Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[showcase4]

So my question remains (within the context of a comic vs a cartoon), is The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats the first comic book still or has an earlier book appeared (i.e. a book with word balloons)?

 

One of the challenges with wide spread acceptance of Victorian Age comic books, is the varying definitions of what a "comic book" is....word balloons, type of spine, arrangement of panels, etc etc. We are coming from 2 different mindsets as to what a comic book is, and if yours requires the presence of word balloons, then McFadden's Flats may be the 1st. ( By the way, I am ALWAYS buying McFadden's Flats for top $$ in any conidtion...hint hint) Based on the following definition though, which I agree with, it would be Obadiah Oldbuck:

 

"a comic book is a series of words and pictures that is presented in a sequential manner to form a narrative."

 

The above definition was from an encyclopedia web site...note there is no mention of word balloons as a criteria...only a sequential word/picture story.

[gifflefunk]

The above definition was from an encyclopedia web site...note there is no mention of word balloons as a criteria...only a sequential word/picture story.

 

Which just proves that after five years of attempting to brainwash the public, Beerbohm has made some progress. I, however, go with the classical view held by most comic book collectors and not the revisionist definition being spun by a cartoon book dealer trying to sell off his cartoon book collection to poor unsuspecting saps for outragous sums of money... er, how you doing?

[gifflefunk]

"a comic book is a series of words and pictures that is presented in a sequential manner to form a narrative."

 

 

But you know, by using that definition you've described the Old lady/dog/peddler book.

 

 

Or is that definition only useful when it supports Oldbuck?

[showcase4]

"a comic book is a series of words and pictures that is presented in a sequential manner to form a narrative."

 

 

But you know, by using that definition you've described the Old lady/dog/peddler book.

 

 

Or is that definition only useful when it supports Oldbuck?

 

Boy are you guys going to jump all over this.....I will add to the above definition that it must also be recognized by the industry's leading and most universally acceptable reference guide as a sequential comic book...and that reference guide is The Overstreet Price Guide.

 

P.S. time will tell if I'm a sap or savvy investor

[gifflefunk]

So if it doesn't appear in the OPG you don't accept it as a "comic"... makes it rather difficult to show anything older than Oldbuck until Bob acquires a copy and wants to sell it (at which point he'll include it in his next "update" to the OPG I'm certain).

 

Also, Maggie Thompson in the Standard Catalog of Comics starts out by mentioning the Yellow Kid in her article "Tradition: What Comics Are, and How People Collect Them!"

 

I believe Maggie's place as an authority on comics is beyond reproach and she doesn't consider the cartoon books cited by Beerbohm as being comic books (at least not in this article... I haven't spoke with her directly in over a decade).

[showcase4]

So if it doesn't appear in the OPG you don't accept it as a "comic"... makes it rather difficult to show anything older than Oldbuck until Bob acquires a copy and wants to sell it (at which point he'll include it in his next "update" to the OPG I'm certain).

 

Also, Maggie Thompson in the Standard Catalog of Comics starts out by mentioning the Yellow Kid in her article "Tradition: What Comics Are, and How People Collect Them!"

 

I believe Maggie's place as an authority on comics is beyond reproach and she doesn't consider the cartoon books cited by Beerbohm as being comic books (at least not in this article... I haven't spoke with her directly in over a decade).

 

 

The Standard Catalog of Comics?...gee, The Overtstreet Price Guide after 36 years of being the "bible" for the industry has been replaced, and I never heard about it. You're right...I must be a sap!

[gifflefunk]

I'm not surprised that you don't know what is going on in the industry... perhaps you think BLBs are comic books too because they appear in your almighty "bible"?

[showcase4]

I'm not surprised that you don't know what is going on in the industry... perhaps you think BLBs are comic books too because they appear in your almighty "bible"?

