Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[gifflefunk]

Correct... I just grabbed any old post to reply too that had quotable material in it.

[buttock]

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

 

NOT obadiah oldbuck. I don't know what is, but it's definitely not that. Not even close.

 

This is like defining species. Evolution is a process of gradual change (although that's debatable...), and saying at what point something became A. socius vs A. fasciatus isn't a clear cut line. What you can do, is to look at the two and say they're not the same. That's all you have to do with OO. Set it next to an Action #1 and nobody's going to say they're the same animal.

 

 

 

 

Oh, and thanks for letting us know you're an Ebay powerseller again....

[gifflefunk]

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

 

Well, with a comic having word balloons and a cartoon having captions.... I'd have to go with:

 

"comic" book: The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats (to the best of my knowledge it is the first comic strip reprinted in book format).

comic book (i.e. comic magazine): The Comics Monthly (1922) [first comic periodical, i.e. had a regular publication schedule]

[showcase4]

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

 

NOT obadiah oldbuck. I don't know what is, but it's definitely not that. Not even close.

Oh, and thanks for letting us know you're an Ebay powerseller again....

 

So you have no idea...hmmmm. That's very suprising.

PS - your welcome for me reminding you that I'm a power seller

[showcase4]

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

 

Well, with a comic having word balloons and a cartoon having captions.... I'd have to go with:

 

"comic" book: The Yellow Kid in McFadden's Flats (to the best of my knowledge it is the first comic strip reprinted in book format).

comic book (i.e. comic magazine): The Comics Monthly (1922) [first comic periodical, i.e. had a regular publication schedule]

 

ahhhh, an educated man. I find it very interesting that you mentioned one of my favovrite books...you are the 1st one. By far, one of the prizes of my collection, which I was thrilled to find, is a nice copy of Comic Monthly #1 by Embee. It is as you know the 1st 10 cent monthly comic book, and set the stage for pricing and frequency of distribution for decades to come. You are back on my Christmas card list Gifflefunk.

[showcase4]

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.

 

For you, is the presence of word balloons a neccessary feauture for a book to be considered a "comic book"?

 

Everything about Obadiah Oldbuck resembles a modern comic book aside from the lack of word balloons. It has sequential panles of comic art and related text, is magazine like in its size and shape. It has 4 - 8 panels per page, and tells a story about the adventures of its key character. Really, the only thing different from what you may find on a golden age book is the text is at the bottom of each panel, instead of in word balloon form. Does this single distinction preclude it from the "comic book" designation in your opinion?

[gifflefunk]

Does this single distinction preclude it from the "comic book" designation in your opinion?

 

Yes. And here is the reasoning behind it....

 

Take something like the Professor Tigwissel strip:

Tigwissel_1

Tigwissel_2

Tigwissel_3

Tigwissel_4

 

Clearly this is a squential story told in 17 parts. It runs from left to right just like a comic strip, but it has captions (therefore making it a cartoon strip). This seems to place it in the same style as Oldbuck... but what if the 17 parts ran vertically instead of horizontally? Is it still a cartoon strip?

 

Note that it does not contain any "borders" around the 17 parts, but does that lack of "borders" preclude it from being a cartoon strip? So lets say we arrange these 17 parts horizontally and put them into book format with 1, 2, or 3 parts per page... guess what we now have? The layout of the Old Lady/Dog/Peddler, which predates Oldbuck!!

 

If the "single distinction" of not having borders around the art/text in the Old Lady/Dog/Peddler book can be applied to make the distinction between an illustrated story vs. a cartoon story then surely you can accept word balloons, a much more important story telling device than border panels, as being the distinction between a cartoon and a comic?

[Montezuma]

When I think of comic books I think pretty much of the modern format, and consider Funnies on Parade to be the first.

Comics Monthly and some of the other early formats come close to modern comics, Cupples and Leon books, Yellow Kid, etc. are great, but I consider them precursors to what I'd call a comic book.

As far as the Victorian age, I like learning about it, and reading articles, but I don't think it should have a section in Overstreet. It would have been better in CBM back when that was a going concer.

[showcase4]

Does this single distinction preclude it from the "comic book" designation in your opinion?

 

Yes. And here is the reasoning behing it....

 

Take something like the Professor Tigwissel strip:

Tigwissel_1

Tigwissel_2

Tigwissel_3

Tigwissel_4

 

Clearly this is a squential story told in 17 parts. It runs from left to right just like a comic strip, but it has captions (therefore making it a cartoon strip). This seems to place it in the same style as Oldbuck... but what if the 17 parts ran vertically instead of horizontally? Is it still a cartoon strip?

 

Note that it does not contain any "borders" around the 17 parts, but does that lack of "borders" preclude it from being a cartoon strip? So lets say we arrange these 17 parts horizontally and put them into book format with 1, 2, or 3 parts per page... guess what we now have? The layout of the Old Lady/Dog/Peddler, which predates Oldbuck!!

 

If the "single distinction" of not having borders around the art/text in the Old Lady/Dog/Peddler book an be applied to make the distinction between an illustrated story vs. a cartoon story then surely you can accept word balloons, a much more important story telling device than border panels, as being the distinction between a cartoon and a comic?

 

Bravo! I don't know if you are an author or publisher, but you should be published so that your knowledge and worldliness is not limited to the CGC Boards.

