared to a Peanut Butter Cup. Chocolate, much like illustration, is the older component piece. Peanut Butter, much like the written word, is the new kid on the block. Once you had Peanut Butter you could pair it up with Chocolate, but until somebody wrapped the Chocolate around the Peanut Butter you didn't have a Peanut Butter Cup!

 

Until you inject the dialogue into the artwork you just have illustrations (chocolate) and text (peanut butter) on a page (plate) and not a comic book (Peanut Butter Cup). Certainly you could eat Chocolate by dipping it in Peanut Butter, but nobody is going to claim that the first person to serve Chocolate and Peanut Butter on the same plate created the first Peanut Butter Cup!

 

So, as far as I'm concerned, Bob has lost sight of the Peanut Butter Cup and has become mired into the history of when Peanut Butter and Chocolate were first served on the same plate. Historically interesting, but it does not mean these things should be considered Peanut Butter Cups!

 

I like peanut butter cups (comics), but without the presentation of chocolate around the peanut butter and the pretty orange wrapper, it just doesn't seem the same. Wait.......that's because it's not.

[Aman619]

ahhh, it was only a matter of time till we got to the Peanut Butter Cup Syndrome!

[showcase4]

well said Gifflefunk...but the plot thickens...or should I say, the chocolate thickens? The chocolate and peanut butter are combined into a "peanut butter cup" on Obadiah and Saddlebags by the fact they are both within an enclosed space. The text is under the artwork, and not in word balloon form, but the art and text are fused together within the same space by the square "panel" they both reside in. Since the text and art for each image are "encapsulated" within their own panel, isn't this the recipe by your definition of what makes a peanut butter cup?

 

my point is, and probably Bob would agree...it's the art/text enclosure within a panel that makes it a comic.......have a story told in this manner in a sequence, and you have a "comic book"

[gifflefunk]

No, the plot does not thicken at all from where I stand... the text in your picture-tales are not embedded into the artwork. It is on its own little portion of the plate wholly seperate from the artwork (i.e the text is not rendered as part of the cartoon illustration, hence not a comic). Think of it as a TV dinner tray... you have your chocolate in one section and the peanut butter in another. If you "cut out" the text do you leave any holes in the artwork? No. The cartoon panel is left unscathed... but if you try that with a comic you'll find that the cartoon panel now looks like swiss cheese. Nice try, but your case holds no merit with me.

 

And need I remind you of the Professor Tigwissel cartoon strip? 17 parts, no panels? And the Old Woman/Dog/Peddler book that Bob claims not to be a comic has a black border around each page (making it a panel). It appears the "view" from your camp is rather flexible on the whole panel issue when it suits your case (usually the hallmark of a weak position).

[showcase4]

and your thoughts? on Bob's opening statement in the beginning of the Victorian Age section of the OPG:

 

"the history books are being rewritten here, and we have new information...."

Isn't this the real issue for you?

[gifflefunk]

I think he is rewriting history alright... a total revisionist history. As I stated earlier, by trivializing word balloons he can then demonstrate the "myth" of the Yellow Kid as being true and go on to showcase his "discoveries". I find fault with his premise that word balloons are not relevant for a comic book. So yes, I have a real problem with Bob making claims that others "got it wrong" (like MC Gaines, et. al.) and that he has the "truth" for us.

 

Bob hasn't discovered anything new, he's simply attempted to redefine a comic book such that it now encompasses what he thinks a comic book should be and not what prior scholars and historians (not to mention collectors, comic dealers, and book sellers) have deemed to be a comic book and the start of the medium. Again, I think he has lost sight of the peanut butter cup.

 

Other scholars and historians have known about these "picture-tales", and the artists who created them, but they did not consider them to be comic books and neither do I. That is my position.

[Aman619]

thats only cause you arent sitting on 50K worth of them!