Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[ciorac]

thanx Bob. I still think you see them as comics because you WANT them to be "comics, " I admit to seeing the connection and parallels you have researched and drawn.. But I think you came out the other side of the wormhole in time (or something like that) and proved merely an evolutionary DNA-like connection between our 20th century "comics magazines" (that we all call comicbooks), and its earlier ancestors. But in reality, these Platinum publications you unearthed are an entirely different species of comics, and no more "comicbooks/magazines" than early ape-like mammals are "[embarrassing lack of self control] sapiens." Related, but different

 

Thats not a bad thing, and shouldnt tarnish your research at all. That all stands high and mighty and valorous. I just cant totally subscribe to your conclusions of INclusion. The Platinum Age might as well be the Jurassic Age to collectors of "comicbooks" today. Totally alien and far removed. Totally cool too...I too love old paper, and graphics, and many of these are very intriguing. But two different beasts.

 

Im being closed-minded, from your vantagepoint, certainly. Relying on surface detail like available technology and subject matter, too in suggesting that the Platinum pieces are not the same as current 20th century stuff. But why do they need to be the same? You seem to need them to be as if the research itself must include an ending, a single point of departure, or beginning. I say its not that simple. And that therein lies the resistence to universal agreement with you.

 

that and all the money you made off it. (Sho nuff added that part! : ) Keep up the good work!

 

Oh, in addition, I still cant get beyond the fact that OO is a reprint of a French creation. That will always diminish IMO OOs relevance to that of a footnote, as opposed to an earthquake in publishing. If the "first American comicbook" is a reprint, it's not an invention at all. We comicbook collectors value first appearances, and origins. You went searching for the "Origin and First Appearance of The Comicbook"...the American phenomenon we all know and love... and in the end settled on a piece that is only "technically" valid: the first piece printed in America (maybe...) Do collectors in other fields celebrate and value corresponding pieces? Is the first book publshed in America heralded similarly?? The first desk? The first painting?? Or, does the fact that books had been printed and assembled for centuries overseas preclude any special significance to the first locally printed books??

 

The format already existed in book form. Location of production shouldnt count for all that much more than curiousity in my mind. Hadn't illustrated stories also existed for centuries before Topfler and OO? Was OO the first of anything besides location of publication? WHILE I STILL BELIEVED COMICS WERE A UNIQUELY AMERICAN ART FORM, I placed great stock in the FIRST AMERICAN COMICBOOK! I went out and bought one remember? But I believed the myth begun by Gaines et al. But you have dispelled that 70 year old myth with your research.

 

But that effort, IMO also devalued the prize of the FIRST because it turned out to be such a minor accomplishment. That one day in 1842 some American businessman thought he could make some money reprinting a French story here. You have only replaced faulty history with far mor in depth research with a denouement, a letdown, because the answer is far less meaningful than we thought.

 

So, now that I think about it, have you found the first COMICBOOK produced anywhere?? Was it in France, Italy, Japan?? THAT BOOK should be where your journey should end, shouldnt it? Lets take off our infantile Ugly American glasses and face facts that we didnt invent the comicbook... and as comics collectors and afficionados, now, finally ascertain just what WAS the FIRST.. anywhere!

 

Guess I got carried away. Fascinating stuff.

 

This is the third time in this thread that you have had me sitting here in my study saying to myself..out loud...HEAR HEAR!!!

 

This is a lucid, well thought out, intelligent response to this debate to which I had to break my silence here to say thanks for saying what many of us believe.

 

The only other thing I can add is that Bob puts much stock in what comic books were called when they were popular in the golden age, for example "funny books", "comic magazines", etc.

 

This is of no moment in determining what a comic book is.

 

The collecting community and the publishers settled on "comic book" many moons ago. The format is the same, with some page count and size differences, since Funnies on Parade. That is an unbroken chain of decades of standardization that still exists today. That is what a comic book was, is, and always will be.

 

Obadiah is not a comic book. It may well be the first American ancestor of comic books, but it is most assuredly not one. Neither are paperback books with comic reprints in them, DC Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks et al. Those are BOOKS with comic reprints in them. Period.

 

When the first cars came along they were called horse-less carriages. Now and for many many years since, they are called CARS.

 

So to use Bob's logic of inclusivity, the horse drawn carriage is a car....or even more to the point....so is the horse!