 

Now comes the tricky part......as eliquently ( spelling? ) as you have stated your case on several issues.....there is a "marketplace" missing element regarding the "is Obadiah Oldbuck a comic book" question ( which unintentionally is what this post evolved to ). The marketplace element is back to The Overstreet Price Guide. It has the power to determine or "deem" a book to be a comic book, and perception becomes reality. I'm not saying that Obadiah is only a comic book because they claim it to be....I am saying that the majority of the collecting world ( just not in this forum ) consider Obadiah to be a comic book because it is listed in "The Guide" as such. ( I'm keeping my own beliefs out of this )

 

This makes this issue even more controversial, because it adds an extra element to the already many questions regarding what are the standards for a comic book to be considered a comic book. Now it adds to the mix:

 

Can a book listed in the OPG as a comic book, be considered "not a comic book" by a majority of comic collectors?

[gifflefunk]

Can a book listed in the OPG as a comic book be considered "not a comic book" by a majority of comic collectors?

 

Again, yes. I put forth the following "extreme" cases: Gothic Romances [Atlas/Seaboard], Complete Guide to the Deadly Arts of Kung Fu and Karate [Marvel], and Sensuous Streaker [Marvel]. All three are magazines that contain one or two spot illustrations within their text pages. No comic collector would ever call these magazines "comic books", but there they are, listed as comic books in the OPG.

 

So because the OPG lists them as comic books we should accept these TEXT MAGAZINES as being comic books because Overstreet is/was a recognized authority on comic books? I think not.

 

Just because the OPG mistakenly calls something a comic book (be it text magazines or even cartoon books like Oldbuck) does not mean that people accept them as actually being comic books. I prefer to think most people tolerate their inclusion simply because they really don't care or have an opinion either way.

 

[and as for being an author... yes I am]

[Point Five]

( I'm keeping my own beliefs out of this )

 

[Earl Davis]

 

Can a book listed in the OPG as a comic book, be considered "not a comic book" by a majority of comic collectors?

 

There are hundred of items listed in the OPG that are not comic books.

 

The Big Little Books are the most obvious example.

 

You may also have noticed the codes on page 363 of the current edition.

 

Anything with a code 'S' for example, which the guides states...

 

'Single Panel non sequential cartoons'...

 

You also seem to suggest OPG is some kind of comic authority. Whilst it certainly has significant brand recognition and ‘voice’ with Superhero and other 20th century American populist comic collectors it is hardly a scholarly work – although Bob Beerbohm, Richard Olsen, Doug Wheeler, Leonardo De Sa and others have done a great job in improving it’s reputation in that arena.

 

Kunzle, Horn etc were talking about Topffer and Yellow kid in US books on comics years before the Oversteet guide chose to include them.

 

and yes, I still consider Oldbuck to be a comic.

[Earl Davis]

I also struggled to find a single 'comic book' in the Pioneer Section' of the guide and Bob B has already spoken negatively on the boards about the current Pioneer Age part of the guide.

[showcase4]

 

 

and yes, I still consider Oldbuck to be a comic.

 

 

A welcome and lone voice in this post

[showcase4]

( I'm keeping my own beliefs out of this )

 

[showcase4]

Can a book listed in the OPG as a comic book be considered "not a comic book" by a majority of comic collectors?

 

Just because the OPG mistakenly calls something a comic book (be it text magazines or even cartoon books like Oldbuck) does not mean that people accept them as actually being comic books. I prefer to think most people tolerate their inclusion simply because they really don't care or have an opinion either way.

 

 

I think on a no-brainer, you are correct ( a clearly "non" comic book being called a comic book ). There are some books like Obadiah that are more on the fence, and it is these type of borderline issues where "perception is reality" comes into play.

 

I think if you gave 100 collectors (normal - not advanced like you ) a chance to read and analyze Obadiah Oldbuck, they would have 2 different majority opinions based on inclusion or exclusion from Overstreet.

 

i.e.

Obadiah not listed ---- 65? out of 100 would say "it is a comic book"

Obadiah listed ---- 98? out of 100 would say "it is a comic book"

 

This is just an example, but wouldn't suprise me if it was pretty accurate.

In the case of this book, "perception is reality" is materializing (from what I've read, seen, and feedback I've received form other collectors)

[Earl Davis]

Does this single distinction preclude it from the "comic book" designation in your opinion?

 

Yes. And here is the reasoning behing it....

 

Take something like the Professor Tigwissel strip:

Tigwissel_1

Tigwissel_2

Tigwissel_3

Tigwissel_4

 

Clearly this is a squential story told in 17 parts. It runs from left to right just like a comic strip, but it has captions (therefore making it a cartoon strip). This seems to place it in the same style as Oldbuck... but what if the 17 parts ran vertically instead of horizontally? Is it still a cartoon strip?

 

Note that it does not contain any "borders" around the 17 parts, but does that lack of "borders" preclude it from being a cartoon strip? So lets say we arrange these 17 parts horizontally and put them into book format with 1, 2, or 3 parts per page... guess what we now have? The layout of the Old Lady/Dog/Peddler, which predates Oldbuck!!

 

If the "single distinction" of not having borders around the art/text in the Old Lady/Dog/Peddler book can be applied to make the distinction between an illustrated story vs. a cartoon story then surely you can accept word balloons, a much more important story telling device than border panels, as being the distinction between a cartoon and a comic?

 

Just out of interest do you consider Prince Valiant to be a comic strip or an illustrated story?

 

Example strip...

 

[gifflefunk]

Neither. I consider it a cartoon strip.

[Earl Davis]

Neither. I consider it a cartoon strip.

 

Ok, and I genuinely respect you for that opinion....

 

So do you consider Four Color issue #788 (a collection of these strips) a comic book, or a cartoon strip book?

 

[gifflefunk]

That would be a cartoon book.

 

I've pointed out in ealier posts that Marvel has at several times in the past packaged cartoon books in the same format as "modern" comic books (Snafu, Groovy, etc.). Not to mention books of text material with incidental illustrations (i.e. Handbook of the Marvel Universe series).

 

I do not consider any of them to be comic books.