Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[ft88]

So what is the first Comic-whatever to contain word balloons, if not yellow kid?

 

If we think the word balloon actually is the end all be all for defining a comic book what is the first?

 

Since almost all of this comes down to how you define Comic Book/Strip/Cartoon etc How about simplifying the back and forth.

 

Qualities

 

1. Cartoon with words

2. Continous storyline

3. Word Balloons integrated w Art

4. Offered to the public for mass consumption

5. Non-newspaper

6. Stapled

7. 4 page wrap

8. Original material

9. Country of Origin (of publishing)

 

Feel free to add any I am missing.

 

I guess I am sort of tired of the continuous argument of defining a comic book when it clearly has different definitions to different people. My personal definition is a combination of 3,through 8. You can judge my definition but you can't argue against how I define it. Like SH4, I prefer US material for #9 but that doesn't cause it to be a comic book or not.

 

Anyway, I for one would apprciate how the experts see the top 5 or so Plat/Vict Comic XXXX's in terms of their qualitities and not necessarily what those qualities represent.

[Earl Davis]

So what is the first Comic-whatever to contain word balloons, if not yellow kid?

 

If we think the word balloon actually is the end all be all for defining a comic book what is the first?

 

Since almost all of this comes down to how you define Comic Book/Strip/Cartoon etc How about simplifying the back and forth.

 

Qualities

 

1. Cartoon with words

2. Continous storyline

3. Word Balloons integrated w Art

4. Offered to the public for mass consumption

5. Non-newspaper

6. Stapled

7. 4 page wrap

8. Original material

9. Country of Origin (of publishing)

 

Feel free to add any I am missing.

 

I guess I am sort of tired of the continuous argument of defining a comic book when it clearly has different definitions to different people. My personal definition is a combination of 3,through 8. You can judge my definition but you can't argue against how I define it. Like SH4, I prefer US material for #9 but that doesn't cause it to be a comic book or not.

 

Anyway, I for one would apprciate how the experts see the top 5 or so Plat/Vict Comic XXXX's in terms of their qualitities and not necessarily what those qualities represent.

 

I am obviously not one of the experts but I would venture that failing to meet any of the criteria above would exclude something from being a comic book, only a particular format of comic book.

 

Earl.

[showcase4]

what i just read from gifflefink, real name unknown, choosing to hide behind pseudo-name, is preposterous.

 

Will Eisner was a very good friend of mine, having first met him one on one at a Oklahoma City convention called Multicon back in June 1972, his 2nd comicon ever, whereat we discussed what was then needed to "save" the comics industry.

 

Will was highly instrumental in my joining forces with John Barrett and Bud Plant to place a comic book store on Telegraph Ave in Berkeley by August 1972 right on top of the UC-Berkeley campus, soon thereafter within a year evolving into the first comic book chain store operation which i named as Comics & Comix.

 

I do not hate Gaines - that also is plain stupid to suggest.

 

He merely gets way more credit than he deserves in "inventing" the comic book/magazine.

 

Was he a powerful force in the comics industry for some time - you betcha

 

Did he invent the comic book/magazine in 1933 single-handedly as some history books purport?

 

defnitely not

 

I run into similar scenarios that Phil Seuling "invented' the direct sales market.

 

He did not. It comes from the birth of the underground comics movement mainly HQ'd in the San Francisco bay Area beginning with Print Mint and ZAP COMICS. Phil even says as much in his interview in Will Eisner Quarterly #3 1984. For further data on this concept, i refer you to my articles in Comic Book Artist #6 and #7, and i am not trying to change the subject.

 

there is a huge body of us self-described comics "scholars" who some time ago realized that word balloons may or not be included in what constitutes sequential comics story telling.

 

This debate has raged off and on for some seven years on the PlatinumAgeComics group i activated in Dec 1999. For the most part, the consensus is that word balloons are nopt the be-all end-all of sequential comics story telling.

 

Was yellow Kid important?

 

you betcha

 

Was he the first of anything in the evolution of comics?

 

definitely not

 

and definitely not the big bang of the use of word ballons as suggested by die-hards who have obviosuly not done enough research into the aspect of comics evolution origins.

 

Nor did Outcault invent the concept of sequential comics story telling.

