Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[ShoNuff-migration]

i will ignore this, ahem, person

Impossible. I've recently dubbed myself the first American comic collector and am now worth millions.

[Scrooge]

Thanks Scrooge, those were pretty cool.

 

Different Guy (Fitzpatrick), Different War (WWII) - Hope you enjoy these as well. Note also that this is the iconography that the comic book artist would see in the papers and would certainly be inspirational in their work -

 

[Scrooge]

[BLBcomics-migration]

i will ignore this, ahem, person

Impossible. I've recently dubbed myself the first American comic collector and am now worth millions.

 

yawn - you are showing yourself to be the saddest collector in America - you seem to have a money fetish - i feel sorry for you

[Scrooge]

[Scrooge]

[Scrooge]

[Scrooge]

[ShoNuff-migration]

yawn - you are showing yourself to be the saddest collector in America - you seem to have a money fetish - i feel sorry for you

How dare you speak in such a manner to the first American comic collector.

 

And beside...money means nothing to me*.

 

* Note: The first American comic collector can be hired to do personal appearances at bar mitzvahs, proms, weddings, etc. He will do approximately $3,000 worth of work for the low, low price of only $20,000.

[BLBcomics-migration]

OK, here is a comic strip from MERRYMAN'S COMIC MONTHLY May 1865 drawn by Frank Bellew Sr once again - "the Father of the American Comic Strip".

 

Bellew Sr always signed his name within a triangle.

 

Bellew Sr created hundreds of comic strips back beginning in the early1850s thru the late 1870s when he died. He is mostly long forgotten these days. His comic strips cry out for a reprint book.

 

[BLBcomics-migration]

 

Here is the cover to MERRYMAN'S COMIC MONTHLY May 1865, Notice bottom right corner it is distributed by American News Company, the company which later on distributed the first 20th century comic books as well as Famous Funnies #1 onwards starting in 1934

[gifflefunk]

I would go as far as calling the Wild Oats material cartoons (but not comics) and the Harper's Weekly Lincoln material is comic art illustrating the text story.

 

A comic art is different from cartoon art in that comic art renders text, be it speech, thought, or an onomatopoeic sound, as part of the artwork and not as a caption above or below the artwork.

 

I don't deny that Oldbuck, Wild Oats, etc., are all precursors to the comic strip. These artists took illustration to the next level in the form of cartoons, cartoon strips, and picture stories -- but they themselves are not comics because they don't contain a single panel of comic artwork.

 

There is a fine line between the two art forms (cartoon vs. comic), but it is one that was established and recognized by collectors and artists since the comic revolution triggered by Outcault and the Yellow Kid. Some choose to ignore that line and lump all illustrated story telling into the same bucket (the inclusive school of thought). Others treat the line between the two art forms with more reverence and make a distinction between the two (the exclusionary school of thought).

 

I don't think the GI issue is a "true" comic book as it is solely illustration. Just because something is packaged in the same format as a modern comic book doesn't necessarily make it a comic. Case in point, the Marvel Universe Handbook issues... no story being told, just information accompanied by illustrations of comic book characters. The Marvel Index issues are the same... no story, just reference material packaged in the same format. The Marvel Age issues are more of the same, something else packaged in the same format as a modern comic book. One interesting item is The Marvel Fumetti Book. Photographs with narration, dialogue, thoughts, and onomatopoeic noises (snap, bamf, splash, crash, bash, etc.) added to the photographs in comic fashion. This, again, is something I don't consider to be a "true" comic...this art form has a specific name, fumetti. And things like Obadiah Oldbuck also had a specific name given to their particular form... the picture story.

 

Now if someone wants to strip away the importance of text (speech, thought, and onomatopoeic sound) rendered as part of the artwork and call all forms of illustrated story telling "comics" then you can certainly classify anything as a comic book. Under that definition I would consider the Old Woman/Dog/Pedlar story to be a "comic" as it is certainly a sequence of images with text captions that tell a story... just like Obadiah.

 

Thankfully I don't believe in that definition and I don't consider the precursors to the comic art form as being comics. They are illustrated texts, cartoons, and/or picture stories. I also don't believe everything packaged in the same format as a comic book is a comic book.

 

Perhaps I am a dying breed and the next generation of collectors raised on the history of comics according to Bob Beerbohm will consider everything to be a comic. I however will always respect and hold dear the things that make a comic different from it's cousins on the a family tree of illustrated story telling.