 

Let's go to the annual automakers convention in Stutgaart and bring our 1842 carriage and the bones of the horse that pulled it, and try to pass it off as the FIRST CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Think we will change many minds there, or have many supporters?

 

But who knows, I could be wrong......if we put a $20K price on it, they might just believe us....

 

[Theagenes]

I would add Detective Dan to your list as a possible contender. Under those conditions I would probably go with Det. Dan or Comic Monthly. But I have never actually seen a copy of YK in MF or the 1842 OO in person. From Bob's description of the 1842 OO as being basically a chapbook (as opposed to the later printings in book form) I would say the format is probably very similar to modern comic books only sans staples. As for the content, I've ordered one of the reprints and I when I have a chance to read the entire work in context I'll be able to better judge. Is there a reprint of YK in MF? What is the binding like on the YK? In the images I've seen, it also appears to be very similar to the later comic magazines.

[BLBcomics-migration]

To all who responded with their thoughts on this contentious subject, i say thanks

 

Aman sez he still cannot get past OO being a reprint

 

Well, pretty much all the stuff in COMIC MONTHLY, FUNNIES ON PARADE, FAMOUS FUNNIES, CENTURY OF COMICS, POPULAR, TIP TOP, KING, ACE, MAGIC, THE FUNNIES (2nd series), SUPER, etc are all reprints as well.

 

OO is a reprint (New YORK City 1842) of a re-drawn reprint (London 1841) of a re-drawn reprint (Paris 1839) of a re-drawn reprint (Geneva 1833) of the original first drawn in 1828 (Geneva Switzerland).

 

If one actually reads the history essay which fronts the Victorian price index in Overstreet, one will discover we carefully make a definition of what constitutes a Victorian comic strip: the main component being a general lack of the use of word balloons.

 

Not completely, as word balloons were used throughout the 1800s, were thought to be vulgar intrusions into the art by many, and made a come back in the late 1890s.

 

OO is the same format as a Famous Funnies:

 

1) wrap-around floppy pamphlet 40 pages long, saddle stitched using string because staples had not yet been invented. Both Ciorac and Theagenes have ordered the facsimile reprint, in the mail, you should have in your hands shortly. Read and then judge from a better perspective.

 

It does not matter which "age" has been pegged.

 

A comic book is a comic book is a comic book.

 

Under that comes:

 

comic magazine

comic paperback

comic graphic novel

comic trade

comic tabloid

comic treasury

comic oblong

comic codex

comic scroll

 

and anything else one wishes to throw into the mix

 

Just because there was a nomenclature change of comic book perception sometime in the late 1950s, does not mean that the narrow-mindedness of those times should stay with us.Back then, those were the times, going thru the 1960s as well, when comic book collectors were looked down upon as socially-deviant, morally-corrupt, mentally-deficient lost souls in need of an exorcism to purge the demon comic book. The history of comics in America became all convoluted. Many comic book creators denied they worked in the industry.

 

Enter the enlightened 1960s when a re-examination of many levels of society entered the public consciousness.

 

It has taken comic books a looooong time to become socially acceptable once again in America, unlike its Euro-conterparts which finds comics as much an accepted part of literature as anything else produced over there.

 

Not so America

 

It is obvious to me that most of you reading this thread, and many of the respondents, have not seen and read what i have seen and read.

 

A couple well done reprint books are in order, showing the rich depth of story telling techniques and art work once and for all to the nay-sayers who have not yet seen The True Light.

[Theagenes]

I would add Detective Dan to your list as a possible contender. Under those conditions I would probably go with Det. Dan or Comic Monthly. But I have never actually seen a copy of YK in MF or the 1842 OO in person. From Bob's description of the 1842 OO as being basically a chapbook (as opposed to the later printings in book form) I would say the format is probably very similar to modern comic books only sans staples. As for the content, I've ordered one of the reprints and I when I have a chance to read the entire work in context I'll be able to better judge. Is there a reprint of YK in MF? What is the binding like on the YK? In the images I've seen, it also appears to be very similar to the later comic magazines.