 

Go to Library of Congress and/or the New York Historical Society and check out their volumes of Wild Oats just as one example - and then READ the hundreds upon hundreds of sequential comics contained therein.

 

I suggest gifflefink go to my Plat list archives and read thru the 16,000 archived posts there where 100s of comic scholars and interested parties have disected this very subject like an MRI tocome to the conclusions i set forth with Richard Olson and later with Doug Wheeler and Richard Samuel West on this contentious subject.

 

The origins simply do not begin with Yellow Kid and Richard Outcault.

 

Newspapers taking note and expanding the audience in a huge circulation war do begin with the Yellow Kid as Pulitzer, Hearst and Bennet battled for the soul of New York City. They forced most all other news papers to have to contain a color Sunday supplement with sequential comics in order to survive.

 

but that is not an origin story.

 

To present an analogy most will understand her, most of you having not read early American comics predating Famous Funnies, I sure, is like saying that Action Comics #1, because it contains the super star Superman, has more important origin aspects than Famous Funnies beginning in 1934 or The Funnies beginning in late 1928 or Comic Monthly beginning in late 1921.

 

Whadda' 'ya think of 'dem apples Gifflefunk?

[ft88]

I am obviously not one of the experts but I would venture that failing to meet any of the criteria above would exclude something from being a comic book, only a particular format of comic book.

 

Earl.

 

I can see the Platinum police showing reasonable examples of how I define a comic book which is missing one element and then asking "Is that a comic book?"

To which I say, its a judgement call and there are not hard and fast rules - just opinionated arguments. That gets tedious after a while though never boring. I do enjoy the marketting aspect of it though. Blb mentions that there has been massive misinformation out there, and I suspect that is true. But I wonder how much is actually misinformation and how much is the idea that what is popularly seen as the first comic book (resulting in high value) kind of pisses him off because he has his view as to what constitutes the budding era of comic books.

 

The pre Action 1 comic book market gains any strength, and therefore value, due to its linkage to the common definition of the modern comic. Whether its the first DC comic or the first comic which likely influenced the founding fathers of DC or EC

 

Ed

[Earl Davis]

I suppose I should try and define what is a comic book to me. This is a very first clumsy attempt to do this so I may well change this following feedback.

 

 

Comic Books according to Earl (An ordinary collector of comics)…

 

1. Introductory Statement

 

Comics and Comic Books are not the same thing.

 

2. What are Comics?

 

“Comics are art or other images set side by side, often in panels, which in sequence with each other present factual information or tell a story. Text is not an essential component of a comic but is often used to complement the images either within or directly below the panels or within word balloons.”

 

3. Comic Books

 

“A comic book is a printed publication whose predominant content is comics.”

 

 

4. Comic Books Types.

 

Comic Books are published in most countries of the world in a range of formats. Format differences include the page size, page count, binding, and type of material used for the cover and interior pages.

There is a lot of terminology used to describe the different formats of Comic Books. Examples of this include Comic Albums, Comic Magazines, Hard covers, Soft covers, Treasuries, Libraries, Digests, Mass Market paperbacks, Trade paperbacks, Strip Books, Comic-backs, Sunday Comics, Newspaper Comics and many more).

 

5. Comic Collectors.

 

A Comic Collector collects comics. The comics they collect could be comic books, original art, digital media or comics presented on other materials.

 

A Comic Book Collector collects Comic Books. Some collectors focus on collecting comics of a particular format. The Comic Magazine is the most widely collected format.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

Bob points out something I certainly support - word balloons go back a lot farther than the Yellow Kid. We even have a little piece in the upcoming GEM museum book that briefly touches on the evolution of the word balloon as a crucial bit of comics iconography, and while Outcault's work is indisputably important, a turning point, a landmark, it is by no means the beginning of that iconography. There are familiar, consistent uses of word balloons in works that date to the 1780s for example.

 

Say what you want about what constitutes a comic or a comic book, but if you're going to talk about word balloons, they don't arrive with the Yellow Kid.

[ft88]

Bob points out something I certainly support - word balloons go back a lot farther than the Yellow Kid. We even have a little piece in the upcoming GEM museum book that briefly touches on the evolution of the word balloon as a crucial bit of comics iconography, and while Outcault's work is indisputably important, a turning point, a landmark, it is by no means the beginning of that iconography. There are familiar, consistent uses of word balloons in works that date to the 1780s for example.