 

Oh Gifflefunk...and in the end we know so little about each other. As a 100% feedback Ebay Power Seller, collector of Silver, Gold, and Platinum Age books since 1992, featured Star Collector in Scoop!, charter member of The Network of Disclosure along with Mark Zaid and other nationally recognized comic professionals, who's planning my own comic book museum presently......you're right -- I know nothing about what's going on in the industry. I am a complete rookie who has no business giving input on my own post.

 

The OPG is not "My" bible...I said it's the industry's bible. As for BLB's....there is a fair chance I can tell the difference between a comic book and a big little book....not totally sure though....especially since they look completely different from each other with regards to their size, layout, covers, spine, and image and text arrangement...that's a REALLY tough call for me.

 

The question is, why are you burying your head in the sand when it comes to the realization that in 1998 Beerbohm discovered what is now recognized by virtually the whole world except for you as the 1st American comic book?

[gifflefunk]

The question is, why are you burying your head in the sand when it comes to the realization that in 1998 Beerbohm discovered what is now recognized by virtually the whole world except for you as the 1st American comic book?

 

Wow... very arrogant... I think you need to go back to post #1 and read this entire thread again... its not just me that holds this opinion, in fact I think a majority of comic book collectors hold the same opinion that I hold. Most just don't care what a few crackpots like you and Beerbohm have to say when it comes to redefining the definition. I just decided to take a stand and point out the flaws in your (and Beerbohm's) logic when it comes to calling one illustrated narrative a comic book (i.e. Oldbuck) and ignore something that clearly predates it (i.e. Old Woman/Dog/Peddler), which by the way is found on the very website that Beerbohm directs readers to at the end of his section on Victorian Age comics!!

 

I just use the classical criteria that made the Yellow Kid the first comic book. I'm sorry Oldbuck doesn't qualify because its just non-dialogue captions beneath some illustrations. And Beerbohm didn't discover jack-diddly with Oldbuck (others had mentioned it before in other scholarly works). All Beerbohm has attempted to do is hijack the definition of a comic book to include these earlier cartoon works as being comic books. This is why he attacks those that came before him in regards to the Yellow Kid and normally starts out his treatise on Oldbuck with the statements of "All one has to do is get past 'word balloons'...". Revisionist history, pure and simple.

 

As I stated before, you and he can chirp all you want and try to convince the masses that you have something "important" in regards to comic books... but truth be told, no word balloons = no comic. Simple equation. This is why the Yellow Kid is so important... it shows the direct evolution of going from a cartoon strip to a comic strip and those comic strips by virtue of being reprinted in a book have long been recognized as the first comic book in America.

[showcase4]

Gifflefunk, if you keep this up, Bob Beerbohm and I are going take you off our Christmas card list.

 

The hobby is still evolving,,,,it is not set in stone. What is and what is not is still being defined. Can you imagine what things will be like even 20 or 30 years from now? Just look at the changes in the past decade.....the unbelievable impact that CGC has made, the dominance of Heritage Auctions and Ebay...just Ebay alone has been industry changing. Obdadiah Oldbuck is at this moment the 1st American comic book....says who you say? Do a google search for "1st American comic book" or any similar search, and you will see hundreds of articles by universities, historians, comic experts, antiquarian book experts, etc etc all saying the same thing....... We now are in a new, "enlightened" comic book era with regards to research and the historical evolution of the modern comic book.

 

New knowledge has created a new acceptance of a whole group of comics that you just love ot hate...and that's OK. I LOVE The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats...it is one of my favorite books of all time, but that doesn't make it the 1st.

Likewise, your despisement of Obadiah Oldbuck doesn't reduce it to just another illustrated text....it is the 1st comic book.

[gifflefunk]

They all repeat the exact same article... basically "trusting" the OPG and its flawed research (and researcher).

[shiverbones]

I am trying hard not to keep coming back to this, but I can't help it.

