Obadiah Oldbuck vs. Superman

[showcase4]

Personally, I think there needs to be an accepted definition of what is a "comic book"

 

Well this leads to ... how could this happen, or what it would it take for this to happen?

 

Based on all of the varying view points and opinions brought up on this post alone, what event or article or situation could trigger EVERYONE universally getting on the same page within the industry, so that 5 or 10 years from now as an example, when this issue comes up again, each of us would say "that was already resolved back in 2007"....

[buttock]

Let's take a step back for a minute and look at what we've been arguing about.

 

We're trying to define a very abstract entity with very discrete terms. We're actually trying to say that the presence or absence of word balloons or staples can or cannot define what a comic book is or isn't. This is STUPID.

 

In medicine and law there are often definitions like this that - although impossible to create - are nevertheless laid out for the sake of a trial or study. I'm sure some of our lawyers could pull out many examples, but I'll throw out sepsis. Sepsis is an overwhelming inflammatory response to an infection that has neither a start or end of where it is defined. However, if you want to do a clinical trial of a therapy, you have to try to define it for inclusion or exclusion in the study. In the real world when you're dealing with sepsis; you know it when you see it. In fact, there's a saying that we all hear, "Sepsis is like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

 

We all snicker and laugh about how unreasonable it is to try to define something that exists on a continuum rather than having clear cutoffs to a definition.

 

Yet here we are, trying to say that something is or isn't a comic book based on the presence or absence of word balloons and staples. That is absolutely moronic.

 

Bob Beerbohm, for all his labors, is failing to see the line between this "academic" comic book (which is really only a worthwhile definition when you're trying to use it for something unrelated to comics as an item) and the "real world" comic book that kids buy.

 

What this all boils down to is that when it comes to comics, you can't define one, but you know it when you see it.

 

If you showed OO to any 12 year old, they wouldn't call it a comic book - and that's an infinitely more valid definition than any we've managed to come up with.

[Earl Davis]

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?

 

The same steam engines used on horeseless carriages....so actually my usage was again...correct.

 

But, I am forced to agree with you that there needs to be a definition of what is truly a comic book.

 

I can't help but think that you would certainly agree that Bob's definition is far too broad. He includes everything that has any comic images in it for crying out loud! Do you think that Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks, Savage Sword of Conan, Hard bound books reprinting comics, Graphic Novels, etc, are the same animal as Batman #11 or Spiderman #33 for example?

 

If that is the casethis debate is pointless, but if everything on earth that has comic material in it is a comic book, then of course OO would be one too.

 

My opnion is that comic books, in the classic sense, started in the 20th century. I'm not sure what was the actual first. Detective Dan, in photos, looks like a comic book to me, so perhaps he is the one. I'm not sure.

 

I am sure that Cupples and Leon books, many of which I have held in my hands are most assuredly not comic books. Bob is sending me a reprint of the OO book. Once I have it in my hands, perhaps then I can speak from experience and not my opinion.

 

Absolutely the same.

 

Take the same 22 page Spider-man comic strip.

 

Print it in 6 5/8 x 10 ¼ and it’s a comic book right?

 

Unless you print it with a non-glossy cover then some think it’s not one?

 

What if you print it quarter of an inch taller. Is it still a comic?

 

Or release it perfect bound, still a comic?

 

Or make it a newspaper supplement giveaway. Still a comic?

 

Or release it with a hard cover. Still a comic?

 

Or in Digest size. Still a comic?

 

Or Two inches taller. Still a comic?

 

Or in treasury Size. Still a comic?

 

So we take the exact same art and story and it stops being a comic depending on what type and size paper someone prints it on. Wow.

[Earl Davis]

If you showed OO to any 12 year old, they wouldn't call it a comic book - and that's an infinitely more valid definition than any we've managed to come up with.

 

You might be right but I still think a lot would say the same about Golden Age Comics. Kids raised on Tokyopop Cinemanga might not make the connection that Little Lulu is the same as the recent "Simple Life Cinemanga' or 'Shrek' Tokyopop issue they just read.

 

Earl.