 

Say what you want about what constitutes a comic or a comic book, but if you're going to talk about word balloons, they don't arrive with the Yellow Kid.

 

But is there a combination of comic book qualities that only the yellow kid was first to have? Thus making it more of a milestone (depending on what you consider important) than other books?

 

For example: Word Balloons and Continuous Stories and Produced for the Public

 

Ed

 

PS: Not to dive into the details of "mass produced for public use" This also can be a judgement call. But I think of it as a news stand product or similar news stand giveaway type product.

[Aman619]

what i just read from gifflefink, real name unknown, choosing to hide behind pseudo-name, is preposterous.

 

Will Eisner was a very good friend of mine, having first met him one on one at a Oklahoma City convention called Multicon back in June 1972, his 2nd comicon ever, whereat we discussed what was then needed to "save" the comics industry.

 

Will was highly instrumental in my joining forces with John Barrett and Bud Plant to place a comic book store on Telegraph Ave in Berkeley by August 1972 right on top of the UC-Berkeley campus, soon thereafter within a year evolving into the first comic book chain store operation which i named as Comics & Comix.

 

I do not hate Gaines - that also is plain stupid to suggest.

 

He merely gets way more credit than he deserves in "inventing" the comic book/magazine.

 

Was he a powerful force in the comics industry for some time - you betcha

 

Did he invent the comic book/magazine in 1933 single-handedly as some history books purport?

 

defnitely not

 

I run into similar scenarios that Phil Seuling "invented' the direct sales market.

 

He did not. It comes from the birth of the underground comics movement mainly HQ'd in the San Francisco bay Area beginning with Print Mint and ZAP COMICS. Phil even says as much in his interview in Will Eisner Quarterly #3 1984. For further data on this concept, i refer you to my articles in Comic Book Artist #6 and #7, and i am not trying to change the subject.

 

there is a huge body of us self-described comics "scholars" who some time ago realized that word balloons may or not be included in what constitutes sequential comics story telling.

 

This debate has raged off and on for some seven years on the PlatinumAgeComics group i activated in Dec 1999. For the most part, the consensus is that word balloons are nopt the be-all end-all of sequential comics story telling.

 

Was yellow Kid important?

 

you betcha

 

Was he the first of anything in the evolution of comics?

 

definitely not

 

and definitely not the big bang of the use of word ballons as suggested by die-hards who have obviosuly not done enough research into the aspect of comics evolution origins.

 

Nor did Outcault invent the concept of sequential comics story telling.

 

Go to Library of Congress and/or the New York Historical Society and check out their volumes of Wild Oats just as one example - and then READ the hundreds upon hundreds of sequential comics contained therein.

 

I suggest gifflefink go to my Plat list archives and read thru the 16,000 archived posts there where 100s of comic scholars and interested parties have disected this very subject like an MRI tocome to the conclusions i set forth with Richard Olson and later with Doug Wheeler and Richard Samuel West on this contentious subject.

 

The origins simply do not begin with Yellow Kid and Richard Outcault.

 

Newspapers taking note and expanding the audience in a huge circulation war do begin with the Yellow Kid as Pulitzer, Hearst and Bennet battled for the soul of New York City. They forced most all other news papers to have to contain a color Sunday supplement with sequential comics in order to survive.

 

but that is not an origin story.

 

To present an analogy most will understand her, most of you having not read early American comics predating Famous Funnies, I sure, is like saying that Action Comics #1, because it contains the super star Superman, has more important origin aspects than Famous Funnies beginning in 1934 or The Funnies beginning in late 1928 or Comic Monthly beginning in late 1921.

 

Bob, I read Giffle entire post as an over-the-top tease, a joke. Not an attack on you or your relationship with Eisner etc.

Its no wonder you see these boards as an annoyance full of ninnies when you miss the obvious uses of humor inherent in chat boards. Relax!!

[showcase4]

.

 

Bob, I read Giffle entire post as an over-the-top tease, a joke. Not an attack on you or your relationship with Eisner etc.

Its no wonder you see these boards as an annoyance full of ninnies when you miss the obvious uses of humor inherent in chat boards. Relax!!