 

I should probably clarify a couple points in my previous post. The reason I sort of waffle back and forth between Det. Dan and Comic Monthly #1 is that even though CM meets most of the criteria for a modern comic book/comic magazine, I'm not sure how much of an influence it had on the birth of the modern comic book industry a decade later. Was is just an isolated experiment that no one paid attention to (just a another Cupples & Leon book but w/ a soft cover), or did the people who came out with the first comic magazines in the early 30's have it in mind, as they no doubt had The Funnies (1929) in mind? I don't really know the answer.Does it really matter? The Humor books on the other hand definately did have a direct influence on the development of Superman. The Eastern books helped popularize and create a market for the new modern comic book/comic magazine format. Both of these events (I tend to think of them as events rather than just individual books) were were part of the chain reaction that led to Action #1. The Funnies (1929) and the oil company comics were an important part of that chain of events as well, but these were tabloids, i.e. half-size newspapers, not magazines.

 

What I would love to know is, did Wildenberg, Gaines, et al. at Eastern know about the Humor books? They were obviously distributed in the mid-west, at least in Chicago and Cleveland, but did they make it to New York? Or were the Humor books and the Eastern books completely separate developments, kind of like agriculture appearing independently in both the Old and New world? Fascinating stuff.

[ciorac]

To all who responded with their thoughts on this contentious subject, i say thanks

 

Aman sez he still cannot get past OO being a reprint

 

Well, pretty much all the stuff in COMIC MONTHLY, FUNNIES ON PARADE, FAMOUS FUNNIES, CENTURY OF COMICS, POPULAR, TIP TOP, KING, ACE, MAGIC, THE FUNNIES (2nd series), SUPER, etc are all reprints as well.

 

OO is a reprint (New YORK City 1842) of a re-drawn reprint (London 1841) of a re-drawn reprint (Paris 1839) of a re-drawn reprint (Geneva 1833) of the original first drawn in 1828 (Geneva Switzerland).

 

If one actually reads the history essay which fronts the Victorian price index in Overstreet, one will discover we carefully make a definition of what constitutes a Victorian comic strip: the main component being a general lack of the use of word balloons.

 

Not completely, as word balloons were used throughout the 1800s, were thought to be vulgar intrusions into the art by many, and made a come back in the late 1890s.

 

OO is the same format as a Famous Funnies:

 

1) wrap-around floppy pamphlet 40 pages long, saddle stitched using string because staples had not yet been invented. Both Ciorac and Theagenes have ordered the facsimile reprint, in the mail, you should have in your hands shortly. Read and then judge from a better perspective.

 

It does not matter which "age" has been pegged.

 

A comic book is a comic book is a comic book.

 

Under that comes:

 

comic magazine

comic paperback

comic graphic novel

comic trade

comic tabloid

comic treasury

comic oblong

comic codex

comic scroll

 

and anything else one wishes to throw into the mix

 

Just because there was a nomenclature change of comic book perception sometime in the late 1950s, does not mean that the narrow-mindedness of those times should stay with us.Back then, those were the times, going thru the 1960s as well, when comic book collectors were looked down upon as socially-deviant, morally-corrupt, mentally-deficient lost souls in need of an exorcism to purge the demon comic book. The history of comics in America became all convoluted. Many comic book creators denied they worked in the industry.

 

Enter the enlightened 1960s when a re-examination of many levels of society entered the public consciousness.

 

It has taken comic books a looooong time to become socially acceptable once again in America, unlike its Euro-conterparts which finds comics as much an accepted part of literature as anything else produced over there.

 

Not so America

 

It is obvious to me that most of you reading this thread, and many of the respondents, have not seen and read what i have seen and read.

 

A couple well done reprint books are in order, showing the rich depth of story telling techniques and art work once and for all to the nay-sayers who have not yet seen The True Light.

 

While your view is broad in scope (much too broad to be sure), the tunnel vision you are displaying is odd.

 

Amost like you are in a trance...

 

"Everything must be a comic book.......if everything is not a comic book....then Obadiah is not the first comic book.....everything must be a comic....everything must be a comic........................"

[BLBcomics-migration]

Amost like you are in a trance...

 

"Everything must be a comic book.......if everything is not a comic book....then Obadiah is not the first comic book.....everything must be a comic....everything must be a comic........................"

 

say what? who let you out of detention

 

I think i am having a discussion with some one (Theagenes?) else regarding nomenclature and making lists of definitions - so, i began one which obviously needs to be expanded upon

 

Tunnel vision?

