Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[ShoNuff-migration]

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.

It is? Then I guess we might as well ignore all of those steam powered automobiles (as well as the electric versions) while we rewrite all of this history. No sense letting facts and truth get in the way.

[FFB]

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.

It is? Then I guess we might as well ignore all of those steam powered automobiles (as well as the electric versions) while we rewrite all of this history. No sense letting facts and truth get in the way.

 

You know what? You're right, I was sloppy with my language. I should have said self-propulsion was the sine qua non, not the internal combustion engine. Aside from that, however, my comment regarding the faultiness in the analogy to the horse-drawn carriage stands.

[FFB]

What surprises me most of all, Bugaboo, is that you've got almost 1000 posts under that ID without being banned.

[ShoNuff-migration]

You know what? You're right, I was sloppy with my language. I should have said self-propulsion was the sine qua non, not the internal combustion engine. Aside from that, however, my comment regarding the faultiness in the analogy to the horse-drawn carriage stands.

So, if you're car stopped running or you pulled the engine out of it, it would no longer be a car? What would it be then?

[Shield]

 

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.

 

And YOUR analogy is flawed, as Frank Miller did the Batman: the Dark Knight Returns YEARS after the comic book medium had been established and BILLIONS of comic books sold. Did you ignore the word balloons and advertisements I mentioned as well?

 

Horrible analogy. Besides, it DOES mean quite a bit when the guy claming to have the first American comic has copies to sell! It's called a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned, and I think a jury would agree! Don't you, counselor?

 

Tell me what 99.9% of every comic book printed since Famous Funnies in 1933 has that OO doesn't have:

 

A glossy cover that differs from what the interior paper is printed on.

Color covers

Word Balloons

Advertisements

Staples

PRICES consistent with the times (.35 cents in 1842?)

Continued characters that last more than one issue

 

etc.

 

Sorry man, it ain't a comic.

[ShoNuff-migration]

Horrible analogy. Besides, it DOES mean quite a bit when the guy claming to have the first American comic has copies to sell! It's called a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned, and I think a jury would agree! Don't you, counselor?

 

 

 

Sorry man, it ain't a comic.

 

 

[FFB]

You know what? You're right, I was sloppy with my language. I should have said self-propulsion was the sine qua non, not the internal combustion engine. Aside from that, however, my comment regarding the faultiness in the analogy to the horse-drawn carriage stands.

So, if you're car stopped running or you pulled the engine out of it, it would no longer be a car? What would it be then?

 

It would not be an "automobile" if it didn't have an engine. If the engine were broken, it would be a broken down automobile.

[ShoNuff-migration]

It would not be an "automobile" if it didn't have an engine.

 

Then what would it be?

 

 

If the engine were broken, it would be a broken down automobile.

 

According to your definition, how could it still be considered an "automobile" if it wasn't capable of self-propulsion?

[ciorac]

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.

 

I made no mention of staples. But now that you mention it, I do believe most comics have staples, but not all. Many perfect bound comics did and do not. So they are not essential.

 

My horse drawn carriage analogy is not flawed for the purpose that it was used. To illustrate that while OO may indeed be the earliest example of a precursor to the modern comic book, it is simpy that, a precursor, not a comic book. Much the way a horse drawn carriage was a precursor to automobiles. Hence the term horsepower.

[ShoNuff-migration]

My horse drawn carriage analogy is not flawed for the purpose that it was used. To illustrate that while OO may indeed be the earliest example of a precursor to the modern comic book, it is simpy that, a precursor, not a comic book. Much the way a horse drawn carriage was a precursor to automobiles. Hence the term horsepower.

 

Well said!

 

[Forbush-Man]

Tell me what 99.9% of every comic book printed since Famous Funnies in 1933 has that OO doesn't have:

 

A glossy cover that differs from what the interior paper is printed on.

Color covers

Word Balloons

Advertisements

Staples

PRICES consistent with the times (.35 cents in 1842?)

Continued characters that last more than one issue

 

etc.

 

Sorry man, it ain't a comic.

 

"Glossy covers that differ from the interior paper, color covers, word ballons, advertisments, staples, prices & continued characters"??? Is that what it takes?!?

 

I could create a comic book, with a b&w non-glossy cover, not use word ballons, without advertisemants, or staples, for free, with no continuing characters & it would still be a comic book. Think before you spew your infinite knowledge!

[FFB]

 

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.

 

And YOUR analogy is flawed, as Frank Miller did the Batman: the Dark Knight Returns YEARS after the comic book medium had been established and BILLIONS of comic books sold. Did you ignore the word balloons and advertisements I mentioned as well?