[ShoNuff-migration]

If you showed OO to any 12 year old, they wouldn't call it a comic book - and that's an infinitely more valid definition than any we've managed to come up with.

Exactly.

 

Obadiah Oldbuck simply isn't a comic book. Some may close their eyes tight, click their heels together, and wish really hard that it is...but it isn't.

[ShoNuff-migration]

If you showed OO to any 12 year old, they wouldn't call it a comic book - and that's an infinitely more valid definition than any we've managed to come up with.

 

You might be right but I still think a lot would say the same about Golden Age Comics. Kids raised on Tokyopop Cinemanga might not make the connection that Little Lulu is the same as the recent "Simple Life Cinemanga' or 'Shrek' Tokyopop issue they just read.

 

Earl.

I think most of the kids would make the connection with Golden Age issues like Little Lulu being a comic. And we're talking about percentages here...not absolutes (you could never get everybody to agree on any one thing). I doubt if any of them would consider Obadiah Oldbuck to be a comic book.

[Aman619]

Take the same 22 page Spider-man comic strip.

 

Print it in 6 5/8 x 10 ¼ and it’s a comic book right?

 

Unless you print it with a non-glossy cover then some think it’s not one?

 

What if you print it quarter of an inch taller. Is it still a comic?

 

Or release it perfect bound, still a comic?

 

Or make it a newspaper supplement giveaway. Still a comic?

 

Or release it with a hard cover. Still a comic?

 

Or in Digest size. Still a comic?

 

Or Two inches taller. Still a comic?

 

Or in treasury Size. Still a comic?

 

So we take the exact same art and story and it stops being a comic depending on what type and size paper someone prints it on. Wow.

 

nicely put Earl. But its not fair to do that with a Spidey 22. Spidey 22 was created and published and sold AS a comicbook....solidly entrenched in an ongoing 40 years viable comicbook industry! It was always a 'comicbook' from conception through to production.

 

OO on the other hand was published as a book, and took its physical form for whatever practical reason its publisher had at the time. Does anyone know how much "real" books sold for in 1842 here in America? Im not saying price matters, though, only that it was conceived and produced asd a book of a comic story, told mainly in drawings, not as a "comicbook" in the way that Stan considered Spidey 22.

[Earl Davis]

Take the same 22 page Spider-man comic strip.

 

Print it in 6 5/8 x 10 ¼ and it’s a comic book right?

 

Unless you print it with a non-glossy cover then some think it’s not one?

 

What if you print it quarter of an inch taller. Is it still a comic?

 

Or release it perfect bound, still a comic?

 

Or make it a newspaper supplement giveaway. Still a comic?

 

Or release it with a hard cover. Still a comic?

 

Or in Digest size. Still a comic?

 

Or Two inches taller. Still a comic?

 

Or in treasury Size. Still a comic?

 

So we take the exact same art and story and it stops being a comic depending on what type and size paper someone prints it on. Wow.

 

nicely put Earl. But its not fair to do that with a Spidey 22. Spidey 22 was created and published and sold AS a comicbook....solidly entrenched in an ongoing 40 years viable comicbook industry! It was always a 'comicbook' from conception through to production.

 

OO on the other hand was published as a book, and took its physical form for whatever practical reason its publisher had at the time. Does anyone know how much "real" books sold for in 1842 here in America? Im not saying price matters, though, only that it was conceived and produced asd a book of a comic story, told mainly in drawings, not as a "comicbook" in the way that Stan considered Spidey 22.

 

Sorry bad wording on my part. I meant a 22 pages long Spider-man stroy not THE Spider-man issue #22.

 

Sorry.

 

Earl.

[Earl Davis]

I am starting to wonder if this is an ‘American thing’.

 

Growing up in the UK, our comics always came in a variety of formats. Growing up as a kid I would collect Mighty World of Marvel (Same dimensions as SSOC), or Beano (quarter of an inch taller, quarter of an inch less wide) or Tarzan (same dimensions as a Golden Age US Comic. Once a year there would be a hardcover Comic Annual for each series and then there were the comic Albums reprinting Tintin and Asterix (Soft covers) and the Comic Strip Books (long and oblong) reprinting Hagar, Peanuts and Andy Capp. I suppose that background makes you less format phobic than if you had only been exposed to a limited range of formats.