[BLBcomics-migration]

http://bugpowder.com/andy/e.little-woman.html

 

http://bugpowder.com/andy/e.origin.html

 

My claim is The Adventures of Obadiah Oldbuck Sept 14 1842 is the first comic book in America

 

the Little Woman thing you keep referencing is not a stand alone comic book - i encourage every one reading this to click onto the 2nd URL as well to Andy Konykru's most excellent web site. Most everything here is not a stand alone comic strip - the material appeared inside other mags, just like the adventure to Africa by Frank Bellew Sr i just recently posted from MERRYMAN'S COMIC MONTHLY

 

The claims of Topffer's creations being comic strip books are not just mine

- this is not just about being The Gospel According to Robert Beerbohm

 

Each person reading any of this is smart enough to come to their own conclusions

[ArnoldTBlumberg]

cartoon strips, and picture stories -- but they themselves are not comics because they don't contain a single panel of comic artwork.

 

Wow, so what color is the sky in your world?

[BLBcomics-migration]

http://bugpowder.com/andy/e.toepffer-aubert.html

 

and while you are at it, go to this URL and read what Andy has to say:

 

Monsieur Vieuxbois Pirate copy (1839) & Comparison with American Version from 1842

Here are 15 scans from a lousy pirate copy (you can compare all the images with the original above). What makes this one especially interesting is that it was used to make another copy in English, resulting in a US version in 1842, arguably the first American comicbook.

 

French pirate edition of 'Monsieur Vieuxbois' by anonymous artist, 1839

The original edition by Toepffer only had a very small printrun , so this rather awful pirate copy was made in Paris. What makes this extremely important is that it got into the hands of a British publisher who again made a copy of it. This British 'copy of a copy' was made by a better artist than the perpetrator of the stuff below. And it became the first long comicbook in England, and indeed America, because an American edition with the British printingblocks was made soon afterwards.

[FFB]

Your statement about GI Joe #21 not being a "true" comic book because it doesn't have word balloons is, to me, an absurd position and one that I think very few other collectors, if any, would agree with. If we're going to set up totally arbitrary and somewhat irrelevant limitations about what is a comic book and what isn't, I think we should go back to the earliest platinum and golden age books as reference and adopt yet another rule as to what is a comic book -- an incredibly lame story told sequentially with primitive line art. Most "comic books" of today don't meet that criterion, but so what. That's how the original comic books were and so that's the criterion. Why is that the rule? Because I just said so.

 

The point being that comic books as a concept are allowed to evolve over time. Really, it's ok. You can appreciate the evolution of sequential art storytelling without placing artificial and pointless limits on what belongs in the genre.

 

Also, even if we must absolutely positively accept these "rules" as being immutable and on par with the Ten Commandments, whether you agree or disagree that something is a comic strip, comic book, or whatever because it violates one of your immutable rules, don't forget that sometimes rules have exceptions.

 

For example, if the long usage of narrative is not ok in a comic book, I seem to recall an issue of Thor during Walt Simonson's second run on the title in which the bulk of the words in the story were told in narrative boxes and took the form of a prose poem. I suppose that's not a comic book either? Please.

 

And also remember that before rules become rules, they need to be agreed upon. Most of the distinctions you're quoting as gospel are not things I've seen "agreed upon" by any significant number of collectors in the hobby. Maybe one or two historians have posited these opinions on the matter as "rules," but that isn't how it works. You need acceptance first and I don't think many of the things you're saying are accepted by most collectors.

 

I would go as far as calling the Wild Oats material cartoons (but not comics) and the Harper's Weekly Lincoln material is comic art illustrating the text story.

 

A comic art is different from cartoon art in that comic art renders text, be it speech, thought, or an onomatopoeic sound, as part of the artwork and not as a caption above or below the artwork.

 

I don't deny that Oldbuck, Wild Oats, etc., are all precursors to the comic strip. These artists took illustration to the next level in the form of cartoons, cartoon strips, and picture stories -- but they themselves are not comics because they don't contain a single panel of comic artwork.

 

There is a fine line between the two art forms (cartoon vs. comic), but it is one that was established and recognized by collectors and artists since the comic revolution triggered by Outcault and the Yellow Kid. Some choose to ignore that line and lump all illustrated story telling into the same bucket (the inclusive school of thought). Others treat the line between the two art forms with more reverence and make a distinction between the two (the exclusionary school of thought).

 

I don't think the GI issue is a "true" comic book as it is solely illustration. Just because something is packaged in the same format as a modern comic book doesn't necessarily make it a comic. Case in point, the Marvel Universe Handbook issues... no story being told, just information accompanied by illustrations of comic book characters. The Marvel Index issues are the same... no story, just reference material packaged in the same format. The Marvel Age issues are more of the same, something else packaged in the same format as a modern comic book. One interesting item is The Marvel Fumetti Book. Photographs with narration, dialogue, thoughts, and onomatopoeic noises (snap, bamf, splash, crash, bash, etc.) added to the photographs in comic fashion. This, again, is something I don't consider to be a "true" comic...this art form has a specific name, fumetti. And things like Obadiah Oldbuck also had a specific name given to their particular form... the picture story.