 

What does establishment of the medium have to do with anything? Shouldn't "establishment of the medium" mean that the definitions are even more precise with time, and thus, any deviation (such as lack of staples) would mean that the thing is REALLY not a comic book?

 

Horrible analogy. Besides, it DOES mean quite a bit when the guy claming to have the first American comic has copies to sell! It's called a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned, and I think a jury would agree! Don't you, counselor?

 

It's called bias. And bias is something to take into account when weighing testimony. It does not mean you automatically toss the testimony out the window without considering it, which is what you are apparently determined to do to Bob's opinions, simply because he sold one or two of them. And you don't need to call me "counselor." I already know I'm a lawyer without you reminding me and you sound snide when you say it that way. Makes it hard to maintan that "civil" discussion you were trying to have.

 

Tell me what 99.9% of every comic book printed since Famous Funnies in 1933 has that OO doesn't have:

 

A glossy cover that differs from what the interior paper is printed on.

Color covers

Word Balloons

Advertisements

Staples

PRICES consistent with the times (.35 cents in 1842?)

Continued characters that last more than one issue

 

etc.

 

Sorry man, it ain't a comic.

 

As several others have already pointed out in this thread, each of those supposedly "necessary" things is missing from several books that are well accepted as comic books. There are lots of comic books that do not have glossy covers. There are several comic books that do not have word balloons, including GI Joe 21, which has no words at all. There are comic books without advertisements (Amazing Spider-Man #274, for example), tons of comics without staples, and plenty of giveaway comics or non-giveaway comics (Brave and the Bold #25, as one of many examples) that do not have cover prices at all, or that have inflated cover prices out of whack with what other comics cost at the time. As for OO, since it is made out of cotton rag paper (which was more expensive and was getting scarce by 1842), perhaps that is why the book cost 30 cents? The groundwood pulp newsprint being used on comics in the early 20th century was a lot cheaper to make and raw materials far more available than the cotton rags used to make paper in 1842.

 

99.9% of comics were printed on newsprint until the 1980s, when Baxter paper began being used. Does that mean that Baxter paper comic books are not actually comic books? What about comic books now, many of which are not printed on newsprint? Are these not comic books either?

 

As for the recurring characters issue, that has already been addressed by whoever it was who pointed out that there is no shortage of comic books that were one-shots and/or that don't contain recurring characters or storylines that continue in serialized fashion from month to month. Is Double Action #2 not a comic book?

[ShoNuff-migration]

I think we've clearly shown that Obadiah Oldbuck is definitely not a comic book. Some people may wish it was, but it simply isn't.

[ShoNuff-migration]

And you don't need to call me "counselor." I already know I'm a lawyer without you reminding me and you sound snide when you say it that way.

Sheesh...even lawyers hate to be referred to as lawyers.

[FFB]

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.

 

I made no mention of staples. But now that you mention it, I do believe most comics have staples, but not all. Many perfect bound comics did and do not. So they are not essential.

 

My horse drawn carriage analogy is not flawed for the purpose that it was used. To illustrate that while OO may indeed be the earliest example of a precursor to the modern comic book, it is simpy that, a precursor, not a comic book. Much the way a horse drawn carriage was a precursor to automobiles. Hence the term horsepower.

 

Not according to Wikipedia.

 

Personally, I think there needs to be an accepted definition of what is a "comic book" before anyone can determine whether OO fits the definition. It appears to fit my definition, and does not fit yours. Whose is correct though?

[ShoNuff-migration]

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.

When someone mentions word balloons, you and several others keep shouting GI JOE 21...GI JOE 21...like it's some kind of war cry. Ok, so someone made a comic that didn't have word balloons in it.

 

According to your defintion above, a comic must have "comic-style" drawings in it. What would you then do if someone decided to produce an issue of Batman with actual photographs of people in super-hero costumes acting out the scenes instead of having an artist draw them (just like someone decided to do GI Joe without word balloons)? According to you, this could not be a comic book, since you clearly stated that, in your sole opinion, a comic book uses "comic-style" drawings.

[Shield]

Tell me what 99.9% of every comic book printed since Famous Funnies in 1933 has that OO doesn't have:

 

A glossy cover that differs from what the interior paper is printed on.

Color covers

Word Balloons

Advertisements

Staples

PRICES consistent with the times (.35 cents in 1842?)

Continued characters that last more than one issue

 

etc.

 

Sorry man, it ain't a comic.

 

"Glossy covers that differ from the interior paper, color covers, word ballons, advertisments, staples, prices & continued characters"??? Is that what it takes?!?