 

From my perspective the few die-hards here who refuse to See The Light have horse blinders on:

 

to wit, read the exact size facsimile reprint OO when it shows up in your mail box next week. If one pulls off the outer text pages of historical commentary, one gets an exact repro in all aspects of the 1842 Obadiah Oldbuck -

 

READ the story, understand the that Töpffer was doing comic strips as we know them today, as by "we" i mean those of us who are not hung up on the mis-guided concept that a comic strip MUST have word balloons to be a comic strip

 

And when you get your OO in the mail,and you look a bit, tactilely feel it, flip the wrap around pages, then read the story - you, too, will hopefully See The Light and all will be good in the universe

[BLBcomics-migration]

I would add Detective Dan to your list as a possible contender. Under those conditions I would probably go with Det. Dan or Comic Monthly. But I have never actually seen a copy of YK in MF or the 1842 OO in person. From Bob's description of the 1842 OO as being basically a chapbook (as opposed to the later printings in book form) I would say the format is probably very similar to modern comic books only sans staples. As for the content, I've ordered one of the reprints and I when I have a chance to read the entire work in context I'll be able to better judge. Is there a reprint of YK in MF? What is the binding like on the YK? In the images I've seen, it also appears to be very similar to the later comic magazines.

 

I should probably clarify a couple points in my previous post. The reason I sort of waffle back and forth between Det. Dan and Comic Monthly #1 is that even though CM meets most of the criteria for a modern comic book/comic magazine, I'm not sure how much of an influence it had on the birth of the modern comic book industry a decade later. Was is just an isolated experiment that no one paid attention to (just a another Cupples & Leon book but w/ a soft cover), or did the people who came out with the first comic magazines in the early 30's have it in mind, as they no doubt had The Funnies (1929) in mind? I don't really know the answer.Does it really matter? The Humor books on the other hand definately did have a direct influence on the development of Superman. The Eastern books helped popularize and create a market for the new modern comic book/comic magazine format. Both of these events (I tend to think of them as events rather than just individual books) were were part of the chain reaction that led to Action #1. The Funnies (1929) and the oil company comics were an important part of that chain of events as well, but these were tabloids, i.e. half-size newspapers, not magazines.

 

What I would love to know is, did Wildenberg, Gaines, et al. at Eastern know about the Humor books? They were obviously distributed in the mid-west, at least in Chicago and Cleveland, but did they make it to New York? Or were the Humor books and the Eastern books completely separate developments, kind of like agriculture appearing independently in both the Old and New world? Fascinating stuff.

 

Well Jeff, you will see OO soon enough when one of those exact size Italian facsimile reprints show sup in your mail box next week.

 

From my research perspective, the Eastern Color format of famous Funnies is simply a late-stage Dime Novel format:

 

1) slick cover

2) wrap around stapled pamphlet

 

it all comes down to taking huge rolls of paper and keep folding them down after printing on them

 

There is no reprint yet of YK in McF Flats - which has a trade paperback type of perfect binding

 

OO has a wrap around saddle stitched binding just like famous Funnies, string being used cuz staples had yet to be invented

 

Comic Monthly was designed to be a poor man's Cupples & Leon 10x10 comic book

 

- the spine border of the CM posted over on REVEL IN HISTORY thread is printed on while the C&L books used a higher degree of manufacture and is a cloth border.

 

To wit, it is obvious to me that CM was a poor man's clone of the then-popular Cupples & Leon comic books

 

we will never know if the Eastern Color boys knew of the Humor books, one has to wonder if these guys got out to news stands, which were hugely popular as a main source of information and entertainment in the days before radio, TV, internet made the exchange of info that much easier and quicker

 

I would say NOTHING had been invented in a vacuum - each generation builds upon what the previous generations built

[esquirecomics]

Excellent substantive posts on both sides today guys!!! This is exactly what this thread and others in the GA Section are all about!

[esquirecomics]

Aman sez he still cannot get past OO being a reprint

 

Well, pretty much all the stuff in COMIC MONTHLY, FUNNIES ON PARADE, FAMOUS FUNNIES, CENTURY OF COMICS, POPULAR, TIP TOP, KING, ACE, MAGIC, THE FUNNIES (2nd series), SUPER, etc are all reprints as well.

 

Good point.