 

Today I go to the comic shop and buy my Marvel Essentials and DC Showcase Presents, my mags (ASM, Batman), my Fanatagraphics Peanuts Hardcovers, my Barfoot Gen manga’s etc, etc. All Comics. Not all in the same format of presentation, but all comics.

 

Earl.

[Earl Davis]

Not sure if we have seen an interior page here yet...

 

[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.

 

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?

 

The same steam engines used on horeseless carriages....so actually my usage was again...correct.

 

But, I am forced to agree with you that there needs to be a definition of what is truly a comic book.

 

I can't help but think that you would certainly agree that Bob's definition is far too broad. He includes everything that has any comic images in it for crying out loud! Do you think that Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks, Savage Sword of Conan, Hard bound books reprinting comics, Graphic Novels, etc, are the same animal as Batman #11 or Spiderman #33 for example?

 

If that is the casethis debate is pointless, but if everything on earth that has comic material in it is a comic book, then of course OO would be one too.

 

My opnion is that comic books, in the classic sense, started in the 20th century. I'm not sure what was the actual first. Detective Dan, in photos, looks like a comic book to me, so perhaps he is the one. I'm not sure.

 

I am sure that Cupples and Leon books, many of which I have held in my hands are most assuredly not comic books. Bob is sending me a reprint of the OO book. Once I have it in my hands, perhaps then I can speak from experience and not my opinion.

 

Absolutely the same.

 

Take the same 22 page Spider-man comic strip.

 

Print it in 6 5/8 x 10 ¼ and it’s a comic book right?

 

Unless you print it with a non-glossy cover then some think it’s not one?

 

What if you print it quarter of an inch taller. Is it still a comic?

 

Or release it perfect bound, still a comic?

 

Or make it a newspaper supplement giveaway. Still a comic?

 

Or release it with a hard cover. Still a comic?

 

Or in Digest size. Still a comic?

 

Or Two inches taller. Still a comic?

 

Or in treasury Size. Still a comic?

 

So we take the exact same art and story and it stops being a comic depending on what type and size paper someone prints it on. Wow.

 

Yeah, wow.

 

Glad you figured that out. About time. Apparently you read one post of mine and had this epihany? Cool.

 

Perhaps you should read back a few more and not attribute other peoples words to me. I repeat, that I NEVER indicated it had to have original comics, be of a certain size, couldn't be perfect bound, etc. In fact, the reverse is true. I CLEARLY inidcated that the comic book has presented itself in many formats and sizes since it's inception in the 1930's. The changes in size, page count, binding type etc, were superficial to the core of what they were.

 

As several others here have commented, you know one when you see one and or hold one.

 

Archives, Treasury editions, digest size books, parperbacks, ad nauseum are not comic books in my opinion.

 

Why is it unreasonable to expect this hobby to at least agree on what the heck it is we all collect?

 

Most industries have some standardization. I thought this one did too. I don't recall a debate like this for most of the thirty years I've been collecting. Shocking to find out what we have been collecting all along isn't what we thought they were! (gasp).

 

Everything is a comic! Oh no!

 

Not on this side of the pond. Perhaps in the UK that level of inclusivity is an accepted practice and commonplace, but not in the circles I travel in.

[Earl Davis]

Post deleted by Earl

[Earl Davis]

Well that didn't come out as well as I hoped. never mind.

 

Earl.

[Earl Davis]

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?

 

The same steam engines used on horeseless carriages....so actually my usage was again...correct.

 

But, I am forced to agree with you that there needs to be a definition of what is truly a comic book.

 

I can't help but think that you would certainly agree that Bob's definition is far too broad. He includes everything that has any comic images in it for crying out loud! Do you think that Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks, Savage Sword of Conan, Hard bound books reprinting comics, Graphic Novels, etc, are the same animal as Batman #11 or Spiderman #33 for example?

 

If that is the casethis debate is pointless, but if everything on earth that has comic material in it is a comic book, then of course OO would be one too.