 

I could create a comic book, with a b&w non-glossy cover, not use word ballons, without advertisemants, or staples, for free, with no continuing characters & it would still be a comic book. Think before you spew your infinite knowledge!

 

Hey dilhole, did you read the end of my statement that OO doesn't have:

Go back to masturbating to Al Gore speeches on Global warming.

 

Hey Fuelman have you ever done anything to help out the comic community personally?

[FFB]

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.

When someone mentions word balloons, you and several others keep shouting GI JOE 21...GI JOE 21...like it's some kind of war cry. Ok, so someone made a comic that didn't have word balloons in it.

 

According to your defintion above, a comic must have "comic-style" drawings in it. What would you then do if someone decided to produce an issue of Batman with actual photographs of people in super-hero costumes acting out the scenes instead of having an artist draw them (just like someone decided to do GI Joe without word balloons)? According to you, this could not be a comic book, since you clearly stated that, in your sole opinion, a comic book uses "comic-style" drawings.

 

I think that's called "Fumetti."

[Shield]

 

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.

 

And YOUR analogy is flawed, as Frank Miller did the Batman: the Dark Knight Returns YEARS after the comic book medium had been established and BILLIONS of comic books sold. Did you ignore the word balloons and advertisements I mentioned as well?

 

What does establishment of the medium have to do with anything? Shouldn't "establishment of the medium" mean that the definitions are even more precise with time, and thus, any deviation (such as lack of staples) would mean that the thing is REALLY not a comic book?

 

Horrible analogy. Besides, it DOES mean quite a bit when the guy claming to have the first American comic has copies to sell! It's called a conflict of interest as far as I'm concerned, and I think a jury would agree! Don't you, counselor?

 

It's called bias. And bias is something to take into account when weighing testimony. It does not mean you automatically toss the testimony out the window without considering it, which is what you are apparently determined to do to Bob's opinions, simply because he sold one or two of them. And you don't need to call me "counselor." I already know I'm a lawyer without you reminding me and you sound snide when you say it that way. Makes it hard to maintan that "civil" discussion you were trying to have.

 

Tell me what 99.9% of every comic book printed since Famous Funnies in 1933 has that OO doesn't have:

 

A glossy cover that differs from what the interior paper is printed on.

Color covers

Word Balloons

Advertisements

Staples

PRICES consistent with the times (.35 cents in 1842?)

Continued characters that last more than one issue

 

etc.

 

Sorry man, it ain't a comic.

 

As several others have already pointed out in this thread, each of those supposedly "necessary" things is missing from several books that are well accepted as comic books. There are lots of comic books that do not have glossy covers. There are several comic books that do not have word balloons, including GI Joe 21, which has no words at all. There are comic books without advertisements (Amazing Spider-Man #274, for example), tons of comics without staples, and plenty of giveaway comics or non-giveaway comics (Brave and the Bold #25, as one of many examples) that do not have cover prices at all, or that have inflated cover prices out of whack with what other comics cost at the time. As for OO, since it is made out of cotton rag paper (which was more expensive and was getting scarce by 1842), perhaps that is why the book cost 30 cents? The groundwood pulp newsprint being used on comics in the early 20th century was a lot cheaper to make and raw materials far more available than the cotton rags used to make paper in 1842.

 

99.9% of comics were printed on newsprint until the 1980s, when Baxter paper began being used. Does that mean that Baxter paper comic books are not actually comic books? What about comic books now, many of which are not printed on newsprint? Are these not comic books either?

 

As for the recurring characters issue, that has already been addressed by whoever it was who pointed out that there is no shortage of comic books that were one-shots and/or that don't contain recurring characters or storylines that continue in serialized fashion from month to month. Is Double Action #2 not a comic book?

 

It's not one single thing that makes or breaks OO from NOT being a comic. It's the sum of the parts! It's because all of these things aren't present. Sure, you can site examples of where each of these didn't exist with post-1933 issues. It's the total weight of all these things being not present with OO that makes it NOT a comic book.

 

Pretty clear to me, counselor!

[ShoNuff-migration]

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.

When someone mentions word balloons, you and several others keep shouting GI JOE 21...GI JOE 21...like it's some kind of war cry. Ok, so someone made a comic that didn't have word balloons in it.

 

According to your defintion above, a comic must have "comic-style" drawings in it. What would you then do if someone decided to produce an issue of Batman with actual photographs of people in super-hero costumes acting out the scenes instead of having an artist draw them (just like someone decided to do GI Joe without word balloons)? According to you, this could not be a comic book, since you clearly stated that, in your sole opinion, a comic book uses "comic-style" drawings.

 

I think that's called "Fumetti."

So are you going to answer whether it would be a comic book or not?