 

How does this impact those of you who felt Funnies on Parade and the other 1920s/1930s books serve as the first "comic book"? Does it matter if the "first" is a reprint?

[selegue]

Aman sez he still cannot get past OO being a reprint

 

Well, pretty much all the stuff in COMIC MONTHLY, FUNNIES ON PARADE, FAMOUS FUNNIES, CENTURY OF COMICS, POPULAR, TIP TOP, KING, ACE, MAGIC, THE FUNNIES (2nd series), SUPER, etc are all reprints as well.

 

Good point.

 

How does this impact those of you who felt Funnies on Parade and the other 1920s/1930s books serve as the first "comic book"? Does it matter if the "first" is a reprint?

 

It doesn't matter a whit to me if a comic book, first or not, contains reprinted material. A large chunk of the early Dell Four Color series would not be comic books if we were excluding reprints, and that would make no sense to me. I enjoyed #20 a few days ago, and had no doubt that it was a comic book. I had never read Barney Baxter before -- fun adventure strip with great characters, artistically split between "realistic" and very cartoony, sort of like Bolling's Little Archie.

 

Hey, maybe we can next debate the unanswerable question of whether Four Color is really (two) series or just a bunch of one-shots. That can tie up the Grand Comic-Book Database lists for weeks!

 

Jack

[ShoNuff-migration]

Ignore him Bob.

One thing you can't ignore is the fact that Obadiah Oldbuck is not a comic book.

 

[ShoNuff-migration]

 

You fellas are ignoring the tidal tsunami waves of history lapping at your heineez

 

- if it bothers you, well, tough, get over it, as you are

I'm seeing the tidal waves of history quite clearly. The first American comic book was known for years. Then someone gets their hands on a couple of books that are not the first comic book...and suddenly it's time to rewrite history so these books can be sold as the "first American comic book" for some fat cash. Unfortunately, I'm seeing things way too clearly.

[showcase4]

And here's where it all started...May of 2005. Diamond International Galleries in Timonium, MD. Thats's Bob on the right, and me ( Showcase-4) on the left. Bob flew all the way from Nebraska to complete this transaction.....given the cost of airfare these days, I was very glad this deal didn't fall apart

 

 

 

[ShoNuff-migration]

[ciorac]

 

[Shield]

 

 

[Shield]

OO has a wrap around saddle stitched binding just like famous Funnies, string being used cuz staples had yet to be invented

 

Bob, you've been beating us over the head with this statement ad nauseum. It goes back to the horse & carriage argument - why could'nt horse & buggies from the 1860's be considered the first cars? After all, the internal combustion engine hadn't been invented yet! Because the engine is a part of what makes a car a car, just like staples, word balloons, advertisements et al are what MAKES a comic a comic!

 

If OO is a comic because the spine is hand stitched because staples hadn't yet been invented, then why couldn't Native Americans' cave drawings that told sequential stories be the first comics? After all, PAPER hadn't been invented yet!

 

 

It's like you've invested some time in researching this, drawn your own conclusion and will not listen to other's opinions of your findings. Just because you've been dealing in comics for 40 years doesn't make OO a comic book. Just because you're an Overstreet advisor and work the Platinum Age portion of the guide doesn't mean the conclusion you've drawn is "absolute", now does it? Are you honestly that shocked that many of us don't feel OO is a true "comic book"? Especially when you made $40k selling 2 copies of it? Aren't most of the website hyping this book as the first American comic simply based off of your findings or final evaluation?

 

It'd be a much easier pill to swallow if your "findings" didn't net you $40k because of them. I will "see the light" when I hear something from someone who has nothing to gain from their research.

[ciorac]

OO has a wrap around saddle stitched binding just like famous Funnies, string being used cuz staples had yet to be invented

 

Bob, you've been beating us over the head with this statement ad nauseum. It goes back to the horse & carriage argument - why could'nt horse & buggies from the 1860's be considered the first cars? After all, the internal combustion engine hadn't been invented yet! Because the engine is a part of what makes a car a car, just like staples, word balloons, advertisements et al are what MAKES a comic a comic!

 

If OO is a comic because the spine is hand stitched because staples hadn't yet been invented, then why couldn't Native Americans' cave drawings that told sequential stories be the first comics? After all, PAPER hadn't been invented yet!