 

My opnion is that comic books, in the classic sense, started in the 20th century. I'm not sure what was the actual first. Detective Dan, in photos, looks like a comic book to me, so perhaps he is the one. I'm not sure.

 

I am sure that Cupples and Leon books, many of which I have held in my hands are most assuredly not comic books. Bob is sending me a reprint of the OO book. Once I have it in my hands, perhaps then I can speak from experience and not my opinion.

 

Absolutely the same.

 

Take the same 22 page Spider-man comic strip.

 

Print it in 6 5/8 x 10 ¼ and it’s a comic book right?

 

Unless you print it with a non-glossy cover then some think it’s not one?

 

What if you print it quarter of an inch taller. Is it still a comic?

 

Or release it perfect bound, still a comic?

 

Or make it a newspaper supplement giveaway. Still a comic?

 

Or release it with a hard cover. Still a comic?

 

Or in Digest size. Still a comic?

 

Or Two inches taller. Still a comic?

 

Or in treasury Size. Still a comic?

 

So we take the exact same art and story and it stops being a comic depending on what type and size paper someone prints it on. Wow.

 

Yeah, wow.

 

Glad you figured that out. About time. Apparently you read one post of mine and had this epihany? Cool.

 

Perhaps you should read back a few more and not attribute other peoples words to me. I repeat, that I NEVER indicated it had to have original comics, be of a certain size, couldn't be perfect bound, etc. In fact, the reverse is true. I CLEARLY inidcated that the comic book has presented itself in many formats and sizes since it's inception in the 1930's. The changes in size, page count, binding type etc, were superficial to the core of what they were.

 

As several others here have commented, you know one when you see one and or hold one.

 

Archives, Treasury editions, digest size books, parperbacks, ad nauseum are not comic books in my opinion.

 

Why is it unreasonable to expect this hobby to at least agree on what the heck it is we all collect?

 

Most industries have some standardization. I thought this one did too. I don't recall a debate like this for most of the thirty years I've been collecting. Shocking to find out what we have been collecting all along isn't what we thought they were! (gasp).

 

Everything is a comic! Oh no!

 

Not on this side of the pond. Perhaps in the UK that level of inclusivity is an accepted practice and commonplace, but not in the circles I travel in.

 

I was replying the bit that said...

 

"I can't help but think that you would certainly agree that Bob's definition is far too broad. He includes everything that has any comic images in it for crying out loud! Do you think that Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks, Savage Sword of Conan, Hard bound books reprinting comics, Graphic Novels, etc, are the same animal as Batman #11 or Spiderman #33 for example?"

 

Sorry if that wasn't you. I gets hard to work out who said what in these 'quoted threads'

 

Earl.

[Forbush-Man]

If you showed OO to any 12 year old, they wouldn't call it a comic book - and that's an infinitely more valid definition than any we've managed to come up with.

Exactly.

 

Obadiah Oldbuck simply isn't a comic book. Some may close their eyes tight, click their heels together, and wish really hard that it is...but it isn't.

 

I'm not going to say OO definetly is a comic book, but I am certainly not going to insist that it's not.

[october]

Let's take a step back for a minute and look at what we've been arguing about.

 

We're trying to define a very abstract entity with very discrete terms. We're actually trying to say that the presence or absence of word balloons or staples can or cannot define what a comic book is or isn't. This is STUPID.

 

In medicine and law there are often definitions like this that - although impossible to create - are nevertheless laid out for the sake of a trial or study. I'm sure some of our lawyers could pull out many examples, but I'll throw out sepsis. Sepsis is an overwhelming inflammatory response to an infection that has neither a start or end of where it is defined. However, if you want to do a clinical trial of a therapy, you have to try to define it for inclusion or exclusion in the study. In the real world when you're dealing with sepsis; you know it when you see it. In fact, there's a saying that we all hear, "Sepsis is like pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."

 

We all snicker and laugh about how unreasonable it is to try to define something that exists on a continuum rather than having clear cutoffs to a definition.

 

Yet here we are, trying to say that something is or isn't a comic book based on the presence or absence of word balloons and staples. That is absolutely moronic.