 

I don't know Aman.....Gifflefunk sounds like a pretty intense dude. Aside from his peanut butter cup analogy, he seems to take this subject very seriously.

[gifflefunk]

I do not hate Gaines - that also is plain stupid to suggest.

 

Pardon me. I sensed some hatred after you refered to the man as:

"RB: MC Gaines was a [embarrassing lack of self control]"

 

And I never claimed Gaines invented the comic book or anything else. I pointed out that Gaines did not consider the early picture-stories as comics and you went off on some tagent against the man.

 

This debate has raged off and on for some seven years on the PlatinumAgeComics group i activated in Dec 1999. For the most part, the consensus is that word balloons are nopt the be-all end-all of sequential comics story telling.

 

I would agree that word balloons are not the be-all end-all of sequential art story telling. But I also agree with Eisner that without word balloons you don't have a comic strip or a comic book. You have picture-tales and picture stories as Gaines has called them.

 

Was yellow Kid important?

 

you betcha

 

Was he the first of anything in the evolution of comics?

 

definitely not

 

and definitely not the big bang of the use of word ballons as suggested by die-hards who have obviosuly not done enough research into the aspect of comics evolution origins.

 

Nor did Outcault invent the concept of sequential comics story telling.

 

Given the Eisner definition, I will state that if McFadden's Flats does contain reprints of Outcault's comic strips (such as those I pointed out earlier), I would consider that the first American comic book unless there is an American tome containing comic strip material (per Eisner's definition) published prior to 1897. Or is the Yellow Kid first in that regard??

 

And I never stated that Outcault invented word balloons. I said Outcault started the revolution of using word balloons. Can you name another artist that was experimenting with what Eisner would call a true comic strip (word balloons and sequential art) that should be credited for triggering turn of the century artists like Swinnerton into converting their output from cartoons with captions to comics with word balloons? Swinnerton gives Outcault that credit.

 

The origins simply do not begin with Yellow Kid and Richard Outcault.

 

I'm not claiming anything other than that Outcault began using word balloons and triggered the artwork revolution (going from cartoons with captions to comics with word balloons) at the end of the 1800s and start of the 1900s as noted by prior researchers, historians, and artists. Sure, newspapers were all fighting for Sunday funnies content, but the revolution that occured at the artwork is attributed to Outcault.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

But I also agree with Eisner that without word balloons you don't have a comic strip or a comic book. You have picture-tales and picture stories as Gaines has called them.

 

I wouldn't weigh in further myself on word balloons without more understanding of historical research on my end, but this is one of those statements that always strikes me as very silly and irrationally single-minded in applying criteria. You would actually say that the 1980s GI JOE comic book series from Marvel stops being a comic book with issue #21, becomes a "picture tale," and then transforms back into a comic book again with #22? And what about all the other Marvel "silent issues" in 2002 right in the middle of long-established comic book series? Are we really going to be that specific about it?

[gifflefunk]

I don't know Aman.....Gifflefunk sounds like a pretty intense dude. Aside from his peanut butter cup analogy, he seems to take this subject very seriously.

 

Please. What about the not calling you a savvy investor? I'm full of wit and mirth -- and various other things according to my opponents

 

As for Bob hating Gaines and Eisner. I just figured Bob hates all those that oppose his view that picture-stories are the same as comic books. I mentioned Gaines and Bob went off on a rant about the man. I was truly expecting Bob to start calling Eisner a know-nothing self-aggrandizing so-and-so based on his Gaines tirade.

 

Intense? Yes, when it comes to dealing with anyone that claims prior researchers were all wrong when it comes to comics but they don't take into account the traditional definition these researchers were operating under which defined the context of that research. By creating ones own definition for something all you can really prove is that the research of others does not match your definition. It does not prove that their research was wrong because it doesn't match a definition you've created.

[ft88]

But I also agree with Eisner that without word balloons you don't have a comic strip or a comic book. You have picture-tales and picture stories as Gaines has called them.

 

I wouldn't weigh in further myself on word balloons without more understanding of historical research on my end, but this is one of those statements that always strikes me as very silly and irrationally single-minded in applying criteria. You would actually say that the 1980s GI JOE comic book series from Marvel stops being a comic book with issue #21, becomes a "picture tale," and then transforms back into a comic book again with #22? And what about all the other Marvel "silent issues" in 2002 right in the middle of long-established comic book series? Are we really going to be that specific about it?