 

 

It's like you've invested some time in researching this, drawn your own conclusion and will not listen to other's opinions of your findings. Just because you've been dealing in comics for 40 years doesn't make OO a comic book. Just because you're an Overstreet advisor and work the Platinum Age portion of the guide doesn't mean the conclusion you've drawn is "absolute", now does it? Are you honestly that shocked that many of us don't feel OO is a true "comic book"? Especially when you made $40k selling 2 copies of it? Aren't most of the website hyping this book as the first American comic simply based off of your findings or final evaluation?

 

It'd be a much easier pill to swallow if your "findings" didn't net you $40k because of them. I will "see the light" when I hear something from someone who has nothing to gain from their research.

 

[FFB]

OO has a wrap around saddle stitched binding just like famous Funnies, string being used cuz staples had yet to be invented

 

Bob, you've been beating us over the head with this statement ad nauseum. It goes back to the horse & carriage argument - why could'nt horse & buggies from the 1860's be considered the first cars? After all, the internal combustion engine hadn't been invented yet! Because the engine is a part of what makes a car a car, just like staples, word balloons, advertisements et al are what MAKES a comic a comic!

 

If OO is a comic because the spine is hand stitched because staples hadn't yet been invented, then why couldn't Native Americans' cave drawings that told sequential stories be the first comics? After all, PAPER hadn't been invented yet!

 

 

It's like you've invested some time in researching this, drawn your own conclusion and will not listen to other's opinions of your findings. Just because you've been dealing in comics for 40 years doesn't make OO a comic book. Just because you're an Overstreet advisor and work the Platinum Age portion of the guide doesn't mean the conclusion you've drawn is "absolute", now does it? Are you honestly that shocked that many of us don't feel OO is a true "comic book"? Especially when you made $40k selling 2 copies of it? Aren't most of the website hyping this book as the first American comic simply based off of your findings or final evaluation?

 

It'd be a much easier pill to swallow if your "findings" didn't net you $40k because of them. I will "see the light" when I hear something from someone who has nothing to gain from their research.

 

Someone call Frank Miller and tell him he needs to return all of the comic book industry awards he won for Batman: the Dark Knight Returns because it didn't have staples. Despite having read and collected comic books for roughly 30 years, this is the first I've ever heard of staples as an essential requirement for a comic book. Your (or was it ciorac's?) horse-drawn carriage analogy is flawed because an internal combustion engine is the sine qua non of an automobile, whereas staples are absolutely not the essence of what makes something a comic book. And a cave isn't a "book," so I fail to see how your other hyperbolic example is intended to prove any real point.

 

In my sole opinion, what makes a comic book is the fact that the thing (whatever it is) is in booklet form (whatever size and however bound), and involves visual storytelling in sequential form using "comic-style" drawings. I don't have a problem accepting a string-bound book as a comic book if it meets the criteria of being in booklet form and using visual, sequential storytelling.

 

The fact that Bob made money off of OO doesn't make it any less a comic book and your focus on that instead of the substance of what he is saying weakens any merit your argument has.

[ShoNuff-migration]

Bob, you've been beating us over the head with this statement ad nauseum. It goes back to the horse & carriage argument - why could'nt horse & buggies from the 1860's be considered the first cars? After all, the internal combustion engine hadn't been invented yet! Because the engine is a part of what makes a car a car, just like staples, word balloons, advertisements et al are what MAKES a comic a comic!

 

If OO is a comic because the spine is hand stitched because staples hadn't yet been invented, then why couldn't Native Americans' cave drawings that told sequential stories be the first comics? After all, PAPER hadn't been invented yet!

 

 

It's like you've invested some time in researching this, drawn your own conclusion and will not listen to other's opinions of your findings. Just because you've been dealing in comics for 40 years doesn't make OO a comic book. Just because you're an Overstreet advisor and work the Platinum Age portion of the guide doesn't mean the conclusion you've drawn is "absolute", now does it? Are you honestly that shocked that many of us don't feel OO is a true "comic book"? Especially when you made $40k selling 2 copies of it? Aren't most of the website hyping this book as the first American comic simply based off of your findings or final evaluation?

 

It'd be a much easier pill to swallow if your "findings" didn't net you $40k because of them. I will "see the light" when I hear something from someone who has nothing to gain from their research.