 

Gifflefunk, as well as many others here, have been giving you serious reasons why OO's status as 1st is in question. Well thought out replies with facts backing them up. In response you keep repeating the same thing. Your arguement is that someone stated it was first, and so it is. You brush off any attempt at seriously considering what these people are saying, yet you say you want healthy debate. You're knowledge of standard comic book history is flawed beyond belief with statements you have made about things like Edgar Church & Maggie thompson. How can people take you seriously about the start of this industry, when you don't even have knoweledge about the easy parts of this history? I don't care if you are a powerseller, thats no credential, I turned them down when they offered it to me. Besides Neat stuff is a powerseller, and that certainly doesn't give them anything other then the reputation they deserve.

 

The Bottom line for me is, Its great you think its first, Its great you have multiple copies, Its great that you arre enthusiastic about "Discussing" it. But to me it sounds like talking to a street corner zealot repeating the same mantra over and over and I officially wash my hands of this thread.

[showcase4]

The Bottom line for me is, Its great you think its first, Its great you have multiple copies, Its great that you arre enthusiastic about "Discussing" it. But to me it sounds like talking to a street corner zealot repeating the same mantra over and over and I officially wash my hands of this thread.

 

The reason I sound to you like I'm repeating the same "mantra" over and over again is due to your obviously closed mind. I know much more about the history of comic books then you might imagine.....doens't mean I'm going to flood this post with it...wrong audience. By the way, I never said anything about Maggie Thompson, and said something complimentary towards Edgar Church...as with many other respondants to this post, you are taking things out of context or perceiving them as negative for your own agenda...it's the "I hate this guy" agenda.

The "hatred" is the result of having a different belief system than you....causes much tension. You know you're right / I know I'm right. We all love comic books though...that does unite us.

 

For me to even start a post on the Golden Age Boards about the great books of the Victorian/Platinum Age is a no can win from the start. I didn't expect a bunch of positive repsonses....then again, I didn't expect to have my head bitten off either. There is much strong headedness on both sides.

 

No matter what websites I post, people I quote, or historical data I present, if to you it is a forgone conclusion that Obadiah Oldbuck isn't even a comic book, then there is nothing to debate. I am speaking another language to you. Good luck with your closed mind, and I appreciate your contribution to this post...all view points are welcome.

[gifflefunk]

Another "untruth" that has been stated here is that there wouldn't have been a Superman without Oldbuck... this is an outright total fabrication by those desperate to justify some alleged importance of that book.

 

I don't think Wildenberg and Gaines had any knowledge of Oldbuck when they decided to take newspaper pages and fold them in halves and then quarters to create a format for reprinting newspaper comic strips. At no point in time does the existence of Oldbuck come into play for that particular event in comic book history.

 

Siegel and Shuster got into comics because of newspaper comic strips, not because of some random cartoon book from 1842. They created material in the hopes of getting a comic strip deal with a major newspaper syndicate. Again, I don't see any (ANY) linkage between Oldbuck and what Siegel and Shuster did.

 

If Topffer had never existed Superman would have still come out when it did. The two are mutually exclusive events and have no connection what-so-ever.

 

Unless you'd like to claim that Topffer/Oldbuck started the entire history of cartooning??

[showcase4]

Another "untruth" that has been stated here is that there wouldn't have been a Superman without Oldbuck... this is an outright total fabrication by those desperate to justify some alleged importance of that book.

 

I don't think Wildenberg and Gaines had any knowledge of Oldbuck when they decided to take newspaper pages and fold them in halves and then quarters to create a format for reprinting newspaper comic strips. At no point in time does the existence of Oldbuck come into play for that particular event in comic book history.

 

Siegel and Schuster got into comics because of newspaper comic strips, not because of some random cartoon book from 1842. They created material in the hopes of getting a comic strip deal with a major newspaper syndicate. Again, I don't see any (ANY) linkage between Oldbuck and what Siegel and Schuster did.

 

If Topffer had never existed Superman would have still come out when it did. The two are mutually exclusive events and have no connection what-so-ever.

 

Unless you'd like to claim that Topffer/Oldbuck started the entire history of cartooning??