 

This starts to get crazy when we nit pick definitions like this. Do we need to break out lawyer speak to make a point.

 

"A cartoon, as defined by artistic representation through linear methodology, combined with words enveloped by a representation of speaking or thought, with the direct interaction of the artisictic rendering (mentioned above). This does not preclude what would or could normally be created with word balloons or is usually rendered with word balloons, or could in similar fashion have words that interact, yet aren't specific to the exterior art..... blah blah blah."

 

While silent comic books don't have a specific defining quality usually assigned to being a comic book. It may technically not qualify; but due to the continuity, stapling, non newspaper, fold over: these overwhelm the lack of word balloons for GI Joe 21.

 

Another point. If a similar type Platinum book had come out before word balloons were invented and didn't carry other similar qualities I consider essential to be a comic book, I would then not consider it a comic book. It just depends.

 

Ed

[gifflefunk]

You would actually say that the 1980s GI JOE comic book series from Marvel stops being a comic book with issue #21, becomes a "picture tale," and then transforms back into a comic book again with #22? And what about all the other Marvel "silent issues" in 2002 right in the middle of long-established comic book series? Are we really going to be that specific about it?

 

 

Yes. And here is why:

 

If issue #21 was presented in the form of Gaines' Picto-Fiction would you still call it a comic book?

 

What if it was mostly text with some illustrations, akin to the Marvel Universe Handbook issues... would you still call it a comic book?

 

Now what if there was no interior artwork at all and the contents were strictly text. The book is in the same format as the comic books of that series (page count, dimensions, binding, glossy artworked cover). Would you still call that a comic book simply because it is issue #21?

 

My conclusion is that the contents define the item, not the packaging. So technically I don't call #21 a comic book because it does not meet the definition of a comic book. But I would still file it between #20 and #22 in my longbox because it is part of a series.

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

My conclusion is that the contents define the item, not the packaging. So technically I don't call #21 a comic book because it does not meet the definition of a comic book. But I would still file it between #20 and #22 in my longbox because it is part of a series.

 

I'm sorry then, but you *really* go off the map for me with this one. Wherever you're going, I can't follow; life's too short.

[gifflefunk]

So you would call an all text issue a comic book ?

[ft88]

I also disagree with gf, but he has his definition and he sticks to with over technical reasoning (IMO) whereas I am more wishy washy but that allows a softer interpretation of definition of terms.

 

Ed

[mica]

It can be argued that GI Joe 21 was a gimmick. I don't mean negatively.

 

So the characters got real quiet for an issue. Big deal.

They were talking before it, and they continued to talk after it in chronological order.

[Aman619]

GIJoe 21 is a comicbook. cmon. Theres no need to hold it up in this discussion anyway. It was published by the #1 comicbook company, solicited as a comicbook, manufactured as a comicbook etc etc. And this was all done almost a century after the term and product comicbook existed. At worst or best its a "stunt" comicbook whose storytelling is similar to strips created before the comicbook industry developed.

 

Whats being debated is at what specific point a printed story told with words and pictures in sequential form containing text and dialogue "spoken" directly by the characters illustrated first appeared (in America). And who gets the credit for putting it together. Not whether the 29,4773,233rd published comicbook IS a comicbook because the writer thought it was cool to eliminate all dialogue. If a children's book (picture book) had no words it would still be a childrens book.

[gifflefunk]

So the characters got real quiet for an issue. Big deal.

They were talking before it, and they continued to talk after it in chronological order.

 

A valid point.

 

When there is dialogue it is rendered in word balloons, however, not every panel of a comic strip has word balloons... case in point Henry as mentioned earlier or Snoopy in Peanuts... but when there is dialogue it is rendered in true comic fashion using word balloons. So how many panels can you go without having dialogue and still call it a comic? Is a full issue too much? Perhaps.

 

Or when taken as just one silent issue in a series of comic book issues does it still qualify as a comic book (much like a silent panel by itself is just an illustration, but if part of a series of comic strip panels it is still part of the comic strip). Perhaps one can consider it a comic book given the larger scope of the entire series.

 

But what if the issue were all text? Would anyone still call it a comic book because it falls between issues #20 and #22?