 

Now if someone wants to strip away the importance of text (speech, thought, and onomatopoeic sound) rendered as part of the artwork and call all forms of illustrated story telling "comics" then you can certainly classify anything as a comic book. Under that definition I would consider the Old Woman/Dog/Pedlar story to be a "comic" as it is certainly a sequence of images with text captions that tell a story... just like Obadiah.

 

Thankfully I don't believe in that definition and I don't consider the precursors to the comic art form as being comics. They are illustrated texts, cartoons, and/or picture stories. I also don't believe everything packaged in the same format as a comic book is a comic book.

 

Perhaps I am a dying breed and the next generation of collectors raised on the history of comics according to Bob Beerbohm will consider everything to be a comic. I however will always respect and hold dear the things that make a comic different from it's cousins on the a family tree of illustrated story telling.

[Aman619]

Giffle IS stating the rules as they existed before Bob's new research. It has been Bob's ten year journey that has unearthed new, much earlier examples that have satisfied him that they trylu are comicbooks. But Giffle and others are not yet convinced. And, lets face it, both camps paint themselves intp corners that , I feel, lead to explanations like the ones about GIJoe etc that are strained at best.

 

IMO, Bob has proven a progression to the comic book format we enjoy today. And dated it way further back than was thought 60 years ago when the GA surge of success led to questions and answers to explain the new comics phenomenon. And it is their (often self-serving) statements that were handed down unchallenged til now. But, I still see this as a missing link kind of situation. Im not convinced its OO. But it seems it may not ne Yellow Kid either since it doesnt look remarkably different from OO to me.

 

But, if we are talking first comic book as we see it NOW in 2006 Im leaning to somewhere or something in the 1930s when the physical product finally settled on the format that has lasted since then. Everything before in an ancestor of varying resemblance.

 

And, I came up with this opinion after doing absolutely no hands on research!!! aint I grand?

[showcase4]

Giffle IS stating the rules as they existed before Bob's new research. It has been Bob's ten year journey that has unearthed new, much earlier examples that have satisfied him that they trylu are comicbooks. But Giffle and others are not yet convinced. And, lets face it, both camps paint themselves intp corners that , I feel, lead to explanations like the ones about GIJoe etc that are strained at best.

 

Aman,

This is a great point. For decades, publications such as the OPG and various other guides that catalogue comic books have focused on the Golden Age and pre-golden Age (1933 to present ) time frame. It was as if the comic book was born in the 30's. Of course collectors and dealers new there were older books out there, but they were not given much thought or attention ( from what I' ve seen...since my 1992 entry into the market ). Then 10 years ago or so, the OPG adds the Platinum Age section, and within the past 5 years, the Victorian Age section. So much research had been done by Bob B and others like him, that these older, rare issues can now, for the 1st time, be catalogued, dated, described, measured, priced, read for content, and had enough characteristics ( sequential art, format, word/story correlation) to be considered by the historians who did the research "comic books". So now you have the "bible" of the comic world introducing to the masses 2 new entire time periods of comics that have always been out there, but now have a Golden Age like alphabetically sorted and thorough referencing...very much like "The Big Big Little Book Book" by Arnold B. That is a GREAT reference guide to big little books, and is very similar to what the OPG did with Vic/Plat listings in their guide.

 

I can imagine to "old school" collectors, this would cause quit a stir. These older books look diefferent, smell different, are bound different, display their art/text different, were distributed different, and their themes are different. I can see with all these differences, why some people would say "those things are not comic books" as we have heard repeatedly on this post. However, the research was done, and the books were catalogued, and they turly are "comic books", as they have as many things in common with a modern comic book as they do differences .I own these books, and have read them, and I know when I am holding a comic book in my hands....I don't need to look up the dictionary definition to clarify it for me. I believe just like Arnold B. said, you have to have an open mind when new research shows new info that may challenge the status quo. Today, there is no proof of life on other planets....if tomorrow an alien space ship lands in Idaho, we must accept the new reality that there is intelligent life on other planets.

The spaceship has landed, and it is called the Victorian/Platinum Age.

[skybolt]

Thanks again for posting those cartoons. It's amazing how people's perception towards world events has not changed by much in the past 70 to 90 years. I can easily see some of those cartoons being used today with respect to terrorism (several of those) and the current administration (the one about being dragged into war). It's nice to see that people from the past were just as curious about their surroundings as people in the present.

[page_sniffer-migration]

I apologize for my short outburst

 

maybe the moderator can police some of the riff-raff ?

 

I sure hope so, since your post with the profanity has been reported to the Mods.

You should probably get a strike for that?