 

This is a great post .....my claim of "No Superman without Obadiah Oldbuck" has to do with an indirect link between the two....not a direct link. It is very similar to saying "there is no Corvette without a Model T". There had to be a car, before there could be a modern day sports car. You can't go from horse drawn buggy to Corvette without all the automotive evolution leading up to the Corvette, which all can be traced back to the 1st US production automobile...The Model T.

 

Very simply---- Obadiah Oldbuck / Model T (1st comic / 1st auto )

Action Comics #1 / Corvette (great comic / great auto )

 

Obadiah Oldbuck was the "big bang" of the US comic universe...the 1st "event" that got everything rolling here.

[Montezuma]

I wish you luck on the future of Obadiah, I pick up victorian and platinum age books as interesting curiosities when I find them cheap, but I consider them precursors of the cominc book as opposed to actual comic books.

Oh, and the first American production car was the 1901 Oldsmobile if I'm not mistaken, the Model T didn't come along until 1908, and wasn't even the first Ford.

[gifflefunk]

Obadiah Oldbuck was the "big bang" of the US comic universe...the 1st "event" that got everything rolling here.

 

Oldbuck is an obscure backroad with no link to the history of the modern comic book... its a dead branch from the cartooning tree. The modern comic book came from the branch that involved newspaper comic strips and not from the 1842 cartoon book you are so fond of. There is no connection between Topffer's material and newspaper cartoon strips... cartoon strips predate Oldbuck -- Oldbuck was just a cartoon strip "book". It might be important in the history of cartoon books from that period but it made zero contribution to newspaper cartoon strips (unless you have some data you'd like to share in that regard??).

 

Newspaper cartoon strips (which predate Oldbuck) evolved into newspaper comic strips (with the advent of the word balloon) and it is those early newspaper comic strips that were the foundation of the comic book (i.e. newspaper comic strip material reprinted into books and reprinted as the material found in the early "comic magazines").

 

It's fine that you disagree with the factual history of the medium, but before you attempt to dismiss the facts with your logic of Oldbuck being first, hence it must have started everything, can you demonstrate any facts to support your claim?

[mica]

...my claim of "No Superman without Obadiah Oldbuck" has to do with an indirect link between the two....not a direct link. It is very similar to saying "there is no Corvette without a Model T". There had to be a car, before there could be a modern day sports car. You can't go from horse drawn buggy to Corvette without all the automotive evolution leading up to the Corvette, which all can be traced back to the 1st US production automobile...The Model T.

 

Very simply---- Obadiah Oldbuck / Model T (1st comic / 1st auto )

Action Comics #1 / Corvette (great comic / great auto )

 

Obadiah Oldbuck was the "big bang" of the US comic universe...the 1st "event" that got everything rolling here.

Early on in this thread I was pretty much in agreement with you about you having an early form of a comic book. At best I was being generous, and at the time I hadn't thought out the word balloons criteria. The reason some of the posters "bit your head off" was because you made it sound as if people wouldn't understand Obadiah if they didn't like Comic History.

This was pointed out to you (as insulting) on a couple of occasions but you side-stepped that like a lot of people that don't have humble for a middle name often have the same problem in admitting such things.

 

But besides all of that..... We would have ended up with a Superman regardless of what came before.

The very idea and concept of "Supermen" were kicked around in the early 1930's.

Even Hitler and the nazi's were trying to create a super-race of people.

 

Except the insufficiently_thoughtful_person nazi's were trying to create a few through the study of skull shapes and eye color

Superman in my opinion owes a little to the wild imaginations of early sci-fi writers like Jules Verne and other creative people.

By 1928 we had a cartoon mouse that could bend his body into unrealistic shapes.

It was just a matter of time before we got around to having a man that could do unrealistic/unnatural things.

 

You've got a nice book there. Be happy with that.

This is the golden age forum, so on one hand you should be glad that you've been given such a stage in the first place.

I could very easily start a BigLittle Books thread but I've refrained. This forum just isn't set up for that.

[Montezuma]

I assume your replying to showcase-4, since I definately am not taking his side.

[showcase4]

Ok then...what is the 1st US comic book, AND what do you base your answer on?