 

Bob Beerbohm, for all his labors, is failing to see the line between this "academic" comic book (which is really only a worthwhile definition when you're trying to use it for something unrelated to comics as an item) and the "real world" comic book that kids buy.

 

What this all boils down to is that when it comes to comics, you can't define one, but you know it when you see it.

 

If you showed OO to any 12 year old, they wouldn't call it a comic book - and that's an infinitely more valid definition than any we've managed to come up with.

 

Great post and worth a

[FFB]

hold on cowboy! Comics arent dead yet. I say theres a solid chance they may disappear and be replaced by a paperless or new physical format, But I dont see evidence of that in the dearth of selection at grocery store magazine racks. Im sure that store sells cigars too, but for a "cigar smoker" the selection would be similarly wanting, wouldnt it? And there must be many other examples of items a store may "carry" without attempting to maintain a broad selection of choices. And, in my limited knowledge of Supermarket economics, I believe that EVERYTHING they carry is on a negotiated basis as to location, and quantity, etc., or as a result of deals and contracts. Marvel and Archie and Disney currently find some value in placing their books here. DC apparenty does not... right now, in THAT chain/store or retail location.

 

anyway, comics today have migrated to specialty stores. Whether thats a sign of weakness and endangerment, or a show of strength to no longer have to rely of coffee shops and newsstands, is debatable. We'll find out in 30 years.

 

Those are good points and I hope you're right, but circulation numbers are certainly down from where they were in the 70s and 80s aren't they? Younger kids just don't seem to be as interested in traditional comics. Video games and TV are tough to compete with.

 

On a side note, the first thing my son did with his Batman comic is rip the cover off!!

 

Video games and TV were just as prevalent in the late 1980s and early 1990s when sales hit their highest levels. Every kid I knew and many adults had home video game systems and/or PCs for PC games. Almost every comic book collector I knew enjoyed video games, but that didn't stop them from collecting comics too. There were basically no video games in the mid-1970s when the market crashed then, and the build-up/recovery/expansion of the industry from the lows of the mid- to late 1970s occurred during the 1980s, which was probably the biggest "video game boom" in history.

 

I think it's too easy to blame video games for the current low sales levels, instead of blaming the fact that comics are not a good value proposition for kids ($3 for five or ten minutes of entertainment), and because there aren't as many stores around, comics aren't readily available for sale at places where kids can find them on a regular basis. Of course, fixing one problem (lowering the price of the books) would exacerbate the second problem, because if cover prices were to drop, non-comic stores would be less likely to carry comics because the profit per unit would drop, and that shelf space would likely be used for a more profitable magazine that costs $6.

 

I also think that the fact that there is no Mile High Comics centerfold ad to show kids what their comics are "worth" has a negative impact on getting casual readers to become collectors. I know the Mile High Comics ads had a big impact on me and my friends when I was in elementary school. That and the 16 page "Marvel Guide to Collecting Comics" insert in ASM#234 were the main things that made me realize that there was more to comics than just reading them and shoving them in a drawer.

[Earl Davis]

I also think that the fact that there is no Mile High Comics centerfold ad to show kids what their comics are "worth" has a negative impact on getting casual readers to become collectors. I know the Mile High Comics ads had a big impact on me and my friends when I was in elementary school. That and the 16 page "Marvel Guide to Collecting Comics" insert in ASM#234 were the main things that made me realize that there was more to comics than just reading them and shoving them in a drawer.

 

Now that brings back some memories. I had forgotten that I tried to value my small collection from those Mile High ads when I was a kid.

 

Earl.

[ciorac]

A recent edition...

 

 

[Forbush-Man]

I also think that the fact that there is no Mile High Comics centerfold ad to show kids what their comics are "worth" has a negative impact on getting casual readers to become collectors. I know the Mile High Comics ads had a big impact on me and my friends when I was in elementary school. That and the 16 page "Marvel Guide to Collecting Comics" insert in ASM#234 were the main things that made me realize that there was more to comics than just reading them and shoving them in a drawer.

 

Now that brings back some memories. I had forgotten that I tried to value my small collection from those Mile High ads when I was a kid.

 

Earl.

 

I bet you thought you had a million dollar collection on your hands.